killyfan wrote:
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.
"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.
He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."
The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
Thanks for your patience, kindness and tenacity re the long-postponed beer social...the future is still uncertain.
As for your point re the arctic ice phenomenon...
You can't see the irony here??
I posted last week, sarcastically, about how the unusual extent of arctic sea ice hindering ship traffic argued against the "climate consensus" and was howled at. Those missing the sarcasm my point all along has been that all these weather events have a VERY complex layered route of causation that is, at present, inadequately understood, and CANNOT be used as proof of any particular theory of climate. The howlers claimed I was
cherry-picking weather events to DEBUNK climate theories
I spend the WHOLE YEAR reading "supporters of the consensus"
cherry-picking weather events to SUPPORT climate theories!!
So now you pick a post that does EXACTLY that! Your post claims that the fact there is SO MUCH arctic sea ice PROVES the consensus theory that CO2 drives climate!!!!! Wow.
So I repeat my request, posted endlessly on this thread...can you give me ONE weather/climate event which would disprove the consensus narrative??
Just one?
You can't because the IPCC theory of climate is carefully constructed (mostly by being incredibly vague and inclusive) to avoid "predictions" ...instead it offers "projections" which include virtually all outcomes as possible. If a theory cannot be disproved...it ain't science.
Alternately...
Can you link to a post where a prominent consensus scientist makes a climate prediction which represents a SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT to mankind???
SURELY there must be at least one. Out of all the changes CO2 is claimed to be able to drive SURELY at least ONE of them will be good for humans.
When you really research this and find that virtually all predictions about 'climate change' suggest NEGATIVE outcomes....
don't your BS detectors activate??
Many (most) of the IPCC "projections out to 2100 suggest "mild" warming (under 3 degrees). If you accept them at their word (being a scientist I don't), that the global mean temperature will only increase by a degree or two....yet they CANNOT find their way to mentioning any ACTUAL SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS from that mild warming..what does that tell you about these "scientists?"
You can't clearly see that as prima facia evidence of BIAS??
No consensus scientists will take the time to point out that there would be LOTS OF BENEFITS if CO2 continues to become elevated and somehow drove an increase of about 2 degrees by 2100. There would be, as we are told endlessly, some costs... but also lots of benefits.
CO2 enrichment would, likely, increase photosynthetic rates (in many instances) and cause global greening...leading to increased vegetation/ biomass, even in deserts (enriched CO2 seems to decrease stomatal conductance of H20 thus decreasing water stress).
And this is demonstrably occurring globally.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
Less people would, likely, freeze to death in northern latitudes.(far more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat, cold winters kill humans)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
The arctic seas might, likely, be easier to travel through. (although...maybe not...eh?)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
Less energy would, likely, be required to heat homes.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
The earth might, likely, see less droughts as the increased humidity in the atmosphere might lead to increased precipitation.
Surely SOME of this projected increase in precipitation might alleviate droughts, not just increase floods???? Like maybe the USA could find itself in a period of the LOWEST drought index "in recorded history?"
Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
As the temperature differential between the poles and tropics, likely, diminishes (as per IPCC theory) that means there would be less of a global thermal gradient.. which could lead to LESS instability...less storminess. That could lead to a situation where the USA could BREAK RECORDS for the longest period "in recorded history' where a major hurricane fails to make landfall.
Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!
Why are no consensus scientists bringing up the potential of these clear benefits that can be projected (or in some cases have already manifested)??
Because....they are not really scientists (in an accurate use of that word). Scientists value a dispassionate analysis of the data and narratives to explain the data. These folks are activists and propagandists and their dialogue betrays their motives.