Unfortunately, it will not help. Best, Alex

And Arctic temperature is spiking again. Not good. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Alex

Hi Neven, exactly, I agree with your conclusions. Regarding the ESA meeting, I liked the Jason Box presentation, but most of the others were boring (even those about Arctic etc.), so I just read your articles ;-) Best, Alex

Hello Neven, great summary, as always! What aboout "blue ocean" event? I can only quote Peter Wadhams, who told me few weeks ago at the ESA Living Planet Symposium in Prague: "It could happen this year." Best, Alex

David, but extent is different (definition) from area. Neven is not claiming, we have hit lowest extent. So the claim is OK I think... Alex

Just an easy number to remember: World lost 80 km2 of sea ice/day since 1979. Best, Alex

For those interested in own interpretation/graphs, GSIA data can be downloaded here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008 I have also put a graph on my blog in Slovak (showing the fraud of fake Steven Goddard): http://ac.blog.sme.sk/c/401675/svet-ma-rekordne-malo-morskeho-ladu.html best, Alex

hi John, not sure which YT video you watched, but the link I indicated should lead you to a sequence of graphics showing disappearance of the Antarctica based on a paper by Winkelmann et al. 2015. For a popular summary see e.g. here: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-we-burn-all-the-worlds-fossil-fuels-wed-melt-antarctica-flood-the-earth Thats just tu put GSIA potential record into long term context :-) best, Alex

Hi Neven, record of GSIA or not, if we burn everything, we will melt everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr5Im6tuAY8 best, Alex

Neven, if you meet Brad Werner, send him a greetings ;-) AGU Scientist Asks, ‘Is Earth F**ked?’ Alex

Neven, and here is the full link for the paper: http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/reprints/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf Alex

Hi Folks, here are couple of graphs regarding the PNAS paper: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/18_CEREStalk_20131030_kpistone.pdf Alex

Yes, Albert Bartlett was a good guy. But as most economists will explain you today, we have to restart the growth, otherwise we face a lot of problems. Actually they are right, but forgetting that a) restarting meaningful growth is impossible, and b) it was growth of the past that got us into this mess... Alex

My early tip is that Arctic will surprise us the next year as well! :-) Alex

3.9

As there any ecosystem we did NOT fuck-up? :-/

I stick with 3.8 mil sq km, just as before! Alex

The last sentence is the best!

Neven, thanks for posting this. But only 50 million people? It is less than 1% of global population, so it is statistically insignifican number. 500 million is a better number, but probably not enough anyway. Dear Lawrence - but it make difference, if you asked people about major *negative* effects? And what about the peoples *willingness* to change (destructive) behaviour in order to avoid negative consequences of Arctic warming? But maybe it is too late to ask people :-) Alex 50 million views is common for favourite songs, but even then most of population is unaware of them.

Apocalypse, yes, and canadian government also doubled the amount of money for tar sands: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/16/canadian-government-doubles-advertising-spend-tar-sands k eotw, I dont think so - climate deniers are too crazy... Alex

OT, but related to "global warming stopped" propaganda. William Happer wants 1000 ppm CO2, good for plants...: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html Alex

SATire, hopefully you are right - nobody was around in Pliocene or Pelistocene. But we also know that sea level was 20m (+/-5m) higher than today, so NO ice in the Arctic (and much less in Greenland or Antarctica). The thing is the researchers expected higher temperatures, but not THAT high tempratures. And climate models have prolems explaining such conditions. That's why that talk of (probably) higher climate sensitivity. The paper was also no "attribution" study.

Hi Steve, yes, I produced those graphs provided by data from the paleo-reconstructions, NOAA instrumental Arctic temperatures, and 8°C as revealed by lake E sediments. Of course, that 8°C is just graphical representation of the rise - the year 2100 was chosen arbitrarily (the rate of change is around 0.08°C/year (almost 2x faster than current 0.04-5C°/year). You may argue it's over-estimate or under-estimate for the whole Arctic region, thus the red line added by me is definitely not accurate - which I hope most readers here realize. There is not even any uncertainity in the projection. This is just to show that Arctic temperatures are probably far from equilibrium with current CO2, not to mention further rise. I hope that explanation helps a little, Alex

Craig, we can adapt without much consequence on ourselves and the planet -- I am afraid, this is already not happening, Alex

Greenland Today shows surface melting is below average, actually it did not start yet. My bet is record from 2012 will hold for at least 1 year :-) Alex