4 ms·

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-

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
      - baruchthescribe 7y ago
        If you're living in the US, you could of course just look outside and notice that you've just had the coldest October-April period on record. But yeah, the Arctic is clearly melting.
        richardhod 7y ago
        Anyone reading HN should understand about variance in data sets. Given you're stooping to the level of 'It's cold at the moment, at this one data point', I cannot take your conversation seriously. You can do better, and you know it.

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
    - baruchthescribe 7y ago
      If you're living in the US, you could of course just look outside and notice that you've just had the coldest October-April period on record. But yeah, the Arctic is clearly melting.
      - richardhod 7y ago
        Anyone reading HN should understand about variance in data sets. Given you're stooping to the level of 'It's cold at the moment, at this one data point', I cannot take your conversation seriously. You can do better, and you know it.