[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 47 KB, 1120x1298, ice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16189806 No.16189806 [Reply] [Original]

If global warming is real then why did antarctic sea ice increase by 10% between the late 1970s & 2015?

>> No.16189819
File: 9 KB, 233x216, WTF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16189819

You see, basically, you just have to know that greater people than you are thinking harder than you. They spend more time and money than you, and 100% of them have told you exactly what you're supposed to believe so don't even bother trying to think just go back to sweeping floors so that you can be famous, wealthy, and powerful one day when you've given everything you have and your freedom and your personality and your youth to the actual people who are famous, wealthy, and powerful.

>> No.16189859

>>16189806
Because measuring on just one day (sep 15) is retarded

>> No.16189861

>>16189819
Gummy wummy

>> No.16189899

>>16189806
That nonsense is 100% scam.

>> No.16189914 [DELETED] 

>>16189806
What's the average temperature of the antarctic? What's the freezing point of water?

>> No.16190498

My guess would be the reduction in chlorofluorocarbons.

>> No.16190502

>>16189859
Oh shit, I didn't catch that. Also it looks like the graph was deliberately cut off at 2015, probably to hide the fact that the spike was transient.

>> No.16190758
File: 566 KB, 1517x649, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16190758

Not only is OP's date cherry picked, but there still is a net ice loss if you look at both Greenland and Antarctic.

>> No.16191725
File: 87 KB, 700x538, NASA-US-1999-2019-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16191725

>>16190758
sure there is. lmao. everyone knows you global warming faggots just change the data so it fits the narrative you're trying to sell

>> No.16192024

>>16191725
Retard take

>> No.16192277

>>16189859
>i know how to measure better than the professionals do
you don't

>> No.16192329
File: 4 KB, 505x572, nobrain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192329

>>16192024
>>16190502
>>16189859
>>16189819

>> No.16192336
File: 39 KB, 360x361, tvbug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16192336

>>16190758
The abhorrent vomit you call data is not convincing anyone who has a working brain. There is no such a thing as global warming.

>> No.16192434

>>16191725
>>16192336
>OP posts a cherry-picked slice of data
>Someone posts a wider data span from the exact same source
>"n-no you can't do that data is le bad"
Somber.

>> No.16193313
File: 119 KB, 1440x1079, OSI-Antarctic-Sea-Ice-16.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16193313

>> No.16193724
File: 59 KB, 523x600, 558.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16193724

>>16192336
Low IQ people will always tend to have stupid beliefs because they are low IQ

>> No.16193785
File: 19 KB, 306x306, 1687786029433630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16193785

>>16189806
>the area meme again
Is this a psyop to make me believe in AGW or are you chuds unironically this retarded?

>> No.16194825

>>16189806
Global warming is fake

>> No.16194865 [DELETED] 

>>16192277
>>16192336
>>16193313
>>16193724
Retard takes

>> No.16195522

>>16189806
Its amazing how upset people who claim to be concerned about the environment become when someone posts good news about the environment. You'd think they'd be happy to see good news about the environment, but instead they fly into a rage

>> No.16195542

>>16195522
>Its amazing how upset people who claim to be concerned about the environment become when someone posts lies and misinformation about the environment. You'd think they'd be happy to see lies and misinformation about the environment, but instead they fly into a rage
ftfy

>> No.16195849

>>16189806
>did antarctic sea ice increase by 10% between the late 1970s & 2015?
Yes, I remember following that well. The reasons for that increase are complex and involve a variety of factors.
You have to understand that due to the chaotic complexity of many interacting fluid dynamics factors and solar irradiance, albedo, cloud cover, etc, no one knows EXACTLY why it happened, but it is attributed to several combined factors, such as wind patterns (stronger westerly winds spread ice outward), ocean currents (upwelling of colder deep water promotes ice formation), atmospheric temperature (stable temperatures and cooling from ozone depletion), freshwater input (melting glaciers add cold, fresh water that freezes more easily), natural variability (climate phenomena like the Southern Annular Mode and El Niño-Southern Oscillation influence ice patterns).

You combine all that mess into a salad bowl the size of an ocean around a frozen continent and, yeah, it's hard to determine the details.

>> No.16195859
File: 157 KB, 1440x1079, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16195859

>>16193313
Anon, from your own chart, you can see that the OP is correct, the increase did occur.
My modest attempt at clarifying the OP with a simple answer to a very complex question:
>>16195849

>> No.16195958

>>16195859
>>16195522
Retard takes

>> No.16196487
File: 69 KB, 1440x1079, 1716820080599229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16196487

>>16195859

>> No.16197311

>>16196487
The rate at which the antarctic is gaining ice over the past 7 or 8 years is even greater than it was from 1978 to 2015

>> No.16198318

>>16189806
The current interglacial period is slowly coming to a close, the Antarctic will continue to gain ice for the next 10,000 years or so

>> No.16198779
File: 88 KB, 1951x1431, OSE Arctic Sea Ice Extent 3-28-2024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16198779

>>16197311
the arctic is also gaining ice currently

>> No.16199574

>>16198779
>>16197311
both of these are good news if you're concerned about global warming, looks like all of the scientists' doomsday predictions turned out to be completely wrong.

>> No.16200304

>>16189819
science is such a stupid religion

>> No.16201393
File: 69 KB, 960x541, 1568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16201393

>>16189819
>the next ice age is coming
<no, its global warming
>the next ice age is coming
<no, its global warming
>the next ice age is coming
<no, its global warming
>the next ice age is coming
<no, its global warming

>> No.16201398

>>16189806
Because it flows faster and more is inteoduced to the ocean, probably ? IDK, not a climate scientist.

>> No.16201785

>>16190498
But ozone decreases insolation, especially higher frequencies, so you would expect the opposite

>> No.16201800
File: 188 KB, 640x1280, Muh climate change.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16201800

>>16192434
>Seething
Nobody believes in your cow-farts doomsday cult anymore.

>> No.16201806

>>16189806
Global warming is a scam. Simple as.

>> No.16201810

>>16201398
yeah thats right, its the land ice of greenland and antarctica that are the ones to watch.
beware of data cherry picking people from either side. although i would say the deniers do it a whole lot more lol

>> No.16202781

>>16201398
>not a climate scientist.
thats why your retarded conjectures are so stupid

>> No.16203124

>>16201800
why are you deflecting?

>> No.16203128

>>16203124
>Why are you deflecting by proving that they fake their data?

>> No.16204958
File: 69 KB, 720x866, ePBL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16204958

>> No.16205091

>>16204958
This top image is ai generated, the Statue of Liberty is green

>> No.16205097

>>16192329
>I have no argument: the image

>> No.16205991

>>16205091
They didn't even have AI in the 1800s

>> No.16206877

>>16201393
meanwhile the weather hasn't changed since the 1800s

>> No.16208036

>>16189859
why

>> No.16208320

>>16208036
NGMI

>> No.16208400

>>16208320
so you're saying you have no explanation

>> No.16209188
File: 253 KB, 720x1005, Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16209188

>>16208036
one day is as good as any other, they'll all tell the same tale, theres more ice in the antarctic and in the arctic now than there was decades ago

>> No.16209368
File: 268 KB, 1980x1530, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16209368

>>16208036
Because there is no good reason to show 1/365 of the available data in this case. It makes sense if you, say, want to manipulate and hide the sea ice decline.

>> No.16209809

>>16208400
>>16209188
NGMI

>> No.16210405

>>16209368
sourcing your information from government propaganda agencies will only get you falsified data. propaganda agencies exist explicitly for the purpose of circulating falsehoods.

>> No.16210465

>>16210405
See >>16192434

>> No.16211081
File: 93 KB, 1454x1147, 36.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16211081

>>16209368

>> No.16211192
File: 107 KB, 668x316, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16211192

>>16211081
>a single paper
>the article mentions a low probability in the very next paragraph

>> No.16212513

>>16211081
>Nature
everything in that rag is fake

>> No.16217303
File: 100 KB, 1260x1079, arctic sea ice 2007-2024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16217303

>>16209368

>> No.16217449

>>16217303
The negative trend is clearly labelled in the bottom right corner. Thanks for agreeing that the sea ice is indeed declining.

>> No.16217470 [DELETED] 

>>16190758
>polnigger is a lying retard
Color me shocked

>> No.16217619

>>16189806
This is SETTLED SCIENCE. That means it's not up for debate anymore.
EVER!

>> No.16217628

>>16217449
>The negative trend is clearly labelled in the bottom right corner.
This! The green line makes it undeniable. And it's not like the time interval started at a higher ice level than it ended with, which would skew the average. That would be an incredibly dishonest procedure, and nobody would ever do that,

>> No.16217677 [DELETED] 

>>16217628
Why are you such a dishonest nigger?

>> No.16217761

>>16217628
Indeed, a 2007-2024 time range is a weird choice. Thankfully, we have more than 4 decades worth of data showing a long-term decline. See >>16209368

>> No.16218798
File: 455 KB, 300x268, racist_gif.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16218798

>>16217677
the n word is racist

>> No.16220803

>>16209188
Why was there a 400% gain in arctic sea ice between 1984 & 2012?
How is that possible if global warming is real?

>> No.16221459

>>16199574
Again?

>> No.16221599

>>16199574
>looks like all of the scientists' doomsday predictions turned out to be completely wrong.
no, it doesn't: noise within a larger pattern is natural variability.

>> No.16222695
File: 114 KB, 1500x500, stonetoss zings soyence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16222695

>>16221599
>muh doomsday

>> No.16223729
File: 580 KB, 1208x620, designated shitting planet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16223729

>>16189806
That measured increase was really from the accumulation of jeet waste accumulating on Antarctic shores

>> No.16225263
File: 310 KB, 1360x1629, fake global warming.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16225263

>> No.16226281
File: 100 KB, 1440x1079, OSI-Arctic-Sea-Ice-18.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16226281

>>16217761

>> No.16226400

>>16226281
>December 20
The remaining 364/365 of the data doesn't fit your narrative I presume? See >>16209368

>> No.16226967

>>16223729
>noaa.gov/tsunami/indo
interesting......

>> No.16227927

>>16226400
>t. science denialist

>> No.16229202
File: 27 KB, 583x433, reddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16229202

>>16189819

>> No.16229871
File: 449 KB, 674x960, y8s27b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16229871

>> No.16230871

>>16189806
global warming isn't real

>> No.16231052

>>16227927
The irony of denying 99.7% of the data and calling someone else a science denier is staggering.

>> No.16231910

>>16231052
>denying 99.7% of the data
that data is only collected on the winter solstice

>> No.16231922

>>16189806
>>16189819
>>16189899
>>16191725
>>16192329
>>16192336
>>16193724
>>16194825
>>16201393
>>16201806
>>16217619
>>16230871
Hello, sirs. Please do the needful and do not redeem global warming scam. It is trick to make you give money to your bhenchod government. Thank you kindly.

>> No.16232056

>>16190758
>you're cherry picking!
>here's my own cherries!
Climatetards are so obnoxious.

>> No.16232109

>>16232056
Anger and insults are all you've got - no surprise there.

>> No.16233354

>>16232056
>Showing all the data is cherrypicking
You might be the stupidest person in this thread.

>> No.16233778

>>16233354
both the arctic and the antarctic are accumulating ice

>> No.16234157
File: 159 KB, 962x755, imbie 2017.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16234157

>>16233778
Blatantly false.

>> No.16234980
File: 98 KB, 1488x1488, i maek graf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16234980

>>16234157
>omg i put words lines and dots on a jpeg!!!
>that means its true!!
try getting some real evidence, kid.
everyone knows you can't

>> No.16235855

>>16189819
>>16229202
lol

>> No.16237261

>>16189806
Global warming isn't real

>> No.16237386

>>16201785
What are talking about?

>> No.16238310

>>16189819
>trust the priests!!! oooops, I mean scientists

>> No.16239083

>>16218798
lol

>> No.16240425

>>16189806
>If global warming is real
false premise, its clearly fake

>> No.16240444 [DELETED] 

>>16238310
>trust the priests!!! oooops, I mean brain damaged Twitter retards with noisy jpegs

>> No.16242229
File: 338 KB, 1079x1800, nature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16242229

>>16234157
>(((nature.com)))
thats a politcal propaganda outlet, not a scientific organization

>> No.16243550

>>16229871
lol

>> No.16245119

>>16220803
it isn't possible if global warming is real, thats how we know global warming is fake

>> No.16246837

>>16229871
can't be too cold out, he doesn't have a scarf or gloves on, no hat too. Maybe he just wears 4 layers of jackets in order to compensate for what must be substantial heat lost from his enormous nose and large, low set protruding ears. Looks like he is doing the merchant hand rub too, that probably not a coincidence

>> No.16247891
File: 575 KB, 1165x685, rothschild nose.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16247891

>>16246837
>Maybe he just wears 4 layers of jackets in order to compensate for what must be substantial heat lost from his enormous nose and large, low set protruding ears

>> No.16248948

>>16247891
Wooly mammoths evolved small ears as an adaptation to their cold environment. The jew's large protruding ears are clearly evolved for a warm climate like African or the middle east.

>> No.16249828

>>16191725
Ah, I see they used Mike's Trick™.

>> No.16249830
File: 90 KB, 1753x565, Phanerozoic Temperatures.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16249830

>>16192434
>wider
This wide enough for you? You faggots are always trying to "correct" your doubters by claiming they aren't looking at a big enough picture, then when someone reminds you you're actually retarded by showing you a picture that includes anything before 1850 you all shriek like the women who haven't been appropriately financially compensated for a sexual transaction you are.

>> No.16249853

>>16231922
Fuck of bastard, we do not bloody talk like that.

>> No.16249860
File: 153 KB, 978x548, lolwut.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16249860

Look at this absolute fucking nonsense. Now "climate change" apparently exclusively means "anthropogenic climate change". They're not even hiding their lies anymore. Also, water vapor almost certainly accounts for more like 75% or more of the greenhouse effect, not less than half.

>> No.16249867

>>16249830
>OP posts a cherry-picked slice of sea ice measurements
>someone posts a full available range of the same sea ice measurements
>"n-no you can't do that" posts a proxy temperature reconstruction

First steps in cognitive processing, eh? How about you try reading the very sources you post?
Royer et al (2004): https://rock.geosociety.org/net/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

>> No.16249888
File: 302 KB, 1200x1200, 1684236719116837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16249888

>>16249867
Do you care this much about this little oopsie? Or is it just ones that you're "allowed" to care about?

>> No.16249898

>>16249860
>water vapor almost certainly accounts for more like 75% or more of the greenhouse effect, not less than half.
Based on what?

>> No.16249920

>>16249898
Based on the fact that it traps heat in a noticeable fashion.

>> No.16249933

>>16189806
Whatever happened to HAARP? Did that conspiracy theory become obsolete?

>> No.16249940

>>16249920
So your feelings? What data do you have to support the claim that water accounts for 75% or more of the greenhouse effect?

>> No.16249947

>>16249940
Yes, my feelings are more important than your lies.

>> No.16249972

>>16249888
Good post

>> No.16250000

>>16249947
So you don't have any data to back up your claim? What use is it then?

>> No.16250146

>>16189806
Because of global warming.

>> No.16251163

>>16250146
lol

>> No.16251216
File: 180 KB, 750x580, Chud hates PNGs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16251216

>> No.16252320

>>16251216
the climate history of the holocene really seems to upset you, why is that?