Global Warming

[local]

I think it's fair to still test the science relentlessly as there are still some anomalys about even then I am still on the side of Humans impacts on our earth and see no good reason for not cleaning up our act.


Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.


the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-...arctic-sea-ice

Some good science is still being done on this and other events which is as it should be.

It could be as simple as why lumps of ice persist long after the cold weather spell has been and gone.

[Toodles McGinty]

I think 'global warming' is only part of the general climate change.

Which is why when we get sodden ground and floods, someone always pipes up with 'what happened to global warming?' as though it meant we were to be basking in non-stop sunshine year round.

Not that simple.

[donkey22]

I think it's fair to still test the science relentlessly as there are still some anomalys about even then I am still on the side of Humans impacts on our earth and see no good reason for not cleaning up our act.


Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.


the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-...arctic-sea-ice

Some good science is still being done on this and other events which is as it should be.

It could be as simple as why lumps of ice persist long after the cold weather spell has been and gone.

Something a little more up to date.

The year 2023 stands out as the warmest year on record globally, accompanied by the highest recorded ocean temperatures. Amidst these extreme and unusual climatic conditions, Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE), after breaking the second consecutive satellite-recorded low in February 2023, failed to recover at an average rate in the autumn and winter months.
Instead, sea ice coverage has persistently set new monthly record lows for six consecutive months starting from May. On July 6, 2023, the Antarctic SIE anomaly reached an unprecedented -2.809 million square kilometers, nearly equivalent to the entire land area of Argentina.
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-deep-a...ce-trends.html

[local]

40 year study as against 6 months leaves room for more study and certainly isn't conclusive either way.

Always be wary of consensus in science I was told, people stop looking.

Gaining funding to challenge this global warming consensus is not helpful if only to approach the effects from a different angle.

[The PNP]

40 year study as against 6 months leaves room for more study and certainly isn't conclusive either way.

Always be wary of consensus in science I was told, people stop looking.

Gaining funding to challenge this global warming consensus is not helpful if only to approach the effects from a different angle.

Maybe ask a polar-bear who can't find an ice-floe to climb on, or a Canadian first-nationer, whose house is sinking due rapid permafrost melt?

[said]

Looking forward to seeing your ‘scientific facts’ that show we aren’t in fact experiencing global warming after all, preferably something peer reviewed.
Please do, I’m in need of a good laugh.
Crank.

Ok! Ok! I am now convinced! An American TV host has said that the lunar eclipse is due to Global Warming. What more evidence do you need?

Heaven help the future generations!

[local]

Thats not accurately reported .

[Snig's foot]

I think it's fair to still test the science relentlessly as there are still some anomalys about even then I am still on the side of Humans impacts on our earth and see no good reason for not cleaning up our act.


Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.


the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-...arctic-sea-ice

Some good science is still being done on this and other events which is as it should be.

It could be as simple as why lumps of ice persist long after the cold weather spell has been and gone.

I was interested in your link to an article on the AGU website (AGU being the American Geophysical Union, which has been going since 1919). It's a remarkably sloppy article. The headline states that 'antarctic sea ice....has increased in extent over the last 40 years'; in their first paragraph they say that 'The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice. http://www.climate.gov/news-features...sea-ice-extent
The hyperlink at the end of the paragraph links to an article from the NOAA website (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), this article says 'More so than the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice extents are extremely variable, both seasonally and from year to year. In the past decade there have been record and near-record high extents, as well as record and near-record lows. The overall long-term trend (since 1979) is nearly flat.' It also says 'The past 8 years have brought below-average summer minimums—the longest such streak in the satellite record. However, because of the extreme natural variability in Antarctic summer extent, the long-term trend is not statistically significant, and it’s too soon to tell whether the recent low extents mark the beginning of a significant decline.'
The original article gives no other source for their interpretation that sea ice is increasing other than the three studies that they refer to about modelling of factors affecting sea ice extent (including their own model). These studies are brought together in figure 1 of the article which refers to the studies analysing the data for the years 1992-2015, the three data points in the first column (observations) are presumably derived from the three studies.
This concentration on the period 1992-2015 is consistent with a concern that climate scientists had about increasing extent of sea ice in the antarctic over this period. The climate models that were being used to predict climate change had predicted a significant reduction in sea ice in the arctic (which has occurred) and some reduction in antarctica, which has not (land ice in antarctic has reduced significantly) http://www.nature.com/articles/547275a

If the original article had said that sea ice in antarctica had significantly increased over the period 1992-2015 then it would be correct. Saying that it has increased from 1979 to date is incorrect.

[The PNP]

Sea-ice in itself doesn't make a difference to sealevel rise, since it's already floating in the sea. Far more concerning, is the ice locked-up in huge glaciers, like the Thwaites Glacier. Known as the 'Doomsday Glacier', should it fail, we'll have the sea submerge Southport.

[Alikado]

Maybe ask a polar-bear who can't find an ice-floe to climb on, or a Canadian first-nationer, whose house is sinking due rapid permafrost melt?

Might be hard pressed to ask a polar bear about the Antarctic ice.

[The PNP]

Might be hard pressed to ask a polar bear about the Antarctic ice.

Fair point, though one or two pengies might have something to say on the subject.

[Snig's foot]

Sea-ice in itself doesn't make a difference to sealevel rise, since it's already floating in the sea. Far more concerning, is the ice locked-up in huge glaciers, like the Thwaites Glacier. Known as the 'Doomsday Glacier', should it fail, we'll have the sea submerge Southport.

In fact, it does.
When sea ice melts it causes a rise in level...as this article shows http://academic.oup.com/gji/article/170/1/145/2019346

Even 'experts' in the field get this wrong (as the authors discuss).

[bensherman]

What gets me in this perennial debate is the people who tell us how such climatic shift has happened in the past, and it was not terminal then.

This overlooks entirely the fact that in previous millenia, the population of earth was a fraction of what it is now. People were nomadic hunter-gatherers. If a territory became unproductive, they could move to somewhere better. And despite that, it probably WAS terminal for some.

Today we have ( is it?) nine billion people, bound into fixed communities and incredibly complex economic, social and political structures. Substantial climatic change would undermine much of that, as agriculture, mineral extraction, manufacturing and a host of other industries would cease to be viable where they exist now.

People who have lived by -and made their living from the sea- hundreds of millions of them- would have to retreat only to meet others desperate to move away from places where they could no longer find food water or shelter.

The consequences would be immense. Not just from the failure of our sources of life, but from the struggles that would emanate from people fighting for reducing viable areas of occupation.

It's not just what the climate would do to us. It's what we would do to each other as a result.

[The PNP]

The consequences would be immense. Not just from the failure of our sources of life, but from the struggles that would emanate from people fighting for reducing viable areas of occupation.

It's not just what the climate would do to us. It's what we would do to each other as a result.

Doesn't bear thinking about....If we keep on living our current lifestyles and do nothing about it, eventually all the ice will melt. Of course for that to happen, it will likely take several hundred years. However, the new sealevel would settle at around 70metres above present-day levels.

[duncet]

Of course, we only ever hear one side of the debate because the media never feature the alternative view. That is why 90% of people, even if they disagree with the climate propaganda, are afraid to voice their scepticism for fear of being shouted down.
Try Googling - Climate: The Movie - on YouTube and you will be able to access a rare and refreshing rebuttal of that incredibly powerful climate change conspiracy.