Jim- Thanks for writing.

All writers have to make choices. I didn’t (couldn’t) write an assessment report, so here’s how I described my choices on pg 15 of the hard copy version of Unsettled:

Even if they accept my credentials, some of this book’s critics will say that I’ve ignored the bigger picture, that this book is too focused on aspects of the science that don’t support the alleged consensus. Given the great breadth of climate science, however, it has to focus somewhere — after all, each of the assessment reports alone runs to more than one thousand pages. My focus is on significant points where the popular perception about climate and energy is very different from what the science says. In that way, this book is about more than what’s scientifically correct and what isn’t; it’s also about how the science, with all of its certainties and uncertainties, becomes The Science — how it gets summarized and communicated, and what’s lost in the process. Not everything you’ve heard about climate science is wrong, and I’ve done my best to provide a balanced presentation for each subject I treat within the limits of length and technical level; the references I cite can be consulted for even more information.

So limited space (and time writing the book) meant arctic sea ice didn’t get much mention. The topic is also somewhat distant from ordinary folks’ perception (unlike storms, heat waves, SLR, …).

Even so, on page 85 you can find a discussion of the ice-albedo feedback, although I don’t use that term. (no need to introduce technical lingo when it’s not convenient)

And starting on pg 165 you can find a discussion of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the context of the SLR budget. The melting rate of Greenland (it’s contribution to SLR) shown in the upper panel of Figure 8.4 was the subject of the first “fact check” — as you can see, there’s substantial decadal variability, with the rate 80 years ago being the same as today’s.