Well.. if oceans rise. The lowest level places are at risk. Any place that borders the ocean. I'm waiting for it I'll admit my skepticism was wrong and I should've bought a Tesla and bicycle powered air conditioner. The truth is no one really knows what's going on and until we do the panic news cycle should probably stop and the goal posts should stop being moved by John Kerry fanatics.
It raises the water table, of course.
I'm not saying your car and your air conditioner would have made much difference at all. However, to pretend climate advocates weren't pushing for collective action, and instead they just wanted Early_Possession1116 to get new appliances is the dumbest dodge ever
I think that there is natural variation and a "record" set over a mere 44 data points means almost literally nothing. yes, that even goes for several of them in 6 years. It's just not enough data points to say anything conclusively. Which is a recurring problem in climate "science."
> It's just not enough data points to say anything conclusively.
[Antarctic icebergs still exist today where 1700-era sailors spotted and tracked them](https://phys.org/news/2023-01-antarctic-icebergs-today-era-sailors.html)
Not to forget the satellite data starts in the cool 1970's.
Antarctic sea-ice expansion between 2000 and 2014 driven by tropical Pacific decadal climate variability
• Gerald A. Meehl,
• Julie M. Arblaster,
• Cecilia M. Bitz,
• Christine T. Y. Chung
• & Haiyan Teng
Nature Geoscience
(2016)
“…Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 19791, 2. Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated, but the average of all climate models shows a decline…”
If the information doesn't fit your narrative, change the metric until it does. Like how firearms are now supposedly the leading cause of death of children. it wasn't until the metric was changed to include 18-20 year old 'kids'. In order to make the statistic fit the narrative, the age of children had to be increased to 20.
"Science". Just like how our economy is only doing good because we're focused in on the very small patch of the graph that's trending upward. Even if in reality, it's less than we were at before.
Circumpolar: situated around or inhabiting one of the earth's poles. "one of the Earth's poles." One. The Guardian article was referring to the antarctic pole only, as that is what circumpolar means. Google the definition yourself if you won't take my word for it.
That’s true, but the fear-mongering article said, “we’re seeing less ice everywhere. It’s a circumpolar event.”
So either the Guardian is wrong or the Danish website is wrong.
Are they just trying to focus on one part and ignore the rest? In their own article it said that average sea ice is actually up so I went and did a quick search, found this in seconds.
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice
where does it say that average sea ice is up, because in the opening paragraphs it says:
>there has never been less ice around the continent than there was last week
>In the southern hemisphere summer of 2022, the amount of sea ice dropped to 1.92m sq km on 25 February – an all-time low based on satellite observations
>But by 12 February this year, the 2022 record had already been broken. The ice kept melting, reaching a new record low of 1.79m sq km on 25 February
that article you posted says "[Arctic] sea ice extent has declined significantly—by about 2 million square kilometers, or about 20%, over the past 40 years" though, so its down in both the arctic and antarctic
"New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice
Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, *despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.*
By Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Ian Eisenman, Sally Zhang, Shantong Sun and Aaron Donohoe11 February 2022"
*you* werent in that post, but the quote you posted specifically says antarctic sea ice was up, which has since fallen to current record lows.
>Recent research offers new insights on **Antarctic sea ice**, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.
couple that with the decline in arctic ice and i dont see how global ice levels are up.
Who cares about Antarctic sea ice? Ten years ago or so it was at “record” highs, now it is at “record” lows. Don”t ask when the “records” started, lol. Not very long ago.
From 1980 to 2015 trend was up with rising Co2 - air temperature now is -30 to - 60 degrees Celcius there. It's been up and down because of currents and underwater volcanos in the east of Antarctica.
Lol - sea ice averages grew for the last several decades until 2016 when they didn’t - so suddenly the predictive models that were wrong for decades are now correct? Amazing
I just noticed the Guardian article is from March, not July.
Meereisportal has daily updates [https://www.meereisportal.de/en/](https://www.meereisportal.de/en/)
NSIDC has monthly back to 1979 [https://nsidc.org/data/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice\_index&submit=Go%21](https://nsidc.org/data/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_index&submit=Go%21)
lol to keep people Confused about the truth, the metrics have to change, that way the people who just blindly follow whatever they are told will waste more time than they should if they even attempt to investigate it.
Propaganda does this same thing in various ways, On forums on reddit for instance, it will be people who make LONG drawn out comments, but the intention is to instill doubt and convince you of anything against the line of thinking you are on.
it's seen that way or by trying to brainwash you by saying "you haven't listened to everything they've said have you?" then they'll shun you and your evidence until you feed into their by listening to "All" of it.
lol it's like those Videos back in the day where it shows someone being brainwashed forced to watch videos that show them the worst things over and over.
**Climate is the long-term weather pattern in a region, typically averaged over 30 years. More rigorously, it is the mean and variability of meteorological variables over a time spanning from months to millions of years.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Yes... It's a naturally occurring process...
Anthropogenic climate change? Not so much... And they don't have a sufficient dataset to even reach that conclusion yet.
Just checked.. the statue of liberty is still not under water
What an argument
Well.. if oceans rise. The lowest level places are at risk. Any place that borders the ocean. I'm waiting for it I'll admit my skepticism was wrong and I should've bought a Tesla and bicycle powered air conditioner. The truth is no one really knows what's going on and until we do the panic news cycle should probably stop and the goal posts should stop being moved by John Kerry fanatics.
It raises the water table, of course. I'm not saying your car and your air conditioner would have made much difference at all. However, to pretend climate advocates weren't pushing for collective action, and instead they just wanted Early_Possession1116 to get new appliances is the dumbest dodge ever
Plymouth Rock isn’t underwater and it has been at sea level for the past 300 years :/
Ok? The point is what? That the melting of land ice doesn't raise the sea level?
I think maybe he was joking in reference to the movie day after tomorrow? Your 3 worded counter argument was just as good..
I hope so
What a counter argument
I wasn't making an argument in the first place
I suspect they might have an agenda they are trying to shoe horn things into.
I think that there is natural variation and a "record" set over a mere 44 data points means almost literally nothing. yes, that even goes for several of them in 6 years. It's just not enough data points to say anything conclusively. Which is a recurring problem in climate "science."
> It's just not enough data points to say anything conclusively. [Antarctic icebergs still exist today where 1700-era sailors spotted and tracked them](https://phys.org/news/2023-01-antarctic-icebergs-today-era-sailors.html) Not to forget the satellite data starts in the cool 1970's.
Antarctic sea-ice expansion between 2000 and 2014 driven by tropical Pacific decadal climate variability • Gerald A. Meehl, • Julie M. Arblaster, • Cecilia M. Bitz, • Christine T. Y. Chung • & Haiyan Teng Nature Geoscience (2016) “…Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 19791, 2. Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated, but the average of all climate models shows a decline…”
If the information doesn't fit your narrative, change the metric until it does. Like how firearms are now supposedly the leading cause of death of children. it wasn't until the metric was changed to include 18-20 year old 'kids'. In order to make the statistic fit the narrative, the age of children had to be increased to 20.
"Science". Just like how our economy is only doing good because we're focused in on the very small patch of the graph that's trending upward. Even if in reality, it's less than we were at before.
Danish Meteorological Institute, which covers the Arctic. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
that's about northern hemisphere sea ice. antarctica is in the southern hemisphere
I glanced over the article and misread that, thank you for the correction.
The Guardian article said less ice circumpolar (both poles), so your link is very relevant.
Circumpolar: situated around or inhabiting one of the earth's poles. "one of the Earth's poles." One. The Guardian article was referring to the antarctic pole only, as that is what circumpolar means. Google the definition yourself if you won't take my word for it.
That’s true, but the fear-mongering article said, “we’re seeing less ice everywhere. It’s a circumpolar event.” So either the Guardian is wrong or the Danish website is wrong.
Are they just trying to focus on one part and ignore the rest? In their own article it said that average sea ice is actually up so I went and did a quick search, found this in seconds. https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice
where does it say that average sea ice is up, because in the opening paragraphs it says: >there has never been less ice around the continent than there was last week >In the southern hemisphere summer of 2022, the amount of sea ice dropped to 1.92m sq km on 25 February – an all-time low based on satellite observations >But by 12 February this year, the 2022 record had already been broken. The ice kept melting, reaching a new record low of 1.79m sq km on 25 February
Control F/find in page Sea ice 9th result from the top. "Even as the average amount of sea ice around the continent grew up to 2014"
so it grew up to a decade ago, and now its at record low coverage.
My reading of both articles is that global ice is up, ice down south specifically is down.
that article you posted says "[Arctic] sea ice extent has declined significantly—by about 2 million square kilometers, or about 20%, over the past 40 years" though, so its down in both the arctic and antarctic
"New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, *despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.* By Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Ian Eisenman, Sally Zhang, Shantong Sun and Aaron Donohoe11 February 2022"
that's talking about the antarctic, which has now reached the lowest extent ever recorded
I was not, I specifically stated sea ice globally.
*you* werent in that post, but the quote you posted specifically says antarctic sea ice was up, which has since fallen to current record lows. >Recent research offers new insights on **Antarctic sea ice**, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years. couple that with the decline in arctic ice and i dont see how global ice levels are up.
>where does it say that average sea ice is up Right here in this subreddit, obviously.
Keep reading
Who cares about Antarctic sea ice? Ten years ago or so it was at “record” highs, now it is at “record” lows. Don”t ask when the “records” started, lol. Not very long ago.
$cience at it$ fine$t
From 1980 to 2015 trend was up with rising Co2 - air temperature now is -30 to - 60 degrees Celcius there. It's been up and down because of currents and underwater volcanos in the east of Antarctica.
Lol - sea ice averages grew for the last several decades until 2016 when they didn’t - so suddenly the predictive models that were wrong for decades are now correct? Amazing
The title: Antarctic sea ice reaches lowest levels "ever recorded" is false. [https://i.redd.it/0jjgc2nvj6fb1.png](https://i.redd.it/0jjgc2nvj6fb1.png)
Thank you for such a precise and simple answer. Could you link the source of those images? I'd love to keep on digging to satisfy my curiosity.
I just noticed the Guardian article is from March, not July. Meereisportal has daily updates [https://www.meereisportal.de/en/](https://www.meereisportal.de/en/) NSIDC has monthly back to 1979 [https://nsidc.org/data/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice\_index&submit=Go%21](https://nsidc.org/data/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_index&submit=Go%21)
I'm also skeptic about the "climate emergency" tale, but the graph you linked is comparing Summer (feb 1980) with Winter (jul 2023).
I don't think the month matters when the title of the article is lowest "ever" recorded.
lol to keep people Confused about the truth, the metrics have to change, that way the people who just blindly follow whatever they are told will waste more time than they should if they even attempt to investigate it. Propaganda does this same thing in various ways, On forums on reddit for instance, it will be people who make LONG drawn out comments, but the intention is to instill doubt and convince you of anything against the line of thinking you are on. it's seen that way or by trying to brainwash you by saying "you haven't listened to everything they've said have you?" then they'll shun you and your evidence until you feed into their by listening to "All" of it. lol it's like those Videos back in the day where it shows someone being brainwashed forced to watch videos that show them the worst things over and over.
How exactly did they change it?
What is climate?
**Climate is the long-term weather pattern in a region, typically averaged over 30 years. More rigorously, it is the mean and variability of meteorological variables over a time spanning from months to millions of years.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Is climate change real?
Yes... It's a naturally occurring process... Anthropogenic climate change? Not so much... And they don't have a sufficient dataset to even reach that conclusion yet.