Comments on: NASA: Arctic sea ice at second-lowest level on record

Satellite microwave data confirms drastic reduction in the amount of permanent ice covering the Arctic.

[torch9t9]

So the arctic sea ice is the lowest in measurement HISTORY? A history that goes all the way back to nineteen hundred and seventy nine?

You fail as geologists. Spectacularly.

[Mister Winky]

EXACTLY!!!

[Mickey]

Jesus H Christ! Those initial comments were so incredibly shallow. It's obviously the same people who voted for Bush THE SECOND TIME. What the heck is going on? These people seem to be in the majority and thus end up politically successful. But they refuse or are unable or unwilling to look at situations except on a very surfacy, shallow level and thus almost always come to the wrong conclusion.

Example: Last winter, I had someone show me a picture of a snow storm as proof that that was no basis for global warming!

If a democracy is overpopulated by the uneducated and selfish, the people will suffer.

[Mister Winky]

Let's get this straight: you assume that anyone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change must have voted for Bush in 2004 and you label them undereducated and selfish, then you stress the importance of looking at issues beyond a "very surfacy, shallow level."

You define the word hypocrit.

-Mister Winky

[Mickey]

Winky: Thanks for proving my point. But too bad you couldn't "get it straight". Just more oversimplifying in a desperate attempt to make yourself believe that your thinking is legitimate.

You've tried to push my general statements to absolutism, i.e. you contend that my argument says that each and every individual that voted for Bush the second time also must be one who doesn't believe man had a big part in global warming. Do you really think that is what I was trying to say? Once again the shallow thinking I referred to in my first post, proved by your own words.

The overwhelming information indicates that man has played a major part in global warming, but your ilk is so incredibly selfish that you'll push the earth to the very brink so you can continue to drive your SUV's unfettered. Incredibly, amazingly, Sodom and Gomorrah selfish.

Oh, I guess I should explain that I don't actually believe that each and every one who doesn't believe that man has had a major part in global warming drives an SUV? Is that clear enough, or shall I hold your hand?

[obie101]

Dustin,

Thanks for clearing up who is right, wrong and unlearned. However, a couple of points could be made for your consideration.

Your use of all caps on select words is very compelling, but the contention that there is a 100% consensus on your position throughout the entire scientific community is, well, silly and it doesn't lend much to your credibility.

Melting of every ice flow/cap/berg would not decrease the ocean levels. The fact that water expands when it freezes is irrelevant. Free floating ice displaces an amount of water of equal mass, not volume. Given a closed system containing water and free floating ice, there would be no net change in the water level after the ice melted. Melting of ice caps and glaciers on land would contribute to the ocean levels.

The most glaring shortcoming in your argument is the complete disregard of other, much more significant, contributors of fresh water to the oceans. Typical transfer of fresh water from land to the oceans is on the order of 40 million cubic km/year and precipitation into the oceans is estimated at nearly 400 million cubic km/year (Shiklomanov, 1993). The highest estimates for annual ice loss projections for Greenland and the Arctic are on the order of 250 cubic km/year, a literal drop in the bucket. In fact, the seasonal and annual variation of fresh water contributions from the world's rivers, streams, and groundwater is regularly much greater than any expected contribution from melting of arctic ice. The oceans regularly absorb these variations in freshwater inflow without any of the dire consequences that you proport.

[goblynn1013]

dpeterson: the article was not addressing sea level rise. No legitimate environmentalist claims there will be catastrophic flooding if the Arctic melts completely--our concern for the Arctic is for increased ocean temperature, habitat loss, and salinity changes.

The Antarctic, however, is another story. Much of the ice at the southern pole has its weight supported by land or rock formations. (The same applies to ice cover in Greenland.) If these ice sheets melt, the water levels will certainly increase. If a portion of the ice cover collapses, or slips into the sea, sea level will rise in that instance, as well.

In essence, if you opt to argue against global warming, please choose your battles more wisely. Those of us who consider all the evidence supporting man-made climate change to be valid feel even less inclined to hear your position when you seem so arrogant--and even less so when you attempt to argue an issue that's not even on the table.

[twoxfour]

Explain Climatic Optimum ~8000BCE-300BCE with avrg.2 degrees C above current temps (with higher temps in polar regions and a marginal change in tropical region). There was just a handful of humans compared to today. Those folks, then, must have had some powerful mojo.

[gnarlyerik]

It is disheartening to witness the number of 'Flat Earthers' who accept the deceptive propaganda of the (mostly corporate) naysayers. It is disheartening to witness those who reject the truth out of a misguided partisan dogma, thereby helping condemn our planet - and our descendants - to potential disaster and a dismal future. Those who have pecuniary interests in denying the global warming phenomenon merely take cynical advantage of the gullibility of those who have willingly blinded themselves to reality.

No thinking person can look at the figures and graphs and come to any conclusion other than our planet is on a warming cycle like no other is Earth's history. The curve of the accelerating warming trend is now almost vertical - and unlike anything before. The train is careening towards the curve and no one is applying the brakes. In fact, the exact opposite is happening.

Whether or not man's activities are responsible is beside the point. We must at least try to modify the trend or else we will see geophysical changes with the potential to destroy Earth's civilizations. To do nothing is abdicate our stewardship for future generations - our descendants.

The economic cost of applying the brakes will be nothing compared to the cost of destruction if not applied. It may even now be too late.

[Mister Winky]

"No thinking person can look at the figures and graphs and come to any conclusion other than our planet is on a warming cycle like no other is Earth's history. The curve of the accelerating warming trend is now almost vertical - and unlike anything before."

Really? This is fact? Please provide graphs and data from 1,000,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago and 1,000 years ago, then we'll talk. You can't, because the data does not exist.

The span of our lifetimes, much less 28 years of ice observation in one location, is realtively insignificant when discussing the history of planet earth. Can you even comprehend millions of years?

But, alas, I suppose I'm just an unthinking corporate shill for having my own (logical) opinion on the matter...

-Mister Winky

[thedocfox]

Southernorangezealot Thank you for your comment. It's nice to see that not everyone is as closed-minded as alot of the posters here.

EricMccormick - Thank you for the CO2 point. I never even thought about that. That should be the lynch pin in the trifecta that should over come the nay-sayers.

I do agree that 28 years of data is not alot Mr. Winky..I also agree with your point that it's not empiricle or complete in any way shape or form. I'm just saying, if we loose the ice cap, that is what will happen. 28 years, 100 years, or a million years. Doesn't matter.

I also doubt there is much we can do about it. Most "experts" agree that even if we stop all C02 and other pollutant expulsion today, right now, at this very moment, the earth wouldn't be able to recover for 50 - 100 years.

And Finally, we (humans) are only one of nature's many experiments that she is working on right now. She's been around alot longer then any of us, or any of the animals, plants, etc. She knows when something is getting out hand and when it threatens the rest of her experiments. She won't keep us around much longer if we keep up what we're doing. Her self-preservation instinct is much greater and much more powerful then ours. Are we doomed? No one knows for sure. Unless we don't stop what we're doing. Anything can only take so much before it gives up and hits the reset button. Unfortunately, we would be lost in the reset..

I'm glad we could touch off an actual debate.

And zentenial - Cute statement. Sometimes I wonder that myself. :)

Thanks
Dustin

[Mister Winky]

Hey, civil conversation when discussing climate change. That's grand! ;-)

"I'm just saying, if we loose the ice cap, that is what will happen. 28 years, 100 years, or a million years. Doesn't matter."

I see your point. My questions are:

1) What does losing that ice cap really mean? Can we say with any certainty that it's a bad thing?

2) Is the disappearance preventable and, if so (longshot, I say), can it be proven before we consider spending trillions of dollars on the issue?

3) Aren't we overlooking the possibility that the ice cap has disappeared before and returned? Does gone really mean gone forever? I have a lot of faith in the self-correcting aspects of the earth's global climate.

Observing data, understanding it and acting on it are three very different things.

-Mister Winky

[jkipper1]

Just a couple of things to note for all the naysayers: yes melting ice in the Arctic Ocean would cause little change in the level of the ocean, but melting ice in the South Pole WOULD significantly impact ocean levels because the majority of that ice is on land. According to the U.S. Geological survey if all the ice on Antarctica melted sea levels would rise about 73 meters (240 feet). You can try this at home: fill a bowl with a cup of water and ice cubes; when the ice cubes melt there is no visible change. Now empty out the bowl and add an inverted cup, fill the bowl to the same level as before and place four ice cubes on top of the cup (above the water); when the ice cubes melt there is a definite change.
As to global warming - you have to average out the temperature over the entire planet. Chicago may have a record cold, but Phoenix may a record high summer. As an example: if you were to measure the temperature in every room of your house today and then tomorrow bump the heater up ten degrees and leave the refrigerator open and again measure every room including the kitchen directly in front of the refrigerator you would find that the average temperature of your house had increased even though the area right in front of the refrigerator.

[thedocfox]

I couldn't let Obie101 try to pass off false information. Well, not so much false as outdated. According to Climate Change 2001 Working Group 1's executive summary (read www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm for the entire report), the West Antarctice ice sheet ALONE as enough ice to raise sea levels by 6 meters (19.68 feet) worldwide. Doesn't factor salinity. Greenland, 6 meters as well. Want to try again Obie101?

Now, this is worst case scenario. And that's just in relation to sea level rise which was not my original point. Take that much fresh water, drop it into the ocean, and realistically tell me that it will have no effect. My goddaughters (ages four (just) and 20 months) are smart enough to understand the repercussions of that. Well, ok, maybe not the littlest one, but come on. Really??? Are you really trying to tell me that that won't effect anything?
Tell you what, I promise, that if you go stick your hand on a hot burner plate on your stove, it won't burn it. Try it out. Let me know what happens (when your hand has been graphed enough times and has recovered enough for you to return to typing)..

Thanks
Dustin

[csUser]

See think_first, the thing you need to be leery of with respect to record highs is that all of the weather stations are reporting weather in areas WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. This means that they are taking measurements in places where air conditioning is prevalent, cars release heat consistantly, and the thousands of miles of roads along with thousands of tons of steel and metal store heat and release it slowly. So a REAL analysis would look at the climate NEAR a big city. In New York City, temperatures have consistantly risen. But in ALBANY (3 or 4 hrs away driving) temperatures are actually DECREASING.

Whatever - even if the temperature worldwide is climbing, blaming it solely on human byproducts is astoundingly naive. The atmosphere contains, according to Carnegie Melon (
http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s4/cycleCarbon.shtml) 750 billion tons of carbon. Also according to this site, we release approx 6 billion tons of carbon worldwide every year (that's a ton per person! I wonder how much of that is my hot humid breath). That's 0.8% of the composition of the atmosphere. And it's not like we release these gases and then they stay in the atmosphere indefinately - it becomes part of the cycle and gets absorbed in to the ocean as calcium carbonate and plantlife for photosynthesis.

Honestly, to make changes as massive as the doomsday screamers would like, we'd have to REALLY step up our game. But that's not happening. As oil prices get higher, people cut back. And it's not for the environment. It's for their pocket books.

Truth is, we are egocentric to think that we are the prime contributor to global warming - that's just not true. The earth may be getting warmer, but it's not because of our efforts. The earth is not a static object, it changes. Do you think that the mini ice age Europe experienced in the 1400s had anything to do with human beings?

[think_first]

Didn't have time to read all 45 posts above, maybe someone else has dealt with these, but...
RE: "nobody has explained ice ages coming and going before my SUV" : Utterly, completely, totally wrong and ignorant. Google "Milankovitch cycles." We know a lot about many different climate forcers. And we know which ones are foing what right now. We can account for all previous shifts in climate with known natural forcings. Current changes cannot be explained without taking into account forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

RE: "NASA only has 28 years of data": Wrong. 28 years of satellite data, yes, but there are other sources of information. For instance, reports of people who have traveled in the arctic. Better yet, ocean sediments: when ice covers the water and blocks sunlight, there are no photosynthetic plankton--when there's open water, photosynthetic plankton thrive (in the summer, when there's light in the arctic.) These plankton die and leave remains in strata on the ocean floor. By examining these strata, researchers can determine that there hasn't been (anywhere near) this much open water in arctic summers for at least 100,000 years. The NW and NE passages are simultaneously open--that hasn't happened since humans have been building boats.

RE: csUser just above, "all of the weather stations are reporting weather in areas WHERE PEOPLE LIVE." Wrong. Rural stations in the north show much, much more warming than urban stations. (On average..there are always exceptions, always noise on top of the signal. For every local cooling trend like Albany in your example, there are many more spots where the warming is observable). Plus, Scientific studies on warming always take the Urban Heat Island effect you mention into account and correct for it. So your insinuation that "REAL analysis" isn't happening is way, way off. (Do people honestly think that climate scientists haven't thought of these issues and addressed them? That you're going to say "Ah, but it's hotter in cities because of asphalt and whatnot" and the climate researchers are going to slap their heads and say "D'oh! Why didn't we think of that! Stupid, stupid stupid!)

And to follow up on my comment about record highs/lows, haven't found the link yet but here are two nice illustrations of closely related issues, which give a good sense of how actual data-driven statistical analysis treats this stuff, as opposed to anecdotal "it seems like every time I turn on the TV" sort of stuff (BTW, also google "Confirmation Bias"):
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/highs-and-lows/#more-753
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/heat-wave/#more-812

[SouthernOregonZealot]

The issue with a 500 year cycle verses 28 year?s of data is really a mute point. The fact is that the global climate is shifting. Patterns have changed in the past and will continue to do so. Manmade problem or not, we still have a problem on our hands. Many (did I say many?) people will be effected, adversely, by this climate shift, others will benefit simply by their location. EVERYBODY on the planet will be impacted in some way.

Now, the real question is not if, but how much and when. If you say ?the sky is falling? and people look up and don?t see it falling, they think you are a crack pot. But that doesn?t negate the fact that the sky really is falling (simple matter of gravity) even though many people can not see the effects. Thank the merciful God in heaven for forward thinkers like Tycho, Galileo, Kepler and Newton!

But I suppose the earth really is flat too!

[think_first]

RE: csUser again:
"Whatever - even if the temperature worldwide is climbing, blaming it solely on human byproducts is astoundingly naive....Honestly, to make changes as massive as the doomsday screamers would like, we'd have to REALLY step up our game."

Please think this through in a little more detail. I'll get you started. There are lots of influences on the climate. We understand most of them to a useful degree. We don't understand any of them perfectly, but we've got a reasonable idea of how things work. No one--at least no one that you need to take seriously--is saying that the entire current dynamics of the climate are to be blamed "solely on human byproducts." That is a straw-man argument, set up just to be knocked down. It's a cheap rhetorical trick. What is being said--and it's demonstrably true--is that the current warming cannot be explained without taking into account human greenhouse emissions. These have been significant--for example, human activity has raised atmospheric CO2 from ~280 ppm to 370 ppm so far. The total output is not slowing, as you suggest. It's not growing as quickly in the US as it was a few years ago, probably for the some of the reasons that you suggest--but it's still rising quickly globally.

I kind of think your "doomsday screamers" are also a straw man. To whom are you referring? If you're talking about a few fringe nutjobs, there will always be those around, on any issue. If you're talking about mainstream climate scientists, can you provide some examples of "doomsday screaming" that you think is unfounded?

You throw out the "astoundingly naive" accusation, but it doesn't seem like you understand the basic science yet. If you're open to an eye-opening experience, try reading "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart, which is available online. It takes the reader through the scientific process that brought us to our current level of understanding, starting with the discovery of the greenhouse effect and CO2's greenhouse properties in the 1800s. Our current understanding of climate and the greenhouse effect is built on well over 100 years of rigorous scientific observation and experiment. You may want to hold back on calling people naive until you know a bit more about what the scientific understanding currently is, and how it got that way.

[HereYouGo]

Dustin, I noted that you failed to comment on replies made directly on your earlier posting, so I am posting mine again below. It definitely is not one that supports the global warming hysteria, nor your apparent view that nature, and not G-d, is what rules our lives.

Your earlier posting certainly put all your ?unlearned friends? in their place. That made me want to believe that you are ?learned?. However, I would expect a ?learned? person to know the difference in the use of the words ?effect? and ?affect?. You obviously do not, or at least used them incorrectly, so I would guess that also makes you one of the ?unlearned? mass?as opposed to being all-knowing.

Your mini-lecture on the effects of changing the salinity of the oceans was good, and aligned well with other treatises I have read on that subject; however, your statement that ?The complete melt of every ice flow/cap/berg in the world would actually decrease the ocean levels.? is incorrect. You probably realized that after you wrote it since you undoubtedly know that the effect you mentioned would not apply to ice melting from a land mass, from which the water would flow into the oceans. (That would increase the amount of water in the ocean and not be offset by any displacement of this ice?which originally resided on land and not in the ocean.) Another ***** in your ?learned? pose.

Then we get to the nub of the matter. You state, ?THe (sic) problem is the currents in the ocean are based on salinity (salt).? I would beg to differ. As stated in other responses, you have set up a strawman you find convenient for your purposes. The real issue being debated, though not stated explicitly, is whether ?global warming? is causing this ice melting effect (and whether man is causing this global warming). Otherwise, I doubt that the amount of ice in the Arctic would get such prominence in our news.

Al Gore and his UN cronies claimed that they had 2,500 scientists who supported their claim that man is causing global warming by producing increased amounts of carbon dioxide, which is their real culprit. Therefore, they declared the debate ended, despite many scientists who not only dissented but have provided sound rationale for the debate to continue. Unfortunately for the man-made global warming crowd, more than 31,000 scientists?more than 9,000 of whom have earned PhDs?recently said that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not the culprit. (Note that Al Gore made wild claims that the oceans would rise about 20 feet, as well as temperatures would increase unprecedented amounts, which have since had to be revised drastically downwards?even though he and his cronies still maintain that most of their other claims are valid.)

And, finally, even though what you stated about the salinity in our oceans causing all the effects you claimed agrees with what I have read elsewhere, I would hasten to add that it is only the latest theory. That doesn?t mean that it is wrong; however, it does not mean that it is either correct or complete. Scientists learn new things every day that influence what we thought we knew before. Recall that some of the leading physicists of his time would not accept Einstein?s Theory of Relativity because it challenged the then-popularly accepted Newtonian physics, showing that Newton?s understanding was incomplete?even wrong in some cases. So, I would caution you to be more accepting of your ?unlearned? friends since time may show that some of your learning was incorrect and/or incomplete.

[taiho32]

@HereYouGo

In your last paragraph, you state my "quantum" statement more eloquently than I but I believe we address the same issue. e.g. Newtonian Physics applies to the "stable" state of physics significantly below the speed of light.

Regarding salinity levels, I believe we agree and I would like to add (to address previous posts) that, once again, the naive falsely assumes salt is a constant. There is significant amount of solids, including salt, that will be available via erosion that were alluvial deposits or trapped by evaporation, etc.

This world provides many buffers to offset short term natural forces but it doesn't guarantee our, or any species survival.

It's odd that most of our media only addresses the Arctic, never mentions the displacement fallacy or addresses the deposition of snow and ice in Antarctica.

HereYouGo you are very wise, in my opinion and you seem to "get it" that absurd statements that drive our politics today are simply means to push individual (includes groups) agenda's, almost without regard to truth.

[taiho32]

Not sure where to inject, but to say warm solutions tend to hold more dissolved solids. The colder the medium the less dissolved solids.

28 years of data is but a moment in time compared to the cycles being watched.

Warmer water, weather- whatever- will produce more humidity, which in turn will turn to rain, which will cool and fall as rain, or more importantly, ice. In north or south poles this will in turn grow the respective regions. I've read that Antartica has actually increased it's ice mass on land, while some area (one bay in particular) has receded. Mostly due to warm current incursion, I believe.

In any case, these cycles are very complex and can not and was not addressed by Alarmist Al Gore or Hollywood, in general. Human population is the only component that has increased since the continued warming since the last Ice Age. We had a mini-Ice Age that coincided with the medivial times including the era of the "black plague"...one of our populations only decrease in population worldwide.

We have doubled our population in little more than 3o years. Using simple math, we can see that this is the true metric that will determine the use of our resources. "Overuse" is merely a perjorative term to reflect our self-interests. As with any species, we either find new places to inhabit, or we will eventually self limit our own population. What is the end game?

Most of the info re: the religion of Global Warming is just that...information, some fiction, some fact, forged from some data, that will be distorted to one's own needs. The globe has been warming, we (in North America) have had ice ages in cycles of thousands of years. The receding of the ice might or might not be substantially influenced by mankind, but so what? We are part of the evolvution of species. One thing we can track is that we will use all of our resources as we can, as all life tries to do until a more successful species replaces it.

Science is based on levels of perspective or quantum (stable) levels. From the atom to the galaxies. State your goal and your quantum level and we can have a discussion.

[taiho32]

sorry for the typos in the previous message...no spell check and didn't have the discipline to check.

Other comment was to be - remember Oil is supposed to be plant and animal matter from eons gone by. Shouldn't the dispersal or recycling of this toxic (to us and most life as we know it) be considered or discussed? Eventually this substance needs to be addressed. What better way than to slowly disperse the hydrogen and carbon atoms than a slow release under worldwide consumption to enable their reuse? Just food for thought...If not us, who?

Can we address the unattainable, stable human population? Once we have a constant we can address variables. Until then, it's all academic, in my opinion.

[electromanvern]

I make a similar argument as others here. The same argument I made a couple of weeks ago when the preliminary data came through before the official melt season was over.

Headlines about this melt season all come to the doom conclusion and use this years data to indicate that polar ice is going to be gone soon.

Yet, the data shows that this year there is significantly less melt than last year. A few weeks ago, when I pointed out it was misleading to say the trend continues towards doom when it is actually quite a bit less this year, the author tells me the difference is "statistically insignificant".

So tell me this, we have only 28 years of data, and have a significant increase in ice this year, but somehow we can toss that out? Again, tell me why it isn't possible to be a bottoming of the recent down trend? And how can you in certainty claim it to be a continuation of the down trend, just because its below a trend line?

Don't play games. If we are in a down trend and there is one year of upward data, it might mean nothing. But it certainly cannot be used as proof of a continued downward trend. You won't know that until there are a few more data points. We only have 28 by the way. Go back and open you freshman stats book.

[electromanvern]

@taiho32
Interesting input that warmer fluids would hold more disolved solids (salt). This could manifest in melt waters collecting more salt from the land mass below as they head to sea. It could also mean that the sea in general would retain more salt as it touches land mass would wide.

I tend to think while we may be able to impact our planet in many ways, that at least for now we mostly impact it a a local level. On a global scale there are balancing effects that we as of yet don't impact to the extent of chaning normal cycles.

Polar ice, ocean currents, and the jet stream are the result of massive energy forces which we humans at this point would have trouble chaning even if we tried. Maybe if all world nukes went off.... Well, you'd have to do some good math and compare how many nukes = a huricane energy. Look online, I think you might be surprised how small a nuke is.

Anyway, lets stop polluting because its good for us humans. CO2 is a joke, water vapor and the sun can cause warming, and don't ask me, ask a group of scientists that already had funding before Al Gore jumped in. I don't dislike Gore, but lets realize we're talking about people fighting for funding.

Remember, DaVinci and many others made money doing projects they didn't actually believe in, just so they could fund their personal projecs. Don't for one minute blindly believe either side of this argument. QUESTION ALL OF IT.

My friends, remember, our wonderful scientists cannot accurately tell us tomorrow's weather, don't expect they have an accurate model of global climate. I say this as an aerospace engineer with a minor in computer science. Meaning -- well nothing, other than I know that I deal with scientists all the time and they are just people who have been trained and try to make money and a life like all of us.

Many aren't that good, just like many in my department are just 9-5 folks with some skills who will never make the big discovery/invention. But, I'll tell you, if somebody on our team who was lame came up with a study that looked like it would get us funding we'd be behind it in a second. Well, some of us.

THINK, QUESTION, do the right thing! But don't spread lies.

[taiho32]

@electromanvern
I'm in agreement.

Conservation and non-polluting should be given, in my opinion, but does the end justify the means? It would seem, at arm's length, that one should dismiss shortsighted arguments as harmless like, say, Santa Claus.

I see it as a continued decay of critical thinking...actually, the rate is probably constant but the numbers grow, not to mention hijacking of various media outlets to espouse flawed reasoning to further ones causes.

I have many if not most friends say, "isn't it settled science?" We know not, but the world seems to think otherwise. Science is not settled, almost by definition.

"THINK, QUESTION, do the right thing! But don't spread lies."
great philosophy...thank you for the input.

[eadzzel]

Here's the dirty little secret that nobody tells you: Imagine that all the ice in the Arctic Ocean were melted instantly. How would that affect ocean levels worldwide? No change! The ice floating in the Arctic Ocean is displacing the ocean water upon which it floats. Since water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts, the net effect would be a slight drop in ocean levels."

The dirty little secret is that you need to take physics class. The density differential between liquid water and frozen water is on the molecular level; it is not macroscopic at all! Prove it for yourself. Take a glass and fill it up as much as you can with ice, then pour water over the ice to the brim of the glass. Come back a few hours later and you will see that the water level is still at the brim of the glass, the melting of the ice will have no net affect on the total water level. Not to mention the fact that a third of the arctic ice mass sits upon land! If the arctic ice melts, ocean levels will ABSOLUTLEY NOT go down!!! THEY WILL RISE!!! It is a ridiculous assertion in which you purport. Furthermore, the disparity of volume between liquid water and water ice world wide is astronomical. You trying to tell people that the melting of the ice caps will cause sea levels to drop; is tantamount to me telling you that if you throw a handful of ice cubes into a bathtub, that the water level in the tub will go up by a quantifiable degree due to the displacement of water caused by the ice cubes! Who knows, you would probably believe me.
In fact, sea levels have already risen noticeably in the last 10 years. If you don?t believe me; show yourself simply by googling "Papua new guinea", the affect of oceanic water level increasing is obvious on this at sea level island. Water levels have risen there by over 2 meters since 2001, it has resulted in population displacement (btw, this is an example of real displacement) and loss of viable farm land. The evidence is all around you!