Neven - =={ Now, that's the kind of information the annual average won't convey, and so you need to look at other sources of information as well. }== So would it be fair to say that neither annual average nor summer minimum are, in themselves inherently more useful if they aren't viewed within the extenuating context? Both can convey meaningful information relative to long-term trends?

Glenn - =={ so the metric that would be of greatest immediate impact would be Arctic sea ice AREA (extent is meaningless) }== Why do you say that...given that it seems that measurement of area is prone to error? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent

Thanks for the responses: =={ I think you have to flesh out what the points are, or invite Javier to articulate them here himself. }== =={ There's not much to learn over on Climate etc., }== The impression I got is that trying to have a convo with Javier, in particular at Judy's crib, would be completely useless. So inviting him here is not something I'm inclined to do. And learning from him over there would be likewise a waste of time. My interest was to advance my own understanding and I think the best way to do that was to ask for some other input to some of the points he raised that I thought were interesting.

I would love to read some responses on this point: --snip-- Curious. You appear to ignore that sea ice has an opposite role during the summer than during the winter. Sea ice acts as an insulator. During the Arctic winter sea ice prevents heat loss by the ocean, while during the Arctic summer sea ice prevents heat gain by the ocean. The relevant metric is Arctic sea ice extent during the melting season. Using an annual average shows a poor understanding of Arctic climate issues and is done to advance unjustified alarmism. --snip-- And some of the other points made in that subthread by the same author (Javier) at Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-838818 I don't find his typical "skeptic" talking points about "alarmism" and " phenomenal sea-ice rebound after the 2012 " even remotely interesting...and such comments make it clear that I can't assume any of his analysis is worthwhile...but he does raise some points that I would like to read other perspectives on

Pete - ==> "although Tim makes an intersesting points with respect GMOs" Unfortunately, Tim's point about GMOs is purely anecdotal and most of the data I've seen show that there is no significant divergence of view on GMOs associated with "liberal" or "conservative" orientation, respectively. To the extent that I have seen data that suggest otherwise, it was provided by Lawrence...and those data he provides suggest that it is "conservatives" who are more likely to question what scientists have to say about the topic: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/views-of-science

And this: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q54cum.jpg?w=500&h=325 From here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/survey-says-2/ And Lawrence - Do you have any thoughts about that blip on your 2nd graph in 2014?

==> "The low knowledge/high understanding combination is most prevalent among Tea Party supporters, where it reaches 61%." Interesting. I assume you've seen these?: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q74.jpg?w=500&h=325 https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q54.jpg?w=500&h=325