Ah yes, how it looked in the IPCC report:


Does it look different in profile, for global? BTW, It's [Western] Europe warming faster and the USA warming slower... something to do with how oceans flow, how the continents are laid, how mountain ranges sticking out, what land cover change man made etc... not the sun at TOA... physics tells us that the present uptick is man made... it starts at a wavelength of 15 micron.

Eso

It beats "we are all doomed says alarmed scientist" any day

"Only 0.0388%" cannot be repeated often enough in the face of relentless propaganda

It's not even 1 part in 2577 of the atmosphere in all it's horror

That's the one part which, along with Sunlight and assisted by every Chlorophyll containing device, creates the food source for practically every living thing on the Planet.

Not quite sure how you could manage to demonise such a fantastic trace gas

But any way it has happened


Carbon Dioxide


2 words to strike fear into the hearts of the ill informed

Disappearing Polar Ice Caps?......I don't think so

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm


Dave

David, David, David....

It has now become a pastime for me to be drilling holes in your unsupported opinions. You keep trotting out information then drawing wrong inferences from it.

Nowhere in the article you referenced does it mention POLAR ICE CAPS. In case you weren't aware, .5" thick Sea Ice is less mass than 30' thick Polar Ice. One cubic yard of Polar Ice is the same volume as 648 square feet of .5" Sea Ice.

In addition, your Sea Ice chart shows as much as a 30% difference in the worse case scenario and therefore the 3 million square kilometre difference seems significant to me. I guess you don't want any ice in your drinks.

edit: Gotta get a new calculator

astrolab,

You may remember DA's Compact and Grind... well as much as looking at the surface wont tell the volume... Sea Ice at the Arctic is much thinner than last decade and decade before and the decade before. The trotted out is usually the extent maps. Well, you may have seen them where I've been combining Area cover (the real stuff) and Extent (how spread out and including areas where the density is as low as 15%), to quote JAXA text from that link "The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds 15%."

When combining you get this for February since 1979, Arctic. Any trend you see, surely?



And conveniently when the weather is not liked at the Arctic, the Antarctic is whipped out. Largely unaffected still, but it building, down... it's snowing more there due higher vapor rates... absorbing 80% of sea level rise that otherwise would have occurred, so are the equations... land ice moves out faster and floating on the coast... so called landfast sea ice, much still sea bottom bound so warmer ocean water is not yet getting the full undermining effect (watch for under-ice/under sea volcanoes being whipped out here... those no-one is able to find as active, except Anthony Watts):



When then putting the 2 together, and including the sea ice that also exists in places off South America e.g. one gets:



Anyone seeing that area (the real stuff) is shrinking faster than extent. Would that indicate also that the ice that's there breaks up more easily... thinner and subjected to wave action... wave action that largely was absent in the previous millennium... because it was frozen over in spring/summer/autumn too.

One wonders if lying to oneself is no less an infraction on a piece of the 9th commandment... Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness... to me it is!

edit: Colder at Antarctic, an other Inconvenient Truth v.v. more snow there. Ozone and Antarctic Vortex strengthening are the topics to look for. Anyone recollect why that Ozone holes developed, in very large consensus... minus one astray professor over at a Canadian University who predicted a GCR driven cause. Maybe he's a soul-mate of DA... long as it's not man made.