I thought the arctic was melting?

You poor thing. Now I feel bad. Maybe I should take it easier on you.

Not what the temperature record says. That's why you have to rave about vinyards. Like I said, that reveals you to be a pseudoscience cultist. You have to reject the solid hard data in favor of fuzzy nebulous data, because the hard data contradicts you.

Except your peer-reviewed references don't back you up. You just say they do. In contrast, my references back up my claim. For example,

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12828157.pdf

Look at page 44. The MWP is barely a blip. Modern temps are higher.

Your sources are a bunch of conspiracy blogs, not peer reviewed science. No wonder you get everything so wrong.

Got it. You don't understand the very simple concept of noise around a trend. You really shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Your conspiracy blog just lied about what those papers said.

I've already addressed that cherrypicking fallacy. Schneider is a wild outlier.

So tell us why that paper, the outlier, should be trusted over all others. Discuss the data and statistics in detail. That is, make sure you say something more than "BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH ME!". If you can't, you're just a cult cheerleader.

And there it ends, as you're reduced again to blubbering about the world plotting a conspiracy against you after you get ripped apart.

I'll see you soon, when we can do this all again. That is, you'll eventually be reduced to screaming that all the data is faked.

 

A hard way to learn that all we have to do is make better choices, but there it is. Now we know.

No more excuses!

 

Before or after it has been adjusted?

Adjusted, averaged, homogenized, weighted, smoothed, etc. data are many things, but "hard" is not one of them.

False.

[
They definitely do.

On occasion.

Nothing but tenuous and cherry-picked proxy derivations.

Already proved false.

Got it: you don't understand that the up- or down-phase of a cycle is not a trend.

You really shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

The irony!

False.

No, your "sources" committed it.

Except that it agrees with the physical evidence.

Why falsely claim that "all" other papers disagree?

I don't have time to hold your hand while teaching you high school science.

I have provided detailed physical explanations.

You continue to make multiple false claims per sentence.

So far, they haven't been able to fake the non-disappearance of arctic sea ice, or the non-appearance of millions of climate refugees. But it's still early days.

 

But all the ice is gone. The Russians have been filling the arctic circle with shaving to make it seem like there is ice there. Adam Schiff says so.

 

Cooling trends get little coverage.

Great Britain October Mean Temperatures Cooling Since 1995
Posted on November 25, 2020 by Kirye
Hi, everyone.
Today, I made a chart of UK mean monthly temperatures for October using data from the Japan meteorological Agency(JMA).

11 of 14 stations which have the data since the 1980’s show October mean temperatures have been cooling or have no trend for 26 years.



Similar patterns were seen other months. Examples: here and here.

As we all know, our mainstream media has been hijacked by climate alarmists and are ignoring such trends.

If you want check out other European charts for October I made, you can check them here and here.

 

Several warmist/alarmists scientists predicted the Arctic summer will be free of ice as early as 2008, yet here we are still waiting for that predicted summer ice free time to finally be revealed.

Meanwhile the Polar Bear population isn't declining at all..............

 

That's nice. But since almost all didn't, implying it was a consensus is more of your usual dishonesty.

The vast majority of scientists were absoulutely correct, while your side pooched it hard. That's why the scientists have crediblity, while your side is laughed at.

 

Right, because the vast majority of scientists did not and still do not agree with the absurd, hysterical prognostications of anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers like Greta Thunberg, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, and you.

Garbage. Where is the disproved prophecy by the skeptical side, hmmmm?

Your made-up nonsense gives anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers credibility? Don't think so.

 

Ha ha ha, they were the ones who made the silly end of summer ice predictions, from Al Gore to Beckwith to Serezze to Wadhams. No climate realists forced them to make the predictions.

Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts

and,

The History Of The Arctic

You are in denial over what warmist/alarmists predicted for the Arctic region.

 

If you two aren't lying, you can show in an IPCC summary work where an ice-free Arctic was predicted to happen already.

You can't, of course. That's because you're both lying outright about the consensus. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

Go on now, deflect and run away.

 

That is a non sequitur fallacy. There is no such implication.

No, it's because your claim is also a strawman fallacy.

I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

Go on now, deflect and run away.

 

Your chronic use of Red Herring babble goes on........

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."

I see them a mile away, why keep using this dishonest tactic, it doesn't help you.

=====

You are as usual dishonest by dragging in the IPCC, as your desperate DEFLECTION from the well proved evidence I posted in front of you of prominent warmist/alarmists scientists and climate change propagandists making zero summer ice projections and the MEDIA effort to promote them for years and tears.

Here are samples YOU ignored, from the No summer ice prediction link:








No one brought up the IPCC except YOU, you are not fooling anyone here.

 

Is something that you rely on exclusively, as you did in this thread.

I asked you for evidence of the consensus. You respond with anecdotes mostly from non-scientists, the reddest of red herrings. You could only show one single scientist saying what you claim, Maslowski, and the other scientists disagreed with him.

Just admit it. You faked another story, I busted you for it, and now you're crying. Same old same old.

 

Of course there is.

You two are claiming that the scientific consensus was that all the Arctic ice would have melted by now.

If your claim was true, you'd be able to provide evidence of such a consensus.

You can't, so your claim isn't true.

If you're pushing a story that isn't true, you're lying.

Which step in that logic is confoozing you?

 

You don't know when to stop making embarrassing statements.

The following people in my link are scientists:

Dr. Mark Serreze "the artic is screaming!" “This raises the spectre ‚Äì the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”


Dr. Peter Wadhams "This, however, departs significantly from empirical observations of the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice which is heading for disappearance within two or three years according to Nature co-author and renowned Arctic expert Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar ocean physics group at Cambridge University.

If Prof Wadhams is correct in his forecast that the summer sea ice could be gone by 2015, then we might be closer to the tipping point than we realise. To get to the bottom of the scientific basis for the Nature paper's scenarios, I interviewed Prof Wadhams. Here's what he had to say:"


Dr. Paul Beckwith "On March 23, 2013, I made the following prediction:

“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.

The cracks in the sea ice that I reported in my Sierra blog and elsewhere have spread. Worse news is at this very moment the entire sea ice sheet (or about 99 percent of it) covering the Arctic Ocean is on the move (clockwise), and the thin, weakened icecap has literally begun to tear apart.

This is abrupt climate change in real-time.

Humans have benefited greatly from a stable climate for the last 11,000 years (roughly 400 human generations). Not anymore. We now face an angry climate -- one that we have poked in the eye with our fossil fuel stick -- and have to deal with the consequences.

We must set aside our differences and prepare for what we can no longer avoid: massive disruption to our civilization."


Dr. Hansen "The Arctic is the first tipping point and its occurring exactly the way we said it would."

=====

All the statement above are real and backed by the media, one was from the Sierra Club, another by the NAVY, another by the Guardian and so on. I notice you never try to dispute it.........

No about your dishonest debate tactic,


No one here claimed the IPCC made the following claim, No Summer sea ice is forecasted,. No one here stated that it was a consensus position either. YOU dragged that STRAWMAN stuff in here in your foolish attempt to deflect from the hard evidence that a number of warmist/alarmist scientists made these predictions and failed badly.

Your Strawman attempt here is hilarious, easily seen a mile away.........

======

Now we have a CMIP6 modeling scenario coming out for the first link....

New study predicts Arctic Ocean will be 'ice free' in summer by middle of this century

and,

Arctic Ocean could be ice-free for part of the year as soon as 2044

LOL

 

Where did either of us make that claim?

If you're pushing a story that isn't true, you're lying.

Which step in that logic is confoozing you?

 

And he didn't claim what you say. He said North Pole, not Arctic.

I forgot about those two guys that everyone disagrees with. So, you have _three_ scientists out of at least hundreds. That's the best you could do. After scouring every piece of scientific literature and every media outlet on the planet, you could only come up with three wrong predictions. Thank you for proving my point about how good the science was.

He said nothing remotely like what you claim.

The media! Well, why didn't you say so. That totally settles it.

Ah yes, those famous climate scientists

A repeat.

A newspaper.

What's still lacking is any report of that being a consensus belief. That's because it wasn't. You made that story up. The consensus said the opposite of what you claim, and the consensus was right, just like it's been right about everything for the past 40+ years. That's why climate science has such credibility, its history of getting things right.

In contrast, you side has faceplanted with every prediction over that same period, which is why you're considered jokes.

 

I repeat: name one false prediction by the skeptical side.

 

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Many climate "scientists" on the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria bandwagon have said similar things:
Maslowski -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Beckwith -- https://thenarwhal.ca/arctic-sea-ice-vanish-2013/
Vincent -- https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52468B20090305?edition-redirect=ca
Overland and Wang -- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50316
Etc.

No. Your claims are false. The hundreds of real climate scientists who never predicted an ice-free arctic are also the ones who do not share in your anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. Funny how that works....

Five minutes on Google.

The real science, which I have explained, was and is good. It is the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign that is absurd.

Alas, real climate scientists have no fame at all -- unlike hysterical anti-fossil-fuel charlatans like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Peter Wadhams and Phil Jones.

Right. It was only the consensus among purveyors of hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

Because real climate science does not share the consensus of anti-fossil-fuel hysterics.

 

No you haven't. Stop making stuff up. And now that you have been shown the data that clearly shows the reduction of Arctic ice, the correct thing for you to do would be to admit your errors and account for this information that you clearly have never seen or considered.

Do you plan to do this?

 

Then attempt to publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal. Your claims mean less than nothing, until then. They should be ignored.

 

Good advice. You should take it.

Over the brief few decades since a multidecade cyclical high. And...?

Speaking of makin' $#!+ up, are you really unaware of the fact that arctic sea ice cycles have been observed for centuries?

That a cycle declines from its peak is not exactly news, and doesn't exactly need to be "accounted for." However, it appears to be news to you that there are climate cycles at all, or that long-established ones might still be in effect, or that anything other than CO2 might be affecting the earth's surface temperature.

 

I am not debating the truth of the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of man with a nonscientist on the internet. Go attempt to publish a paper with your nonsensical claims. The result will speak for itself.

 

You misspelled "pal-reviewed."

Wrong. It is papers published in pal-reviewed, corporate-owned climate journals devoted to anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering that mean less than nothing. They should be ignored.

 

Ah yes, the deniers' alamo: try to undermine the global scientific community as incompetents and liars. Right after trying to cite their work for 10 pages, of course. How embarrassing to watch.