• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea ice extent falls to new record low

Surface Detail said:
The polar ice caps just keep on shrinking, and global polar sea ice extent has reached a new satellite-era record low. This would appear to contradict repeated AGW-denier claims that a new ice age is beginning. Strange that there has been no mention of this on WUWT.

"January of 2018 began and ended with satellite-era record lows in Arctic sea ice extent, resulting in a new record low for the month. Combined with low ice extent in the Antarctic, global sea ice extent is also at a record low."

Sea ice tracking low in both hemispheres
Click to expand...

Sir, we ARE in an Ice Age, what you and others really meant is GLACIATION as opposed to Interglacial that we are in now.

Secondly this warmist infatuation about sea ice cover is a BIG tire around the neck silliness since the region was ice free or nearly so for THOUSANDS of years in the early part of the interglacial period, while CO2 was hanging around the 260-280 ppm range. Which indicate that CO2 doesn't have a visible Impact on sea ice levels.

The last time it was like this was during the MWP time.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Not sure why the fact it’s a ‘real paper’ makes it more relevant.
Click to expand...

You wrote this attack without merit:

"Well, that’s... irrelevant.

I sure hope someone is paying you to spam denier blog posts, because otherwise...it would be pretty sad."

I showed that it has nothing to do with a "denier posts" claim you irrationally made, thus your fallacy was dead on arrival.

You ignored the paper itself.

Snicker.....
 
Sunsettommy said:
You wrote this attack without merit:

"Well, that’s... irrelevant.

I sure hope someone is paying you to spam denier blog posts, because otherwise...it would be pretty sad."

I showed that it has nothing to do with a "denier posts" claim you irrationally made, thus your fallacy was dead on arrival.

You ignored the paper itself.

Snicker.....
Click to expand...

Maybe you don’t understand the definition of ‘irrelevant’?
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you don’t understand the definition of ‘irrelevant’?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant

adjective
1.
not relevant; not applicable or pertinent:
His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects.


LINK

It was clearly relevant since the papers were from journals not "denier posts". That is why I brought it up to show that they were published research.

You are at the bottom of the baloney barrel.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Irrelevant

adjective
1.
not relevant; not applicable or pertinent:
His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects.


LINK

It was clearly relevant since the papers were from journals not "denier posts". That is why I brought it up to show that they were published research.

You are at the bottom of the baloney barrel.
Click to expand...

Glad you looked it up.

Now maybe you can ponder why All journal articles may not be relevant to all arguments.

Of course, if JH bothered to explain why he thought it was relevant, that could have helped.
 
Threegoofs said:
Glad you looked it up.

Now maybe you can ponder why All journal articles may not be relevant to all arguments.

Of course, if JH bothered to explain why he thought it was relevant, that could have helped.
Click to expand...

The problem YOU have is you don't post any counterpoints to what is written, you instead post fallacies, personal attacks on authors and dead on arrival one liners.

Frankly you don't debate!

:)
 
Sunsettommy said:
The problem YOU have is you don't post any counterpoints to what is written, you instead post fallacies, personal attacks on authors and dead on arrival one liners.

Frankly you don't debate!

:)
Click to expand...

I encourage you to go to all those other forums you are on and dazzle them with your awesome debating skills and new knowledge of words like ‘irrelevant’.

See ya!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet...

36410d61fdad058819f475653563d30e.jpg


And non-denier publications have, not surprisingly, a different interpretation than your scammy blogs.

Arctic sea ice outlook at worst point in 125,000 years | Cosmos
Click to expand...

From your link:

The prognosis for summer Arctic sea-ice loss over the next few decades is worse than it was 125,000 years ago during the last interglacial period, despite the fact temperatures were higher then.
Click to expand...

Note the FUTURE tense?

:lol:

Meanwhile there are many published science papers showing that there were little to no summer ice for long periods of time in the early Holocene. which you will ignore.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Sir, we ARE in an Ice Age, what you and others really meant is GLACIATION as opposed to Interglacial that we are in now.

Secondly this warmist infatuation about sea ice cover is a BIG tire around the neck silliness since the region was ice free or nearly so for THOUSANDS of years in the early part of the interglacial period, while CO2 was hanging around the 260-280 ppm range. Which indicate that CO2 doesn't have a visible Impact on sea ice levels.

The last time it was like this was during the MWP time.
Click to expand...

I have tried several times to explain why CO2 has insignificant effects on ice, but the science of it flies way over their heads. It's mostly due to albedo changesof the ice, cause by natural and man made aerosols.
 
Sunsettommy said:
As usual Threegoofs, didn't pay attention to the source link:

Holocene dynamics in the Bering Strait inflow to the Arctic and the Beaufort Gyre circulation based on sedimentary records from the Chukchi Sea


It is a real paper posted at Climate of the Past, journal

You are pretty sad with your fallacies.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Not sure why the fact it’s a ‘real paper’ makes it more relevant.
Click to expand...

As already explained to 3G, relevance derives from geography. Chukchi Sea abuts the Bering Sea.
 
Arctic sea ice extent is greater now than at any time during the Holocene except during the Little Ice Age. [link]
 
Jack Hays said:
Arctic sea ice extent is greater now than at any time during the Holocene except during the Little Ice Age. [link]
Click to expand...

Glad to see you now are a champion of paleoclimate proxies.

Your article doesn’t say what your title says it says tho.
 
Threegoofs said:
Glad to see you now are a champion of paleoclimate proxies.

Your article doesn’t say what your title says it says tho.
Click to expand...

You'll need to review your work. That's exactly what it says.

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.”
The proxy data used to reconstruct Arctic-wide sea ice variations over the Holocene (PIP25) clearly show that modern sea ice extent has only modestly retreated relative to the heights reached during the Little Ice Age (the 17th and 18th centuries), and that the from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
You'll need to review your work. That's exactly what it says.

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.”
The proxy data used to reconstruct Arctic-wide sea ice variations over the Holocene (PIP25) clearly show that modern sea ice extent has only modestly retreated relative to the heights reached during the Little Ice Age (the 17th and 18th centuries), and that the from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today.
Click to expand...

LOL.

So to support your ‘claim’, you use a denier blog that claims it to be so?
 
Jack Hays said:
You'll need to review your work. That's exactly what it says.

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.”
The proxy data used to reconstruct Arctic-wide sea ice variations over the Holocene (PIP25) clearly show that modern sea ice extent has only modestly retreated relative to the heights reached during the Little Ice Age (the 17th and 18th centuries), and that the from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today.
Click to expand...

There are additional published papers showing similar results.

Then we have a few papers showing that there were little to no summer ice in the Arctic for a few THOUSAND years, yet Polar Bears are still here and the world didn't end......

Alarmists really do NOT pay much attention to the Holocene history of the Arctic, just last few decades is what they often drool over.
 
I just checked out the window here (about 40 floors up and safe). So far, Manhattan appears safe and not yet flooded.

Will check again periodically and let you know we are okay.

:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
The graph is from the paper.

Click to expand...

Yeah it says so right at the bottom right corner of the chart, he could easily as a "renowned reader of science papers" find the rest of THAT paper on the internet.

:doh
 

[h=1]Claim: Global Warming Causing More Icebergs[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall From the “Global Warming Causes More Snow” department comes a claim that the substantially increased risk of maritime embarrassment for scientists trying to sail to the North Pole is the result of global warming. New research documents a counterintuitive impact of global warming: sea-ice hazards to shipping Human-caused warming is…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Claim: Global Warming Causing More Icebergs[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall From the “Global Warming Causes More Snow” department comes a claim that the substantially increased risk of maritime embarrassment for scientists trying to sail to the North Pole is the result of global warming. New research documents a counterintuitive impact of global warming: sea-ice hazards to shipping Human-caused warming is…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

The IPCC reports said there would be LESS snow. more rain, freezing rain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom