“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
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- MLH on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
- Jack the Insider on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Terry Shipman on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
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. đŸ˜‰
-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.