Then just a few days later it isn't even as high as 2009;
So who's cherry pick is the best? Well 2006 is not significant, nor is 2009. There is too much natural noise.
One of the best ways to judge the state of the Arctic Ice Extent is to look at longer trends, they tell the real story;
And so what, the extent of sea ice has fallen by about 15% over 33 years. We have no idea if that is alot, a small amount or completely normal.
ReplyDeleteBesides, melting sea ice is evidence that the earth's climate changes only, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause.
Sorry but you are wrong. The best evidence we have suggests it is a lot. Not just extent but more importantly volume/mass has declined. From what we know about paleoclimate this decrease is exceptional.
DeleteI think your logic is a bit confused. More Green houses gasses cause more warming. This is simple physics. GHGs have increased and by every credible record so has temperature. Ice melt is evidence of warming. Warming is evidence of increased CO2 and other GHGs. Which in turn can be measured and shown to have increased. There isn't a better current explanation or theory to explain the whole process.
Anonymous might also like to ponder this:
DeleteJohanessen finds that the other recorded Arctic warm period in the 1940s doesn't appear in climate model hindcasts of Arctic temperature. However similar warming events happen at other times in control runs without CO2 forcing. Yet the recent warm period appears in all model runs forced with CO2, even though those same model runs don't show the 1940s warming.
This demonstrates that the 1940s warming was most likely to be an outcome of internal variability of Arctic climate, whereas the recent warming is an outcome of forced response. A response forced by CO2 emissions.
It helps to have actually read the science before opining. Perhaps that's why Anonymous chose to be anonymous, they had a suspicion they'd be shown wrong.
Hello Lazarus,
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you handle wading through Goddard's idiocy.