David Turver (Eigen Values) has a very good post summarising the current state of the ‘global boiling’ agenda: He concludes: It is clear that all of the pillars that support the Net Zero agenda are crumbling. Yes, we have seen some warming of global temperatures, but these are likely exaggerated. Yes, CO
The the article you link to to support your seven assertions itself asserted that arctic sea ice Loss has been flat since 2007 and linked to an article with the following conclusions:
The September 2022 ice extent was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tied with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record. That's 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) smaller than the 1981-2010 average—an area larger than Alaska.
The smallest daily extent occurred on September 18, when the total ice extent bottomed out for the summer at 4.67 million square kilometers (1.8 million square miles).
Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice cover at the end of summer shrank by 13.0 percent per decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.
That's a loss of 31,100 square miles—an area the size of South Carolina—per year.
The ice that survives year-round is thinner and more fragile than it used to be. Old, thick ice made up a third of the Arctic Ocean ice pack at the winter maximum in March 1985. In March 2020, it accounted for less than 5%.
But I guess that counts as no loss of sea ice.
By the way, if global warming caused by carbon combustion is not the cause of arctic sea ice loss then please present evidence that some unrelated dynamic is causing arctic sea ice loss as dramatically and catastrophically as the above summary, that your favorite article links to.
Heavy ice forces new Russian icebreaker on long southerly voyage.
But please don't read this. You don't have the intellectual honesty, such as Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize, the 2010 winner of the Wolf Prize in physics (second most prestigious after the Nobel in science; subsequently he has won two others) and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, who blasted the fake “climate emergency” and said it was a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.” Clauser also called AGW a “pseudo-sceince” – and them promptly had his IMF talk abruptly cancelled. Clauser stated “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.” Clauser was recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, along with two others, for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. He also said “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Here is Clauser’s talk 2023 talk in South Korea soon after his election to the CO2 Coalition's board of directors. "I believe that climate change is not a crisis," Mr. Clauser told the audience at Quantum Korea 2023.He also described the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation."
Sorry. I believe arguably the top physicist in the world alive today rather than some ClimateGate type shill like you
Not that you would have the intellectual or scientific honesty, but of course your data starts from ~ 1970s or so.
Really? You call yourself a scientist?
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, and whose house my wife used to walk by regularly as a kid in Port Hope, ON., wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”. [11]
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity (see below). Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today.
Yet, in the 1100s, Greenland cooled dramatically, briefly stabilized, and then dropped even further in the 1200s to the early 1400s. Sirocko (2010) places the earlier event at the beginning of the 1310’s, while a more commonly accepted time frame for the first cold phase is the coinciding solar minimum called Wolf minimum from 1280-1350. There were repeated cold snaps and advancing glaciers and sea ice from that time onward, but it was not until the early 1600’s that the most devastating effects of the Little Ice Age began to set in, which is the more commonly used date for its beginning. As Dale Mackenzie Brown writes “An ice core drilled from the island's (Greenland’s) massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.” But the recent recovery in temperatures is only putting us back to the average temps from an earlier age!
Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat'l Park a few years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park - that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself. More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can't grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “
Even the lead global warmer at “AGW Central” East Anglia Univ., in the UK, fraud Phil Jones, before he was outed during the ClimateGate revelations, was forced to admit to the BBC that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was real.
But hey! I DO hope your anti-science funders that paid you to come here are providing a few bucks from their Blackheart/rock sponsors
Have you noticed that Nut Zero is on the skids in the UK, all over the EU and rapidly becoming so in the USA too?
Have you admired the graphs in the David Turver article Jaime linked, graphic evidence of how to create an AGW hoax by fraudulently altering the data and hoping no-one notices?
How about that graph of temperature deaths in the once-prestigious Lancet?
Can't you understand how you've been conned into making a complete fool of yourself?
Much as you would like to BELIEVE that man-made GHGs are driving all observed changes in weather, climate, the cryosphere and the oceans, this is not the case. Natural variability happens and is often a significant, if not dominant driver of observed changes:
"This study suggests that variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) can drive multidecadal climate variability over the Northern Hemisphere, including rapid Arctic sea ice loss and multidecadal changes in Atlantic tropical storm activity.
NAO is related to the strength of the westerly winds in the subpolar North Atlantic. An increase in the NAO from the 1970s to the 1990s leads to enhanced poleward oceanic heat transport in the North Atlantic, extending into the Arctic.
This contributes to a rapid reduction of Arctic sea ice, especially in winter, and an increase in both hemispheric surface air temperature and Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.
These changes driven by the NAO are in addition to the very substantial influence of anthropogenic forcing, illustrating the roles of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing in explaining observed climate change."
I’m not sure how your response is relevant to my comment. You assert that there are few if any climate extremes occurring and point to an article that claims that sea ice loss has been flat for 15 years which links to an article that refutes that very claim. Please explain.
And even the article you link to above acknowledges. “ the very substantial influence of anthropogenic forcing.” Which again refutes your primary assertions, concerning the reality of global warming, and the substantial influence of humanity in generating this warming.
You also spend so much time, cherry picking predictions made by various and sundry people, while completely ignoring that the science has been remarkably accurate in projecting the increase in average temperatures. Why do you not highlight the fact that Climate models from several decades ago have been remarkably accurate in predicting the average global temperatures existing today on the planet? I guess the answer is obvious - because it would refute a core argument of yours.
"By the way, if global warming caused by carbon combustion is not the cause of arctic sea ice loss then please present evidence that some unrelated dynamic is causing arctic sea ice loss as dramatically and catastrophically as the above summary, that your favorite article links to."
I presented you with evidence which demonstrates that NAO is a significant, maybe even dominant driver of Arctic sea ice decline in the modern era and you come back at me and say:
"I’m not sure how your response is relevant to my comment."
Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really that dumb?
I was asking you to explain how you can defend and praise an article that claimed that sea ice loss was flat for 15 years, which in turn linked to an article whose summary indicated a dramatic loss of sea ice in the past 15 years. This is the third time I have asked that question.
You picked out one short factual comment from David Turver (there has been no trend in sea ice minima since 2007 - which his link clearly demonstrates) and tried to twist this as a statement claiming that sea ice has not declined since measurements began in 1979. Thus you cast doubt upon his entire long article. You then suggested that I myself must be guilty of such deception by proxy, since I praised Turver's article. Such tactics are not worthy of a response.
You then went on to claim that the decline in sea-ice since 1979 was attributable in its entirety to anthropogenic GHGs and challenged me to prove otherwise, which I did, whereupon you engaged in deflection by claiming that my response was not relevant. You'll have to do much better than this I'm afraid, if you want to come on here and challenge me or my readers.
I’m glad to be informed that every country on the planet, every national scientific society, rich or poor left or right, big or small recognizes that CO2 in excess is a greenhouse gas as well as methane and other gases is an idiot.
So I will choose to follow their leader ship, whose predictions that the climate crisis would grow more severe year after year are indisputably coming true over that of a random guy on Sub-stack even as I have a great fondness for anyone who is truly a mensch.
'Every national scientific society' recognises that 'CO2 in excess' is a greenhouse gas, according to our good friend Herb. What is 'excess'? Geologically speaking, we are living in a period where atmospheric CO2 is distinctly lacking. For most of the history of life on earth, atmospheric CO2 has been well above 1000ppm, quite often in the range 4000-8000ppm, when life has thrived. 420ppm today is only just above the limit required to sustain plant and animal life (approx. 180ppm). Claiming that 420ppm is an 'excess' CO2 level is patently absurd.
LOL. Probably saying to themselves: "What's that man doing out there holding on to a litter bin in several inches of water and why's that other man filming him just feet away on the raised pavement where he's hardly getting his boots wet?"
Just look at that poor man clinging to the trash bin in fear. I suspect that the photographer, his girlfriend, ordered him to pose like that. “Go over there and pretend to hang on to that trash bin… look scared.”
.
In 6 inches of water.
.
We are crazy here in Florida, we surf in the streets in a hurricane. But only when the water is deeper than the fire hydrants.
.
Some surfers go off-shore, especially over near Daytona Beach during hurricanes and some die every year. We don’t have California level surf here in Florida, so they must jump in the cars and vans and race to the coast when the opportunity arises. Daytona Beach brings back fond memories from when I lived on that coast. I had an airplane, a Piper J5 tail-dragger that I would fly up and down the coast. During good surf weather, not in a hurricane just good surf, there were always numerous surf boards for miles up and down the coast, just off-shore waiting for that perfect wave. Under every surfboard was a shark, visible in that clear water from 500 or 1,000 feet up. Some were as large as the surfboards or larger looking up at the legs dangling in the water.
.
It was amusing to fly in lazy circles over them, waiting for a shark to grab a surfer but it never happened. When asked, they all claimed to see the sharks, they knew they were down there, but were never bothered by them.
.
So much fear porn peddled now, and the ones without fear are called crazy. You are correct to call the fear porn peddlers out and to pound them with the truth.
I watched Jaws. I'm a victim of the shark-based fear porn. So I think on balance, I'd rather surf during a hurricane when most sensible sharks are probably well out to sea in deeper water!
Good news for us Floridians, “Boiling Ocean” sounds almost Biblical and serious and I strive too never be serious… always joking.
It is 2:30 am Monday morning here in Florida with the local sunrise predicted for 6:53 am so I must finish my studies and go and greet the sunrise. I run on the beach but sometimes stop and inspect interesting flotsam and jetsam at the high tide mark with the best find recently a deceased hammerhead shark pup. She was a perfect copy of an adult hammerhead but in miniature.
I had to stop my run, go and buy a cooler and a bag of ice, so that I could take her home to autopsy.
I have a special affinity for hammerhead sharks as once when out fishing in a small boat, maybe 17-footer, I accidently hooked a hammerhead that was bigger than the boat. I cut her loose and she graciously did not eat me and I am eternally grateful for that.
I wonder, do the people who predict “boiling oceans” ever go fishing?
And remember Winston Churchill famously said “A joke is a very serious thing.”
Yes, but "it is warming" is known to be part of a long-term cycle. Treating the current phase as the total of history is an error we make in almost every subject. Media and government always catastrophize this moment to distract us.
Throughout history, the witlessness of the Deceived has been surpassed only by the skill of the Deceivers, except during brief times of revolution. What we see now is that the psychopaths in control have been so skilful in their manipulation of the masses, so wildly successful, that the masses cannot fail to notice, in hindsight, how spectacularly they have been brainwashed into compliance. Why? because reality always eventually rears its head and reality cannot be ignored, especially not the horrifying reality we are now confronted with. The difference between reality and the narrative which the world was sold so breath-takingly, audaciously and ingeniously by our malignant sociopathic overlords is now SO stark that many people are waking up from the trance they were placed in by their devilish masters. There's big trouble ahead for our elite band of controlling psychopaths.
The the article you link to to support your seven assertions itself asserted that arctic sea ice Loss has been flat since 2007 and linked to an article with the following conclusions:
The September 2022 ice extent was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tied with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record. That's 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) smaller than the 1981-2010 average—an area larger than Alaska.
The smallest daily extent occurred on September 18, when the total ice extent bottomed out for the summer at 4.67 million square kilometers (1.8 million square miles).
Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice cover at the end of summer shrank by 13.0 percent per decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.
That's a loss of 31,100 square miles—an area the size of South Carolina—per year.
The ice that survives year-round is thinner and more fragile than it used to be. Old, thick ice made up a third of the Arctic Ocean ice pack at the winter maximum in March 1985. In March 2020, it accounted for less than 5%.
But I guess that counts as no loss of sea ice.
By the way, if global warming caused by carbon combustion is not the cause of arctic sea ice loss then please present evidence that some unrelated dynamic is causing arctic sea ice loss as dramatically and catastrophically as the above summary, that your favorite article links to.
Whoopsie! https://legionmagazine.com/en/heavy-ice-forces-new-russian-icebreaker-on-long-southward-voyage/
Heavy ice forces new Russian icebreaker on long southerly voyage.
But please don't read this. You don't have the intellectual honesty, such as Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize, the 2010 winner of the Wolf Prize in physics (second most prestigious after the Nobel in science; subsequently he has won two others) and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, who blasted the fake “climate emergency” and said it was a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.” Clauser also called AGW a “pseudo-sceince” – and them promptly had his IMF talk abruptly cancelled. Clauser stated “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.” Clauser was recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, along with two others, for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. He also said “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Here is Clauser’s talk 2023 talk in South Korea soon after his election to the CO2 Coalition's board of directors. "I believe that climate change is not a crisis," Mr. Clauser told the audience at Quantum Korea 2023.He also described the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation."
Sorry. I believe arguably the top physicist in the world alive today rather than some ClimateGate type shill like you
Not that you would have the intellectual or scientific honesty, but of course your data starts from ~ 1970s or so.
Really? You call yourself a scientist?
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, and whose house my wife used to walk by regularly as a kid in Port Hope, ON., wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”. [11]
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity (see below). Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today.
Yet, in the 1100s, Greenland cooled dramatically, briefly stabilized, and then dropped even further in the 1200s to the early 1400s. Sirocko (2010) places the earlier event at the beginning of the 1310’s, while a more commonly accepted time frame for the first cold phase is the coinciding solar minimum called Wolf minimum from 1280-1350. There were repeated cold snaps and advancing glaciers and sea ice from that time onward, but it was not until the early 1600’s that the most devastating effects of the Little Ice Age began to set in, which is the more commonly used date for its beginning. As Dale Mackenzie Brown writes “An ice core drilled from the island's (Greenland’s) massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.” But the recent recovery in temperatures is only putting us back to the average temps from an earlier age!
Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat'l Park a few years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park - that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself. More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can't grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “
Even the lead global warmer at “AGW Central” East Anglia Univ., in the UK, fraud Phil Jones, before he was outed during the ClimateGate revelations, was forced to admit to the BBC that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was real.
But hey! I DO hope your anti-science funders that paid you to come here are providing a few bucks from their Blackheart/rock sponsors
Poor Herb, still flogging your dead horse?
Have you noticed that Nut Zero is on the skids in the UK, all over the EU and rapidly becoming so in the USA too?
Have you admired the graphs in the David Turver article Jaime linked, graphic evidence of how to create an AGW hoax by fraudulently altering the data and hoping no-one notices?
How about that graph of temperature deaths in the once-prestigious Lancet?
Can't you understand how you've been conned into making a complete fool of yourself?
Sad...
Much as you would like to BELIEVE that man-made GHGs are driving all observed changes in weather, climate, the cryosphere and the oceans, this is not the case. Natural variability happens and is often a significant, if not dominant driver of observed changes:
"This study suggests that variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) can drive multidecadal climate variability over the Northern Hemisphere, including rapid Arctic sea ice loss and multidecadal changes in Atlantic tropical storm activity.
NAO is related to the strength of the westerly winds in the subpolar North Atlantic. An increase in the NAO from the 1970s to the 1990s leads to enhanced poleward oceanic heat transport in the North Atlantic, extending into the Arctic.
This contributes to a rapid reduction of Arctic sea ice, especially in winter, and an increase in both hemispheric surface air temperature and Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.
These changes driven by the NAO are in addition to the very substantial influence of anthropogenic forcing, illustrating the roles of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing in explaining observed climate change."
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research_highlight/the-north-atlantic-oscillation-as-a-driving-force-for-observed-rapid-arctic-sea-ice-change-hemispheric-warming-and-atlantic-tropical-cyclone-variability/
I’m not sure how your response is relevant to my comment. You assert that there are few if any climate extremes occurring and point to an article that claims that sea ice loss has been flat for 15 years which links to an article that refutes that very claim. Please explain.
And even the article you link to above acknowledges. “ the very substantial influence of anthropogenic forcing.” Which again refutes your primary assertions, concerning the reality of global warming, and the substantial influence of humanity in generating this warming.
You also spend so much time, cherry picking predictions made by various and sundry people, while completely ignoring that the science has been remarkably accurate in projecting the increase in average temperatures. Why do you not highlight the fact that Climate models from several decades ago have been remarkably accurate in predicting the average global temperatures existing today on the planet? I guess the answer is obvious - because it would refute a core argument of yours.
You wrote:
"By the way, if global warming caused by carbon combustion is not the cause of arctic sea ice loss then please present evidence that some unrelated dynamic is causing arctic sea ice loss as dramatically and catastrophically as the above summary, that your favorite article links to."
I presented you with evidence which demonstrates that NAO is a significant, maybe even dominant driver of Arctic sea ice decline in the modern era and you come back at me and say:
"I’m not sure how your response is relevant to my comment."
Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really that dumb?
I was asking you to explain how you can defend and praise an article that claimed that sea ice loss was flat for 15 years, which in turn linked to an article whose summary indicated a dramatic loss of sea ice in the past 15 years. This is the third time I have asked that question.
You picked out one short factual comment from David Turver (there has been no trend in sea ice minima since 2007 - which his link clearly demonstrates) and tried to twist this as a statement claiming that sea ice has not declined since measurements began in 1979. Thus you cast doubt upon his entire long article. You then suggested that I myself must be guilty of such deception by proxy, since I praised Turver's article. Such tactics are not worthy of a response.
You then went on to claim that the decline in sea-ice since 1979 was attributable in its entirety to anthropogenic GHGs and challenged me to prove otherwise, which I did, whereupon you engaged in deflection by claiming that my response was not relevant. You'll have to do much better than this I'm afraid, if you want to come on here and challenge me or my readers.
I think you're wasting your bandwidth on that one, JJ!
It's drunk too much AGW Kool-Aid and is far too far down the AGW hoax rabbit hole to be able to understand how it's all coming apart at the seams.
Fun though!
I’m glad to be informed that every country on the planet, every national scientific society, rich or poor left or right, big or small recognizes that CO2 in excess is a greenhouse gas as well as methane and other gases is an idiot.
So I will choose to follow their leader ship, whose predictions that the climate crisis would grow more severe year after year are indisputably coming true over that of a random guy on Sub-stack even as I have a great fondness for anyone who is truly a mensch.
'Every national scientific society' recognises that 'CO2 in excess' is a greenhouse gas, according to our good friend Herb. What is 'excess'? Geologically speaking, we are living in a period where atmospheric CO2 is distinctly lacking. For most of the history of life on earth, atmospheric CO2 has been well above 1000ppm, quite often in the range 4000-8000ppm, when life has thrived. 420ppm today is only just above the limit required to sustain plant and animal life (approx. 180ppm). Claiming that 420ppm is an 'excess' CO2 level is patently absurd.
Those folks in the Artichoke Cafe don't seem to be too concerned.
LOL. Probably saying to themselves: "What's that man doing out there holding on to a litter bin in several inches of water and why's that other man filming him just feet away on the raised pavement where he's hardly getting his boots wet?"
Ok Jaime, one image is worth a thousand words…
.
Just look at that poor man clinging to the trash bin in fear. I suspect that the photographer, his girlfriend, ordered him to pose like that. “Go over there and pretend to hang on to that trash bin… look scared.”
.
In 6 inches of water.
.
We are crazy here in Florida, we surf in the streets in a hurricane. But only when the water is deeper than the fire hydrants.
.
Some surfers go off-shore, especially over near Daytona Beach during hurricanes and some die every year. We don’t have California level surf here in Florida, so they must jump in the cars and vans and race to the coast when the opportunity arises. Daytona Beach brings back fond memories from when I lived on that coast. I had an airplane, a Piper J5 tail-dragger that I would fly up and down the coast. During good surf weather, not in a hurricane just good surf, there were always numerous surf boards for miles up and down the coast, just off-shore waiting for that perfect wave. Under every surfboard was a shark, visible in that clear water from 500 or 1,000 feet up. Some were as large as the surfboards or larger looking up at the legs dangling in the water.
.
It was amusing to fly in lazy circles over them, waiting for a shark to grab a surfer but it never happened. When asked, they all claimed to see the sharks, they knew they were down there, but were never bothered by them.
.
So much fear porn peddled now, and the ones without fear are called crazy. You are correct to call the fear porn peddlers out and to pound them with the truth.
I watched Jaws. I'm a victim of the shark-based fear porn. So I think on balance, I'd rather surf during a hurricane when most sensible sharks are probably well out to sea in deeper water!
On a serious note, Boiling Ocean Update: Florida Sea Temperature ‘Record’ Drops 15°F in just 48 Hours https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/30/boiling-ocean-update-florida-sea-temperature-record-drops-15f-in-just-48-hours/
Good news for us Floridians, “Boiling Ocean” sounds almost Biblical and serious and I strive too never be serious… always joking.
It is 2:30 am Monday morning here in Florida with the local sunrise predicted for 6:53 am so I must finish my studies and go and greet the sunrise. I run on the beach but sometimes stop and inspect interesting flotsam and jetsam at the high tide mark with the best find recently a deceased hammerhead shark pup. She was a perfect copy of an adult hammerhead but in miniature.
I had to stop my run, go and buy a cooler and a bag of ice, so that I could take her home to autopsy.
I have a special affinity for hammerhead sharks as once when out fishing in a small boat, maybe 17-footer, I accidently hooked a hammerhead that was bigger than the boat. I cut her loose and she graciously did not eat me and I am eternally grateful for that.
I wonder, do the people who predict “boiling oceans” ever go fishing?
And remember Winston Churchill famously said “A joke is a very serious thing.”
Yes, but "it is warming" is known to be part of a long-term cycle. Treating the current phase as the total of history is an error we make in almost every subject. Media and government always catastrophize this moment to distract us.
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2010/10/hot-cold-running-science-reprint.html
They profess to believe Malthus.
Refuting Malthus: the Geopolitics of Creativity and Open Systems Explored
https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/refuting-malthus-the-geopolitics
Throughout history, the witlessness of the Deceived has been surpassed only by the skill of the Deceivers, except during brief times of revolution. What we see now is that the psychopaths in control have been so skilful in their manipulation of the masses, so wildly successful, that the masses cannot fail to notice, in hindsight, how spectacularly they have been brainwashed into compliance. Why? because reality always eventually rears its head and reality cannot be ignored, especially not the horrifying reality we are now confronted with. The difference between reality and the narrative which the world was sold so breath-takingly, audaciously and ingeniously by our malignant sociopathic overlords is now SO stark that many people are waking up from the trance they were placed in by their devilish masters. There's big trouble ahead for our elite band of controlling psychopaths.