2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[Luckyone]

You won't answer my question ... common sense says you're afraid to ...

What do you wish to debate if you're unable to support the claims made in the OP? ...

Nutrition? ... tell me why 0.02% more broccoli causes problems ... you know the answer, that's why you smugly pump out the CO2 knowing it's too little to matter ... so why are you here being hysterical? ...

For the record, this post has been brought to you by 100% clean renewable hydro-electricity ... and it's illegal to burn coal in the State of Oregon for the production of energy ... not that the single plant we had before was making any money ...

I was not debating, I was informing.

 

[Orangecat]

The 2024 ice extent was second smallest of the satellite record, only slightly above the extreme record low set in 2023.

So it’s improving?
Is more ice a good thing?
A bad thing?
Fascinating stuff.
Pass the ketchup.

 

[ReinyDays]

I was not debating, I was informing.

You claimed to be uninformed ... relying on this so-called "97% consensus" as the basis of your faith ... which includes "no comment" as a "yes" vote ... so I'm asking why you're basing your faith on this? ...

It's your thread ... and it's not very informative ... not to mention a couple decades late ... we've known about this since the 1970's ... watch the movie Soylent Green, because that's what you seem to be predicting ...

 

[Luckyone]

You claimed to be uninformed ... relying on this so-called "97% consensus" as the basis of your faith ... which includes "no comment" as a "yes" vote ... so I'm asking why you're basing your faith on this? ...

It's your thread ... and it's not very informative ... not to mention a couple decades late ... we've known about this since the 1970's ... watch the movie Soylent Green, because that's what you seem to be predicting ...

This is my last answer to you on this topic.

I do research on topics and when I see an article that is based on data, statistics and fact and that catches my attention, I show it. As an evaluator that I am, I believe in data, statistics and facts and I believe the scientists when the majority of them are in agreement that we have a man-made climate change that must be addressed or damage to our planet will occur.

When I add to that my own experiences with Climate changes, such as record hot days, damage done by Hurricanes, wild fires, flooding rains that in my 79 years of life I have not experienced like I am experiencing now, my mind tells me "the science is correct".

And when I see charts like this with whopping acceleration of CO2 levels rising that are not stopping

I realize that this is getting worse. I know that all extremes are bad and this chart is an extreme to the nth degree.

Having said all of the above, there was none of this 120 years ago. This all came to be when this started:

and I ask "what can be done to replace this? After all, we do need factories to give us what they produce, which is something we do need" and I read this:

To replace factories producing high CO2 emissions, we can focus on transitioning to more sustainable manufacturing practices by utilizing renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, implementing circular economy principles like recycling and remanufacturing, investing in advanced technologies like carbon capture and storage, and working with sustainable suppliers to source low-carbon materials.

and I say to myself "there is a solution that we can use to stop the emissions that are causing the Global Climate change. We can do something about it. Why don't we?"

So what all of this means to me is the following

1) there is a problem that is causing extremes to happen
2) it is a man-made problem, meaning there is a solution
3) we do not need to change the production-of-progress we need, we just need to do a few positive changes
4) most of the scientists agree that there is a problem but even "if they are wrong", common sense tells us that extremes of anything are bad. That our earth was great before the factories were made and if the factories are changed to where CO2 emissions are cut down significantly, things will be better (no extremes seen)

Now that I have taken the time to explain myself fully, you need to tell me why we should not pay attention to this problem and not do anything. What do we gain by ignoring this situation and doing nothing about it?

Your turn

 

[ReinyDays]

Now that I have taken the time to explain myself fully, you need to tell me why we should not pay attention to this problem and not do anything. What do we gain by ignoring this situation and doing nothing about it?

Your turn

Why would a Carter Democrat like myself advocate "doing nothing"? ... I support these innovations in alternative energy sources, wind and solar have an important place in our energy future ... but we also must conserve energy ... and that's not happening ...

I don't own an A/C ... never have never will ...

 

[Mister Iggy]

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.

 

[Luckyone]

Why would a Carter Democrat like myself advocate "doing nothing"? ... I support these innovations in alternative energy sources, wind and solar have an important place in our energy future ... but we also must conserve energy ... and that's not happening ...

I don't own an A/C ... never have never will ...

You did not answer the question. You danced around it.

 

[EMH]

This is my last answer to you on this topic.

I do research on topics and when I see an article that is based on data, statistics and fact and that catches my attention, I show it. As an evaluator that I am, I believe in data, statistics and facts and I believe the scientists when the majority of them are in agreement that we have a man-made climate change that must be addressed or damage to our planet will occur.

When I add to that my own experiences with Climate changes, such as record hot days, damage done by Hurricanes, wild fires, flooding rains that in my 79 years of life I have not experienced like I am experiencing now, my mind tells me "the science is correct".

And when I see charts like this with whopping acceleration of CO2 levels rising that are not stopping

View attachment 1053099

I realize that this is getting worse. I know that all extremes are bad and this chart is an extreme to the nth degree.

Having said all of the above, there was none of this 120 years ago. This all came to be when this started:

View attachment 1053103

and I ask "what can be done to replace this? After all, we do need factories to give us what they produce, which is something we do need" and I read this:

To replace factories producing high CO2 emissions, we can focus on transitioning to more sustainable manufacturing practices by utilizing renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, implementing circular economy principles like recycling and remanufacturing, investing in advanced technologies like carbon capture and storage, and working with sustainable suppliers to source low-carbon materials.

and I say to myself "there is a solution that we can use to stop the emissions that are causing the Global Climate change. We can do something about it. Why don't we?"

So what all of this means to me is the following

1) there is a problem that is causing extremes to happen
2) it is a man-made problem, meaning there is a solution
3) we do not need to change the production-of-progress we need, we just need to do a few positive changes
4) most of the scientists agree that there is a problem but even "if they are wrong", common sense tells us that extremes of anything are bad. That our earth was great before the factories were made and if the factories are changed to where CO2 emissions are cut down significantly, things will be better (no extremes seen)

Now that I have taken the time to explain myself fully, you need to tell me why we should not pay attention to this problem and not do anything. What do we gain by ignoring this situation and doing nothing about it?

Your turn

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere, so why anyone cares about CO2 content in the atmosphere is the question. The DATA proves increasing atmospheric CO2 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

[ReinyDays]

You did not answer the question. You danced around it.

You never answered my question ...

You claimed to be uninformed ... relying on this so-called "97% consensus" as the basis of your faith ... which includes "no comment" as a "yes" vote ... so I'm asking why you're basing your faith on this? ...

Your math is wrong ... I already pointed that out ...

 

[Luckyone]

You never answered my question ...

You claimed to be uninformed ... relying on this so-called "97% consensus" as the basis of your faith ... which includes "no comment" as a "yes" vote ... so I'm asking why you're basing your faith on this? ...

Your math is wrong ... I already pointed that out ...

I have lived my life by following the probabilities and not the longshots. When 97% of climate experts agree, I go with that.

When I (or my wife) need a specialist doctor, I search for the doctors that have the best records of success. When I search for a stock opportunity, I pick the stocks that have the best bottom lines of debt vs income, etc., etc., etc.

It has not always worked out on an individual event but the end result has always been good.

As far as the climate problem is concerned, I am not personally do research on the numbers, on the possibilities, on the reasons. I am going to let those that do that, do it and then find the consensus and go with that.

Does that answer your question.

Now, drop it. There is NOTHING you personally can say that will change my mind unless you can show studies that PROVE that the 97% of Climate studiers have it all wrong................even then, you cannot convince me that this is a positive for our planet

 

[ReinyDays]

I have lived my life by following the probabilities and not the longshots. When 97% of climate experts agree, I go with that.

What "common sense" are you using when you hear "97% of climate experts agree"? ... do you even have a citation? ... WHO, exactly, says 97% of climate experts agree on anything ... do you see where they include abstentions as "yes" votes ... why do you agree with that? ...

"The whole world agrees with me about snow being of Satan ... see how not a single person says I'm wrong ... 100% consensus buck-o ..."

What would you think if I claimed "97% of all Economics experts agree the Euro will be the world currency in 100 years" ... do you know enough about economics to know how preposterous this is ... yet we can regularly predict the economics two weeks from now ... try that with weather ...

So tell us ... what "problems" are there from global warming that doesn't violate any of the Laws of Thermodynamics ... including equilibrium ... hypercanes and hockey sticks violate the Laws of Nature ... why do you believe in these Laws of Nature? ...

You won't educate yourself, and I find that sad ... why live if you're not learning ...

 

[westwall]

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?

And based on your stock suggestions, and the reasons for them, you suck balls at it.

The 97% claim was debunked over a decade ago, yet you still trot it out as if it's in some way meaningful.

It isn't.

 

[westwall]

I have lived my life by following the probabilities and not the longshots. When 97% of climate experts agree, I go with that.

When I (or my wife) need a specialist doctor, I search for the doctors that have the best records of success. When I search for a stock opportunity, I pick the stocks that have the best bottom lines of debt vs income, etc., etc., etc.

It has not always worked out on an individual event but the end result has always been good.

As far as the climate problem is concerned, I am not personally do research on the numbers, on the possibilities, on the reasons. I am going to let those that do that, do it and then find the consensus and go with that.

Does that answer your question.

Now, drop it. There is NOTHING you personally can say that will change my mind unless you can show studies that PROVE that the 97% of Climate studiers have it all wrong................even then, you cannot convince me that this is a positive for our planet

View attachment 1053417

That picture is of WATER VAPOR you anti science baboon!

 

[EMH]

When 97% of climate experts agree

Your definition of "climate expert" is MSNBC said it.


Find one, just one, of these "experts" who will answer basic climate questions, because none will, because none can without admitting CO2 is not the cause...


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?



The only thing your "climate experts" are actually experts in doing is FUDGING DATA and LYING. And you are an absolute science invalid parroting moron who really doesn't care about truth or Earth's environment, you care about BIG GOVERNMENT and stealing $$$ from the taxpayer by any means necessary.

 

[Oddball]

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

We know that none -as in NONE- of the dire predictions that you chicken little warmers has ever made has come to pass.

That's all anyone really needs to know.

 

[Oddball]

What "common sense" are you using when you hear "97% of climate experts agree"? ... do you even have a citation? ... WHO, exactly, says 97% of climate experts agree on anything ... do you see where they include abstentions as "yes" votes ... why do you agree with that? ...

"The whole world agrees with me about snow being of Satan ... see how not a single person says I'm wrong ... 100% consensus buck-o ..."

What would you think if I claimed "97% of all Economics experts agree the Euro will be the world currency in 100 years" ... do you know enough about economics to know how preposterous this is ... yet we can regularly predict the economics two weeks from now ... try that with weather ...

So tell us ... what "problems" are there from global warming that doesn't violate any of the Laws of Thermodynamics ... including equilibrium ... hypercanes and hockey sticks violate the Laws of Nature ... why do you believe in these Laws of Nature? ...

You won't educate yourself, and I find that sad ... why live if you're not learning ...

That "97%" hokum was debunked before lunchtime on the day it was released.

Turns out the "97%" all self-selected.

 

[ReinyDays]

That picture is of WATER VAPOR you anti science baboon!

Nice catch ...

That "97%" hokum was debunked before lunchtime on the day it was released.

Turns out the "97%" all self-selected.

I looked it up ... it's a foregone conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change ... so climate researchers don't have to say that in their abstracts ... not stating this in the paper's abstract is proof positive the scientist agrees completely with all the hysteria ... whether the paper is about climate change or not ... or even if the conclusions agree with the abstract ...

We'll put "Antarctic sea ice" in the abstract even if the conclusion is "no effect" ... and this is a "yes" vote ... this never needed to be debunked, it was clearly bunk to begin with ...

Would you take a stock tip from "97% of all economists" for 100 years from now? ... those economists will all be DEAD before then ...

 

[Oddball]

I looked it up ... it's a foregone conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change ... so climate researchers don't have to say that in their abstracts ... not stating this in the paper's abstract is proof positive the scientist agrees completely with all the hysteria ... whether the paper is about climate change or not ... or even if the conclusions agree with the abstract ...

It isn't just that....All who answered the questionnaire self-selected to answer it.....They were already predisposed to believe the hoax.

 

[westwall]

It isn't just that....All who answered the questionnaire self-selected to answer it.....They were already predisposed to believe the hoax.

Hell, the majority all owned "sustainability" companies whose very existence relied on continuing the fraud.

Logical fallacy number one, the Appeal to Authority. When the Authority has money or reputation invested in their opinion, their opinions are worthless.

 

[ReinyDays]

It isn't just that....All who answered the questionnaire self-selected to answer it.....They were already predisposed to believe the hoax.

That must have been a different ruse ... I looked up the "abstract result" ... 3% of all scientific papers claimed global warming had a natural component ... so 97% is inferred that man is the ONLY cause of global warming ...

Farcical from the beginning but do you think the Natoinal Inquirer, or the OP, cares? ...