(I’m just commenting to compel someone to correct me and expand on this subthread really :) )

The last few years have been further and further from the [1981 - 2010] "normal flux cycle".

This may help visualise the data better:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-...

( click the antartic button to switch poles; the default is to grey the thrirty year normal data band and to only show last year and this year, other choices can be made by selection on the data table )

To show this, reader, try to do a small experiment yourself - something your interested in - but make it really, really small. Can be testing products you use often to see which is the best for you.

It is REALLY hard! And it's extremely easy for people to pick it apart. "Oh, you know more than the guys who wrote the standards?" "I've been using that for years, you're just using it wrong" "Here's a picture of me doing xyz it works fine"

They spent two seconds, you almost certainly spent days and days on your really small test.

This is why you won't see people back up these claims. They didn't spend time or effort getting there, and they won't spend that time or effort backing them up.

The specific heat of water is 4.190 J/(g°C). It means that it takes 4.190 Joules to heat 1 g of water by 1°C.

The same energy that melts 0°C ice to 0°C water will raise 0°C water to 79.7°C which is more than three quarters of the way to boiling.

We're facing higher and higher amounts of trapped energy as a result of increasing thermal insulation from CO2 ( and more and more from methane and water vapor ).

While we have large amounts of ice as a buffer that energy has a sink that won't drastically* raise near surface tempretures.

As the ice caps dwindle more and more energy goes towards greater and greater rates of tempreture increase.

The earth is a large system with lots of inertia. When some aspect of it changes relatively quickly, it's natural to be uneasy. Particularly when the downstream consequences of that change are already becoming visible.

To wit CO2 levels over the last 1my.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

The notion of increased CO2 leading to higher atmospheric heat capture dates back to at least 1856:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a2614102278e77e59a04...

So the combination of well-established science connecting CO2 to atmospheric heat, a relatively massive increase in CO2, and the emergeng changes predicted by a atmospheric heat increase - that is a valid reason for concern.

> We want the poles to be livable.

If it was possible to make this happen in isolation, maybe it would be a desirable goal. Given that this is not possible, it has to be viewed in context of the costs it also imposes. More severe weather is part of it, but also loss of both coastline due to sealevel rise and inland areas that become unlivably hot or newly unsuitable for agriculture.

> These changes are absolutely unpredictable and the models these researchers use are so heavily interlinked and layered one small mistake in the foundational data can skew the entire output. Almost as if thats how you lie with statistics...

Here you make the other sort of error - the error where you throw up complexity as a smokescreen to distract from the potential need to take action. If you're waiting for a complete set of totally accurate predictive models before you're willing to take action, you'll be waiting for a long time.

> Even so, I want Greenland to be habitable within the next 100 years. Even at the expense of coast line.

Have you consulted the people that live on the coastline? It doesn't take a whole lot of sea level rise before you're displacing hundreds of millions of people. (Not to mention the other associated costs of higher atmospheric energy.)