2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[EMH]

sounds like someone needs an environmentally safe tissue.....

or a new brain with an IQ over 5....

 

[Luckyone]

I do have to say one thing about the members of this message board, they are top-notch in debasing, insulting those that disagree with their views and show such disdain for data, statistics and facts.

It is like sheep

 

[jbrownson0831]

I do have to say one thing about the members of this message board, they are top-notch in debasing, insulting those that disagree with their views and show such disdain for data, statistics and facts.

It is like sheep

View attachment 1052711

Only one cult, Climatard.....
Funny how you jobless ilk are the ones whining about the need to support all these scams needing government funding.

 

[Oddball]

I do have to say one thing about the members of this message board, they are top-notch in debasing, insulting those that disagree with their views and show such disdain for data, statistics and facts.

It is like sheep

View attachment 1052711

 

[ReinyDays]

Fact:

2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record​

The area around Antarctica where the ocean was at least 15 percent ice covered reached 6.63 million square miles (17.16 million square kilometers) before starting its annual spring melt. The 2024 ice extent was second smallest of the satellite record, only slightly above the extreme record low set in 2023.

NSIDC reported that the 2024 Antarctic maximum was 77,000 square miles (200,000 square kilometers) above the 2023 record-low extent, but it was 598,000 square miles (1.55 million square kilometers) below the average maximum extent from 1981-2010. In that sense, it’s continuing a pattern that began around 2016, with most winters from 2016-2022 having below-average ice extents. In another sense, however, it’s nothing like those years; like 2023, the 2024 winter maximum was so far outside the range of observed variability that some scientists speculate that the Southern Ocean sea ice may have entered a wholly new state.

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/701/2023/tc-17-701-2023.html

But according to the Climate Change deniers, it is all Fake Truths and scamming by the people saying that our world is not suffering a game changing Climate Change.

Why are you grouping all of us together? ... I agree the globe is warming, and I agree man contributes to this effect ... but what game is changed by 1% less Antarctic sea ice? ...

FYI and as stated in another Forum. I will only respond to posts that include data, statistics and facts that state another view of the data presented.

Opinions (and especially denigrating ones) are a penny per thousand. No reason to even address them. They deserve to be in the garbage.

Will you accept NOAA data on global temperatures? ... alas, this says temperatures are up only a single degree ... and that would be 2ºC in the polar regions ... I don't know if you're familiar with Arctic Amplification or not ... but I do agree this means less sea ice in the Antarctic region ... woot ... ha ha ... it also means less sea ice in the Arctic Oceans as well ... yeah, opening the Northwest Passage would be game changing ... we can only hope right? ...

Unfortunately sea ice isn't technically a part of the atmosphere ... and the amount of sea ice doesn't matter to climate ... Over the land portions we have "eternal winter, with all 12 months of the year with average temperatures below 0 °C" - Köppen Class EF ... over the sea ... welll ...

I'm not sure data is going to help here ... there's some physics that happens where gaseous air meets liquid water, and to a much less degree where air meets ice ... and this causes an Oceanic Climate, of which temperature has no bearing, it's all about humidity and some really really complicated thermodynamics ... what professionals call hydrothermogoddamics ...

1ºC is too small to matter ... the climate system is far more robust than that ... ultimately, this is about mass ... and the mass of carbon dioxide humans release is trivial ... and quickly absorbed into the system ... you might be shocked to learn just how much carbon the oceans can hold ...

 

[Luckyone]

Antarctic sea ice regime shift associated with decreasing zonal symmetry in the Southern Annular Mode


Why are you grouping all of us together? ... I agree the globe is warming, and I agree man contributes to this effect ... but what game is changed by 1% less Antarctic sea ice? ...



Will you accept NOAA data on global temperatures? ... alas, this says temperatures are up only a single degree ... and that would be 2ºC in the polar regions ... I don't know if you're familiar with Arctic Amplification or not ... but I do agree this means less sea ice in the Antarctic region ... woot ... ha ha ... it also means less sea ice in the Arctic Oceans as well ... yeah, opening the Northwest Passage would be game changing ... we can only hope right? ...

Unfortunately sea ice isn't technically a part of the atmosphere ... and the amount of sea ice doesn't matter to climate ... Over the land portions we have "eternal winter, with all 12 months of the year with average temperatures below 0 °C" - Köppen Class EF ... over the sea ... welll ...

I'm not sure data is going to help here ... there's some physics that happens where gaseous air meets liquid water, and to a much less degree where air meets ice ... and this causes an Oceanic Climate, of which temperature has no bearing, it's all about humidity and some really really complicated thermodynamics ... what professionals call hydrothermogoddamics ...

1ºC is too small to matter ... the climate system is far more robust than that ... ultimately, this is about mass ... and the mass of carbon dioxide humans release is trivial ... and quickly absorbed into the system ... you might be shocked to learn just how much carbon the oceans can hold ...

One question for you

You give no links to the words you use to disqualify the outlook given so, "what are your qualifications that make you more knowledgeable that NOAA"?

 

[Luckyone]

Only one cult, Climatard.....
Funny how you jobless ilk are the ones whining about the need to support all these scams needing government funding.

Do you actually know anything? You make all these disparaging and debasing/insulting comments but so far you have provided no links to articles that support your words.

If you do not need to provide links to articles, please give me your qualifications that allow you to make these statements. By qualifications, I mean studied and confirmed publicly, knowledge/study/tools-used that makes you an expert on the topic

 

[ReinyDays]

One question for you

You give no links to the words you use to disqualify the outlook given so, "what are your qualifications that make you more knowledgeable that NOAA"?

Is that why you group us all together ... because none of us are smarter than NOAA? ...

Are you as smart as NOAA and can speak for them? ...

If 1ºC changes weather, can you explain why? ... you're the one with an extraordinary claim, it's your job to prove you're right ...

 

[Luckyone]

Is that why you group us all together ... because none of us are smarter than NOAA? ...

Are you as smart as NOAA and can speak for them? ...

If 1ºC changes weather, can you explain why? ... you're the one with an extraordinary claim, it's your job to prove you're right ...

Let me make one thing very clear. I have been evaluating things that affect the market and the economy for 47 years and one thing that has worked well consistently, is to go with the experts and the odds. Nothing is ever 100% sure but the experts generally know more than the common person and the favorite/probable always has better odds of being right than the longshot/unlikely.

Having said that, I will listen to experts and people that dedicate their time to studying climate change before I ever pay attention to the common person having an opinion.

I personally have no knowledge of Climate change but when 97% of all climate experts say there is Global warming I will pay attention more to them than the 3% that say different and always pay more attention to the experts than opinion from people like you that know as much about climate change as I do.............which is nothing.

NOAA is an expert on climate change and I will pay attention to them.

What are YOUR credential for making any contrary statement. As far as your statement about it being my job to PROVE that I am right, that is pure BS. All I have done (and am required to do) is submit the information found/given by a climate expert. If you disagree with their findings, it is YOUR JOB to show data, statistics, and facts that prove that expert being wrong.

I am just a messenger. I am not the company doing the studies. Can they be wrong and I offer the information unfairly? Sure! but then again, 97% of the people that study climate change agree that it is a problem. Who are you to disagree with them?

 

[EMH]

disdain for data, statistics and facts

and questions, since you lack the intellect and the courage to answer basic climate questions...


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?

 

[EMH]

NOAA is an expert on climate change and I will pay attention to them.

The only thing parroting has ever proven is that the individual doing the parroting has a BEAK and a BIRDBRAIN.

 

[Luckyone]

and questions, since you lack the intellect and the courage to answer basic climate questions...


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?

Did I not say that I personally do not know anything about the topic? You did not read it in my last post. Did you even understand what I stated?

 

[Luckyone]

The only thing parroting has ever proven is that the individual doing the parroting has a BEAK and a BIRDBRAIN.

I am done talking to ignorant and biased people like you. It is not worth the time (even if it is only seconds)

 

[ReinyDays]

Let me make one thing very clear. I have been evaluating things that affect the market and the economy for 47 years and one thing that has worked well consistently, is to go with the experts and the odds. Nothing is ever 100% sure but the experts generally know more than the common person and the favorite/probable always has better odds of being right than the longshot/unlikely.

Having said that, I will listen to experts and people that dedicate their time to studying climate change before I ever pay attention to the common person having an opinion.

I personally have no knowledge of Climate change but when 97% of all climate experts say there is Global warming I will pay attention more to them than the 3% that say different and always pay more attention to the experts than opinion from people like you that know as much about climate change as I do.............which is nothing.

NOAA is an expert on climate change and I will pay attention to them.

What are YOUR credential for making any contrary statement. As far as your statement about it being my job to PROVE that I am right, that is pure BS. All I have done (and am required to do) is submit the information found/given by a climate expert. If you disagree with their findings, it is YOUR JOB to show data, statistics, and facts that prove that expert being wrong.

I am just a messenger. I am not the company doing the studies. Can they be wrong and I offer the information unfairly? Sure! but then again, 97% of the people that study climate change agree that it is a problem. Who are you to disagree with them?

You make a poor messenger if you are uninformed ... I took a class in meteorology ... and one in astrophysics ... I have sat and read NWS copy daily on the internet and listened to NOAA radio before then ... my argument starts with Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia and how it complies with the IPCC's predictions along the RPC4.5 scenario ... is any of that within your understanding? ... whatever your trip is, you should be able to answer for what you post, or don't post it ...

I find it strange you're taken in by this "97% consensus" myth ... and yet claim 47 years experience in economics ... when has anything garnered 97% consensus? ... your mistake is this "97% consensus" includes scientists make no statement one way or the other ... since when do abstentions count as "yes" votes? ... that might be how economic theories \progress, but not science ...

 

[EMH]

Did I not say that I personally do not know anything about the topic? You did not read it in my last post. Did you even understand what I stated?

You admitted you are a parroting moron science invalid, and since that is the case, you should probably STFU on this subject before you embarrass yourself further...

 

[Luckyone]

You make a poor messenger if you are uninformed ... I took a class in meteorology ... and one in astrophysics ... I have sat and read NWS copy daily on the internet and listened to NOAA radio before then ... my argument starts with Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia and how it complies with the IPCC's predictions along the RPC4.5 scenario ... is any of that within your understanding? ... whatever your trip is, you should be able to answer for what you post, or don't post it ...

I find it strange you're taken in by this "97% consensus" myth ... and yet claim 47 years experience in economics ... when has anything garnered 97% consensus? ... your mistake is this "97% consensus" includes scientists make no statement one way or the other ... since when do abstentions count as "yes" votes? ... that might be how economic theories \progress, but not science ...

Once again, let me state that I personally do not know anything about Global warming or its potential problems. What I do is read and when I read that 97% of the scientists agree that it is a problem, I go along with that from pure common sense of probable results.

You brought the Stefan Boltzmann law into play (had never heard of him of his theory before), so what I did as I always do, it find information about the law he stated.

His law has a high probability of being correct. As the Earth warms, more heat is released so in the long run, is all evens out, right?

I did then ask the following question and I got the following AI generated answer:

"If stefan boltzmann's law is correct, does that mean that global warming will not be a problem/"

and here is the answer I got:

"No, even if Stefan-Boltzmann's law is correct, it does not mean that global warming will not be a problem for Earth; while the law suggests a natural feedback mechanism where a warmer Earth radiates more energy back into space, the complexities of Earth's atmosphere, including the greenhouse effect, mean that increased greenhouse gases can still significantly raise global temperatures despite this feedback loop"

Your turn to debate this.

 

[EMH]

You make a poor messenger if you are uninformed ... I took a class in meteorology ... and one in astrophysics ... I have sat and read NWS copy daily on the internet and listened to NOAA radio before then ... my argument starts with Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia and how it complies with the IPCC's predictions along the RPC4.5 scenario ... is any of that within your understanding? ... whatever your trip is, you should be able to answer for what you post, or don't post it ...

I find it strange you're taken in by this "97% consensus" myth ... and yet claim 47 years experience in economics ... when has anything garnered 97% consensus? ... your mistake is this "97% consensus" includes scientists make no statement one way or the other ... since when do abstentions count as "yes" votes? ... that might be how economic theories \progress, but not science ...

and those are 97% of "climate scientists," who aren't even scientists, since they have never practiced actual science. 30k real scientists once agreed that there is no climate crisis at all.

 

[EMH]

As the Earth warms

1. Surface Air Pressure should rise.... but it isn't.
2. There should be an ongoing net ice melt, but there isn't.
3. Oceans should rise, but they aren't.
4. hurricanes should become stronger and more common, but they aren't.

 

[Luckyone]

and those are 97% of "climate scientists," who aren't even scientists, since they have never practiced actual science. 30k real scientists once agreed that there is no climate crisis at all.

I suggest you see post #36

 

[EMH]

I suggest you see post #36

I suggest you check out this...

Loading…

www.google.com

and then ask yourself if you are qualified to debate this issue with the author of the FBI FRAUD CASE homO hid in the CLOSET....