Our friends keep pointing out that current Arctic ice gains are irrelevant, because the trend since the peak in 1979 is down.
This argument is ridiculous. In order to break the post 1979 downwards trend, the summer minimum would have necessarily had to have been over 21 million km². Even the sudden onset of an ice age wouldn’t break the post-1979 trend for several years.
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
 | saveenergy on What’s At Stake? |
 | willys36 on “The world began to end… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Homophobic Gas |
 | Walter on Protecting Endangered Species |
| Morgan Wright on Artificial Stupidity |
Now lets say my house has been standing for hundred years an suddenly it burnt down…is it kinda still standing in respect to the long term trend ?
I think they are hoping it will trend down again in the future.
It is not a question of hope but a clear eyed, non political look at the science.
No, it’s a question of hope.
Why would one hope for a miserable future for ones’ kids and grandkids? If I am wrong and get my way, maybe we just tidy up the planet a bit. If you are wrong and get your way, heaven help us.
Sovereign policy can’t be based on delusional thinking, fads, junk science or other crap. That wasted money could have gone into saving real lives in real places such as Africa and Asia.
I suppose I could flip your flip answer back on you to perfectly describe your position.
the science of predicting the weather
50% chance
One year is hardly a trend, especially if the the 30 year trend still has your one year “60 percent” increase in Arctic still way lower than when the 30 year trend began. Clever graph though with the large area keeping the downward trend line looking rather flat. You would never want to discuss volume vs area would you?
It’s well documented in the scientific literature that certain regions of the planet, particularly the Arctic, cycle through 60 year trends, due to the PDO, AMO, etc. This is why citing a 30 year trend for a region is probably misleading. Citing a 30 year trend for global temperature, of course, if another matter. But if you don’t understand climate science, or any science for that matter, you end up writing the things people like you write.
Will, why is temperature another matter???
….the preceding public service announcement was brought to you by
Rosetta Stone
We just repeated the era of 1905 – 1941.
Did you not catch that, and if not, why?
matayaya,
Indeed I like to discuss volume VS. area-extent and the update that this one will give tomorrow is an okay measurement, but not absolute (4-day’s stale right now):
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
My $2billion computer said Arctic ice will go massively up in 2053, so give me TAX money to stop it!
Steve
You may wish to take a look at what is served up for a Sunday breakfast in Britain –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
The hockeystick lives!
When Mann produced his highly specious hockeystick representation of global warming it was praised to the heavens and the long term trend was irrelevant. Now that the exact same configuration is found in the REAL data for arctic ice cover, it is the long term trend that counts.
Isn’t it “special” how the climate catastrophe gang pretend they can have it both ways?
There’s that arctic ice cover thing again. That is just one tree in the forest.
Not quite. Mann’s hockeystick was mostly “one tree in the forest”. There is no forest in the arctic. Trees don’t grow on ice. Even if you call the over 15 square KM increase in ice area a tree, it is a rather large for a tree.
Mann’s hockey stick is the forest.
Trees did grow on the Arctic tundra 4900 years ago … look at figure 17 in Dr Balls paper http://drtimball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Polar-Bear2.pdf
But these were special trees that didn’t need warm temperatures to photosynthesis … likely grown from magic beans … we know they had to be magic beans since the GLO-BULL warming obsessive-compulsive alarmists tell us we are at record / extreme weather causing temperature levels 😉
..and that has made all of the trees wrong
When I hear the Last Nail in the Coffin of CAGW, or this proves CAGW is a farce and junk science or the all the other terms used, people like matayaya show up and are prevalent on other blogs and comments sections of Yahoo weather and such. There will never be a final nail in the coffin or proof that CAGW does not exist as long as individuals such as matayaya are in existence.
Has anyone checked on Neven lately? I’m concerned about his mental health when depression set in once he realized just how wrong the “experts” were about 2013 reducing the Arctic to an ice cube.