4 ms·

You would have go back and look at the whole century to see that it's just part of the normal cycle.

petersellers 7y ago
You are making the claim so you need to show the evidence (especially since it contradicts accepted scientific consensus). Don't be lazy and force other people to do your work for you as you won't have a chance in hell of convincing anyone that way. What you've linked so far shows that the sea ice level of the past 5 years is well below even 2 standard deviations under the average, which contradicts your claim. Not sure what you were trying to prove by posting that link.
- baruchthescribe 7y ago
  I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU
  - petersellers 7y ago
    >I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. No one is saying science is infallible. It's just the best explanation for what we're seeing so far, based on empirical evidence. Your argument that science was wrong about something in the past does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims - for that you need to post evidence. >If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Your own link you posted contradicts this. I'm starting to think that you don't understand the contents of your own link, because it very clearly contradicts what you are trying to say. >Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU This is a typical tactic used by climate change deniers. Ask for evidence - when they can't provide any, they distract and post something completely different and try to deflect. I'll spend 10 minutes of my time watching that video after you spend a little effort and post a scientific paper that supports your original claim.
    - baruchthescribe 7y ago
      Here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projecting_the_Climatic_Effects_of_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projectin... Arctic sea ice is normal and cyclical and follows both short and long term cycles.
      - petersellers 7y ago
        "sea ice extent" shows up 3 times in that 400 page paper, and those phrases where it's mentioned don't support anything related to your initial claim.
richardhod 7y ago
You are wrong, and trolling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arct...
- baruchthescribe 7y ago
  Not trolling. I genuinely believe that the evidence shows that a) carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming and b) the world's climate is just fine. Your linked piece starts with the misleading graph from NOAA which conveniently starts at the peak of 1979, omitting all of the data we have since the 1920s showing Arctic sea ice is cyclical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8
  - richardhod 7y ago
    the second graph shown in that denialist video says nothing about arctic sea ice in the way the NOAA data do, which go back only to 1979. They are data about ice anomalies, not ice coverage. Also, I can't find a source for that second, allegedly IPCC graph, so it may be as fraudulent as the video's argument.
    - baruchthescribe 7y ago
      NOAA data goes back to the early 1970s. The IPCC paper can be found after a fairly trivial Google search here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc.... Good. So let's summarize: - someone who disagrees with you can be called names - you're ignorant of the history of NOAA - if you can't find something, then the other person is a fraud - but you claim they make fraudulent arguments anyway so that's OK Very scientific.
      - richardhod 7y ago
        You are still cherrypicking by concentrating on these data, which are not conclusive. /so, you show me part of an in-depth paper saying that there were data before 1979 .It appears there might. However, in the paper, it says there was not much variance in sea ice significantly between the 1953 and 1984, but that 1960-80 was significantly colder anomaly period. (pp 224-5). But after that... much decline. None of what you talk about it particularly relevant, given ALL the other data about melting glaciers and sea ice extents since 1990, which you carefully ignore. Look here, for example https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm

You are making the claim so you need to show the evidence (especially since it contradicts accepted scientific consensus). Don't be lazy and force other people to do your work for you as you won't have a chance in hell of convincing anyone that way. What you've linked so far shows that the sea ice level of the past 5 years is well below even 2 standard deviations under the average, which contradicts your claim. Not sure what you were trying to prove by posting that link.

baruchthescribe 7y ago
I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU
- petersellers 7y ago
  >I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. No one is saying science is infallible. It's just the best explanation for what we're seeing so far, based on empirical evidence. Your argument that science was wrong about something in the past does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims - for that you need to post evidence. >If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Your own link you posted contradicts this. I'm starting to think that you don't understand the contents of your own link, because it very clearly contradicts what you are trying to say. >Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU This is a typical tactic used by climate change deniers. Ask for evidence - when they can't provide any, they distract and post something completely different and try to deflect. I'll spend 10 minutes of my time watching that video after you spend a little effort and post a scientific paper that supports your original claim.
  - baruchthescribe 7y ago
    Here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projecting_the_Climatic_Effects_of_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projectin... Arctic sea ice is normal and cyclical and follows both short and long term cycles.
    - petersellers 7y ago
      "sea ice extent" shows up 3 times in that 400 page paper, and those phrases where it's mentioned don't support anything related to your initial claim.

richardhod 7y ago

You are wrong, and trolling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arct...

baruchthescribe 7y ago
Not trolling. I genuinely believe that the evidence shows that a) carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming and b) the world's climate is just fine. Your linked piece starts with the misleading graph from NOAA which conveniently starts at the peak of 1979, omitting all of the data we have since the 1920s showing Arctic sea ice is cyclical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8
- richardhod 7y ago
  the second graph shown in that denialist video says nothing about arctic sea ice in the way the NOAA data do, which go back only to 1979. They are data about ice anomalies, not ice coverage. Also, I can't find a source for that second, allegedly IPCC graph, so it may be as fraudulent as the video's argument.
  - baruchthescribe 7y ago
    NOAA data goes back to the early 1970s. The IPCC paper can be found after a fairly trivial Google search here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc.... Good. So let's summarize: - someone who disagrees with you can be called names - you're ignorant of the history of NOAA - if you can't find something, then the other person is a fraud - but you claim they make fraudulent arguments anyway so that's OK Very scientific.
    - richardhod 7y ago
      You are still cherrypicking by concentrating on these data, which are not conclusive. /so, you show me part of an in-depth paper saying that there were data before 1979 .It appears there might. However, in the paper, it says there was not much variance in sea ice significantly between the 1953 and 1984, but that 1960-80 was significantly colder anomaly period. (pp 224-5). But after that... much decline. None of what you talk about it particularly relevant, given ALL the other data about melting glaciers and sea ice extents since 1990, which you carefully ignore. Look here, for example https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm