Ned Ward, you said: "We want to know what is likely to happen". True, but I use my seat belt all the time and the odds of my needing it in the next ten years are probably less than some of these dire predictions.

What does "century break" mean?

I'm struck by how much open water there is close to the pole: 50% on two sides. Could the upwelling that takes place around open water and leads lead to accelerated bottom melt in these areas?

An IT site in the UK, The Register, does not get global warming. Here's an example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/other_things_than_co2_could_hold_back_seas/ Note the last paragraph. This guy thinks the IPPC is alarmist and he regularly dishes global warming. I'm not particularly knowledgeable or persuasive enough to change his mind - if that's possible. Anyone here care to try?

Could the cracked moving ice result in smaller melt ponds, thereby slowing the melting process?

Off Topic: When are Feb. CO2 data released from Mauna Loa? When are Feb. ice volume data released from PIOMAS? If these are already released, where can they be found?

Off topic: When does Mauna Loa release Feb. data on CO2? When does PIOMAS release Feb. date on ice volume? If these are out now, where are they found?

Here is an analog to the American legal system. In a criminal case (individual vs the State) the standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case (think of a simple tort case) it is whichever side is more than 50%. In science discovery of something new, say the Higgs boson, cannot be claimed unless they are REALLY sure it exists. In ice science, however, where humanity's wellbeing is at stake, the standard should be more similar to a tort case. What are the probabilities? What is the potential harm? Who are the parties that will be affected? What are the costs of action or inaction?

Why doesn't the IPCC use ice volume instead of ice extent? It seems to be smoother than extent and doesn't have the problem of distortion due to wind patterns. An all around better proxy for ice health. The cynic in me thinks it has to do with the fact that the graphs are much scarier. They show an ice free arctic before 2020.

Mary Bein: I too am a newbie and therefore won't answer your question. It took me a week to realize that NH did not stand for New Hampshire! I think Neven would be doing a great service by listing the top 100 (200?) acronyms with simple definitions. What does CAB stand for?

Protege: You're welcome, but never mind the English, work on growing a chin:-)

Protege: I think you mean "sea ice extent" (extent is a noun) not "sea ice extend" (extend is a verb).

Anyone know why Stroeve hasn't posted to the "ice edge" blog?

Am I correct in thinking that the fall/winter refreeze is a negative feedback loop; one of the few in the arctic? If so then the next minimum should be less than this one.

"(who also made this stunning video of ocean currents)" Quote from Neven re NASA. They cover all ocean currents except the arctic!

Why don't these models use 1979 reality as a starting point?