Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Good, then here's something you will understand:

 

Gene expression is the primary mechanism that converts genome-encoded information into phenotypes, and DNA methylation is employed in the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. We investigated variations in global DNA methylation and gene expression between three Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) populations located in northern and southern Finland using mature seeds.

 

Altogether, our results suggest that differential DNA methylation and gene expression contribute to local adaptation in Scots pine populations and may enhance the fitness of trees under rapidly changing climatic conditions.

 

One of countless ways genetic base life adapts on different time scales. After 3 billion years, life says "Been there, done that". 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30113688

ONe of the things denialists do is hunt for the occasional anomalous piece of research and try to generalize it. Apparently, Rabas believes that it's extinction that's a rare event in the face of rapid environmental change. Fossil records alone are enough to establish the foolishness of that position. And then there's this:

Extinction risk from climate change

Climate change over the past ∼30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species^1,2 and has been implicated in one species-level extinction³. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02121

[brokenbone]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

ONe of the things denialists do is hunt for the occasional anomalous piece of research and try to generalize it. Apparently, Rabas believes that it's extinction that's a rare event in the face of rapid environmental change. Fossil records alone are enough to establish the foolishness of that position. And then there's this:

Extinction risk from climate change

Climate change over the past ∼30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species^1,2 and has been implicated in one species-level extinction³. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02121

earth are on a smooth linear track on restoring temperature all by its own,

0.26c per century since the depth of minor ice age, measured data.

while we the humans are doing our part in restoring co2 levels,

since earth cant do it by itself any longer.

the earth core has gone too cold, life cant rely upon volcanoes

to keep co2 in check, it has been on a steady downward trend for hundreds

of millions of years, humans have to step up and do volcanoes work

in recycling co2, for the sake of complex life on earth

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

earth are on a smooth linear track on restoring temperature all by its own,

0.26c per century,

while we the humans are doing our part in restoring co2 levels,

since earth cant do it by itself any longer

Your pattern of response is so typical of denialists. First off, you make a claim about wind energy not being economically competitive. When I cite evidence to prove that wrong, you jump to a graph that you provide no source for. Apparently on the left side, is a supposed level of CO2 emissions from human activity showing how it's risen and compared it to the rise in temperature. The problem is it doesn't show the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Only what's been added. I can't tell about the scale of the dates since you've managed to post a graph with a very fuzzy resolution. It doesn't seem uniform though. In addition, the graph is allegedly for Central England. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. Who knows? But it's only for Central England. You must be an over-the-top Brexiter if you believe that Central England is a valid sample for the entire world.

Anyway, here's a valid map for temperatures in Central England over the past from the Met Center. You'll notice how the temperature increases look a lot different than in the dubious graph you provided.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

[brokenbone]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your pattern of response is so typical of denialists. First off, you make a claim about wind energy not being economically competitive. When I cite evidence to prove that wrong, you jump to a graph that you provide no source for. Apparently on the left side, is a supposed level of CO2 emissions from human activity showing how it's risen and compared it to the rise in temperature. The problem is it doesn't show the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Only what's been added. I can't tell about the scale of the dates since you've managed to post a graph with a very fuzzy resolution. It doesn't seem uniform though. In addition, the graph is allegedly for Central England. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. Who knows? But it's only for Central England. You must be an over-the-top Brexiter if you believe that Central England is a valid sample for the entire world.

Anyway, here's a valid map for temperatures in Central England over the past from the Met Center. You'll notice how the temperature increases look a lot different than in the dubious graph you provided.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

central england temp is the only place with measured data since the depth of

minor ice age, so it is by far and away the best data around for trend analysis.

i would presume that the co2 scale start at 280 ppm.

no, im not from england, they just happened to be the first to catalog measured data.

at any rate, the temp increase is largely linear all the way from 1659 to 2020,

with the biggest anomaly being 1700-1710 interval,

all the while co2 stayed constant at 280 ppm

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

central england temp is the only place with measured data since the depth of

minor ice age, so it is by far and away the best data around for trend analysis.

i would presume that the co2 scale start at 280 ppm.

no, im not from england, they just happened to be the first to catalog measured data.

at any rate, the temp increase is largely linear all the way from 1659 to 2020,

with the biggest anomaly being 1700-1710 interval,

all the while co2 stayed constant at 280 ppm

As a amajor research paper published in Nature pointed out, the Little Ice Age was not universal. So while it affected Europe and North America, the rest of the globe remained largely untouched. So using Central England as a synecdoche for the entire globe is invalid.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

And where did you get that misleading graph from? Ashamed of the link much?

 

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

earth are on a smooth linear track on restoring temperature all by its own,

0.26c per century since the depth of minor ice age, measured data.

while we the humans are doing our part in restoring co2 levels,

since earth cant do it by itself any longer.

the earth core has gone too cold, life cant rely upon volcanoes

to keep co2 in check, it has been on a steady downward trend for hundreds

of millions of years, humans have to step up and do volcanoes work

in recycling co2, for the sake of complex life on earth

 

And talk about alarmism. Without the rise in CO2 scientists estimate that the next ice would have occurred about 50,000 years from now.. Now it's projected to occur about 150,000 years from now. Help the sky is falling...150,000 years from now. Stop your clucking, already.

[brokenbone]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As a amajor research paper published in Nature pointed out, the Little Ice Age was not universal. So while it affected Europe and North America, the rest of the globe remained largely untouched. So using Central England as a synecdoche for the entire globe is invalid.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

And where did you get that misleading graph from? Ashamed of the link much?

 

it is not misleading in the slightest, and imo a better scale then metoffice

showing the same data, because when you zoom in too much,

as in making y axis only 5 degree high,

you can not see the forest due to the trees,

the other graph showing the same data made

temp limits wide enough to cover the usual temperature fluctuations,

you get the full picture so to speak when you zoom out

 

https://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

Just now, brokenbone said:

it is not misleading in the slightest, and imo a better scale then metoffice

showing the same data https://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

Really, it is misleading in several ways. The most important being that it doesn't show the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only what is added. So since that's starting from zero, its scale is way out of whack with the scale of the temperature rise. In addition, as everyone who has given just a little attention to the issue knows, the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will keep pusing the temperature higher for a while even if no more CO2 is added.  So the full effect of the warming is delayed. Another way the CO2 emissions data is out of sync with the temperature data. 

 

 

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really, it is misleading in several ways. The most important being that it doesn't show the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only what is added. So since that's starting from zero, its scale is way out of whack with the scale of the temperature rise. In addition, as everyone who has given just a little attention to the issue knows, the CO2 currently in the atmosphere will keep pusing the temperature higher for a while even if no more CO2 is added.  So the full effect of the warming is delayed. Another way the CO2 emissions data is out of sync with the temperature data. 

 

 

no, it start at 280 ppm, it is not misleading in the slightest,

and your hypothesis that co2 will push temperature up is a hypothesis,

i believe earth unfortunately is not going to get any warmer.

lol, yes co2 is out of sync with temperature, it always has been,

regardless if you go with measured data or by proxies going back 600 millions of years,

we can see both a correlation and inverse correlation going on for a hundred million years in a row, and that falsify both the hypothesis that co2 has any significant effect on climate,

and it also falsify the hypothesis that there is any feedback from co2 in either direction,

i mean, if you after 100 million of years waiting and still see no feedback,

cum off it and discontinue your hypothesis

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

ONe of the things denialists do is hunt for the occasional anomalous piece of research and try to generalize it. Apparently, Rabas believes that it's extinction that's a rare event in the face of rapid environmental change. Fossil records alone are enough to establish the foolishness of that position. And then there's this:

Extinction risk from climate change

Climate change over the past ∼30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species^1,2 and has been implicated in one species-level extinction³. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02121

Not very scientific to completely ignore the point that I correctly addressed. 

 

But anyone can make one sided, single use arguments. Although I never claim extinction is rare, your data proves my point by claiming that 63%-85% of species (in their sample regions, whoa, a fudge) adapt and survive.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no, it start at 280 ppm, it is not misleading in the slightest,

and your hypothesis that co2 will push temperature up is a hypothesis,

i believe earth unfortunately is not going to get any warmer.

lol, yes co2 is out of sync with temperature, it always has been,

regardless if you go with measured data or by proxies going back 600 millions of years,

we can see both a correlation and inverse correlation going on for a hundred million years in a row, and that falsify both the hypothesis that co2 has any significant effect on climate,

and it also falsify the hypothesis that there is any feedback from co2 in either direction,

i mean, if you after 100 million of years waiting and still see no feedback,

cum off it and discontinue your hypothesis

Are we looking at the same graph? On the right Y axis I see emissions starting at 0 and increasing by gradations of 5000. What graph are you referring to? Here i've circled it for you.

I guess climatologists just got amazingly lucky in their predictions of warming and the Judith Currys of the world will soon be vindicated in their predictions of global cooling. Give it up already. 

[englishoak]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I thought trolls only drank hot drinks.

I just dont take this global panic <deleted> seriously is all, ive heard this rubbish all my life ... NONE of it stands up over time...climate ALWAYS changes, its natural, cyclical and ive the answer for you why...... its called THE SUN and our system moving  through space and there isnt a damned thing anyone's going to do about that, so just relax and go have a family or something productive... 

[brokenbone]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are we looking at the same graph? On the right Y axis I see emissions starting at 0 and increasing by gradations of 5000. What graph are you referring to? Here i've circled it for you.

I guess climatologists just got amazingly lucky in their predictions of warming and the Judith Currys of the world will soon be vindicated in their predictions of global cooling. Give it up already. 

ok, yes, i would make the graph with co2 concentration if i was any good at ms paint.

i can tell you i would not need a puter to make a model to predict future

if i first had a glance at the trend from metoffice,

i would simply extrapolate from the data from 1659, it has shown a

linear increase of 0.26c per century, i would just extend the line and proclaim

im an oracle, maybe even get a nobel prize for my heroic effort

Edited February 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Not according to the graph you've posted. According to that sea ice levels have been mostly below the 1981-2010 median.

And from 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously.

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/#ixzz6EsdEbTdg

 

As for some believe one way and some believe another,  the sum of knowledgeable someones  is far greater on one side of the issue than the other.

 

That said, I do agree with you that for reasons of pollution alone, stopping the burning of fossil fuel is a good idea. As the IMF points out, about 6 percent of the world's GDP consists of subsidies to fossil fuels. Much of that subsidy being in the form of medical care and lost productivity due to fossil fuel pollution.

 

 

It's not declining dramatically. The data shows that the volume of sea ice is increasing. From 2014 the levels declined? Here's from NSIDC 2014:

 

Quote

It’s official: Antarctic sea ice hit its annual winter maximum on Sept. 22, reaching a record area of 7.76 million square miles, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced Tuesday. That maximum extent was 595,000 square miles above the 1981-2010 average extent, the NSIDC said in a statement, and broke the consecutive records set in 2012 and 2013.

Read the full article here:

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It's not declining dramatically. The data shows that the volume of sea ice is increasing. From 2014 the levels declined? Here's from NSIDC 2014:

 

Read the full article here:

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

I read no further than the date of the article: 2014-10-09.

Did you read this?

A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic

A newly completed 40-y record of satellite observations is used to quantify changes in Antarctic sea ice coverage since the late 1970s. Sea ice spreads over vast areas and has major impacts on the rest of the climate system, reflecting solar radiation and restricting ocean/atmosphere exchanges. The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

Anyway, your claim isn't reconcilable with the graph you produced earlier. That should have told you something.

 

[brokenbone]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no it aint, the plants wants 1500 ppm co2 to this day,

ask a professional greenhouse operator.

i havnt read about aquarium operators but i would suspect at least some has experimented with pumping in co2, with positive effects

ok, so i guess nobody is looking to grow reefs in a tank,

i found no reference to maximize reef growth,

guessing they dont want their tanks crushed by growing reefs.

but i did found an abundance of sites that recommend adding co2

for the aquarium plants

https://tropica.com/en/guide/make-your-aquarium-a-success/fertiliser-and-co2/

Aquarium plants require nutrients to grow. The main nutrient is CO2

[Forethat]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I read no further than the date of the article: 2014-10-09.

Did you read this?

A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic

A newly completed 40-y record of satellite observations is used to quantify changes in Antarctic sea ice coverage since the late 1970s. Sea ice spreads over vast areas and has major impacts on the rest of the climate system, reflecting solar radiation and restricting ocean/atmosphere exchanges. The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

Anyway, your claim isn't reconcilable with the graph you produced earlier. That should have told you something.

 

I think you're missing my point. You said it IS declining, but it isn't. You're wrong. Just admit it. 

I say it WAS declining. It's not declining anymore - it's increasing. 2018 and 2019 levels are higher than the years 2012-2017. The question is why NSIDC removed that data from the charts? Was it removed only because it would look suspicious if the sea ice extent has increased the last years? Why did they remove the data?? A mystery to me.

 

You can compare with the chart for the Arctic sea ice extent, which shows the data for the years 2012-2017. I should also point out that in Oct-Nov every left-winged newsagency reported that the ice was now at record low, but a couple of months later they went mum when the ice was higher than the past 5-6 years. My best guess is that if the ice continues to grow they will remove the 2012-2017 on the Arctic sea ice extent chart as well.

Image from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

I think you're missing my point. You said it IS declining, but it isn't. You're wrong. Just admit it. 

I say it WAS declining. It's not declining anymore - it's increasing. 2018 and 2019 levels are higher than the years 2012-2017. The question is why NSIDC removed that data from the charts? Was it removed only because it would look suspicious if the sea ice extent has increased the last years? Why did they remove the data?? A mystery to me.

 

You can compare with the chart for the Arctic sea ice extent, which shows the data for the years 2012-2017. I should also point out that in Oct-Nov every left-winged newsagency reported that the ice was now at record low, but a couple of months later they went mum when the ice was higher than the past 5-6 years. My best guess is that if the ice continues to grow they will remove the 2012-2017 on the Arctic sea ice extent chart as well.

Image from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Here's what you wrote in post #284:

"Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years."

That's false. Stop trying to deny that's what you claimed.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

ok, so i guess nobody is looking to grow reefs in a tank,

i found no reference to maximize reef growth,

guessing they dont want their tanks crushed by growing reefs.

but i did found an abundance of sites that recommend adding co2

for the aquarium plants

https://tropica.com/en/guide/make-your-aquarium-a-success/fertiliser-and-co2/

Aquarium plants require nutrients to grow. The main nutrient is CO2

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm

This experiment showed that lowering the PH on a reef slows growth whereas an earlier experiment showed raising the PH increased growth. And this doesn't take into account the rise in heat of the oceans which is already having a massive negative effect on coral reefs.

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's what you wrote in post #284:

"Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years."

That's false. Stop trying to deny that's what you claimed.

So it is not the highest level in the 30-40 years, it is the second highest (the only exception being 2014)...?

 

OK, you make a good point.

 

Jeezus....

 

[brokenbone]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm

This experiment showed that lowering the PH on a reef slows growth whereas an earlier experiment showed raising the PH increased growth. And this doesn't take into account the rise in heat of the oceans which is already having a massive negative effect on coral reefs.

given the incompetence demonstrated by everyone involved in climate science,

i would want to verify the test setup myself before i buy any of it,

and i also dismiss hypothesis of heat 'already having a massive negative effect',

too many of these has embarrassed them self with imbecilic predictions of

doom.

heres but a taste of the endless gibberish that we are being fed with 3 times a day

 

https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I find it absolutely comical that someone would spend so much time here debating Judith Curry with non-scientists using magazine articles from her detractors, but refuses to go over and debate with the woman herself. If someone has such a problem with her but refuses to debate her or even discuss the points, to find common ground, or prove her wrong, or learn something, or speak with scientists who are in agreement or even disagreement with her, it speaks volumes. 

We are are not debating with Judith Curry here, she’s not as far as I am aware a member of TVF.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

38 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

given the incompetence demonstrated by everyone involved in climate science... 

Erm, OK, if you say so.

[WalkingOrders]

14 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Not really, no it isn’t. 
 

Economics 101 is we only have one habitual planet and unless we act it will no longer be fit for purpose. 

Act? Sure, shall we cut oil production? Depress the global economy, put people out of work, make them hungry, destabilize their Govts, and all for theoretical effect on modeled Co2 rise? We disagree, on the science. Accept that.

[WalkingOrders]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We are are not debating with Judith Curry here, she’s not as far as I am aware a member of TVF.

 

 

Some people are, in fact, attempting to debate Judith curry here. You are late to the party.

[WalkingOrders]

49 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

given the incompetence demonstrated by everyone involved in climate science,

i would want to verify the test setup myself before i buy any of it,

and i also dismiss hypothesis of heat 'already having a massive negative effect',

too many of these has embarrassed them self with imbecilic predictions of

doom.

heres but a taste of the endless gibberish that we are being fed with 3 times a day

 

https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/

 

Again, as the subject here is a magazine article  I invite all to read my earlier post about THIS magazine article, which shows quite clearly how, this article distorts the underlying research it draws from for political purpose, which is why, while interesting, they are worthless as a source of truth about climate research. 

[WalkingOrders]

12 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Early on I posted this but I will again but this time I will be more specific.

 

This is the Headline of the Article we are discussing in this thread. Read it carefully:

 

“Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist”

 

A Reuters summary reads:

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Global warming was leading to an “irreversible” mass melting of the Antarctic ice and purging carbon from the atmosphere was the only solution to slow the process, an Australian climate scientist told Reuters on Wednesday.

 

 

Inside of the article, however, we find this: (My bolds for emphasis)

 

“Recent human activity has intensified global warming, which could result in a mass melting...”

 

“The study showed the world could lose most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed and is fringed by floating ice, in a warmer world. “

 

“What we’re seeing with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that this starting of the melt, once we reach a certain threshold, will continue despite our efforts to stop it,” she told Reuters.

 

“The team hopes to continue the research to determine how quickly the ice sheets responded...”

 

“If hotter temperatures were to sustain they could cause an extreme global sea level rise. “

 

The Rest of the article contains a series of unsupported assumptions. Obviously political and aimed at the Australian Government.

 

Now I ask you, to please read the bolds above and ask yourself these questions what does COULD mean?

 

What is the certain threshold?

 

What have they determined? Anything? How fast?

 

What does IF...were to sustain mean? For how long? What temperatures? Do you see the smoke and mirrors here?

 

I am not claiming that the research pointed to in this article is not valid, and even perhaps correct, it could very well be, but the article that is using this research is absolute garbage designed to instill fear and present the research in a manner which is simply untrue.

 

I direct your attention again to the articles title and summary. Remember – this article – is NOT the research. You would have to read the paper directly.

Again, read the above, it is about the article discussion here, and about how the headline and summation, distort the content, and how the content gives nothing in the form of evidence to support a damn thing. In short, an alarm bell article that gives evidence for nothing

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Sp

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

So it is not the highest level in the 30-40 years, it is the second highest (the only exception being 2014)...?

 

OK, you make a good point.

 

Jeezus....

 

False.

Antarctic sea ice extent reached 18.2 million km² on average in September 2019, which was 0.2 million km² (or about 0.9%) below the 1981-2010 average for September. Even though many of the months leading up to September 2019 have shown large negative sea ice anomalies overall, the September 2019 sea ice extent is relatively close to average, ranking 15^th lowest in our 41-year record. September is usually the month when Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its annual maximum extent.

https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/

And just in case you're wondering, no miraculous surge of sea ice extent occurred later to make 2019 #2.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

Act? Sure, shall we cut oil production? Depress the global economy, put people out of work, make them hungry, destabilize their Govts, and all for theoretical effect on modeled Co2 rise? We disagree, on the science. Accept that.

We do disagree, I accept the fact that man made climate is real and action needs to be taken.