I thought the arctic was melting?

This a lie since no one makes multiple "recovery" claims over the years. This is classic Propaganda babble you embraced, it is stupid!

13 years of a flatlining, is by far the longest period of no decline trend.

You ignored two charts already showing hard evidence that for the last 13 years, there has been NO more decline showing up (Not claiming it is a "recovery" here at all, it is clear it had declined to a lower level) that is the reality you keep fighting.

From the NOAA/NSIDC data



The big drop in 2012 was caused by a massive storm that broke up the ice fields.

and,



They both show that the decline stopped after 2007, that is what YOU fight against.

Meanwhile you never show that no Summer sea ice is bad for the region or the world anyway.

 

Which you claimed no one was on...

Now you are just quibbling. He is a published scientist and director of an institute that studies the arctic.

It was the most alarmist of their three scenarios, none of which will happen.

I don't make false claims of consensus. You do.

You are makin' $#!+ up again.

But did not say what hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists claim it said.

 

And btw, the data presentation methodology here, using standard deviations from the mean for data that show a strong time-dependent trend, is gross statistical malpractice deliberately intended to exaggerate the trend.

 

Certainly not rocket science, or even science. Not the same people, nor the same reasons.

 

Sorry I assumed you knew that the amount mattered, I over estimated you.

 

You haven't one tried to tell us what that "amount": is and how it pertains to climate history of the region.

When will you dive in beyond empty statements?

 

Do you not know the amount? I'm surprised you think to claim its harmless without knowing that.
Well I'm not really tbh.
And as I have said what the climate did thousands of years ago is irrelevant, you probably don't know this either, but the human population of the world was different then, both in numbers and location.

 

Yeah, the people are actually pretty much the same, and so are the reasons.

 

Your claim did not say the amount. That's why it was unscientific tripe.

Whereas I am not surprised that you claim it is harmful without knowing that...

If you only want to ignore the facts about why climate changes and pursue a political agenda...

How could that be relevant? The people are genetically indistinguishable. We still like warm places to live, and the food we eat still grows better in warmer climates with more CO2.

 

Oh dear oh dear.

 

Its you claiming it is harmless, then asking me for the amount. How did you manage to know it was harmless without knowing either the amount or the effect?

Not interested in your politics.

They weren't so many of them, they could easily move, they hadn't built permanent structures, built farms, sewers, water supplies, electricity supplies and transmission etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

When was it ever harmful before?

Not interested in your politics.

Irrelevant. Today people have incomparably better ways to adapt.

No, they could not. Maybe a few km a day, not enough to outrun natural climate change, which killed many of them, such as the Vikings who had settled in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Pe.... Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists don't believe the Medieval Warm Period ever happened because Michael Mann erased it.

? Huh? Unlike us, our remote ancestors didn't have the means to build those things to adapt to and take advantage of natural climate change. We do.

 

Ok wind up over. No one could make such ridiculous remarks seriously.
You've had your fun.

 

You posted a graph showing a steady decline, and then inexplicably declared there's no decleine.



See? Steady decline. On the graph you supplied.

Given that you can't read a simple graph, there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously. That would be why no one does.

 

You mean other than the papers I linked to. As I predicted you'd do, the data contradicted your religious beliefs, so you auto-declared the data had to be fraudulent.

And by inconsistent, you mean "matches what you posted." Your inability to read graphs only reflects badly on you.

Arctic Ocean only, so apples and oranges. Arctic sea ice covers much more than the Arctic Ocean.

They do, just not in that particular study. That older data also demonstrates that you're making everything up. For example, the old Danish sea ice charts from the 1930s show ice remaining in Baffin Bay throughout the summer. They show winter sea ice reaching the north coast of Iceland. Ice extents like that never happen any more. Claiming 1979 was a peak yera is deluisoinal, given that the claim is contradicted by all the data.

 

No, your claims are objectively false. The graph begins with a slow decline, then there is a period of steep decline, and then the last part of the graph shows no decline. Very much as one would expect from the cherry-picked down-phase of a cycle...

Given that you can't read a simple graph, there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously. That would be why no one does.

 

No, not there either.

I didn't say it was fraudulent. I pointed out that it is not necessarily the best, or even very credible.

No, I mean inconsistent.

Nonsense. The Arctic Ocean holds the great majority of arctic sea ice, including the entirety of the summer sea ice.

No, not much, especially not in the summer.

Nope, that's another bald falsehood from you, as the two graphs I posted prove.

But not the 1940s. That would be because the earth warmed rapidly during the 1910-1940 period, before CO2 could possibly have had a significant effect.

Which it did frequently in the Little Ice Age.

Because we have naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, thanks to the 20th century having the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years.

It is fact, as I already proved.

 

Gee are you that blind? here is MY statement for the two charts I posted:

Yup that is the fact YOU always fight....

Here is another statement you must have missed:

Notice you ignored MASIE chart.... could that red flatline have scared you so much into completely ignoring it....?

Snicker....

=====

Meanwhile warmist/alarmists here continue to ignore my statement:

 

Meanwhile it is getting filled up for another winter:



LINK

 

You are a classic example of someone who has a preconceived opinion, then goes and looks for an article he thinks supports his position and repeats it.

I guess we all do what you do with this debate.

However the problem is when we do that we simply show a closed mind and refusal to even fathom we need to do more than look for something quickly on line we agree with and repeat it.

Here is an example of a study that completely disagrees with yours:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/








Regards

 

Most of of your post was simply empty drivel, doesn't advance a particular argument or make a cogent reply to a post I have made, meanwhile it appears you didn't notice comments I have been making, and that chart at post 151 is from the NOAA/NSIDC database.

Comment you seems to forgotten or didn't bother reading:

Post 151:

You are also the third one to ignore this statement completely:

"Meanwhile you never show that no Summer sea ice is bad for the region or the world anyway."

As for that link you posted, I have seen that for years and years already, and seen this type of chart many times, which actually bolsters my 13 year trend argument, thank you.



2012 by far remains the lowest value shown.

=======

Polar Bears/Seal populations are healthy and life is INCREASING in the Arctic basin due the increase in warmer water inflow, and less summer ice cover.

From post 139

Here are a few examples of the Arctic region benefiting from the recent warming and melting of summer ice to a lower coverage level:

Partner Science Norway

The ice retreats – whale food returns
This is good news for the bowhead whales in the waters around Svalbard, which almost became extinct in the 19th century. It could also put the Euopean whalers in the clear.

LINK

===

Sage Journals

The Holocene Thermal Maximum around Svalbard, Arctic North Atlantic; molluscs show early and exceptional warmth

Excerpt from the Abstract

The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, returned to Svalbard in 2004 following recent warming, and after almost 4000 years of absence, excluding a short re-appearance during the Medieval Warm Period 900 years ago.

LINK

===

Poseidon Expeditions

Whales of Svalbard

LINK

=======

Gee I wonder why your link never mention these developments....

Snicker...........

 

This isn't a debate. You're just wrong. 1979 was not any sort of peak year for Arctic Sea ice. There's no data to support that claim, which is why you've been unable to present any data supporting that claim. A local peak was more around 1970. And so crashes your conspiracy theory that a supposed 1979 peak was cherrypicked. You really need to apologize to those honest scientsts that you slandered with that conspiracy theory.

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html

 

But they don't show that. That's the point. You can't read a graph.

You're also leaving out 2020. Why is that? Oh, that's right. 2020 demolishes your claim, so you had to leave it out.

Since you insist, I'll highlight that since the red line is steadily decreasing, you're lying about it being flatlined. You tried to lie by choice-of-scales there.

 

On your side, anyway...

I already presented the satellite data that support it, in post #147 in this thread. You just looked at the data I posted, saw that it proved me right, and then said I didn't post it. That is something, I suppose, but it is certainly not debating.

I already proved it was cherry picked by posting the pre-1979 satellite data.

The what?? You mean like Lyin' Michael Mann?

I already explained why the methodology of that chart is dishonest and invalid: standard deviation from a fixed mean is not a valid way to characterize a trended time series, and no honest scientist could possibly imagine that it is.