Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year

All nonsense rebuttals which do not change the fact we have no idea what a normal climate is or does on a planet like ours, because we haven't seen nor studied any outside of our own. Carry on about the internet and other things we could test and bang away at through trial and error.


We're a brilliant species, and someday I think we will have this knowledge and expertise...but it's not here yet. This is nothing but the latest greedy scheme, from greedy humans to tax the very air everyone has to breathe.

 

Exactly. What most people don't realize until we get to the Holy Grail of computing (Quantum Computing), everything being done now is still almost literally guesswork. Once true Quantum Computing becomes a reality (still future sci-fi level stuff) climatology will then become a true observable/reproducible science. The practical applications will be limitless and priceless. The level of precision would be unprecedented. As a limited example, we would be able to map EVERY single piece of garbage (down to f'ing screws) in orbit and predict where it will go, how fast it will be going at ANY point in time. Just that would revolutionize space travel. We would be able to accurately predict hurricanes and their paths years in advance, to certainty. Meteorology would become an exact science.

Anyone who understands this knows we are still in the "stone age" of science.

 

https://science.energy.gov/laboratories/oak-ridge-national-laboratory/

 

According to their climate models the arctic should already be ice free. Their models were wrong.

 

Its kind of like the clowns who show up pretending they understand what the scientists said.... Like the OP that doesn't understand sigma deviation....

 

Hmmm - 38 years. What does that tell you? But if you prefer the studies of the Oil Lobby, that's your prerogative.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

On March 7, 2017, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.42 million square kilometers (5.57 million square miles), the lowest in the 38-year satellite record.

 

That made no sense whatsoever.

 

The majority of scientists WORLDWIDE come to the same conclusion. We do not fund scientists in other countries.
Your argument has no merit.

 

Yes. They work for free. East Anglia, where they doctored the data to fit their "conclusion" works for free and won't lose millions if they had a different view.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler

Get really educated.

 

I have an education - and common sense. Funding of study is not premised on a foregone conclusion - unless paid for by a fossil fuel company.

 

In other news:

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

 

From your own reference

Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.

LOL

 

What does it tell you? AND like I said, coming out of an ice age like we are, we should expect less ice. With or without the effects of man.

 

That's what happens when you come out of an ice age. The Ice melts. There is no reason to believe that the arctic ice will not disappear like it did before this current ice age began.

 

This isn't really correct though. What you hear from Al Gore and the media in regards to Arctic sea ice and AGW in general is usually cherry picked and biased. The scientific consensus (peer reviewed academic literature) is not that the Arctic would be ice free by now. The consensus was that we should be noticing a secular decline (and I think we are). But, it was never that we would be absolutely ice free. The consensus I'm seeing seems to be in the 2050+/-20 time frame. That means 2030 is probably the earliest we could see the first ice free Arctic year. There are plenty of scientists that say it will be sooner, but these claims are treated with healthy skepticism in the academic community.

 

Show some absolute proof that the warming that took place 65 million years ago that had Herbivore Dinosaurs and the plants they ate 1200 miles from the north pole isn't happening again and I'll listen.

 

Or it could be AGW like every science agency on the planet says it is. But then we do have your opinion

 

Show me absolute proof that warming even happened. You can't. All you have is evidence just like that is all we have is evidence. That is how science works

 

No, his prediction was based upon their models at the time. That was back when Mann's Hockey stick graph was settled science.

 

Gore's claim was cherry picked from a single study (Maslowski) using the soonest possible date provided by that study and taken out of context. Even Maslowski was mortified at how his study was misstated. The consensus at the time for the first ice free event was about 2030 back then and has, for the most part, remained largely unchanged. And just to be clear 2030 is an early estimate not the median estimate which is closer to mid century. What's happening right now is that more scientists are starting to sound the alarm that these estimates might be too conservative.

 

I wanted you to provide some clarification as to the duration of the warming that took place 65 million years ago. Surely, the oil industry lobby studies have that information, don't they?

 

It's a PBS show, watch it.

 

There are 2,000,000 square miles less ice than there was 40 years ago.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

I don't claim to understand the climate science supporting AGW. I don't claim to understand the biology supporting Evolution. I don't claim to understand the mathematics supporting gravity and black holes.

I do put my faith in the education, training and knowledge of scientists who support AGW, Evolution and gravity and black holes.

Should I, on the other hand, base my knowledge on a poster like you who claims he understands sigma deviation?

 

The vast majority of scientists, engineers, and technical people acknowledge the human contribution to global warming. It is the magnitude of that question which is in question. The IPCC's charter is to study ONLY the human contribution thus abstaining from the true science of global warming. The one figure of merit in this discussion in the climate sensitivity of CO2 which is defined as the global average temperature increase due to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Models yield a range from 2 - 4.5 deg C (quite a high percentage range for "settled science" no ??). Real world data indicates ~ 1 deg C. The IPCC in AR5 has increased the range of sensitivity to 1.5 - 4.5 deg C acknowledging that the real world data indicates a sensitivity less than the range of models. Using the observed climate sensitivity of CO2 and the middle of the road A1B CO2 scenario indicates that the temp in 2100 will be ~ 1 deg C warmer than today. Consensus of economic models which include the benefits of global warming (there are many) compiled by Dr. Richard Tol (an economist) show that there are net benefits for 3 deg C of temperature rise. So no problem for the next ~ 200 years. The preceding is all a product of science.