Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OweninGA
July 10, 2019 6:18 pm
He’s right in some respects, just not in the manner he thinks. The unrest will come as a response to governments imposing idiotic economy-killing “solutions” to the non-problem of Climate Change. People don’t want to be part of the noble 6+ billion that must die to make way for the “Green Utopia” these people want to forge.
Actually, if you set off a policy bomb and then combine that with Keynesian prescription for stimulus to save the economy you get a perpetual motion policy machine to spend all the assets down….thereby saving the Utopian environment.
Would someone—anyone—PLEASE define quantitatively what they mean by the phrase “climate change”?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
It may or may not be a non problem but the important question is whether it is man made or not. I still find it hard to believe that while if I put two pans on the cooker and turn on the back one instead of the front to my surprise it heats the back pan and not the front one. Why to my surprise. Well climate science says it is beyond question that fossil fuel use causes the temperature rises in the Arctic and the fossil fuel use there is near zero as it is Europe using the fossil fuel. What is true on a global scale should also work on a small one, surely.
If you want to see real social unrest, ban the use of all fossil fuels. The social unrest and causalities that would follow would be magnitudes greater than anything climate change could cause in the foreseeable future, even if you factor in the possibility of sharknadoes.
brians356
July 10, 2019 6:21 pm
He’s takes solace in the effectively brainwashed children which are the “electorate of tomorrow”.
It’s a sad fact that science has shown that our mental ability peaks in mid-life and trails off markedly in the 2nd half of life. The arrogant claims of the elderly that they and their view should be respected just because they are older is equivalent to claims for the other end of the age spectrum. They just aren’t smart enough to realise it.
As an elderly person I take issue with your comment and the idea that I am no longer smart enough to realize, or realise if you insist, that… sorry, what is your point?
not to mention the loss of wide spread of freedoms they currently enjoy to ‘save the planet ‘
For its not a ‘green world ‘ they want to create but a very grey joyless one .
No. The heat content of the atmosphere is 0.1% of the heat content of the oceans. The oceans heat and cool the atmosphere. To call the atmosphere the tail of the dog is to over-emphasize its its importance. Even the docked tail of a mastiff is a larger portion of the whole dog than the atmosphere is of the climate system.
Politicians spouting hot air are responsible for ALL warming events, including warming the oceans!! They make glaciers melt. They provide more heat than a solar furnace. When they speak, coastal cities get flooded! Dogs and cats sleep together!!
The total volume of CO2 produced by politicians is higher than anything mechanical objects ever produced! They aren’t called gasbags for nothing, you know.
David Attenborough, color me skeptical on your hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the bizarre “science” of the CO2 priesthood:
CO2 is the “Miracle Molecule”.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes:
– warming where it is warming
– and cooling where it is cooling
– and no change where there is no change in temperature
– and wilder weather when that happens
– and less extreme weather when that happens
– and no change where there is no change in weather extremes
– and human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
My formal review of this hypo follows:
“Mr. Attenborough, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Wrong. The air in contact with the ocean, UV long wave radiation, does not penetrate water. The ocean is warmed by direct sunlight, short wave radiation, down to 100 metres. It’s got NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide.
There’s already significant social unrest owing to the fear of climate change due to CO2 emissions that’s so absurdly large, it’s precluded by the laws of physics. It should be an embarrassment to the field that confirmation bias was allowed to supersede Conservation of Energy. Perhaps this is why they can’t fix it?
John MacDonald
July 10, 2019 6:49 pm
I found it interesting (concerning too) that immediately after the Attenborough video came a string of Canadian videos. All were about how climate change is going to do us in, and how we have to work hard against it. Juxtaposed against this is the article posted by CTM a few days ago about how the global news mainstream is organizing a concerted effort of climate propaganda. I now need little proof of the intent and conspiracy.
Sir David Attenborough has attacked the idea of sending food aid to countries enduring famine as “barmy” and has urged for more debate about population control, it has been reported.
In 2013 he warned that the world was “heading for disaster” due to the threat of overpopulation, in comments made to the Daily Telegraph.
Where are the great self-appointed Green Saints? Poverty stricken Africa looks just the same to me.
J Mac
July 10, 2019 6:53 pm
David Attenborough has the mellifluous tones of a marvelous narrator.
Unfortunately, he either lacks the intelligence and common sense to recognize he narrative talents are being used as the classic socialists ‘useful tool’ or he knows this full well and approves because it supports his personal socialist agenda.
And plenty of room for all his intellectual Socialist elitist friends, who naturally won’t be affected by the impoverisation of the public at large, after all, places like Goa, the Maldives, the Carribean, etc, use to be the preserve of wealthy privilaged elites like him! Still waiting for an answer to my question posed a long time ago, where population reduction is concerened, will they plump for ordinary natural gas or go for that new fangled fracked variety? 😉
Greg
July 10, 2019 7:03 pm
We are much more likely to get social unrest from climate policy than from climate change
Then take places of massive unrest like Palestine and Syria, does anyone really think acting on climate change is somehow going to solve those problems.
Richard
July 10, 2019 7:07 pm
There will be social unrest all right. Fuelled by those who stand to gain, financially or in gaining power, through climate change fear mongering. Those like Dave himself.
It’s comforting to hear that there are climate realists in Germany. I was long under the impression that the Germans were total climate alarmists. Comforting indeed.
Absolutely – there’s such a monumental demographic transformation underway it seems like every other issue is either a trivial sideshow or a purposeful distraction.
James Clarke
July 10, 2019 7:16 pm
For the last 20 or 30 years, people like David Attenborough have been telling us all about the horrible things that are going to happen in 20 to 30 years due to man-made climate change. To date, they have a record of being wrong almost 100% of the time.
But that is not the worst of it. Their proposed solution to the make-believe problem is a form of global socialism; the economic system that has a nearly perfect record of producing the exact same horrible conditions they are warning us about.
There must be some kind of mental disorder at play here.
You would think that someone over 90 would have direct experiences of these 20 – 30 “climate doom” predictions, but no, not one has come to pass. Not one!
Anna Keppa
July 10, 2019 7:36 pm
A stupid, stupid man.
Let him explain 30 years of unchanged temperatures in the face of a 35% increase in CO2.
Let him explain why a geologically LOW CO2 concentration represents a crisis.
Let him explain why the LAST one degree increase in temperatures did not result in massive extinctions, whilst the NEXT 1 degree instinct will.
Let him explain why having Europe and America lower their CO2 output (which the US already does), will have any effect on the rest of the world. These people seem to think that CO2 just lingers over the countries that produce it.
Anna
You haven’t worked out that we are warming? Really? Which data set are you using? Coz you can take your pick… they all show warming. If you think DA is a moron maybe you best not look in the mirror next time you go past.
Patrick MJD
“Sure from the little ice age, we know this.”
Sad pathetic reasoning. Yo need to move on from the LIA. It was a poor excuse 30 years ago its weaker now.
Between 1940 and the end of the 1970’s the World was cooling despite increasing CO2 concentrations, and people like you were warning of an impending Ice Age.
MarkW
Show me a graph that shows warming since 1989. Not one drawn in crayon. You wont coz you can’t. Once again a hit and run comment. Once again all class. The ankle biter at WUWT.
Sorry Simon, there’s been no warming of the base climate for over two decades. Are you another one who still tries to imply a warming trend due to ENSO is climate?
Your lies don’t work with people who understand the concepts of signal and noise.
Silly old duffer Attenborough. A lifetime to build his reputation as a naturalist, a blink of an eye to destroy it as a misguided fanatic.
Anna Keppa
July 10, 2019 7:36 pm
A stupid, stupid man.
Let him explain 30 years of unchanged temperatures in the face of a 35% increase in CO2.
Let him explain why a geologically LOW CO2 concentration represents a crisis.
Let him explain why the LAST one degree increase in temperatures did not result in massive extinctions, whilst the NEXT 1 degree instinct will.
Let him explain why having Europe and America lower their CO2 output (which the US already does), will have any effect on the rest of the world. These people seem to think that CO2 just lingers over the countries that produce it.
Sometimes I don’t know what Climate Change means. Does it mean the extreme weather we have not seen since the 1930? Is it just a catch phase for antropogenic climate change and were going to pretend that natural climate change does not exist. Sometimes it seems these people are living in a fantasy world where if we have faith in tackling climate change the world will be better. He even uses the word backsliding. What is he, a closet baptist?
When we look at history we have natural climate change that ends up causing mass starvation every time we have a really major volcanic eruption. Maybe he worries about antropogenic climate change because it makes the world look a lot more controllable and safe than it is.
The only social unrest he will get is when the middle and lower middle class rebel against the austerity that these people want to impose. Look at the Yellow vest movement. They think that they can get global unity by uniting us against a non existent catastrophe.
The only problem that might be is sea level rise. All other problems such as catastrophic warming, species extinction, crop failures, and ocean acidification are based on junk science. At the slow rate of warming we have time to wait. If it gets above 5mm per year even I will admit that we need to do something. But that something better be nuclear rather than unreliable renewables.
Whenever you hear a report from our Social and Moral Elite, simply replace ‘Climate Change’ with ‘you are wrong’ in the transcript and you will get exactly the same original intent of the source speaker, but without all the abstract confusion.
Looks more like a repetitious pattern of seasonal melt with a very gradual reduction in overall coverage. Similar to what has been happening since the nadir of the LIA around 1680. No apparent abrupt melting is noticeable in the graph you link.
30% loss in a single year. 30% over 40 years with many variations, loss and gain, do not suggest to me in any way an abrupt loss. The graph in your own link shows a little drop over average. I don’t see an abrupt change. However, it was you who said the loss was abrupt, so better leave it to you to define and quantify that. But I know you can’t!
Once again Loydo demonstrates that she refuses to understand the concept of resolution.
That and an unshakable belief that any trend that is going in a direction that she approves of, no matter how short, is unstoppable.
Loydo, did you know East Netherlands (Europe) has experienced its coldest July day ever recorded with an overnight frost. on July 4/5th
Was that climate change or was that weather? Clearly the previous weeks heat wave was climate change. We suffered so badly here in the UK with one day temperature over 80 deg C. Thankfully we survived….
I just wish C and F were a bit further apart on the keyboard, hey ho.
Thanks for spotting the error. I could always blame heatstroke, it doesn’t get up to 80 deg F very often in the UK, despite the BBC’s scare mongering.
Well, David and his little gang definitely socially unrested all those Walrus…
Bryan A
July 10, 2019 8:14 pm
There definitely is currently a state of Socialist Unrest
Patrick MJD
July 10, 2019 8:14 pm
Remember, he was a strong believer in the coming ice age of the 1970’s. And IMO was a major contributor in Bellamy’s departure from the BBC.
John Boland
July 10, 2019 8:15 pm
I think he meant to warn of social-ists, and maybe misspoke.
Analitik
July 10, 2019 8:19 pm
It looks to me like Sir David is trying to foment social unrest in order to advance the climate change agenda rather than the (any) climate change leading to social unrest
Exactly. He’s letting his followers know that it’s ok to be violent in the name of climate alarmism, its justified.
Marxists have always felt violence is justified.
Monster
July 10, 2019 9:06 pm
Wow. This guy is talking about people making sacrifices for the climate, while his airliner carbon footprint is even bigger than mine, and that’s saying something. Lead from the front, you duplicitous pos.
He’s right in some respects, just not in the manner he thinks. The unrest will come as a response to governments imposing idiotic economy-killing “solutions” to the non-problem of Climate Change. People don’t want to be part of the noble 6+ billion that must die to make way for the “Green Utopia” these people want to forge.
Yep it’ll be the little things
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/the-empire-strikes-out/
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/eus-rising-carbon-prices-fuels-industrial-exodus-fears/
I could go on.
Actually, if you set off a policy bomb and then combine that with Keynesian prescription for stimulus to save the economy you get a perpetual motion policy machine to spend all the assets down….thereby saving the Utopian environment.
Would someone—anyone—PLEASE define quantitatively what they mean by the phrase “climate change”?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
But the science IS quantitatively defined:
– in steps to decarbonice electrification
– in years that steps follow
– in financial impact that steps produce
It may or may not be a non problem but the important question is whether it is man made or not. I still find it hard to believe that while if I put two pans on the cooker and turn on the back one instead of the front to my surprise it heats the back pan and not the front one. Why to my surprise. Well climate science says it is beyond question that fossil fuel use causes the temperature rises in the Arctic and the fossil fuel use there is near zero as it is Europe using the fossil fuel. What is true on a global scale should also work on a small one, surely.
If you want to see real social unrest, ban the use of all fossil fuels. The social unrest and causalities that would follow would be magnitudes greater than anything climate change could cause in the foreseeable future, even if you factor in the possibility of sharknadoes.
He’s takes solace in the effectively brainwashed children which are the “electorate of tomorrow”.
The problem they have is as most of them get older and learn to recognize snake-oil salesmen.
It’s a sad fact that science has shown that our mental ability peaks in mid-life and trails off markedly in the 2nd half of life. The arrogant claims of the elderly that they and their view should be respected just because they are older is equivalent to claims for the other end of the age spectrum. They just aren’t smart enough to realise it.
As an elderly person I take issue with your comment and the idea that I am no longer smart enough to realize, or realise if you insist, that… sorry, what is your point?
It’s these children that will have to pay the carbon taxes tomorrow.
not to mention the loss of wide spread of freedoms they currently enjoy to ‘save the planet ‘
For its not a ‘green world ‘ they want to create but a very grey joyless one .
The atmosphere warms the ocean too
No. The heat content of the atmosphere is 0.1% of the heat content of the oceans. The oceans heat and cool the atmosphere. To call the atmosphere the tail of the dog is to over-emphasize its its importance. Even the docked tail of a mastiff is a larger portion of the whole dog than the atmosphere is of the climate system.
No, no, no!!!
Politicians spouting hot air are responsible for ALL warming events, including warming the oceans!! They make glaciers melt. They provide more heat than a solar furnace. When they speak, coastal cities get flooded! Dogs and cats sleep together!!
The total volume of CO2 produced by politicians is higher than anything mechanical objects ever produced! They aren’t called gasbags for nothing, you know.
I thought everyone knew that.
Good comments, thank you Walter and Sara.
David Attenborough, color me skeptical on your hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the bizarre “science” of the CO2 priesthood:
CO2 is the “Miracle Molecule”.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes:
– warming where it is warming
– and cooling where it is cooling
– and no change where there is no change in temperature
– and wilder weather when that happens
– and less extreme weather when that happens
– and no change where there is no change in weather extremes
– and human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
My formal review of this hypo follows:
“Mr. Attenborough, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Wrong. The air in contact with the ocean, UV long wave radiation, does not penetrate water. The ocean is warmed by direct sunlight, short wave radiation, down to 100 metres. It’s got NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide.
I think you have a typo, as UV is very short wave radiation. Did you mean IR?
Let’s stand up to David Attenborough and the neo-Malthusians who want to control our lives
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/10/stand-david-attenborough-neo-malthusians-want-control-lives/
Want social unrest? Try enacting the Green New Deal. Then stand back and watch the fun.
France would be Exhibit ‘A’ with its Yellow Vests Movement.
CAGW and its resultant policies will indeed result in social unrest. So, Attenborough was right … sort of.
France will get the taxes one way or another:
France ‘will introduce eco-tax’ on flights out of France
Exhibit ‘B’?
And kerosene VAT looms at the EU horizon.
Those with biz-jet type ratings are job-safe though.
For, even if they ran on Chanel No5 perfume, rich guys will still fly around, take my words on it.
“CAGW and its resultant policies will indeed result in social unrest. So, Attenborough was right … sort of.”
CAGW won’t, but alarmism will.
The progs will unleash their storm troopers; the antifa.
Didn’t they used to refer to that stuff as “light blue touch-paper & retire quickly to a safe distance!” ??? 😉 AtB
There’s already significant social unrest owing to the fear of climate change due to CO2 emissions that’s so absurdly large, it’s precluded by the laws of physics. It should be an embarrassment to the field that confirmation bias was allowed to supersede Conservation of Energy. Perhaps this is why they can’t fix it?
I found it interesting (concerning too) that immediately after the Attenborough video came a string of Canadian videos. All were about how climate change is going to do us in, and how we have to work hard against it. Juxtaposed against this is the article posted by CTM a few days ago about how the global news mainstream is organizing a concerted effort of climate propaganda. I now need little proof of the intent and conspiracy.
If the worst of climate change happened, Calgary might be as warm as Denver.
Please happen. That would be a new deal I’d enjoy!
Sir David Attenborough has attacked the idea of sending food aid to countries enduring famine as “barmy” and has urged for more debate about population control, it has been reported.
In 2013 he warned that the world was “heading for disaster” due to the threat of overpopulation, in comments made to the Daily Telegraph.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-attenborough-says-sending-food-to-famine-ridden-countries-is-barmy-8823602.html%3famp
Raising the example of Ethiopia, Sir David said that the famine there was down to there being “too many people for too little piece of land”.
Where are the great self-appointed Green Saints? Poverty stricken Africa looks just the same to me.
David Attenborough has the mellifluous tones of a marvelous narrator.
Unfortunately, he either lacks the intelligence and common sense to recognize he narrative talents are being used as the classic socialists ‘useful tool’ or he knows this full well and approves because it supports his personal socialist agenda.
J Mac
He knows full well it’s false and always has! He wants the population vastly reduced, urgently (more room for his beloved animals).
And plenty of room for all his intellectual Socialist elitist friends, who naturally won’t be affected by the impoverisation of the public at large, after all, places like Goa, the Maldives, the Carribean, etc, use to be the preserve of wealthy privilaged elites like him! Still waiting for an answer to my question posed a long time ago, where population reduction is concerened, will they plump for ordinary natural gas or go for that new fangled fracked variety? 😉
We are much more likely to get social unrest from climate policy than from climate change
Then take places of massive unrest like Palestine and Syria, does anyone really think acting on climate change is somehow going to solve those problems.
There will be social unrest all right. Fuelled by those who stand to gain, financially or in gaining power, through climate change fear mongering. Those like Dave himself.
Got a nice little earner there now. Certainly beats wading through Amazon swamps sneaking around dangerous animals.
Please read carefully Mr. Attenborough. Once in a lifetime opportunity to demonstrate a climate related unrest event.
Take your mobile circus to Bottrop (Ruhr region, Germany). Nice city, no kidding. Used to be a coal mining kingpin.
Find a pub, any pub, they’re also called “Stammtisch”.
Write your blood group on your forearm with a sharpie. Then expose your climate arguments in German.
Too chicken Mr. climate warrior ?
It’s comforting to hear that there are climate realists in Germany. I was long under the impression that the Germans were total climate alarmists. Comforting indeed.
Germany and most other EU countries will be Muslim in 20 – 30 years. That’s what I call Climate Change.
Absolutely – there’s such a monumental demographic transformation underway it seems like every other issue is either a trivial sideshow or a purposeful distraction.
For the last 20 or 30 years, people like David Attenborough have been telling us all about the horrible things that are going to happen in 20 to 30 years due to man-made climate change. To date, they have a record of being wrong almost 100% of the time.
But that is not the worst of it. Their proposed solution to the make-believe problem is a form of global socialism; the economic system that has a nearly perfect record of producing the exact same horrible conditions they are warning us about.
There must be some kind of mental disorder at play here.
Not a mental disorder – politics. Socialism to be exact. Environmentalism is just the new Trojan Horse.
You would think that someone over 90 would have direct experiences of these 20 – 30 “climate doom” predictions, but no, not one has come to pass. Not one!
A stupid, stupid man.
Let him explain 30 years of unchanged temperatures in the face of a 35% increase in CO2.
Let him explain why a geologically LOW CO2 concentration represents a crisis.
Let him explain why the LAST one degree increase in temperatures did not result in massive extinctions, whilst the NEXT 1 degree instinct will.
Let him explain why having Europe and America lower their CO2 output (which the US already does), will have any effect on the rest of the world. These people seem to think that CO2 just lingers over the countries that produce it.
What morons!
Yes! … the silence is deafening …
Anna
You haven’t worked out that we are warming? Really? Which data set are you using? Coz you can take your pick… they all show warming. If you think DA is a moron maybe you best not look in the mirror next time you go past.
Sure from the little ice age, we know this.
Patrick MJD
“Sure from the little ice age, we know this.”
Sad pathetic reasoning. Yo need to move on from the LIA. It was a poor excuse 30 years ago its weaker now.
It’s true though. Nothing sad or pathetic about the truth.
What’s true… that we are coming out of the little ice age? No it’s not. That finished long ago.
Between 1940 and the end of the 1970’s the World was cooling despite increasing CO2 concentrations, and people like you were warning of an impending Ice Age.
But this time he means it.
Once again Simon indicates that he doesn’t bother to actually read the stuff he responds to.
MarkW
Show me a graph that shows warming since 1989. Not one drawn in crayon. You wont coz you can’t. Once again a hit and run comment. Once again all class. The ankle biter at WUWT.
Sorry Simon, there’s been no warming of the base climate for over two decades. Are you another one who still tries to imply a warming trend due to ENSO is climate?
Your lies don’t work with people who understand the concepts of signal and noise.
Richard M
“Your lies don’t work with people who understand the concepts of signal and noise.”
She said 30 years. OK Einstein find me a data set that shows no warming since 1989.
Unadjusted dataset?
“Unadjusted dataset?”
Umm no. Adjusted or not, they all show warming. But if you can fine one…. do it.
Warming ====> Stop using fossil fuel and nuclear energy in Western countries.
Did I miss something?
Silly old duffer Attenborough. A lifetime to build his reputation as a naturalist, a blink of an eye to destroy it as a misguided fanatic.
A stupid, stupid man.
Let him explain 30 years of unchanged temperatures in the face of a 35% increase in CO2.
Let him explain why a geologically LOW CO2 concentration represents a crisis.
Let him explain why the LAST one degree increase in temperatures did not result in massive extinctions, whilst the NEXT 1 degree instinct will.
Let him explain why having Europe and America lower their CO2 output (which the US already does), will have any effect on the rest of the world. These people seem to think that CO2 just lingers over the countries that produce it.
What morons!
It was worth repeating, Anna!
3 times? It was wrong the first time.
Sometimes I don’t know what Climate Change means. Does it mean the extreme weather we have not seen since the 1930? Is it just a catch phase for antropogenic climate change and were going to pretend that natural climate change does not exist. Sometimes it seems these people are living in a fantasy world where if we have faith in tackling climate change the world will be better. He even uses the word backsliding. What is he, a closet baptist?
When we look at history we have natural climate change that ends up causing mass starvation every time we have a really major volcanic eruption. Maybe he worries about antropogenic climate change because it makes the world look a lot more controllable and safe than it is.
The only social unrest he will get is when the middle and lower middle class rebel against the austerity that these people want to impose. Look at the Yellow vest movement. They think that they can get global unity by uniting us against a non existent catastrophe.
The only problem that might be is sea level rise. All other problems such as catastrophic warming, species extinction, crop failures, and ocean acidification are based on junk science. At the slow rate of warming we have time to wait. If it gets above 5mm per year even I will admit that we need to do something. But that something better be nuclear rather than unreliable renewables.
Climate Change is easy.
It means YOU are WRONG!
Whenever you hear a report from our Social and Moral Elite, simply replace ‘Climate Change’ with ‘you are wrong’ in the transcript and you will get exactly the same original intent of the source speaker, but without all the abstract confusion.
Simple.
Sea walls and locks might be less costly option rather than the GND proposals
It means anything bad that happens. Anything good that happens is just weather.
And yet the ice continues to abruptly melt. Socialist ice I guess.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Looks more like a repetitious pattern of seasonal melt with a very gradual reduction in overall coverage. Similar to what has been happening since the nadir of the LIA around 1680. No apparent abrupt melting is noticeable in the graph you link.
Funny. What I see is ice is just below average. What’s your point, Arctic ice melts in the NH summer?
You know that information is on a link under the WUWT Reference Pages at the top of this page. Skeptics are not afraid of valid data.
Why send out to some wack site?
BTW, can you define to yourself “abruptly” for your own understanding?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, I am not Inigo Montoya.
The Japanese National Institute of Polar Research? https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/
I”ll define abruptly for you:
30% of Arctic sea ice volume in 40 years.
And what was it before satellite observations? 40 year record on a 4.5 billion year old planet…
How do you define abrupt? Thirty years?
30% loss in a single year. 30% over 40 years with many variations, loss and gain, do not suggest to me in any way an abrupt loss. The graph in your own link shows a little drop over average. I don’t see an abrupt change. However, it was you who said the loss was abrupt, so better leave it to you to define and quantify that. But I know you can’t!
Once again Loydo demonstrates that she refuses to understand the concept of resolution.
That and an unshakable belief that any trend that is going in a direction that she approves of, no matter how short, is unstoppable.
Loydo sez:
How do you define abrupt? Thirty years?
How ’bout near 100% loss of Antarctic sea-ice in 6 months as normally happens every year? Should we all gnash our teeth about that?
There has been no decline since 2007, it has stabilized since then:
https://agwskeptics.info/showthread.php?tid=16&pid=83#pid83
More HERE:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/climate-hype-is-a-cover-up/
Ah, the “sea ice volume” argument – or moving the goal posts. “Yeah, the coverage is the same – but it’s not as thick – so, there!”
And yet no-one cares or even notices except a few trolls and left tards.
No, not “left tards.”
Let’s not mock the mentally handicapped or the intellectually challenged by using the “tard” suffix.
The people you are referring to are “left turds.”
Loydo, did you know East Netherlands (Europe) has experienced its coldest July day ever recorded with an overnight frost. on July 4/5th
Was that climate change or was that weather? Clearly the previous weeks heat wave was climate change. We suffered so badly here in the UK with one day temperature over 80 deg C. Thankfully we survived….
80 deg C? That is 176 deg F. Nobody would survive that.
I just wish C and F were a bit further apart on the keyboard, hey ho.
Thanks for spotting the error. I could always blame heatstroke, it doesn’t get up to 80 deg F very often in the UK, despite the BBC’s scare mongering.
20 years of ice increasing, 2 years of ice decreasing. Obviously this means that in a couple of years all the ice will be gone and we’re gonna die.
MarkW
“20 years of ice increasing, 2 years of ice decreasing. ”
You just make stuff up. Show us evidence for that statement.
Loydo, see Stein et al 2017 which is covered in this presentation. Nothing at all unusual in today’s sea ice variations.
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
The graph you linked shows that this year is very nearly the same as the last 4 years.
What are you panicking about?
I didn’t understand a word he said. . .
Jon, be happy knowing, neither did he….
Self fulfilling prophecy?
Well, David and his little gang definitely socially unrested all those Walrus…
There definitely is currently a state of Socialist Unrest
Remember, he was a strong believer in the coming ice age of the 1970’s. And IMO was a major contributor in Bellamy’s departure from the BBC.
I think he meant to warn of social-ists, and maybe misspoke.
It looks to me like Sir David is trying to foment social unrest in order to advance the climate change agenda rather than the (any) climate change leading to social unrest
Exactly. He’s letting his followers know that it’s ok to be violent in the name of climate alarmism, its justified.
Marxists have always felt violence is justified.
Wow. This guy is talking about people making sacrifices for the climate, while his airliner carbon footprint is even bigger than mine, and that’s saying something. Lead from the front, you duplicitous pos.