“you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
- Upping The Ante
- Our New Leadership
- Grok Defines Fake News
- Arctic Meltdown Update
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
Recent Comments
- gordon vigurs on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- Ulric Lyons on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Ulric Lyons on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- conrad ziefle on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- arn on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- Ivan G Wainwright on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- Peter Carroll on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- Francis Barnett on Everything Looks Like A Nail
- Bob G on Crime In Colorado
- Bob G on Crime In Colorado
So accounting for 2005 and 2007, it probably should have been gone by now, since 2013 was being conservative, eh?
So I know that some people are arguing that the ones claiming the sea ice will be gone so soon are on the extreme and don’t represent the mainstream thought. However, if that’s true, where are all the more reasonable scientists opposing these sorts of statements? Why do the most extreme viewpoints get the coverage?
One point though…Dr. Wadhams could end up being right. By his sudden melt statement, things could look really normal until Sept 11, 2013, and then 4 million km^2 of ice just suddenly melts. Best to wait to call him out until Oct 1, 2013. 😉
-Scott
Scott:
Simple answer is $!
“However, if that’s true, where are all the more reasonable scientists opposing these sorts of statements?”
http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=960037451704d683012148f664613196&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201
Comments start on page 3.
It’s surprising to see a “science reporter” from “BBC News” reporting from “San Francisco” making somewhat, um, “alarmist” statements
He was right.
Prove me wrong.
Andy
Give that the summer minimum has been on an upwards trend since 2007, there might be good reason not to take that forecast seriously.
What’s the error bar on that “trend”? Do you even know how to calculate it? You might just as well say that since it’s been on a downwards trend since 2009, we should take it seriously again. The reality is that any trend based on less than a decade’s data is extremely unlikely to be significant – while the long-term trend is highly significant, and downwards.
An upwards trend is not a downwards trend. Ice free in two years would require an asteroid.