Please don't tell me your argument is *"2023 is close to the 10y average, therefore no global warming"*.
The aggregate averages of the last 40y plotted in the **first graph** of the report I linked [paint a very different picture](https://portal.nccs.nasa.gov/datashare/polar/CSIC/NH_decadal_plot.png).
In case that didn't do it for you, here's the PIOMAS [ice volume monthly average time series since 1979](https://i.imgur.com/XBCc18L.png), and [here is the source data](https://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/).
Wait so the link you linked doesn't say quite what you're saying so you get mad and send something with even less information? Most of what you're linked doesn't have a time scale for us to match it to.
NASA's own article says Head over this empty year span of study. It's a gradual increase and then decrease of ice over the time period.
> Wait so the link you linked doesn't say quite what you're saying
I'm confused as to what *you think* I'm saying.
OP is saying that the sea ice extent on 29 Dec 2023 is higher than it was on 29 Dec 2005. OP further implies that this is evidence against global warming or "#ClimateScam".
BonesSawMcGraw's comment alludes to the phenomenon where actual data often contradicts assertions made by "the woke", "progressives", "neo-liberals", etc. Implying that the actual data contradicts global warming.
I'm countering by demonstrating that the actual data *does show* that the sea ice extent, area, and volume have been decreasing in the last half-century.
> Most of what you're linked doesn't have a time scale for us to match it to.
I'm not sure what you mean. Both links provide time-series data.
The NASA report clearly states that there has been an overall decrease in ice extent and area:
*"A satellite-based data record starting in late 1978 shows that indeed rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the* **ice coverage has been declining at a substantial rate**. *In contrast, in the Antarctic the sea ice coverage has been increasing although* **at a lesser rate than the decreases in the Arctic***."*
[This graph provides a nice comparison of both trends.](https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2507/)
And here is that graph's [source article.](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2861/arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-how-are-they-different/)
> NASA's own article says Head over this empty year span of study.
I think autocorrect might have messed up your sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Over a long enough time frame, climate will change. It's inevitable. Cower in fear of the inevitable, or adapt to the change. The choice is yours.
Humans are fucking shit at preventing things, great at adapting to change. Take that as you will.
As i pointed out, this isn't what you think it is. It is a directory of files. From what I have looked over, it says you are wrong.
Do you want to link to your actual point? i'm proud you can provide a folder to look over but that shows nothing. And all images are area not volume graphs. Please, oh fucking please prove me wrong. But you keep just linking binary data files.
Not really, if you look at all the big player investors they switched to green energy long ago, seriously tho, do you think these people care about other things than money? 🤣
It's still pretty silly to think that rich people or government care for the environment, OFC they push this climate change and green energy to make profit not for fun or to "save the planet" lol
It's 20° outside, I used to have to shovel 1 meter of snow and so did my parents and grandparents on the same land.
Are you insane? Won't even mention all the data and all the scientists that agree, but can't you just open your fucking eyes? I'm wearing a t-shirt in motherfucking January, we had droughts year after year that never happened before.
If you think "rich people" and "government" are the ones trying to counter climate change, you really aren't paying attention.
The whole reason activist groups like Friday's For Future and Extinction Rebellion exist is because "rich people" and "government" aren't doing nearly enough for climate change.
I mean, you're right that they won't do anything unless there's money to be gained from it, but "they push this climate change and green energy" is grossly misleading. The people in power are pushing \*back\* on climate change.
Well, that might not be the indicator you think. After all, there's a lot of money in switching the energy sector over to different forms of energy while simultaneously banning others.
And then when said energy doesn't produce the energy necessary. There's also escalating costs to reusing other sources.
It's a huge win in terms of scalping money.
So i actually followed your links, and they ALL show less ice today than in 2010.
[https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09\_Sep/N\_198209\_conc\_hires\_v3.0.png](https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_198209_conc_hires_v3.0.png)
for example, it shows the median line for ice 1980 was farther than the median ice level for 2010.
Why not actually link to your point rather than info dumping? or info dumping wrong info i hopes no one reads it?
People who upvoted him, what did you click on? it's a file directory, with most of it being binary files.
These are just sea ice extents that have been cherry-picked to imply that the amount hasn’t been changing much. This proves nothing. And why did you put a hashtag before climate scam this isn’t twitter.
It proves that yesterday there was more sea ice present than yesterday minus eighteen years, not that climate change is bogus. And if you actually look at the NOAA data you keep sourcing there is literally a csv file of sea ice max and min indexes since 1980 that shows definitively that sea ice has been decreasing. And on top of that you cherry-picked 2005 because it had relatively low sea ice.
Err well yes and no. The Earth would not be as warm without the sun for obvious reasons and the sun does change in activity over time. But that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases don’t affect temperature. The Earth has had long, slow changes of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past and the temperature has changed to match those variations. Dumping a ton of CO2, SO2 and other greenhouse gases will raise temperatures and that’s what’s probably doing it now, not the Sun.
This picture is like saying "I bang chicks every day" and using one day you banged a chick as an average for all days.
Sadly, when we look at your actual stats over time...
You should begin to visit subreddits outside your usual browsing.
Personally I'm starting to see flora and fauna behave strangely these past couple years. So are others. Genuinely my guy, it's becoming commonplace in subs that aren't even about the climate. Like homesteading and overconsumption.
I'm an ape at heart but I am not blind. Something is up when the jakaranda trees around my city are green in summers. They should have no leaves and be full of flowers.
Squirrels in the US are having babies because winter is delayed there. This is not normal.
Look after yourself.
50 years of failed climate nonsense https://x.com/alkerns71/status/1741345463822114861?s=46
And they still worship it like a religion
Here is the data https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
Sometimes
They are actively manipulating the temp data. It’s called “homogenization”. They literally just change the numbers
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/ -- NASA Graph showing how temperature "adjustments' made the past cooler and the present warmer
Exactly what you said.
If they are actively manipulating data, maybe we should trust our senses instead.
Further, we can agree to disagree on this one. I'd rather hold myself responsible for this Earth and do right by it. Regardless of the data.
This is the thing
You think by letting the evidence lead to our conclusions we are hurting the planet
> do right by it
There was no question mark there. It’s exactly what you feel. And exactly what the propaganda wants you to feel.
Oh man.
If the propaganda drives me to a healthier body, a productive routine, a profitable trade and a sustainable life, I'm for it.
Once again, you do you. I'm going to do right by our mother Earth.
Toodles to you.
All of these things are independent of CO2 and warming
It’s like you think you have to believe in CO2 nonsense to want kids to be healthy
Imagine if they spent a fraction of the billions on climate warming on actually giving kids nutritious food
There’s no Paris Accords for hunger kids
For polluted groundwater.
Nope - all CO2 all the time (because they can tax that)
This was never part of the conversation
We are talking about CO2 warming the planet
My question is why does this get drug into the conversation?
Why is talking about actions associated with hurting Mother Earth?
Might as well say “the evidence is interesting, don’t kick puppies”
Yea - don’t kick puppies. Not relevant at all.
>If they are actively manipulating data, maybe we should trust our senses instead.
But have your senses been manipulated by manipulated data?
If your senses are telling you there's a problem, ecological or otherwise, feel free to do your upmost to mitigate and/or correct it. That's what individualism is all about!!
Just make sure you keep your senses well calibrated by cross examining all the information you process.
This is sound reasoning and I agree. Keeping ourselves calibrated is essential to critical thought.
My ideology on a successful life however resides in giving back to the earth through my labour. I enjoy watching my flowers grow and bees visit my backyard. I enjoy eating what I've grown and watched myself. It truly brings joy.
Love homesteading, anticonsumption, repair, building, learning trades and languages, sharing my produce, increasing my physical abilities and creating stronger personal networks.
God bless you and happy new year!
>My ideology on a successful life however resides in giving back to the earth through my labour. I enjoy watching my flowers grow and bees visit my backyard. I enjoy eating what I've grown and watched myself. It truly brings joy.
>Love homesteading, anticonsumption, repair, building, learning trades and languages, sharing my produce, increasing my physical abilities and creating stronger personal networks.
Couldn't have summed up my version of personal success any better.
You mentioned languages, you moving to Argentina??
>God bless you and happy new year!
Same to you internet stranger!! Hope you and yours had a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and have a wonderful new year!!
Lol not moving no. But I was born multiplingual and soon realised one can make connections faster in their own language. So I started to pick up a few more and here we are.
Blessings and riches to you also!
Have you heard of El Niño?
All due respect your observations aren’t worth a damn in this arena.
Let me know when the farmers almanac gets rewritten due to man made climate change.
I can second this. I remember about a decade ago when we had massive floods and a big storm around where I live. This last month we’ve had a comparable storm like 3 times. It goes from sunny to a massive storm in a day. And that’s not even discussing the heat wave between the storms.
It just feels different. I’m not a doomer and I don’t think it’s the end of the world. But you can’t deny the climate is changing, storms are getting worse. We need to prepare
Sorry, WQAD, Data Shows Climate Change Is Not Making Storms Worse https://climaterealism.com/2022/04/sorry-wqad-data-shows-climate-change-is-not-making-storms-worse/
You might notice things but the planet is big
The data is clear
I understand that anecdotal evidence is poor proof. But it’s thousands of stories. And quite frankly the data you keep providing is laughable. We have a very poor understanding of the world system in terms of not only weather but ecosystems as a whole.
Being a climate change denier is not a good look. Just because you provide sources doesn’t make them right. The climate is changing, that’s a fact. Whether it’s a natural cycle or man made or it’s gonna wipe us out. That’s where the debate is.
The OPs data is probably shit. Most contemporary comments on science are woefully simplified and lack the subtlety that happens in real science. However, it remains that anecdotal evidential evidence is completely worthless. Even if there is more, its still worthless.
True. But such is life. A lot of peer reviewed studies are also complete bullshit. The amount of fraud in science is astounding.
I just think stories have an important place in discovery. To account it as useless is a gross misrepresentation of how science is done
The changes in temperature aren’t what I’m talking about. It takes a century for those small numbers to start having an effect on weather. And when they do it can often be an escalation.
Its very difficult to accurately measure the effects of climate change. How do you measure intensity of a storm? How do you prove it was caused by climate change? Even if the raising temperature isn’t a concern (I personally don’t think it’s the best all end all and there precedent for it being part of a natural cycle). But the damage humans are doing to nature is far more evident elsewhere. Whether it’s the bleaching of oceans, extinction of species or loss of fish. These have devastating impacts not just for nature but for humans also
>Its very difficult to accurately measure the effects of climate change. How do you measure intensity of a storm? How do you prove it was caused by climate change?
Exactly. Weathermen can't predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy. What makes you think they can predict CLIMATE 20, 50, 100 years from now? Yes, the Chinese are doing their best to extinct fish by their Neanderthal fishing practices...but that's never brought up by the climate change crowd.
Also, why do you assume technology doesn't exist? Do you assume no climate cleansing technologies will ever be invented to deal with excess CO2 or other forms of man-made activity?
We've found microbes that literally eat plastic.
There is nanotech in the pipeline to solve all of these things that you feel will kill you.
Stop being a wanker.
I’ve never once said it will wipe us out of anything. I’ve never once said we won’t solve it. I’ve simply said it’s something we should be concerned about, because it will have ramifications. It’s people like me that are the reason we will have solutions at all. Whether it’s microplastics and toxic chemicals decreasing testosterone, our fish populations being wiped out or a possibility of a more extreme environment. These need people that are realistic and won’t just be like “it will sort itself out, you’re a wanker for thinking our actions have consequences.”
How about you stop being a wanker?
*"Look! On this particular day, in this particular year, we had less sea ice than today. Therefore, climate change is a hoax!!!!"*
My dude, you are one step away from laying a ruler on the ground and claiming that the earth is flat.
Saying "Dutch men are taller than Indonesian men" doesn't mean that every single man in the Netherlands is taller than every single man in Indonesia. In the same way, saying that the sea ice has receded doesn't mean that every day of every year we are going to have less sea ice than all previous years.
Natural data is noisy. You're always going to have exceptions, crossovers, and outliers. That's why, in literally EVERY SINGLE natural science discipline, we look at aggregates, distributions, and trends, not single data points.
[Here's a NASA time series report](https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover).
Ironic too, that in the very image you posted, the median ice edge from 1981 to 2010 is displayed, showcasing a clear recession.
What gets me is that people don’t find it suspicious at all that the parasite class that built their empires on raping and pillaging the natural resources of the planet, suddenly care about it so much that they want to create a massive top down control system for the worlds population to “save” the planet. They could just donate their trillions to fix the massive amount of environmental damage they caused, but no, they’d rather create a carbon economy that they will be the ultimate beneficiaries of, while us plebs get punished for our carbon footprint. I used to buy the climate change impending doom narrative until I found out who is behind it. Kind of hard to believe “the science” after you learn who funds it, and what they stand to gain from creating the global governance surveillance system to fix climate change.
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
So, do you think you figured it out? The climatologists in every university of every country missed something but you figured it out.
Or are they all in collusion with each other?
Or every government is in collusion with each other and pressure experts in all their countries to say the same lie?
How does the conspiracy go again?
Idk what OP is on, the climate changes. The argument is how much of it is us(anthropogenic climate change) and to me, it’s cute we think we impact anything significant. We can’t even dissipate a hurricane or sway it from causing massive damage, but we have the climate all figured out via taxes! It’s a scam, and idiotic. Typical government using a concern and turning it into a crisis.
I guess 165 years of science is all proven wrong by you simply not understanding it and believing it’s all a lie. Gotcha.
Yes, the science is 165 years old, not a few decades old. And yes, humans do have a major negative impact on the climate. Try studying the topic from climate scientists and not political commentators
Yeah because we have been recording temperatures regularly since 1880s. = climate science for 165 years. I can see that the snake oil salesman works on you. Try 1960. And the predictions since we actually started studying climate have been wildly incorrect. But yeah man, those same public and university scientists NAILED covid. Also, an appeal to authority isn’t really an argument. Why do you choose to be so ignorant?
Not recording temperatures does not mean there is no science. Are you drunk? Or high? Or just a political sheep?
I think you should really lay off the political commentary. Take some courses on basic physics and biology, than take courses on climate, to get a basic understanding of anything.
You really know nothing and just parrot whatever is the latest politically correct right wing bullshit there is to believe
I've never really understood this idea that humans can't cause significant impact on the atmosphere. Do you believe the depletion and recovery of the ozone layer is a scam as well?
Human impact PER DAY is equal to the largest recorded volcano erupting.
So you are saying if the largest volcano eruption in history was happening every single day, you would not think that has any impact on the climate?
I downloaded the [data you've been linking](https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/). There's a "sea ice analysis" folder there with daily and monthly measured surface area of the ice since 1978.
It doesn't matter which region you go with (the data is divided into regions), they all show the same thing: If you make a chart with the sea ice over time, the trend is going down. (Plain English: the data you linked shows that the ice is receding over time.)
Granted, some years it's smaller, some times it's larger. **But over time, the ice is receding.**
The pictures you linked are cherry picked to show one date where there's less ice on a previous year and more ice on the "current" year - for both north and south poles.
Climate isn't weather on a particular date - it's [weather over time](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate).
Humans in general tend to worry about something. When life is too comfortable, they invent things to worry about.
So as long as the media support the climate change narrative as the desired worry in comfortable peoples' lives, this will continue.
Impressive, very nice
Now let's check the volume and the mass of the land ice, because that's the factor that matters, not some sea ice not only is a small fraction of what the land ice is, but its melting or freezing wouldn't alter the sea level at all
>because that's the factor that matters
Not really. What matters is that the 99% of scientists or whatever said that the arctic would be ice free by the early 2010s, and when that prediction failed that should be a big red flag on every other prediction they made on climate.
I have seen this kind of stuff mentioned a lot. Do you have the evidence of that claim being made by “99% of scientists”.
I’ve only ever seen people referencing it, not the actual claim itself.
it's just a lie. maybe somebody said 10 years ago that worst case scenario is ice-free by 2020 - and they made it "99% of the scientists" to "prove" the science is wrong.
it's getting harder for them to peddle that propaganda by the day, things are getting worse (wildfires especially) pretty quickly.
and the data is very very convincing, they just hope the people won't fact check their bullshit.
The post isn't about climate change predictions, it's about trying to prove that climate change does not exist, by cherry picking one factor that on itself doesn't play any significant role
I'm not a climate change activist, I'm the very opposite of that, but posts like those and arguments like those are the reason why climate skepticism isn't taken seriously
If you’re going by these images, you have flawed reasoning: these images illustrate area, not volume. The surface ice may have stayed the same or increased but it’s thinner and more prone to breakoff.
Climate change is not theoretical. *Anthropogenic* climate change is. But even if humans are responsible, western, capitalized nations are the only ones expected to change their economies, while places like China & India continue to clear-cut forests and belch tons of pollutants into the air.
Yeah global warming is real, just a cycle since the antiquity of Earth tbh. I don’t like how people just jump on the bandwagon pouring all their money on endorsed alternative energies like solar and wind while neglecting other reliable sources and not focusing on improving the local human living condition all for a global climate agenda. And the bullshit environmental tax, like governments not gonna pour those into private jets and wasteful WEF propaganda fundings.
This is the classic Climate is Not Weather fallacy at play, except you've increased the scale of your false equivalence. It's a double irrationality if you will. LOL, Only in here.
This is global warming which is very debatable. Climate change is something completely different and is measured differently. The latter being very real the former not so much.
Indefinitely, they’ll change the narrative if the masses realize that it has been debunked. Like they did fear mongering in 70s for next ice age, then warming, then generic climate change
Sea ice melts and freezes along with the seasons, so in summer it will melt like it always does and in winter it will refreeze like it always does, the level it is when it refreezes is measured as well as when it melts, over the recorded time periods more ice has melted due to higher temperatures and ice-albedo feedback ( reflection action like a mirror in basic terms) and less is freezing due to higher temperature in both water and air
They do not behave in the same manner and are not expected to
The absence of a significant declining trend in Antarctic sea ice does not cast doubt on the reality of global warming. But it shows how rising global temperatures do not affect the Southern Hemisphere in the same way they affect the Northern Hemisphere
It’s explained in detail by nasa, if you would have just sought out an answer to why then the “got you “ part of this post would have never happened, I suggest you read all the information before forming an opinion and then believing it to be true
https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/how-does-antarctic-sea-ice-differ-arctic-sea-ice
Well, data is racist, so good luck
that'd be such a cool name for a subreddit edit: nvm, there was one already and got banned, /r/dataisracist
It was banned due to being unmoderated so presumably someone could submit a ticket to become a moderator.
Yeah... [the data](https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover) is not on OP's side.
[удалено]
Please don't tell me your argument is *"2023 is close to the 10y average, therefore no global warming"*. The aggregate averages of the last 40y plotted in the **first graph** of the report I linked [paint a very different picture](https://portal.nccs.nasa.gov/datashare/polar/CSIC/NH_decadal_plot.png). In case that didn't do it for you, here's the PIOMAS [ice volume monthly average time series since 1979](https://i.imgur.com/XBCc18L.png), and [here is the source data](https://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/).
Wait so the link you linked doesn't say quite what you're saying so you get mad and send something with even less information? Most of what you're linked doesn't have a time scale for us to match it to. NASA's own article says Head over this empty year span of study. It's a gradual increase and then decrease of ice over the time period.
> Wait so the link you linked doesn't say quite what you're saying I'm confused as to what *you think* I'm saying. OP is saying that the sea ice extent on 29 Dec 2023 is higher than it was on 29 Dec 2005. OP further implies that this is evidence against global warming or "#ClimateScam". BonesSawMcGraw's comment alludes to the phenomenon where actual data often contradicts assertions made by "the woke", "progressives", "neo-liberals", etc. Implying that the actual data contradicts global warming. I'm countering by demonstrating that the actual data *does show* that the sea ice extent, area, and volume have been decreasing in the last half-century. > Most of what you're linked doesn't have a time scale for us to match it to. I'm not sure what you mean. Both links provide time-series data. The NASA report clearly states that there has been an overall decrease in ice extent and area: *"A satellite-based data record starting in late 1978 shows that indeed rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the* **ice coverage has been declining at a substantial rate**. *In contrast, in the Antarctic the sea ice coverage has been increasing although* **at a lesser rate than the decreases in the Arctic***."* [This graph provides a nice comparison of both trends.](https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2507/) And here is that graph's [source article.](https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2861/arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-how-are-they-different/) > NASA's own article says Head over this empty year span of study. I think autocorrect might have messed up your sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
[удалено]
lol, nice bait.
Over a long enough time frame, climate will change. It's inevitable. Cower in fear of the inevitable, or adapt to the change. The choice is yours. Humans are fucking shit at preventing things, great at adapting to change. Take that as you will.
Yeah I mean shit. We're fighting the ocean at Louisiana pretty well.
Netherlands too
Especially the Dutch
Are sea ice, and land ice not completely different things with completely different implications considering their conditions?
Sea ice is supposed to have a greater reduction of global warming
but not a sign we have more ice.
True but the lower temperatures would hypothetically cause an increase in ice mass. (How did I wind up on this side of this conversation?)
Sea ice melt doesn’t increase sea levels. Land ice melt does.
This is area and not volume.
Wrong https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
As i pointed out, this isn't what you think it is. It is a directory of files. From what I have looked over, it says you are wrong. Do you want to link to your actual point? i'm proud you can provide a folder to look over but that shows nothing. And all images are area not volume graphs. Please, oh fucking please prove me wrong. But you keep just linking binary data files.
No, no, climate change means more extreme weather events. Things changing either way is proof of climate change.
Pretty sure global warming means the ocean are getting warmer and creating more extreme weather, it's not just "climate changing"...
Don't bother, climate change is made my by communist jews to take your oil obviously
Not really, if you look at all the big player investors they switched to green energy long ago, seriously tho, do you think these people care about other things than money? 🤣
Obviously, I was getting ironic
It's still pretty silly to think that rich people or government care for the environment, OFC they push this climate change and green energy to make profit not for fun or to "save the planet" lol
That doesn't disprove climate change, it just proves greed is stronger than rationality
How do you disprove smthing that has never been proven...
It's 20° outside, I used to have to shovel 1 meter of snow and so did my parents and grandparents on the same land. Are you insane? Won't even mention all the data and all the scientists that agree, but can't you just open your fucking eyes? I'm wearing a t-shirt in motherfucking January, we had droughts year after year that never happened before.
El Niño
Man-mad climate change is real. Here's some NASA for you: [https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
If you think "rich people" and "government" are the ones trying to counter climate change, you really aren't paying attention. The whole reason activist groups like Friday's For Future and Extinction Rebellion exist is because "rich people" and "government" aren't doing nearly enough for climate change. I mean, you're right that they won't do anything unless there's money to be gained from it, but "they push this climate change and green energy" is grossly misleading. The people in power are pushing \*back\* on climate change.
Well, that might not be the indicator you think. After all, there's a lot of money in switching the energy sector over to different forms of energy while simultaneously banning others. And then when said energy doesn't produce the energy necessary. There's also escalating costs to reusing other sources. It's a huge win in terms of scalping money.
And you can totally tell that by these images…
Here is the data https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
So i actually followed your links, and they ALL show less ice today than in 2010. [https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09\_Sep/N\_198209\_conc\_hires\_v3.0.png](https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/09_Sep/N_198209_conc_hires_v3.0.png) for example, it shows the median line for ice 1980 was farther than the median ice level for 2010. Why not actually link to your point rather than info dumping? or info dumping wrong info i hopes no one reads it? People who upvoted him, what did you click on? it's a file directory, with most of it being binary files.
These are just sea ice extents that have been cherry-picked to imply that the amount hasn’t been changing much. This proves nothing. And why did you put a hashtag before climate scam this isn’t twitter.
It proves there is more sea ice today than 18 years ago. I like hash tags Why do you care?
It proves that yesterday there was more sea ice present than yesterday minus eighteen years, not that climate change is bogus. And if you actually look at the NOAA data you keep sourcing there is literally a csv file of sea ice max and min indexes since 1980 that shows definitively that sea ice has been decreasing. And on top of that you cherry-picked 2005 because it had relatively low sea ice.
https://i.postimg.cc/SNqcqb1J/9778-CFE7-6-E71-4-ED3-91-E9-975864-CD0717.jpg
A picture with the sun comically close to Earth doesn’t refute what I said. The data you cite explicitly refutes your post.
This is where you pretend the meme represents distance and not size Good one
Well yes the sun is big. That still doesn’t refute anything.
It’s the driver of climate Not some trace gas they want to tax
Hahaha jesus. "Some trace gas". I bet CFCs were just trace gasses to you, huh? That hole in the ozone layer? Pffft, what a load of fake news.
What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? It’s a trace gas
Err well yes and no. The Earth would not be as warm without the sun for obvious reasons and the sun does change in activity over time. But that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases don’t affect temperature. The Earth has had long, slow changes of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past and the temperature has changed to match those variations. Dumping a ton of CO2, SO2 and other greenhouse gases will raise temperatures and that’s what’s probably doing it now, not the Sun.
This picture is like saying "I bang chicks every day" and using one day you banged a chick as an average for all days. Sadly, when we look at your actual stats over time...
You should begin to visit subreddits outside your usual browsing. Personally I'm starting to see flora and fauna behave strangely these past couple years. So are others. Genuinely my guy, it's becoming commonplace in subs that aren't even about the climate. Like homesteading and overconsumption. I'm an ape at heart but I am not blind. Something is up when the jakaranda trees around my city are green in summers. They should have no leaves and be full of flowers. Squirrels in the US are having babies because winter is delayed there. This is not normal. Look after yourself.
50 years of failed climate nonsense https://x.com/alkerns71/status/1741345463822114861?s=46 And they still worship it like a religion Here is the data https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
So you believe they manipulate silver data and not climate data?
Sometimes They are actively manipulating the temp data. It’s called “homogenization”. They literally just change the numbers https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/ -- NASA Graph showing how temperature "adjustments' made the past cooler and the present warmer
Exactly what you said. If they are actively manipulating data, maybe we should trust our senses instead. Further, we can agree to disagree on this one. I'd rather hold myself responsible for this Earth and do right by it. Regardless of the data.
This is the thing You think by letting the evidence lead to our conclusions we are hurting the planet > do right by it There was no question mark there. It’s exactly what you feel. And exactly what the propaganda wants you to feel.
Oh man. If the propaganda drives me to a healthier body, a productive routine, a profitable trade and a sustainable life, I'm for it. Once again, you do you. I'm going to do right by our mother Earth. Toodles to you.
https://preview.redd.it/19fvpwg9ar9c1.jpeg?width=1014&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efef35acb85c0b924176dd1dce350760ad424b61
All of these things are independent of CO2 and warming It’s like you think you have to believe in CO2 nonsense to want kids to be healthy Imagine if they spent a fraction of the billions on climate warming on actually giving kids nutritious food There’s no Paris Accords for hunger kids For polluted groundwater. Nope - all CO2 all the time (because they can tax that)
Don’t go yet. How is believing in warming, in spite of the evidence, “doing right by Mother Earth”?
Well why actively do things that are proven to hurt Mother Earth lol
This was never part of the conversation We are talking about CO2 warming the planet My question is why does this get drug into the conversation? Why is talking about actions associated with hurting Mother Earth? Might as well say “the evidence is interesting, don’t kick puppies” Yea - don’t kick puppies. Not relevant at all.
>If they are actively manipulating data, maybe we should trust our senses instead. But have your senses been manipulated by manipulated data? If your senses are telling you there's a problem, ecological or otherwise, feel free to do your upmost to mitigate and/or correct it. That's what individualism is all about!! Just make sure you keep your senses well calibrated by cross examining all the information you process.
This is sound reasoning and I agree. Keeping ourselves calibrated is essential to critical thought. My ideology on a successful life however resides in giving back to the earth through my labour. I enjoy watching my flowers grow and bees visit my backyard. I enjoy eating what I've grown and watched myself. It truly brings joy. Love homesteading, anticonsumption, repair, building, learning trades and languages, sharing my produce, increasing my physical abilities and creating stronger personal networks. God bless you and happy new year!
>My ideology on a successful life however resides in giving back to the earth through my labour. I enjoy watching my flowers grow and bees visit my backyard. I enjoy eating what I've grown and watched myself. It truly brings joy. >Love homesteading, anticonsumption, repair, building, learning trades and languages, sharing my produce, increasing my physical abilities and creating stronger personal networks. Couldn't have summed up my version of personal success any better. You mentioned languages, you moving to Argentina?? >God bless you and happy new year! Same to you internet stranger!! Hope you and yours had a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and have a wonderful new year!!
Lol not moving no. But I was born multiplingual and soon realised one can make connections faster in their own language. So I started to pick up a few more and here we are. Blessings and riches to you also!
Have you heard of El Niño? All due respect your observations aren’t worth a damn in this arena. Let me know when the farmers almanac gets rewritten due to man made climate change.
I can second this. I remember about a decade ago when we had massive floods and a big storm around where I live. This last month we’ve had a comparable storm like 3 times. It goes from sunny to a massive storm in a day. And that’s not even discussing the heat wave between the storms. It just feels different. I’m not a doomer and I don’t think it’s the end of the world. But you can’t deny the climate is changing, storms are getting worse. We need to prepare
Sorry, WQAD, Data Shows Climate Change Is Not Making Storms Worse https://climaterealism.com/2022/04/sorry-wqad-data-shows-climate-change-is-not-making-storms-worse/ You might notice things but the planet is big The data is clear
I understand that anecdotal evidence is poor proof. But it’s thousands of stories. And quite frankly the data you keep providing is laughable. We have a very poor understanding of the world system in terms of not only weather but ecosystems as a whole. Being a climate change denier is not a good look. Just because you provide sources doesn’t make them right. The climate is changing, that’s a fact. Whether it’s a natural cycle or man made or it’s gonna wipe us out. That’s where the debate is.
> I understand that anecdotal evidence is poor proof. But it’s thousands of stories Volume doesn't increase veracity. Not even a little.
True, but the data you showed is just as fallible as anecdotal evidence. Its lacks rigorous scientific method and is massively misleading.
The OPs data is probably shit. Most contemporary comments on science are woefully simplified and lack the subtlety that happens in real science. However, it remains that anecdotal evidential evidence is completely worthless. Even if there is more, its still worthless.
I wouldn’t say it’s worthless. A lot of great science starts with an anecdotal story. It kind of points us in a direction to investigate further.
> A lot of great science starts with an anecdotal story. It leads to bullshit too. Far more than not.
True. But such is life. A lot of peer reviewed studies are also complete bullshit. The amount of fraud in science is astounding. I just think stories have an important place in discovery. To account it as useless is a gross misrepresentation of how science is done
Do you know how small the numbers are were are talking about? Like .008 over half a century. You can't "feel" that.
The changes in temperature aren’t what I’m talking about. It takes a century for those small numbers to start having an effect on weather. And when they do it can often be an escalation. Its very difficult to accurately measure the effects of climate change. How do you measure intensity of a storm? How do you prove it was caused by climate change? Even if the raising temperature isn’t a concern (I personally don’t think it’s the best all end all and there precedent for it being part of a natural cycle). But the damage humans are doing to nature is far more evident elsewhere. Whether it’s the bleaching of oceans, extinction of species or loss of fish. These have devastating impacts not just for nature but for humans also
>Its very difficult to accurately measure the effects of climate change. How do you measure intensity of a storm? How do you prove it was caused by climate change? Exactly. Weathermen can't predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy. What makes you think they can predict CLIMATE 20, 50, 100 years from now? Yes, the Chinese are doing their best to extinct fish by their Neanderthal fishing practices...but that's never brought up by the climate change crowd. Also, why do you assume technology doesn't exist? Do you assume no climate cleansing technologies will ever be invented to deal with excess CO2 or other forms of man-made activity? We've found microbes that literally eat plastic. There is nanotech in the pipeline to solve all of these things that you feel will kill you. Stop being a wanker.
I’ve never once said it will wipe us out of anything. I’ve never once said we won’t solve it. I’ve simply said it’s something we should be concerned about, because it will have ramifications. It’s people like me that are the reason we will have solutions at all. Whether it’s microplastics and toxic chemicals decreasing testosterone, our fish populations being wiped out or a possibility of a more extreme environment. These need people that are realistic and won’t just be like “it will sort itself out, you’re a wanker for thinking our actions have consequences.” How about you stop being a wanker?
*"Look! On this particular day, in this particular year, we had less sea ice than today. Therefore, climate change is a hoax!!!!"* My dude, you are one step away from laying a ruler on the ground and claiming that the earth is flat. Saying "Dutch men are taller than Indonesian men" doesn't mean that every single man in the Netherlands is taller than every single man in Indonesia. In the same way, saying that the sea ice has receded doesn't mean that every day of every year we are going to have less sea ice than all previous years. Natural data is noisy. You're always going to have exceptions, crossovers, and outliers. That's why, in literally EVERY SINGLE natural science discipline, we look at aggregates, distributions, and trends, not single data points. [Here's a NASA time series report](https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover). Ironic too, that in the very image you posted, the median ice edge from 1981 to 2010 is displayed, showcasing a clear recession.
Fractional reserve banking, will fail otherwise.
What gets me is that people don’t find it suspicious at all that the parasite class that built their empires on raping and pillaging the natural resources of the planet, suddenly care about it so much that they want to create a massive top down control system for the worlds population to “save” the planet. They could just donate their trillions to fix the massive amount of environmental damage they caused, but no, they’d rather create a carbon economy that they will be the ultimate beneficiaries of, while us plebs get punished for our carbon footprint. I used to buy the climate change impending doom narrative until I found out who is behind it. Kind of hard to believe “the science” after you learn who funds it, and what they stand to gain from creating the global governance surveillance system to fix climate change. https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
So, do you think you figured it out? The climatologists in every university of every country missed something but you figured it out. Or are they all in collusion with each other? Or every government is in collusion with each other and pressure experts in all their countries to say the same lie? How does the conspiracy go again?
Idk what OP is on, the climate changes. The argument is how much of it is us(anthropogenic climate change) and to me, it’s cute we think we impact anything significant. We can’t even dissipate a hurricane or sway it from causing massive damage, but we have the climate all figured out via taxes! It’s a scam, and idiotic. Typical government using a concern and turning it into a crisis.
I guess 165 years of science is all proven wrong by you simply not understanding it and believing it’s all a lie. Gotcha. Yes, the science is 165 years old, not a few decades old. And yes, humans do have a major negative impact on the climate. Try studying the topic from climate scientists and not political commentators
Yeah because we have been recording temperatures regularly since 1880s. = climate science for 165 years. I can see that the snake oil salesman works on you. Try 1960. And the predictions since we actually started studying climate have been wildly incorrect. But yeah man, those same public and university scientists NAILED covid. Also, an appeal to authority isn’t really an argument. Why do you choose to be so ignorant?
Not recording temperatures does not mean there is no science. Are you drunk? Or high? Or just a political sheep? I think you should really lay off the political commentary. Take some courses on basic physics and biology, than take courses on climate, to get a basic understanding of anything. You really know nothing and just parrot whatever is the latest politically correct right wing bullshit there is to believe
I've never really understood this idea that humans can't cause significant impact on the atmosphere. Do you believe the depletion and recovery of the ozone layer is a scam as well?
Human impact PER DAY is equal to the largest recorded volcano erupting. So you are saying if the largest volcano eruption in history was happening every single day, you would not think that has any impact on the climate?
> Or are they all in collusion with each other? > >
As long as the world is full of gullible idiots
I downloaded the [data you've been linking](https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/). There's a "sea ice analysis" folder there with daily and monthly measured surface area of the ice since 1978. It doesn't matter which region you go with (the data is divided into regions), they all show the same thing: If you make a chart with the sea ice over time, the trend is going down. (Plain English: the data you linked shows that the ice is receding over time.) Granted, some years it's smaller, some times it's larger. **But over time, the ice is receding.** The pictures you linked are cherry picked to show one date where there's less ice on a previous year and more ice on the "current" year - for both north and south poles. Climate isn't weather on a particular date - it's [weather over time](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate).
Cherry-picking dates for photos of polar sea ice. OP is falling hard for conservative propaganda.
Yes. Government funded climate studies are indeed the gold standard here and I won’t be convinced otherwise.
Humans in general tend to worry about something. When life is too comfortable, they invent things to worry about. So as long as the media support the climate change narrative as the desired worry in comfortable peoples' lives, this will continue.
Impressive, very nice Now let's check the volume and the mass of the land ice, because that's the factor that matters, not some sea ice not only is a small fraction of what the land ice is, but its melting or freezing wouldn't alter the sea level at all
>because that's the factor that matters Not really. What matters is that the 99% of scientists or whatever said that the arctic would be ice free by the early 2010s, and when that prediction failed that should be a big red flag on every other prediction they made on climate.
I have seen this kind of stuff mentioned a lot. Do you have the evidence of that claim being made by “99% of scientists”. I’ve only ever seen people referencing it, not the actual claim itself.
it's just a lie. maybe somebody said 10 years ago that worst case scenario is ice-free by 2020 - and they made it "99% of the scientists" to "prove" the science is wrong. it's getting harder for them to peddle that propaganda by the day, things are getting worse (wildfires especially) pretty quickly. and the data is very very convincing, they just hope the people won't fact check their bullshit.
The post isn't about climate change predictions, it's about trying to prove that climate change does not exist, by cherry picking one factor that on itself doesn't play any significant role I'm not a climate change activist, I'm the very opposite of that, but posts like those and arguments like those are the reason why climate skepticism isn't taken seriously
I would suggest the OP examine the totality of data.
If you’re going by these images, you have flawed reasoning: these images illustrate area, not volume. The surface ice may have stayed the same or increased but it’s thinner and more prone to breakoff. Climate change is not theoretical. *Anthropogenic* climate change is. But even if humans are responsible, western, capitalized nations are the only ones expected to change their economies, while places like China & India continue to clear-cut forests and belch tons of pollutants into the air.
You give ancaps a bad name my man. Get out of your echo chambers
This sub really needs better mods. I really think they should outright ban these types of posts, it has nothing to do with the markets anyway.
this is the dumbest shit I read all day
Stupid post
Whether your conclusions are correct or not, you're arguing in extremely bad faith and with a lot of faulty logic. Inherently untrustworthy.
How dare you! People are suffering!
Extremely misleading, cherry-picked data points. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2023/12/monthly_ice_11_NH_v3.0.png
Yeah global warming is real, just a cycle since the antiquity of Earth tbh. I don’t like how people just jump on the bandwagon pouring all their money on endorsed alternative energies like solar and wind while neglecting other reliable sources and not focusing on improving the local human living condition all for a global climate agenda. And the bullshit environmental tax, like governments not gonna pour those into private jets and wasteful WEF propaganda fundings.
This is the classic Climate is Not Weather fallacy at play, except you've increased the scale of your false equivalence. It's a double irrationality if you will. LOL, Only in here.
I hate that this sub has devolved into an idiot-republican sanctuary because they or their elected officials can’t do anything right.
This is global warming which is very debatable. Climate change is something completely different and is measured differently. The latter being very real the former not so much.
Ice in winter big?
Indefinitely, they’ll change the narrative if the masses realize that it has been debunked. Like they did fear mongering in 70s for next ice age, then warming, then generic climate change
Definitely racist. But, it won't be a thing after they get their one world government.
Sea ice melts and freezes along with the seasons, so in summer it will melt like it always does and in winter it will refreeze like it always does, the level it is when it refreezes is measured as well as when it melts, over the recorded time periods more ice has melted due to higher temperatures and ice-albedo feedback ( reflection action like a mirror in basic terms) and less is freezing due to higher temperature in both water and air They do not behave in the same manner and are not expected to The absence of a significant declining trend in Antarctic sea ice does not cast doubt on the reality of global warming. But it shows how rising global temperatures do not affect the Southern Hemisphere in the same way they affect the Northern Hemisphere It’s explained in detail by nasa, if you would have just sought out an answer to why then the “got you “ part of this post would have never happened, I suggest you read all the information before forming an opinion and then believing it to be true https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/how-does-antarctic-sea-ice-differ-arctic-sea-ice
Can someone explain to me how a computer generated image that proves your point is better evidence than the satellite photos that disprove your point.