2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[Luckyone]

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 ...

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.
• 
  Should I then ignore them and listen to YOU?
  
  

 

[westwall]

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.
• 
  Should I then ignore them and listen to YOU?
  

Big deal. Look up APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!

It's called a LOGIC FAIL.

 

[ReinyDays]

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

... and so begins the AI Apocalypse ...

My question is "do you see where they include abstentions as "yes" votes ... why do you agree with that? ..."

You don't think ... you're just a robot aping things you don't understand ... go calculate pi or something useful ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Big deal. Look up APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!

It's called a LOGIC FAIL.

Interesting ... not to hijack such a wonderful thread ... but can we say AI is an expert in any field ... does it carry any authority in a subject ...

Or is this more like APPEAL TO INTERNET SCRAPINGS? ... talk about lowest common denominator ...

 

[ding]

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.

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.

Pretty normal for an interglacial period though.

 

[Luckyone]

Pretty normal for an interglacial period though.

Sacrifices? Is the possibility of losing our survival possibilities a sacrifice we should take?

 

[ReinyDays]

Sacrifices? Is the possibility of losing our survival possibilities a sacrifice we should take?

Do you see where this "97% consensus" includes abstentions as "yes" votes ... why do you agree with that? ...

 

[Luckyone]

... and so begins the AI Apocalypse ...

My question is "do you see where they include abstentions as "yes" votes ... why do you agree with that? ..."

You don't think ... you're just a robot aping things you don't understand ... go calculate pi or something useful ...

No, I do NOT see where they "include abstentions". You need to point that out clearly.

Do you see there the amount of 2,780 scientists )post #81) agree that the earth is warming due to human action? Do you think that number is not high enough amount of scientists to believe their findings?

 

[ding]

Sacrifices? Is the possibility of losing our survival possibilities a sacrifice we should take?

If you are worried about the survival of life maybe you should be concerned with how dangerously close atmospheric levels of CO2 have gotten to snuffing out all life during the last four glacial periods.

Because otherwise there's nothing to fear from the theoretical incremental surface temperature of 1C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 which will occur roughly in the year 2100.

 

[Luckyone]

If you are worried about the survival of life maybe you should be concerned with how dangerously close atmospheric levels of CO2 have gotten to snuffing out all life during the last four glacial periods.

Because otherwise there's nothing to fear from the theoretical incremental surface temperature of 1C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 which will occur roughly in the year 2100.

One thing that is very very very scary is that on 5 different occasions and for different natural reasons, Earth's population has been on the verge of extinction. In those instances, over 80% of the population did die.

According to current scientific understanding, Earth's population has been significantly exterminated five times throughout its history, referred to as the "Five Great Mass Extinctions".

As such, this is an event that has happened before and is likely to happen again. What is scary though, is that this time it could be a man-made thing (not a natural thing) and that means it could even be worse.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, I do NOT see where they "include abstentions". You need to point that out clearly.

Do you see there the amount of 2,780 scientists )post #81) agree that the earth is warming due to human action? Do you think that number is not high enough amount of scientists to believe their findings?

This is your citation ... your belief system ... you claimed "97% consensus" without knowing where that figure came from ...

"found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change." ... if the study abstains from comment, it does not doubt the human cause ... total weasel ... your post #81 confirms abstentions are counted as "yes" ...

Why do you believe that should be done? ...

 

[Luckyone]

This is your citation ... your belief system ... you claimed "97% consensus" without knowing where that figure came from ...

"found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change." ... if the study abstains from comment, it does not doubt the human cause ... total weasel ... your post #81 confirms abstentions are counted as "yes" ...

Why do you believe that should be done? ...

My belief system? No, it is the belief system that is PREVALENT all over the world

You mention "study"? No, there are 3,000 studies!

There at 2.780 scientists saying that!

Here is the belief systems as stated by AI

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.

 

[westwall]

Sacrifices? Is the possibility of losing our survival possibilities a sacrifice we should take?

Hyperbole much? Sheesh you sound like a little child.

 

[westwall]

One thing that is very very very scary is that on 5 different occasions and for different natural reasons, Earth's population has been on the verge of extinction. In those instances, over 80% of the population did die.

According to current scientific understanding, Earth's population has been significantly exterminated five times throughout its history, referred to as the "Five Great Mass Extinctions".

As such, this is an event that has happened before and is likely to happen again. What is scary though, is that this time it could be a man-made thing (not a natural thing) and that means it could even be worse.

Yup. Cold was responsible for two, perhaps three of them. Never warmth though.

In fact, ALL of the mammals that exist today evolved during the PTEM when the global temps were at least 7 degrees C, warmer than today.

Cold kills, warmth doesn't.

 

[ding]

One thing that is very very very scary is that on 5 different occasions and for different natural reasons, Earth's population has been on the verge of extinction. In those instances, over 80% of the population did die.

According to current scientific understanding, Earth's population has been significantly exterminated five times throughout its history, referred to as the "Five Great Mass Extinctions".

As such, this is an event that has happened before and is likely to happen again. What is scary though, is that this time it could be a man-made thing (not a natural thing) and that means it could even be worse.

I don't think so. For the last 3 million years when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and the atmosphere warm. That's all this is. A normal interglacial period. In fact, this interglacial period is still 2C cooler than the last one and that's with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the last one.

Snapshots of mean ocean temperature over the last 700 000 years using noble gases in the EPICA Dome C ice core

Abstract. Together with the latent heat stored in glacial ice sheets, the ocean heat uptake carries the lion's share of glacial–interglacial changes in the planetary heat content, but little direct information on the global mean ocean temperature (MOT) is available to constrain the ocean...

cp.copernicus.org

 

[Luckyone]

I don't think so. For the last 3 million years when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and the atmosphere warm. That's all this is. A normal interglacial period. In fact, this interglacial period is still 2C cooler than the last one and that's with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the last one.

View attachment 1055388

Snapshots of mean ocean temperature over the last 700 000 years using noble gases in the EPICA Dome C ice core

Abstract. Together with the latent heat stored in glacial ice sheets, the ocean heat uptake carries the lion's share of glacial–interglacial changes in the planetary heat content, but little direct information on the global mean ocean temperature (MOT) is available to constrain the ocean...

cp.copernicus.org

The CO2 is man-made (not natural, as in the past)

 

[westwall]

The CO2 is man-made (not natural, as in the past)

Mankind adds less than 5% of the global CO2 budget.

Not enough to matter in the slightest.

 

[ding]

The CO2 is man-made (not natural, as in the past)

CO2 wasn't responsible for the glacial or interglacial periods in the past. CO2 lagged temperature by 800-1000 years. CO2 was a function of temperature. Not the other way around.

 

[Luckyone]

CO2 wasn't responsible for the glacial or interglacial periods in the past. CO2 lagged temperature by 800-1000 years. CO2 was a function of temperature. Not the other way around.

All I am saying is that there are 2,780 scientists say you are wrong. I hope you can live with those odds.

 

[ding]

All I am saying is that there are 2,780 scientists say you are wrong. I hope you can live with those odds.

And the geologic record and thermohaline circulation says they are wrong.