Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year

That's a big ol' fallacy, your implied claim that scientists are "using the average to describe to entire global set of climate differences". Scientists study and report every climate factor in detail, on a global scale and local scale. The average is just a convenient summary, same as a batting average.

Yes, yes, you parrot denier fraud blogs. And it gets ripped apart, so you just go back and parrot something different.

Obviously, the outside world is corrupt. Only your fellow TrueBelievers know the RealTruth.

All cults say that. It often doesn't turn out well for their acolytes. I suggest you slip away into the jungle before they bring out the koolaid vat.

I'll agree there. We just disagree on who the immature one is.

Me, If I saw that the whole planet said I was wrong, I wouldn't instantly conclude that the globe was conspiring against me. I'd assume I messed up. And before I announced that the globe was conspiring against me, I'd be damn sure I knew the whole topic inside and out. That would mean looking especially hard at the critiques of my own side, and not just reading the stuff that agreed with me.

That is, I'd do the exact opposite of what the deniers do.

 

Wow. So, you're going to refute the comment by refuting the veracity of the question? Laughable. A batting average doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't predict future performance. It doesn't describe defensive contribution. So, when "scientists" on global scale, the average doesn't produce a comparable data point discussion in any way. It's a useless value. It doesn't predict short term, or long term outcomes does it? When the blowhards in the UK suggested that based on these averages, the UK would never see winter snow at all understand how myopic that prediction then was? Obviously, the fact that it's snowing prodigiously this week in the UK seems (at this late date in the year) to have demonstrably shown just how ridiculous that initial prediction was.

But hey, that ol "batting average" sure helped us, huh?

 

Sorry, I'm not understanding why the average of a set of temperature measurements over the entire global is useless? What specifically is being challenged here?

 

Do you know anything about baseball? Batting average tells you a lot about a player's past performance, and is highly correlated with future performance. It doesn't tell you everything, but it's still a very useful and very brief metric. That's why it's flashed on the the TV screen and scoreboard.

Yep. Batting average doesn't tell you everything. That doesn't mean, as you claim, that it's totally meaningless.

Quotes? That's conspiracy babbling, implying that climate scientists aren't real scientists, solely because your political group is inconvenienced by their findings. How very Lysenkoist of your party.

Because you say so? No. The situations are very similar. The global average temperature doesn't tell the whole story, but it's a very quick and useful metric to summarize the situation.

Of course it makes useful predictions. If the anomaly is up 1.0C, you know you region's average temps will probably be up by about that much.

One guy said that, and nobody agreed with it. And deniers, being a profoundly dishonest bunch, still pretend it was all scientists saying that.

Yep, it was. Trouble for you is that only one guy ever said it. Whoever told you otherwise, you should take them to task for lying to you. Or, you can drop to your knees in front of them and beg for more lies.

Why don't you go over to the sports forums and tell them that batting average has no predictive value? I'm sure they could all use the laugh.

 

The team batting average does not tell you anything about an individual hitter.

 

So here's the thing. If you have a 50% chance of being right on a coin flip and you choose wrong 100% of the time, you're still choosing the wrong choice even though you have a 50% change of being right. As a prediction, which is more accurate, that you have a 50% change or being right, or that you have a track record of being wrong 100% of the time?

 

We're not betting on a single coin flip, so that analogy is pointless.

It's more like a baseball team choosing to give a big salary to that a guy with a good batting average, on the assumption he will continue to be a good hitter. And that's usually the case.

Your position is more like giving the high salary to the .200 hitter, and releasing the .300 hitter. Yeah, it could pay off, but it's highly unlikely, and not a rational choice.

 

Averages are incredibly useful in weather and climate forecasting. Temperature is probably the best example, but it's pretty much any atmospheric, surface, or fluid property you can think of really. For example, the 30 yr climatological average is frequently referenced when making official forecasts. Using the 30 yr average beyond about 10 days lead time is almost always the best forecast even beating out persistence and trajectory techniques. Within 10 days and even more so within 7 days we usually do better by using a combination of computer models and human intuition. Even then, forecast skill is most commonly scored by comparing an official forecast against the 30 yr average. This technique is called anomaly correlation scoring. In numerical weather prediction jargon a forecast is said to be "skillful" if it beats the 30 yr average. And this doesn't even scratch surface of how averaging techniques are used. And it's at all scales, from microscale to mesoscale to synoptic scale to global scale to climate scale. So a blanket claim that an average temperature is useless is absurdly false. So, I ask again, what specifically is being challenged?

 

Thanks. You've just illustrated the fallacy. I would simply point out to you that salary in baseball isn't only determined by someone's batting average. I would also point out that aggregate batting averages don't predict success of a team. Statistically, Chicago should have destroyed Nashville in the first round of the NHL playoffs. And yet, Nashville swept Chicago in 4 straight. The "average" would have never "allowed" that outcome to occur. And yet, it did. Which opens the question to other contributory factors that overcame the average conversation.

Which is exactly why this drivel about a global temperature average is meaningless.

 

Again, the listed by you is applied to climate and weather as they were intended to be:

http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pics/KG_USA.jpg


but not to such a fake term as global climate and such a fake term as global warming.

You are trying to apply reality with real and tangible outcomes to a fake with fake outcomes.

Again, processes of warming during the day and cooling during the night as well as warming during the summer and cooling during the winter are the first reason. It would be needed to look if heat is retained since there is no experiment demonstrating that CO2 retains heat or that there are greenhouse gases. With no experiment climate science belongs to ideology, religion, cult, fake.

2nd reason is that human intuition leads to scientific consensus and does not belong to science.

3rd reason is that you cannot compare "average global" T-s with what they were a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago without going into pure shamanism which is the essence of climate science.

4th reason is that that heat content of air with 10% humidity is totally different from heat content of air with 80% humidity.

There reasons are too numerous to count, the thing is that drum beating shamans and their delusional followers cannot be reasoned.

 

According to MASIE (Multi-sensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent) database from the National Sea & Ice Data Center there has been no change to sea ice extent in the Arctic for a decade and may signal a reversal of the previous decade.

 

Frankly, I do not mind a bit if the arctic ice simply melts. It is already in the sea so no amount of melting causes sea level rise. The other end of Earth has outstanding amounts of ice.

I love it being a bit warmer. Yep, 2 degrees more by 2100 won't matter to any poster. Who thinks they will be living in 2100?
A just born person will be 83 at that time.

 

With all due respect, your first sentence is full of errors. You really should do a little research, before you write such things.

 

So full of errors you could not name even one.

I have posted plenty of actual research on this topic. And no taunts were included.

 

Why don't you provide a link for your statement - "no amount of melting causes sea level rise"? Here's one that talks about 20-23 foot sea level rise, if all the Greenland ice should melt. And that doesn't even include the Arctic, Alaska, and Northern Canada.

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/nature-climate/the-ice-cap/

"Greenland's ice sheet is melting today far more rapidly than at the turn of the millennium. Many researchers think that every year the ice is losing more mass than is being created.

If the entire ice sheet melted, the world's oceans would rise by approx. 6-7 metres (20-23 feet). Fortunately this will not happen from one day to the next.

 

I was speaking of the evidence shown earlier of the Arctic sea ice. The discussion had not drifted to Greenland.

Still, no need to worry that Greenland or the rest of the Arctic shall melt.

Not saying not ever, since we do have those magnificent great lakes due to melting ice.

 

https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/18/is-the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-dead/

But let's act all upset over melting arctic ice but do so from the scientific view.

 

It's important to note that MASIE is not designed for climate research. Their information page even explicitly warns researchers not to use it that way as it was designed for seasonal and not climate research. Plus, it's heavily "manipulated" since there is a lot of post processing required to derive the products. In fact, because it's a multi-sensor product there is a lot more post-processing or "manipulation" involved than with other datasets. I personally don't mind the post processing, but most skeptics on here will reject MASIE out-right because of that. Then again, most sea ice data requires quality control and post processing so I don't think any sea ice dataset will necessarily ring true for skeptics regardless of whether it shows a decline or not. Anyway, yes, it definitely does not show a decline in Arctic sea ice extent...at least not a lot anyway.

 

clowns ,so people that do not thank like you are clowns,you are a racist,tell me how far is a clown from a deplorable.

 

There is this myth the fossil fuel industry is against this tale of woe, aka climate change.

Yet never do we see actual proof they are anti this myth.

So what is the myth.

Not that climate does not change.
Not that we can be getting warmer.

The myth is the industry cares.

First think about that.

We are told to accept fossil fuels will get scarce in the future. It is just stupid to think the fuel industry has plans to simply quit operations. They will work hard to control all fuel of any sort or any source of power.

So why aren't they the ones building wind farms. Well one of them is.

He tried to help Obama get an understanding as well and Obama refused.

 

What has been happening on Antarctica though helps to explain why all those glaciers have
melted but we have not yet experienced significant rise in ocean levels.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ives-to-take-climate-change-seriously.348662/

HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

 

Yeah, this is a myth that should be taken with a grain of salt. It was just a couple of months ago that ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips came out in full support of the Paris climate deal even going as far as sending President Trump a letter stating just that. If Big Oil was spending big money to lobby against AGW then you would expect their responses to match.

 

I figured by this time you would show up with such a letter.

 

I'm familiar with Judith Curry. I'm also familiar with Lindzen of MIT. He charges the fossil-fuel lobby $2500 per day for his consulting services. Curry probably charges a similar rate. They are part of the 2%. I think I'll put my money on the 98%.

 

Is that the 98% that believe that human CO2 emissions result in some of the global warming.

You have no idea of Lindzen and Curry's work.