I thought the arctic was melting?

My chart starts in 1979 and is easily found on a dozen different sites. It puts your tiny upturn into its true proportion.
As I have said a common ruse of deniers is to pick a tiny anomaly and present it out of context.

No idea what you are on about.

The sneering is well deserved to someone who claims all the worlds dedicated scientists are bought.

The reason it is called climate change is because the climate will change. The worlds humans have developed their countries and where they live based on how that climate has been for hundreds of thousands of years. For instance: We don't have heavy snow in the UK so our house roofs are not built to take that weight.
The melting of the arctic ice sheets is pouring cold fresh water into the oceans, this water is heavier than salt water and is altering the way the ocean currents behave. changing the weather around the routes of those currents.

Further the melting is also an indication of the warming that we see in all areas of the world, that warming in the Pacific is causing some of the biggest storms in recorded history. The amount of water vapour the oceans push into the atmosphere is dependent on their surface temperature.
So my question to you is, which is more expensive,
Reducing Co2 emissions to stop climate change
Or
Changing the buildings and infrastructure of our countries to cope with that change.

 

Ha ha ha, I see you still fail to post the link to that chart that ends in 2017.....


Meanwhile you and him ignored post 116, showing THIS chart from the NOAA/NSIDC data (link supplied)



It covers ALL the Satellite years, again it clearly shows the decline stopped 2007.Why don't you stop making lies about my two charts, the MASIE chart started in 2006 for a reason that zooms over your head, here is why I started in 2006, it is to show the decline stopped and flatlines for 13 full years.

Your inability to address a simple statement exposes makes clear you can NOT answer it cogently at all:

"Meanwhile I have yet to see evidence that no summer sea ice in the arctic is bad anyway."

This statement is too hard for you to answer.

No one here disputes climate changes, you and other warmist/alarmists seems to think this some new concept to repeat over and over, it is actually a sign of scientific illiteracy.

 

No it doesn't, because 1979 was the modern cyclical peak of arctic sea ice.

As I have pointed out, the most common ruse employed in hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is to cherry-pick the up-phase or down-phase of a natural climate cycle, and claim it is a one-way trend caused by CO2.

That is another baldly false claim. Only a relative handful of anti-fossil-fuel screamers and their editor friends at the climate journals need to be bought.

No. It is called climate change to create a false impression that if we would just stop using fossil fuels, the climate would stop changing.

That is absurd, anti-scientific nonsense contrary to all known facts. It is known that the global climate was very much colder until ~12Kya, and has since then been both warmer and colder than it is now.

Such structures are only built to last a few to several decades, not hundreds of thousands of years, duh.

As it has to do for the hydrological cycle to proceed. You just don't know enough high-school science to understand that.

No it isn't. You again prove your total lack of scientific knowledge.

None of which has anything to do with CO2.

Yes, the earth has naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

That is not an option. We cannot, repeat, CANNOT stop the earth's climate from changing. We could reduce CO2 emissions to zero, and climate would continue to change, as it always has.

As we do not actually know how climate is going to change in the future, that is much the more sensible plan.

 

I'm sorry but I will walk away at this point. I am happy that your opinion is that of a tiny minority. That you question if the Arctic ice melt is even a bad thing without bothering to read up about what such a change might mean demonstrates how bias your research is, looking only for things that support that bias.

 

T

Translation: I can't carry on a science based conversation, rather attack the person instead since that is all I can do.

It is clear you have nothing in the way of an argument to offer.

Take care.

 

It is too hard for warmist/alarmists to answer a simple statement, they get emotional instead, attacking the person with irrelevant babble.

"Meanwhile I have yet to see evidence that no summer sea ice in the arctic is bad anyway"

======

Meanwhile ignorant warmist/alarmists doesn't know that early in the Holocene, there have been long stretches of time with little to ZERO summer sea ice in the Arctic, the last time it happened was during the Medieval warm period.

Polar Bears, Seals, Inuit's and the world itself are still here and well.

 

If you say so. I have been on enough forums to recognise baiting when I see it.

 

I will address this simplistic point.
1, I have addressed your question, though I would have thought you might have looked up the answer yourself.
2, The early Holocene is irrelevant to today, for the conditions that caused it do not exist today. Perhaps instead of claiming superior knowledge you might find out what caused the early Holocene sea level rise and melt.

 

well said!

 

Utter crap. Try adding ice cubes from a tray and see your glass overflow.
Melting ice floating in the sea does not increase its volume, but run off from melting ice on land does.

 

Is it baiting to correctly say you are avoiding debate and avoid providing pertinent information, even when the other person does post science information, you avoid the kind in return and WITHOUT a source link.

 

I already know the answer to the statement you keep ducking because YOU can't address it:

"Meanwhile I have yet to see evidence that no summer sea ice in the arctic is bad anyway"

Still waiting

waiting,
waiting,

still waiting.....

I know because when it happened for 100's of years at a time, early in the Holocene up to the Medieval warm period. nothing bad happened THEN, that is WHY you can't address it, because nothing bad is happening NOW!

Sea life is increasing in the Arctic region, BECAUSE there is less sea ice cover in the summer and because the water warmed up a little..

Already long known about the 400 feet rise in the sea level since the end of the last glaciation phase.

Then YOU do admit there was little to ZERO summer sea ice in the Arctic, earlier in the Holocene, which covered around a 6,000 year period, thank you.

 

What an embarrassing statement you make, since the topic of THIS thread is.......:,

I thought the arctic was melting?

Here is the quote YOU badly misread:

bringiton writes,

"Melting sea ice cannot raise sea level any more than melting ice cubes in a glass of water can make the glass fuller."

red my bolding

You had replied with this dishonest reply:

"Try adding ice cubes from a tray and see your glass overflow."

Not even close to what bringiton was saying.

=====

From POST ONE:

"I keep hearing from the AGW loons that the arctic is ice free and melting fast which is raising ocean levels world wide. That claim doesn't seem to jive with reality. Why does Russia and China need all these ice breakers if the arctic is so devoid of ice?

President Trump, in a recent memo, asked executive departments to report back by early August on how they can develop a U.S. "fleet" of icebreaking ships to navigate the frozen Arctic and Antarctic -- marking yet another step in the administration's efforts to strengthen U.S. influence in the region as it faces challenges from Russia and China"


"Russia, meanwhile, has dozens of icebreakers, including several that are nuclear powered, multiple large icebreakers and what can legitimately be called a fleet of medium icebreakers. China has a handful of medium icebreakers and is angling for new ones as well.

"We really don't have the ability to project the presence we need to project in both the Arctic and the Antarctic," Vice Adm. Scott Buschman, the Coast Guard's deputy commandant for operations, told Fox News of U.S. capabilities with just the Polar Star and the Healy. Buschman's rank is the equivalent of a three-star general.

"We do need additional polar icebreakers to do what we need to do both in the Antarctic and the Arctic at the high latitudes. In the past they used the term... 'six, three, one.' We need six icebreakers, at least three of which are heavy icebreakers. And we need one now."


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-us-arctic-russia-china

bolding mine

===

He is clearly talking about Arctic SEA ice.....

Stop being dishonest!

 

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

 

The arctic has melted before, many times. So? It won't melt this time, as we are near the Holocene maximum temperature, and there is no sign that the arctic is going to melt.

 

Fact.

Arctic sea ice is already in the glass.

No it doesn't, unless the runoff exceeds the evaporation that is followed by precipitation, melting and runoff. If ice did not melt and run off, it would pile up, and we would have another Ice Age. Google "hydrological cycle" and start reading.

 

Already on the list.

Not a climate scientist.

That didn't say the Arctic ice would vanish by now.

So, you're still stuck at three. You can't demonstrate any consensus that the arctic was supposed to have melted by now.

You just whined at me you never claimed there was a consensus, yet here you are faking stories of such a consensus. If you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't keep getting tangled up like that.

The actual science was damn good. Honestly admitting that is not an option for deniers, which forces them to lie about it.

 

Your fraudulent claim there has been laughed out of this forum before.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-arctic-was-melting.576386/#post-1072045088

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ted-and-stupid.566102/page-15#post-1071590258

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



https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites



Now, do what you're always forced to do when confronted with hard data. Make up a story that it all has to be fake because you don't like it.

 

This never gets old ....

 

It was stupid anti-scientific trash the first time, and it has continued to be stupid anti-scientific trash each subsequent time.

 

So you have to resort to changing the subject from the Holocene to the early Holocene. Inevitably.

That is a claim without evidence.

I was talking about the entire Holocene, especially the Holocene Optimum, not just the early Holocene. You had to change the subject because the Holocene Optimum proves you wrong.

 

That is a bald falsehood:

So, no support for your claim.

Your graphs are inconsistent with both the early satellite data:



And Vinnikov's 1980 data:


Why do they not show any data before 1953? In particular, why do they not show data from the rapid warming period 1910-1940, and only start from the cooling phase 1940-1970?

 

How can you argue with someone like Bringiton. When there is such a disconnect in their thinking.
To state that pouring fresh cold water into the oceans will not cause them to rise so long as atmospheric evaporation also increases,
without considering the effects of that and with no apparent knowledge of the other effects involved.
Then to argue, no bad came from the ice melt in the Holocene period. How on earth does that relate to the planet today.

Its all smoke and mirrors.

 

I feel your pain.

Just pointing out that ice melting and flowing into the sea is just part of a cycle as old as the earth.

Same planet. Same people. Same climate, and for the same reasons. Not rocket science.

 

Gee you fail to learn that "fresh cold water into the oceans" have been occurring for a long time, it is a common process seen every Summer in the arctic that has been long observed, thus your worry is unfounded.