patrick.net

CIC is back. still having trouble with the concept of rate of change are we? Check out https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ See that line going down, down, down. It's called a slope. That's what matters, not what happens in any given year. I know this is way over your head so just nod and try to look intelligent while the adults discuss this.

Dumb ass piggy has to lie about everything. Just goes to show that climate change deniers should not be at all respected.

Make Greenland green again! Continue Global Warming!

Playing cherry picking game with alarmists is not interesting, not even for trolling purposes. They will (and, in this post, already have) reply 'my totally not cherry picked metric is better than yours!'.

A good troll question would be 'why are there multiple non-return points (when CAGW becomes irreversible), and why do they coincide with US presidential election cycle'?

a1232

anonymous says

Playing cherry picking game with alarmists is not interesting, not even for trolling purposes. They will (and, in this post, already have) reply 'my totally not cherry picked metric is better than yours!'.

So you didn't look at the trend line. It's ok, no one expected you to.

I'm sure picking the year of lowest ice extent in history as a starting point was just coincidence, not cherry picking. I'm also sure world peace will break out any day now.

bob2356 says

anonymous says

So you didn't look at the trend line.

Rotfl.

Of course I didn't look at the trend line, because there is no the trend line. There are many places with ice growing and receding, there are multiple temperature records, there are multiple proxy temp reconstructions. You move goal posts twice a year, why bother keeping up?

Three decades ago, James Hansen said that West Side Highway will be underwater in forty years, assuming doubling CO2. How is that prediction holding up? How have his three scenarios fared -- compared to null hypothesis (which is 'there will be nothing unusual in 21st century')?

a1232