Awesome animation by NASA. Enjoy (or cringe).
Probably not worth showing to a dedicated climate-change denier, because it won't have any effect on them. But if you do, and they say "that ice melted and the sea level hasn't risen," remember to point out that the physical state of
floating sea-ice doesn't alter sea levels.
Why does it seem like there is more ice melting on the Russian side than on the Canadian side?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but if I had to bet a quarter I would guess that it's because of ocean currents, with seawater from the Pacific entering the Arctic and then heading over toward Russia.
DeleteThe yearning to stay on the acceptable party invitation side of all positions is constant here. I hope its working for you. But when it comes to these snide little entries I need to change my handle to "Heywood Jablome."
ReplyDeleteScience debunks the “Arctic sea ice extent at its lowest for at least 1500 years†meme | Watts Up With That?
Further to NOAA’s claim that Arctic sea ice extent is at its lowest for at least 1500 years, Kenneth Richard highlighted three studies last year that show the claim to be bunkum.
Re-posted from No Tricks Zone:
Earlier this year, Stein et al., 2017 published a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice variations throughout the Holocene that appeared to establish that there is more Arctic sea ice now than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.
The study region, the Chukchi Sea, was deemed representative of most of the Arctic, as the authors asserted that “the increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.â€
I'll look at your link later, but you do understand that "fastest decline" is not the same as "lowest amount" ? Losing ten pounds in a month might be my fastest weight loss, but doesn't mean I'm at my lowest weight.
DeleteI'll read the link...
This video doesn't say anything about the extent of arctic sea ice, it's about the age, or thickness, of the ice. So... I think you're going to need to spend some more time perusing pseudo-scientific blogs in search of some insignificant number of misunderstood scientific papers that will "debunk" that particular subject.
DeleteOr you could do actual research outside of your own party line.
Even in your stupified state I shall continue to try and help you recover your brain,
ReplyDeleteNOAA Caught Lying About Arctic Sea Ice | Principia Scientific International
The Arctic is melting catastrophically! Sea ice levels are experiencing their most precipitous decline in 1500 years! Something must be done – and fast…
Well, so claims the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and we know by now what that means, don’t we? Yep: the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. Yep: yet again, the NOAA is telling porkies.
As usual, Paul Homewood has got its number.
Do you have a link to Paul Homewood's credentials (education, employment etc). A quick Google search yielded me nothing informative, but you may have access to more information.
DeleteAnd a quick reminder in case you're new to TYWKIWDBI. I have no problem with readers arguing among themselves (or with me), but any "ad hominem" attacks (insults, disses, name-calling) of the other readers generally will result in my deleting the Comment.
You seem completely obsessed with this one Vox article that has nothing to do with the subject of this post.
DeleteBut fine, since you can't stay on subject, let's see what you've got here. A blog post written by a Daily Mail journalist? Impressive. Anyway, we're talking science here, so that's insignificant. What matters is the content.
Ah... there seems to be none. A chart showing a clear 30-year continuous downward trend in arctic sea ice extent, confusingly titled "Sea ice in the Arctic is recovering after a period of decline". Okay. How convincing.
Then a couple of cherry-picked samples showing slightly thicker sea ice cover in 2017 compared to 2008, completely ignoring the overall trend shown in this video? Yeah... still not convinced.
The prompt to "read more at Breitbart" is the best part. You know, that pinnacle of impartial scientific literature, Breitbart.
Whether or not you believe in the changing climate by human hand, you have to say it would be at least prudent to air on the side of caution and switch to renewable clean energy just in case.. in the off chance.. that humans (in their infallible brilliantness) might actually be responsible for current trends in climate? By producing roughly 40 billion metric tons of carbon *per year* for the last 20 years (the number gradually rising to that amount since the Industrial revolution and before) we may have made an impact! (but we did, we definitely did)
ReplyDelete