They began measuring it starting that year?
It was also when Arctic sea ice was at a relative maximum given the UNUSUALLY COLD decades from 1950 to 1979. Again, why is 1979 “normal” and thus sea ice “loss” since then, “bad?” Have fun…
You can question their findings, but I guess the National Snow and Ice Data Center is probably the most reliable source out there.
The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.
Interesting. About those 2-3% of scientific papers on the other side of the debate.
And interesting that you are still using the discredited 97% “consensus” statement. Yes, 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that man is likely to be the cause for xxxx undetermined amount of it. More important is the issue of whether it is bad or what action needs to be taken IF it is to return to xxxx perfect temperature/climate. Got anything on that?
I actually don’t like the 97% “consensus” statement, because it’s used widely and therefore inaccurately.
Here is an interesting article about it:
But when Cook and another group of co-authors 3 sifted through the study results to focus on the views of active climate scientists (as opposed to scientists in other fields and people with scientific credentials who weren’t doing research), they concluded that AGW commanded a consensus of 90 percent to 100 percent.
The authors looked through the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change published from 1991 through 2011, and found only 78 (0.7 percent) that clearly rejected man-made global warming and 40 (0.3 percent) that expressed uncertainty about it. So only 1 percent of published climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 explicitly questioned the notion that humans are warming the climate.
Discredited by who?
Who is arguing that climate change caused by human activity is not bad?
Again no one is saying there is not agreement that earth is warming and man is contributing xxxx proportion of that. Now answer the other points. Is this a crisis and if so what action if any must be taken? Did I miss the consensus on that?
We’ve already done this a million times over. The answer is to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and associated users (eg., the auto industry), stop subsidizing polluters, enforce a whole bunch of perfectly good laws that we’ve had for ages to prevent theft of public property, and let the market do what it’s supposed to do. I’m not a laissez-faire capitalist, but I do believe in not giving government money and support to systems and organisations which are by their nature loss-making enterprises.
This has been discussed over and over again in the other threads. Why don’t we get back to the topic, polar ice? So is it melting, in the Arctic and the Antarctic, is it growing? How can we tell? What sources are most reliable? What evidence is there that polar ice melting or growing is caused by human-caused climate change and what does that all mean?
This is interesting:
I understand how the gas-powered irrigation systems and generators used in the Philippines have caused you angst. I hope the country turns over a new leaf soon so you can stop worrying about the Future of Our Planet
Another interesting read about the ice:
“Before this study there were these two observations, the first was that glacial deep water was really salty and dense, and the second that it also contained a lot of CO2, and the community put two and two together and said these two observations must be linked,” said Roberts. “But it was only through doing our study, and looking at the change in both density and CO2 across the deglaciation, that we found they actually weren’t linked. This surprised us all.”
“Although conditions at the end of the last ice age were very different to today, this study highlights the importance that dynamic features such as sea ice have on regulating the climate system, and emphasises the need for improved understanding and prediction as we head into our ever warming world,” said Roberts.
Gosh and how did man cause the end of the last Ice Age… suburban housewives driving suburbans and buying “shit that they don’t need?”
Back to that “consensus” and what it really means…
A leading MIT scientist claims that global warming science is based on pure propaganda, and that the “97 percent consensus” statistic is false.
According to Dr. Richard Lindzen, most scientists do not agree that CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change.
Dailycaller.com reports: “It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”
“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”
“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.
Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.
Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
I made a mistake by mention that consensus, cause I want this thread to be about polar ice only. I am not interested in posts that go off topic. The Blomberg article was sufficient enough to understand the consensus issue anyway
Now back to polar ice.
NO, the Bloomberg article is not sufficient. There is no MEANINGFUL consensus. And predictions were that the Arctic would be ICEFREE by 2016. The passionate alarmists before, however, said there was a plus or minus window of three years so you have at most until 2019 because this was a CERTAINTY. I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the Arctic will NOT be ice-free in 2019. You?
There are scientists on both sides who for whatever reason come up with questionable predictions or statements. Like Dr. Richard Lindzen, from whom his colleagues at MIT have distanced themselves (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump), Professor Peter Wadhams made this prediction that gives climate change deniers a lot to talk about. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the ice in the artic is not shrinking.
However, Professor Wadhams has been criticised by other scientists for making ‘dramatic’ predictions that are ‘incorrect’.
Dr Ed Hawkins, from the University of Reading, wrote on the blog Climate Lab Book: ‘There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks. We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic but there is a real danger of “crying wolf” and that does not help anyone.’
Lot of interesting information on this site, like:
We understand that sea ice melt is erratic – we should not expect new records every year, but the overall trend is towards less and less ice.
Now we have longer estimates for both global temperatures and Arctic sea ice and newer simulations. Notz & Stroeve (2016) recently suggested that there was a linear relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and Arctic sea ice. They found that each metric tonne of CO2 emitted caused around 3m2 of sea ice area to melt.
Realisation #13 follows the observations quite closely but then shows a large increase in sea ice, before rapidly declining again. Realisations #9 & #14 are towards the upper end of the range before declining more rapidly. These examples highlight that climate simulations do show significant natural fluctuations in sea ice extent, on top of the long-term decline.
it is irrelevant whether there are views on one side or the other. In science the new religion in which so many quake there is only the view that is proven true that matters and I would say the record clearly shows Lind zen is on the right track. I see you have wisely dropped your precious consensus.
I dropped the consensus questions, because I want to focus on polar ice in this thread as I explained above.
If you don’t back this up with reliable data from trustworthy sources (and no I don’t think DailyCaller or realclimatescience are trustworthy), this is just your opinion.