Yes... You are exaggerating... to the point of absurdity I am afraid. You are "herring dragging" as well... I will entreat you this LAST time. I am sorry to have to tell you this, but your obvious lack in understanding of the Arctic, and how this particular ecosystem functions, is only exceeded by your inability to grasp the basic concept of "illustration"... such as the glass of water illustration in this case, the point of which was to show that when the ice melts, the water level is exactly the same as it was when the ice was solid and floating in the water!
Yes, as you point out the deepest part of the ocean is indeed over 35,000 ft. deep, it is a relatively small area, a long narrow trench off of the Mariannas islands in the South Western Pacific, a considerable distance from the Arctic Ocean don't you think?!
The average depth of the Arctic Ocean is 3407 ft. or so. The deepest point is in the Eurasian Basin, at 17881 ft., again it is a long relatively narrow continental boundary trench.
In any case the Arctic Ocean pack ice remains fairly constant at 35 to 40 percent of the total Arctic ice. This ice-float varies in thickness from 3' to 40' and covers an area roughly the size of the United States... shrinking in the summer months and growing during the winter. There is constant ocean water dilution from the summer melts, and constant fresh water replenishment occurs each summer as a result of lighter specific gravity fresh water run-off that essentially floats onto the denser brine of the ocean proper, and freezes.
This fresh water comes from the many rivers that flow from the continents that ring the Arctic. Glacier break-off of the slow flowing glaciers adds to the melt water as well. When this run-off/break-off is low, the reduced fresh water causes a reduction in formation of new pack ice... this raises the albedo slightly and over time increases the run-off by localized warming trends in the region... Virtually all of this run-off comes from precipitation created glaciers that form the remaining 60 to 65 percent of the Arctic ice. This fresh water slowly flows as rivers and break-offs of these glacier fields that cover the land masses that skirt the Arctic ocean.
Another of these natural fluctuations that one can see in its maximums and minimums, that affect arctic temperatures, is the slow warming and cooling that roughly mirror the 22 year sun-spot cycle which affects solar irradiance... It is the shortest of the extra annual cycles that can be seen several times in an average life span, that is... if one pays attention...
As to your unqualified self eating watermelon statement...
"The tax is actually a bullshit distraction by the elites to avoid actually making any changes."
This is ludicrous... since by imposing the provisions of these conferences, that IS "changes". The changes made would alter what is or is not concidered as pollution in order to benefit THEM, which is the case with Carbon Dioxide... when all three of the large climate agreements are dovetailed, they create international law. Law that would curtail any protest against THEM... all dissent would be moot... In effect they will have created the legal framework whereby they NEED NOT do anything ever again... since there would be no one to stop them from doing everything they want, which I pointed out a previous post.
Be this as it may... All of this Arctic talk is "red herring", to the original question... which is... will imposing a world wide anthropogenically caused global warming, carbon tax, ala IPCC... as well as the carbon sharing provisions in Kyoto, and the Agenda 21 provisions set forth in Rio... stop global warming?.. This is after all the gist of the article we are discussing here...
I have posed a return to the premise of this thread to you twice now... at which point you just call the premise a "bullshit distraction"... with no logic to support your statement. Your stance, hell bent on winning the discussion without addressing with verifiable facts THE question, is further exacerbated by the fact you will not state your position with regard to the slight warming trend we are in... You just nip around the edges with statements like the one above... and drag "arctic herrings" replete with condescending ad-homs.
How about trying to get to the truth of this current warming trend instead... how about instead of blanket statements touted as specifics, why not drag in a few verifiable facts to support your assertions. Instead of herring dragging, and well spiking... I suggest that you state your position to begin with, as regards the anthropogenic question ASAP, if you would be so kind... you see, you are dancing on thin ice here...
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring
men shall possess the highest seats in Government,
our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots
to prevent its ruin."