4 ms·
Yes, it would be. But this 20-year prediction is based on a linear extrapolation that obviously ignores previous cooling+warming cycles of the arctic (remember
by mkempe 9y ago
Yes, it would be. But this 20-year prediction is based on a linear extrapolation that obviously ignores previous cooling+warming cycles of the arctic (remember why Greenland is called such). Further, that is not a prediction that there would be zero ice in the winter ("never frozen again").
- mturmon 9y ago> ... this 20-year prediction is based on a linear extrapolation ... No. It's based on a body of peer-reviewed papers reviewed by a committee of people who have studied this problem for years and decades. Unless you've sifted through these papers, gone to the conferences, and published your own work for critique, you're not qualified to reach the opposite conclusion.
- mkempe 9y agoI'm crushed, I had no idea facts and science were established and driven by a committee. Is there a designated committee for every subject matter? I probably won't remember your comment in 25 years, when vast frozen expanses collide with your committee studies; will you? The last several decades have not confirmed any of the predictions driven by your revered studies, despite the agitation (see Gore) and the frauds (see Mann). The predictions have shifted, past records have been manipulated, and none of the global-warming-now-climate-change computer models fit with the past tens let alone hundreds of thousand years. Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than today, but we must submit to the absolute authority of your committee's cataclysmic claim that within one generation there shall be no more sea ice in the Arctic summer. None of these computer models would explain or show an end of the current interglacial, and a return to the ice age, even if man-made CO2 contributions were set to zero. Instead of understanding and modeling the various climate optimums and little ice ages of the last millennia, the records have been manipulated to minimize or erase these past climate changes and maintain eschatological notions. Science is not a body of papers selected by committee -- it is a systematized, hierarchically integrated body of facts and theories. If you ignore, reject, or distort facts in order to promote your ideas, you are not a scientist but a fraud. If your notions do not account for known facts, it's not science. If your formulas and models do not integrate with known facts and do not evince some theories, it's not science. Gaining knowledge of facts and understanding scientific theories is not controlled by the gates you throw up (peer reviews, conferences, critiques). Qualification to use one's faculty of reason and to draw conclusions is not determined by social approval, nor does it require participation in the rituals erected by your beloved committees.