UAH satellite temperature for the lower atmosphere for last september 2018, only 0.14 degrees celsius above baseline.

Well, first and foremost, it's not "record levels" of ice if there was a higher level just four years ago.

Secondly, if you're going to reference DMI, you might as well toss in this graph too:

Volume of ice is, at least in areas that are usually firmly frozen over, is usually viewed secondly to Ice Extent (i.e. the portion of the region with a certain concentration of ice). The reason being that, at least initially, results of warming causes ice to break off and float around rather that instantly melt. This is why the volume (concentration) of ice stays relatively consistent, at least initially.

And the SIE (Sea Ice Extent) has been dipping noticeably over the long term; well over two SDs away from where it was between 83-00, so this is almost certainly not a change due to any sort of random chance. 

It's not.
The general scientific consensus (97%) is that it is a real fundamental thing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Don't be that guy who is a science denier.

The real debate is the extent of human-made climate change.

Simpler organisms will of course be fine.
Depending on region though, it's hard to say what species will be impacted... I would imagine the arctic regions for example would suffer most.

You don't need to burn 10x fossil fuels for there to be an accompanying increase.
Remember... As temperatures increase, massive amounts of CO2/Methane etc' is released from Oceans and Ice, Trillions of tons.

Water vapor in the earths atmosphere will also increase which adds to it.

It's an exponential increase.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon

Of course some species will thrive, speciation will be on the decline however as many more species succumb to significantly changing environments as their evolutionary adaptations are no longer relevant.

We don't need the Earth to be like Venus for it to be inhospitable.
Life is actually very fragile.

I think she still has more room to go yet. Interested to see how much growth China can still push on this front though.

If it's all melted, it's all melted.

No one is claiming for a Venus effect though? Nor is it needed for things to become unteniable on our own little ball hurtling through space anyway.

There is a ton also in Antarctica.
It's not just the North Pole we need to account for you know.

https://www.asoc.org/component/content/article/9-blog/1184-the-antarctic-oil-myth

Most of the trapped greenhouse gasses in deep water ice isn't going to see the atmosphere ... 

As it is, the worst case scenario so far seems to suggest a 2 degree celsius warming since most of our recoverable fossil fuel reserves will be depleted in 50 years ...

While that's true what's not valid is arguing that Earth will face a similar effect of runaway climate change ... 

I don't think you understand the magnitude of emissions needed to actually trigger such an effect. For reference, not even having all of the glaciers melting and burning all of our carbon sources is close to enough ... 

@Bold Are you sure ? "And even when we stop emitting, temperatures will continue to rise as our oceans and arctic regions continue to release more CO2 due to the warmer temperatures."

It sounds as if you're to lead us into fear mongering that there will be no potential stop to temperature rises even though you said "You should probably take a look at what the effect of almost 2 trillion tons of CO2 will do when our arctic regions permafrost continues to decline... To put that into perspective, that would be like doubling our current carbon levels in the Atmosphere which is already very high." ...

Sounds like we have a bounded amount (3x current) of realistically releasable sources of carbon so what'll be ? An incoming armageddon of uncontrollable rise in temperatures or no runaway climate change ? Ignoring Venus you can't have it both ways since their pretty much mutually exclusive ...  

Yeah, there's geopolitical issues to taking advantage of Antarctica since just about every nation signed a treaty to not exploit the territory ... 

Don't have to worry about that for now ... (potential WW3 would be more of a concern than climate change)

Of cours it would help to at least slightly improve the problem. But that alone is far from enough - those are the kinds of solutions that somewhat naive SJW are propagating, believing that their fellow citizens needed to only change a few minor habits and everything would be fine. The kind of people who'd even believe that China is to blame for climate change because they are polluting the air like no other country...

Why didn't you just mention that upfront? The earth is saved, you're using energy-efficient lightbulbs!

Climate change is a fact. It's always been changing, ever since Earth got climates It was colder during the ice age, warmer when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. It's constantly changing, so the belief that without us it wouldn't change is ridiculous A couple hundred years ago they were growing vine in my country, but it's too cold for it today Climate changes, there's nothing we can do about it, it'll change either way, one way or another

Plus, I sure as heck wouldn't mind if it got a couple degrees warmer in my country Especially in that bloody winter season.

No need to always attach politics to climate change,outside of that whole back and forth its also a scientific term and fact.

I wouldn't reverse it. I'd accelerate it. Paving the way for the extinction of the human race is an honour.

Not all CO2 is in ice.
Allot of CO2 is on the surface of our Oceans, as they warm, they release stored CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

People have been forecasting peak oil for over a century, it still hasn't happened yet, we keep finding more... And we keep making our current reserves go farther. I.E. Ethanol.
Plus we can grow oil.

2'C warming is a massive increase, don't let anyone tell you otherwise... As someone who works in multiple emergency services agencies, I will hate to see the ramifications of that.

Which is what I am not suggesting.

Positive.
As temperatures rise, more CO2 is emitted from Oceans and Ice... More water is evaporated which is one of the largest culprits of the Greenhouse effect.
I am saying we will have an exponential increase, not a never ending one that feedbacks on itself.

Considering I live in one of the closest inhabited cities to Antarctica... It's certainly a worry about my region becoming geopolitical and exploited.
Already oil companies are attempting to drill in one of the most pristine waters in the world which is in my backyard.

Any politician that goes against Science, should honestly not be a Politician.

From what you linked, the ocean is a carbon sink rather than a net carbon producer. The ocean acidification phenomenon is down to the observation that the ocean absorbs carbon ... 

Ok this time it's for real and here's a graph showing it ...

Most reasonable current estimates have oil production peaking well before 2030 and that's being pretty conservative given past estimates didn't have all that advanced mechanical extraction technology like we see today so we're arguably close to hitting a physical and financial limit to petrochemical extraction but what's more is that there's now good reason to believe so more than ever ...  

Producing ethanol through biological means is hardly financially viable either. At that point electric vehicles become more attractive but we won't even have enough lithium reserves so that every family will be able to have one ... 

The 2'C warming will mostly be down to cold climates since we have an atmosphere to regulate temperatures around the earth so there's not much reason to believe that already warm climates will see much more discomfort at all. The warming will be vastly beneficial since huge landmasses like Canada and Russia will become more habitable so in the end we're getting more arable land than we are losing them ... 

Define "exponential" ? Is it with respect to the temperature increases or CO2 levels ? If it's the former, nobody is measuring temperature increases "exponentially" even if CO2 levels are increasing exponentially, at best temperature increases will be linear in that case ... 

If CO2 levels are increasing linearly then temperature increases will be "logarithmic" ... 

That "city" is probably recognized as part of Australia's sovereign territory by the international diplomatic community. The same cannot be said of Antarctica itself ...

The vast majority of politicians we see today go against science. The political right is an offender in all sorts of areas (climate/abiogenesis) while the political left is a massive offender in biology. (particularly studies regarding genetics) It's all too laughable that liberals will combat theoconservatives with the basis of evolution but when someone more educated about the subject themselves try to educate them on the "consequences" or "ramifications" it has especially on human populations they are in absolute denial about it undermining the principles of evolution itself. It's OK to cross lines with theoconservatives but apparently it's somehow too sacred to apply it to humans in which case even the neo-nazi's are sadly more scientifically correct than them in that specific area ... 

You also see the Green's being devout anti-nuclear energy ... 

The only remotely successful technocracy we see in this world is China which is hardly desirable to the current western liberal democracy. Scientists do not want to be bogged down in shit like "consensus" or "democracy" so the first thing they do when they are in political power is to consolidate it with an autocracy in which case such a philosophy can only thrive in the absence of rule of law which is rife with human rights violations. It may seem paradoxical but for a free republic like a democracy to thrive, it's that all thoughts must be represented and respected including ignorance ... 

If you want a solid technocracy then you must take the other pill known as an autocracy for it to be effective otherwise the former will be easily undone with democracy ...