>Every winter, the Arctic Ocean’s sea ice cover reaches a peak and then declines with the onset of spring. That peak, recorded this year on Thursday, was the lowest seen in 37 years of record keeping, federal scientists said yesterday.
>Sea ice covered just 5.6 million square miles of the Arctic Ocean on Thursday, about 5,000 square miles less than the previous record set last year, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA. The 1981-2010 average sea ice extent was 6 million square miles.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-dwindles-to-new-record-winter-low/
B-but climate change doesn't exist
>>69911073
POL BTFO
>>69911312
R
A
R A R E
E
>>69911073
Praise KEK may it drown many Liberals and Communists.
>>69911073
>b-but climate change doesn't exist
said no one ever
anthropogenic climate change, however, is bullshit
>m-muh ice melting
literally who gives a fuck
it's ice
once it was water, at some point in the future it will be water again
piss off alarmist wankbags
>>69911073
...and if it was a record *high* level, theyd be saying "it's a symptom of instability caused by man made climate change"
is it now that the oceans will go and swipe all the shores around the world?
>>69911361
not that rare
>>69911073
Post yfw Jew York will be completely underwater
>>69911495
>anthropogenic climate change, however, is bullshit
97% of climate scientists agree it is real.
>>69912101
And 97% of all feminists agree that feminism is a good thing.
What does that prove?
>>69912101
It's incredibly easy to lie with statistics and it is done so frequently that it's hilarious that you take that at face value.
97% of how many scientists? Was the test group 50 scientists from california? 1000 from across the nation? 10 "scientist" from their office?
Until you can prove to me that 97% of ---ALL--- scientists state that it is real it is a flat out LIE, exactly the same as "9 out of 10 dentist agree this toothpaste is better."
>>69911073
What now conservashit faggots?
>>69911495
Your little shithole will be buried under rising sea levels
>>69911361
NEWFAG
E
W
F
A
G
>>69912407
Feminists aren't using empirical evidence to deduce their claims. Scientists are.
For instance they have ice core samples which provide an accurate record of the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years. There's also human records of carbon dioxide levels which can't be accounted for by natural phenomenon that far exceed levels from the past half a million years, even with warming and cooling periods.
What's bullshit are the doomsday predictions. The models that predict the warming trend tend to be way off, but records do show an increase in the global average temperature.
>>69912720
DUDE
>mfw Cairngorms
I couldn't give a fuck.
>>69912944
POO
>>69911073
>B-but climate change doesn't exist
You're correct OP. Climate Change doesn't exist as LibTards believe in it. Its just regular old climate
>>69912638
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=F269DAF2DDC37AF50C9AC6C3F3B67E55.c2
>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
There you go.
>Until you can prove to me that 97% of ---ALL--- scientists
Why would you care about what every scientist has to think about climate change? Should we be asking a biologist what he thinks about man made climate change? Of course not. That's why you only look at climatologists.
>>69913250
How much do you get paid to shill?
>>69913250
You should probably use records that go back longer than 10 years.
>>69912912
Dude you realize how small our sample size would be? It may not even be accurately measurable. You're comparing hundrededs of thousands of years to 200.
>>69913613
Along with these charts, we're starting to see evidence of global warming in the north.
Polar bears are dying off, permafrost is melting, the tree line is moving further up north, and other species are migrating further north every year.
>>69912823
Not true actually. In the North of Europe only the Netherlands gets fucked by this.
>>69913951
The sample size now would be much larger because you can do as many tests as you want in a year and keep an extremely accurate record. The fact is though that we are nearing carbon dioxide levels of 400ppm, which is FAR higher than anything else on record. You don't need many samples to know that's not normal.
maybe the ice just identifies as water and all the pressure we are putting on the glaciers to conform to our standards is actually causing more damage
>30 year low
woooooooooowwww
>>69911073
>federal scientists
>>69912101
go fuck yourself shill
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
>>69913337
Wasn't there some emails hacked from gores email account? They said they couldn't find any evidence for global warming and to force the data. Self reviewed papers? Wat?
>>69913975
Polar permafrost melts bring their own problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Current aggregate predictions are for an ice-free Arctic ocean in about 2035, just 20 years from now. With no surface ice, the ocean begins to warm with each passing summer- increasing the rate at which glaciers split off into icebergs and reducing the ice extent on the arctic tundra.
Current predictions are that methane emissions will double if the permafrost recedes 5 degrees northward - the increase in Arctic methane emissions is well-documented:
http://miljodirektoratet.no/Documents/publikasjoner/M454/M454.pdf
>>69914249
>post yfw the white saved the environment by killing all the feather indians because they burned so much wood
>supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forests to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse. A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Decreased_human_populations
>but dey wuz in tune wit nature n shit
>>69913337
>32.6% endorsed AGW
>Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus
So 97.1% of 32.6% (31.6546%) agree
>self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
The conveniently left out that once again the 97% is a portion of another percentage. If 35.5% help no position, then 97.2% of 64.5% (62.694%) support AGW.
Neither 32% or 65% are close to 97% and is not an overwhelming consensus.
So the 97% statement is factually wrong.
Lying with statistics.
>>69912101
Ice ages are a normal routine, literally who gives a shit
>b-b-b-but all those third world countries and denmark+netherlands
oh no.
>>69913337
Cool digits by the way.
>>69914237
The ppm tests are taken from around the world from the air and water. Not ice samples.
>>69911073
wow so ice melts? fuck who wouldve thought
>>69914685
>Current aggregate predictions are for an ice-free Arctic ocean in about 2035, just 20 years from now.
Such predictions have been made repeatedly, and have failed repeatedly. Isn't the test of a scientific theory supposed to be that it makes predictions that turn out to be true?
>Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/we-cant-ignore-the-securi_b_272815.html
>At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
>The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
>>69916185
This
>>69916185
It got pretty close in Sept. 2013.
Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
>>69912823
Being that stupid. You must be a newfie.
There is still half a metre of snow on the ground where I live.
>>69911073
They're only worried about this because people will finally find the entrance to the hollow earth, and thus end the Jew control over our world. The Nazis knew.
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/PartTwo.htm
