I thought the arctic was melting?

As usual you fail to post the link to your tiny chart.

What I posted are actual sea ice values as measured, it is from NASA/NSIDC databases, YOU posted an Anomaly chart, which is a departure from a baseline average. It is a common misleading warmist/alarmist way to make it look more terrible, a badly abused statistical method.

Here is the chart you are trying hard to deny that it exist:



In all but ONE year since 2007 has stayed between 4 and 5 Million km2 low point in September. The 2012 low point was caused by a massive Arctic storm that greatly impacted the ice. This means the decline has stopped since 2007, 13 year running now.

MASIE shows a stable if low sea ice values for the last 13 plus years, it is obvious by this chart:



You really have NO case here...., you are one of the remaining warmist/alarmists who continue to fight this reality, many have capitulated after being shown the hard evidence of the charts placed in front of them, they can see the decline has stopped years ago.

 

The scale just differs by a constant, so they're showing the same thing. This isn't a debate. You're just wrong. 2020 had less Arctic sea ice than 2007.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/202009

Yes, yes, your "deception by compressing the scale" technique, combined with "deception by cherrypicking the endpoints"

Again, this is not a debate. 2020 was lower than 2007. You could have been excused out of ignorance of the recent data before, but since you've now seen the 2020 data, you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty.

Given how much practice in goalpost moving deniers have,why don't you just switch from "The decline has stopped since 2007, 13 year running now" to "The decline has stopped since 2012, 8 years running now."? It's almost as good of a deceptive talking point, and it doesn't destroy your credibility with outright lying.

 

No, you claimed you did, but you didn't. Neither one of your images showed anything resembling a peak in 1979,.Your own data debunked you. If you'd like to post them again, I'd be pleased to highlight your ineptness at basic graph reading. And I'm being kind by assuming it was just ineptness.

Just what upsets you so much about this? There's a partial overlap in the measurement time frames. That lets us measure how the different measurement types differ when measuring the same thing. Using that, we can homegenize the older data, turning things from apples-vs-oranges to apples-vs-apples.

It's only done with ... oh, every type of overlapping data from differing instruments, in every field of science. But you don't like it. As usual, science is all wrong, because you feel it is.

 

Yes, of course I did. Then you saw the data I posted showed I was right, so you claimed I didn't post it. So now you are claiming it doesn't show what it plainly does show, a peak in 1979:

No, that claim is false. Readers are invited to peruse the above graph and verify that mamooth is baldly claiming that it does not show what it very plainly does show. mamooth demands that you, gentle readers, believe him and the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria narrative, and not your own lying eyes.

The relevant graph is reposted above. Speaking of incompetence in basic graph reading, the other one only goes to 1976.

It's a typical dishonest data treatment methodology used to exaggerate a trend.

No it doesn't. All it does is pretend two different types of data are comparable.

Like Lyin' Michael Mann did when he invalidly commingled proxy data with instrumental data in the infamous hockey stock graph...?

Garbage.

That is false, absurd, and disingenuous garbage.

 

1. You never read the article I provided as indicated by your response.
2. You feel a need to be rude and personal when you respond.
3. You referred to phenomena that does not address the issue you claim to advance and I responded to.

Kind of sad you feel the need to get snotty. It's ok man. Not everyone is Shaq O'Neil.

Yah I know you do not get it. Here this will explain it:

Zippity doo dah zippity day
Yah that ice is meltin every day
You can hiss and spit and get yer face all red
But you silly ass yer already dead
And by the way every time you share that tune
You just emit a methane fume
So of course people tell you they object
So stop eating beans and change your diet
or how about you just be quiet
you take yerself way too serious
All you are is a tad delirious
You weren't born to be a dancer
But yer a step away from some kind of cancer
You got no clue how to debate
But you really should go check yer prostate

Regards
Dennis Rodman
Charles Barkley
Charles Oakley
Charles Windsor

 

No, it clearly doesn't, because you just snipped out a tiny portion of the bigger picture. Your little graph there fits perfectly in the shaded portion of the bigger graph, which demonstrates the opposite of what you claim.



So, a cherrypicking fallacy on your part. And even after the fallacy is demonstrated, you continue to use it, indiciating deliberate dishonesty on your part.

 

??? What?? No, your claim is objectively false. The graph I posted showed MORE of the satellite arctic sea ice data than the one you posted that started in 1979, because it includes the earliest satellite data, not just the post-1978 data. That is just an indisputable fact of objective physical reality.

No; as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, in simple, grammatical English, your "bigger" graph invalidly commingles different data types, and then mischaracterizes them using standard deviation from a fixed mean, which is not appropriate for trended data. Standard deviation is only valid as a way to characterize data dispersion, not trends.

No, it was a refutation of YOUR cherry-picking fallacy that falsely and disingenuously pretended the satellite record began in 1979.

You did not demonstrate a fallacy, you repeated and compounded one: inappropriate and slanted data presentation methodology.

 

1) I read your article, it is why I mocked them for not mentioning life is expanding there, BECAUSE there is less summer ice cover up there. I posted a chart from YOUR link you idiotically say I didn't read, here is the chart again:



Even made a comment on it, from post 172 : "As for that link you posted, I have seen that for years and years already, and seen this type of chart many times, which actually bolsters my 13 year trend argument, thank you."

I don't think you read much or any of YOUR link, you didn't seem to recognize the small sea ice chart I quoted.

Gave you several examples, of life increasing in the Arctic region you ignored them.


2) You are the one who isn't debating honestly, exposed your hypocrisy. You ignore my sources and the charts I posted, then YOU whine when I make a response about your sources. That is shameful of you!

3) Nothing of substance here from YOU.

The rest of your post is so idiotic, and hostile too, not going to respond to it.

Cheers

 

No because it is not a full year of sea ice data, DUH! but you are ignoring the fact that 2012 year is by far the lowest point anyway.

YOUR chart makes that clear!

You have serious selective ocular fantasies.

LOL

 

Sun nothing in what you responded to is of interest to me at this point. Further the only thing being mocked by many is your clumsy attempt to misrepresent through absurd reinterpretation the information you were provided capped off by your need to try sound snarky. Lol.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/sea-level-rise-climate-change-132106400.html

https://dailyreckoning.com/the-arctic-is-melting/

https://jameshollway.com/post/stocker/


The latest above. Sunny attack!

 

Oy someone tell Sunny his views were repudiated 4 years ago.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...an-before-but-theres-a-catch/?sh=9ff1bbd1ef4a

 

Here is what YOU didn't read:

Climate realists have been talking about this for years already, you are ignorant.

NO one is denying that Climate changes, not deny6ing that it has been warming, it is the common Red Herring phrases only propagandists would make, meanwhile Sea Ice stopped declining even by the chart YOU didn't see from your link:



Again more evidence that the decline stopped after 2007, your willful blindness of this fact is hilarious!

Highly misleading and ZERO evidence provided.

Yes it has been warming up there, but it is STILL well below freezing for 95% of the year.

======

Meanwhile you keep ignoring this statement over and over:

Meanwhile you never show that no Summer sea ice is bad for the region or the world anyway.

You also keep ignoring these too:

Polar Bears/Seal populations are healthy and life is INCREASING in the Arctic basin due the increase in warmer water inflow, and less summer ice cover.

From post 139

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

======

Life is returning and increasing in the arctic region.

 

Here is what YOU didn't read:

Climate realists have been talking about this for years already, you are ignorant.

NO one is denying that Climate changes, not denying that it has been warming, it is the common Red Herring phrases only propagandists would make, meanwhile Sea Ice stopped declining even by the chart YOU didn't see from your link:



Again more evidence that the decline stopped after 2007, your willful blindness of this fact is hilarious!

Highly misleading and ZERO evidence provided.

Yes it has been warming up there, but it is STILL well below freezing for 95% of the year.

 

First link, is the usual oh it worse than originally thought! It is the usual we must worry a lot more over this story than is really needed. You and other warmist/alarmists keeps ignoring my statement:

Meanwhile you never show that no Summer sea ice is bad for the region or the world anyway.

Polar Bears are currently doing very well up there...., life is increasing there and animals previously there are returning after long absence, why do you keep ignoring these realities?


Second Link, It is obvious you didn't look past the headline since it an attack on YOU and your climate fearmongers. You make a fool of yourself on this one....., LOL


Third Link, is mostly about security in the region, ZERO science found in the article.


Your scholarship is very low indeed, you don't even read the links YOU post, just the headlines, which indicate you are a victim of climate propaganda.

 

Yawn, just empty drivel.....

Zzzzz.....

======

In reply to this profoundly dishonest claim:

LINK

Here is something YOU never seen before:



The warming is mostly in the cooler parts of the year, which are still well below freezing.
From HERE

 

And given the MASSIE graph, 2020 also had more ice than 2007. Why try to extrapolate a cherry pick? You don't seem to be beyond the same goal post shifting either. I mean, you have history here.

 

He used the Anomaly chart, hilariously thinking that would somehow refute a NOAA/NSIDC database generated chart.

 

The article was from two years ago, not four, and you apparently didn't read it. The final paragraph says:
"This is another example of how Earth's systems work to counterbalance and mitigate changes in some systems, much like the three branches of the US government."

This is the crucial point. Hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda ignores the natural negative feedback mechanisms that maintain and restore equilibrium.

Does arctic sea ice freeze back faster than normal in the winter after melting more than normal in the summer? Yes. As is normal with any excursion from equilibrium.

Has the earth naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years? Yes. As is normal with any excursion from equilibrium.

Does increased atmospheric CO2 increase the infrared emission altitude and temperature to maintain the earth's thermal equilibrium without measurably heating the earth's surface? Yes. As is normal with any excursion from equilibrium.

 

Study suggests great earthquakes as cause of Arctic warming
13 hours ago

Charles Rotter

MOSCOW INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY Research News A researcher from MIPT has proposed a new explanation for the Arctic’s rapid warming. In his recent paper in Geosciences, he suggests that…

 

So, exactly like the models predicted.

And it's why there's less freezing in the winter.

 

Nah, that's just technobabble crap you made up. It's quite normal to combine datasets from two different instruments by using the overlap period to calibrate one agains hte other. That's all that was done.

This is reality. You can't deal with it, because it shows your "1979 was a peak!" big lie is a big fraud.



And your little graph is just a subset of that.

So, you're guilty of both blatant cherrypicking and deliberate data denial. I guess that's what it takes to keep your fraud going. It's good to be on the reality-based team. We just have to point to the data to win, so we never have to resort to your kind of sleaze.

Again, this isn't a debate. 2020 was lower than 2007. If you want to keep howling at the moon, feel free, but nobody is paying attention.

 

The MAISIE graph shows a red line averge that has a definite slight downward slope. That means a declining trend. Are you going to lie openly about that as well? Are you going to keep demanding that everyone believe you over our lying eyes?

 

No, the models predicted the earth would be much warmer by now. They have merely been altered retroactively to match the data, which have been altered retroactively to match the CAGW theory.

Yes, there is less freezing than when winter was colder. So, are you saying that any warming relative to the coldest point in the temperature record is something to be alarmed about? Why is it only alarming when climate becomes warmer, and not when it becomes colder?