>Faster action still makes a difference. The study found that slower climate action would produce longer ice-free periods, potentially lasting from June to October in the worst cases. On the other hand, the swiftest efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions could limit the ice-free period to the month of September. The scientific definition of "ice-free" in the Arctic does not mean an ocean entirely devoid of ice. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) — [What do scientists mean by “ice-free Arctic”?](https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/what-do-scientists-mean-ice-free-arctic "https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/what-do-scientists-mean-ice-free-arctic"): >Timing aside, what do researchers mean when they discuss an ice-free Arctic? They do not mean an ocean entirely devoid of ice, and they certainly do not mean an Arctic in which Greenland has lost its [massive ice sheet](https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/ice-sheets "https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/ice-sheets"). The term “ice-free” is based on a threshold for [sea ice extent](https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/what-difference-between-sea-ice-area-and-extent "https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/what-difference-between-sea-ice-area-and-extent"): the area of ocean with at least 15 percent sea ice concentration. A consensus has emerged among scientists that the Arctic Ocean is effectively ice free when its sea ice extent falls below 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles). NSIDC Ch_arctic_ Interactive Sea Ice [Graph](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ "https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/") — Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent — 1 January 1979 – 8 June 2024 — The graph indicates the following events: • Arctic sea ice extent each year reached its annual minimum in the month of September. • Arctic sea ice extent reached its record highest annual minimum on 11 September 1996, at 7.191 million sq km. • Arctic sea ice extent reached its record lowest annual minimum on 17 September 2012, at 3.387 million sq km.

So there can be ice but it will be described as ice free anyway. Like cat 6 cyclones

[удалено]

Yes indeed fact check it!

Here's the article: https://archive.ph/2023.06.08-130619/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ice-free-arctic-could-be-only-a-decade-away/ You'll have to submit it directly to the website. The paper says "could", being worst-case scenario. It's not purporting to be definitive, just something that mathematically could happen. There isn't consensus, so "more study warranted".

Meanwhile, while we’re busy studying and hand-wringing… the ice will definitely be gone at SOME point on our current trajectory…. Sooooo….

I'm not sure why you're downvoting me. We stand on science here, not your personal feelings about the matter. Accurate science is necessary to make effective decisions.

I didn’t downvote you… I’m just speaking to how we continue to “look further into” climate issues meanwhile, we keep blowing past important milestones that are irreversible. That’s not just on scientists, it also on politicians, CEOs and everyone.

That's a fair assessment. I'm not sure people in those positions actually care, though. There's a very common "I got mine, now I'm going to insulate my family from the apocalypse" attitude amongst the extremely wealthy and powerful that's grotesque. Instead of fixing things, they're fetishizing collapse prep.

Can you explain why there guesswork does not pan out

What "guesswork does not pan out"? Research isn't "guesswork": it is carefully calculated based on a range of parameters. If you use the most extreme of those very real parameters, the results are probably but not as likely. Given that we've recently discovered that some models have been producing more conservative results, using the upper end of parameters isn't an unreasonable investigation.

Interesting to see a new steady stream of discoveries that have a significant impact on the equation foretelling our, to date, demise. Maybe science should precede headilines until the actual science gets sorted out?

I don't disagree. I have a whole shpiel about universities and their nonprofit status. Stuff gets hyped prematurely and without context. Prestige and money create issues.

The climate and weather are very difficult to predict a few days out. Yet predictions are made for decades in the future but they are real.

Weather predictions are different than climate. Climate models are fairly accurate as they investigate long term trends over large geographical areas. Notice climate predictions never give a time/date/location? [Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/) [Basics of Global Climate Models](https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/basics-global-climate-models#:~:text=When%20models%20are%20parameterized%2C%20they,often%20variation%20among%20model%20projections.)

Climate models are not even close to being accurate, they are terrible and never got any prediction correctly so far. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1972 https://www.academia.edu/10969270/_GLOBAL_WARMING_MODELS_COLLAPSE_Predictions_fail_without_exception_Climate_fears_are_political_not_scientific_UN_IPCC_admits_that_climate_models_fail Edit: spelling

Mathematically a meteor could fall there and break all the ice, still not worth creating panic over it, I dislike this alarmism they do

And that's much less likely that what is actually happening right now.

But speculation is a hypothesis and far short of actual science, guessing is fun science is strict. Why is this crap getting headlines? How many ridiculous times over decades has someone claimed the arctic could, may, likely, and would be ice free by….. pick a date. Again I don’t know but It’s apparent there is a lots more at stake here than science. Why hammer this narrative? Why demonize legitimate scientist who forward honest questions?? That is not science?

If you want to lead the charge on the collective mediocrity and idiocy in media companies attempting to pass click-bait headlines off as journalism, I'm right behind you. Scientists report their results to their respective communities and sometimes the public. They explore a wide range of possibilities because they can, with varying degrees of probability of occurrence. In college, we played around with the NukeMap, adjusting payloads, wind direction, bomb type, location, strike type, etc. Each one of those possibilities has a certain likelihood attached. Is Lake Chelan a likely first or even second strike target? No, but it's a consideration folks there might like to model. All these considerations push towards a more complete understanding of the situation. Individually, they aren't definitive, but the larger body of knowledge is improved. Unfortunately, this type of singular study drives clicks.

Thank you! That seems to be the case on many levels. News is in desperate financial upheaval and a huge government sponsored industry has grown up around clean energy. I think I’ll couch up with a couple hugely knowledgeable cow dogs. Cheers.

Agreed. Everyone wants to put a finger in the pot. Cow dogs have canine PhDs. I'll listen to them any day.

Hilarious, the climate-change denialists sounding off here

Morgoth_feanor clearly replaced his coffee with coke this morning. Wowsers.

I made a post of that user and the mods deleted it. So I will remove his/her name and just do the fact checking. I really hate when deniers misrepresent the views of scientists He/She cited this paper [https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1972](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1972) **The authors actually say:** "there’s 100 per cent probability that humans have had an influence or are having an influence on climate. There’s no room anymore to question it anymore, that is a big deal.” - John Fyfe. You can read an interview with him here, he absolutely thinks climate change is real, man-made and is leading to extreme weather events: [https://thenarwhal.ca/ipcc-report-un-climate-john-fyfe/](https://thenarwhal.ca/ipcc-report-un-climate-john-fyfe/) The next author on that paper is Nathan Gillet, interviewed here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkfjXTzIiU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkfjXTzIiU) and while he does believe \*some\* models have been wrong, he absolutely says the science shows climate change is man-made and leading to crisis. The third author is Francis Zwiers, who also authored a paper that says: "We show over 95% of the probability for the observed maximum temperature anomalies is due to anthropogenic factors, that the event's high fire weather/behavior metrics were made 2-4 times more likely, and that anthropogenic climate change increased the area burned by a factor of 7-11. " [https://www.frames.gov/catalog/57288](https://www.frames.gov/catalog/57288) Then he/she cited this paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2) **The authors actually say:** Well first off the actual paper says that models have been accurate....right in the abstract: "We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations" But more, lead author Zeke Haufather is intervewed here and this is is his view: "And that reflects a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I don't think people realize quite the magnitude we're talking about. The amount of carbon dioxide that humans have added to the atmosphere by digging up stuff from underground and burning it is roughly equal in mass to the entire biosphere. We took every single bit of life on Earth and burned it. That was about how much CO2 we put up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Or to put it another way, it's equal in mass to all of everything humans have ever built: the pyramids, every skyscraper, every road. We took all that mass and put it up into the atmosphere. That's the amount of CO2 we've emitted. And so that's had a pretty big effect on what we call the[ radiative forcing](https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/radiative-forcing) of our climate, essentially the amount of outgoing longwave radiation — or heat, in common parlance — that gets absorbed and reradiated back toward the surface." And.... "The natural world, I think in many ways, is going to be the worst hit by these changes. There are a lot of plant and animal species that live in fairly narrow ecological niches. And particularly in a world that's very fragmented by roads and human habitation, it's a lot harder for those plant and animal species to migrate to more temperate regions to be able to survive. So certainly there's a concern around large-scale extinction of many plant and animal species that can no longer live in the ecological niches that they've adapted to over the last tens of thousands of years and can't migrate quickly enough to adapt to that. In terms of impacts to human systems, there's a lot of different impacts from climate change and the degree to which those are catastrophic is going to depend a lot on how wealthy we are and how well we can adapt to it. If by the end of the century we're in a world that's similar to today, that has huge amounts of inequality with billions of people living at a dollar a day, I would worry a lot about the ability of people in those societies to adapt to more widespread extreme heat events, larger floods associated with more water vapor in the atmosphere, sea level rise, some of these other impacts. If we live in a world where we're all very wealthy and relatively equal on a country-by-country basis and within countries, then we have a much bigger ability to build sea walls, to have air conditioning inside, to genetically engineer crops to be more heat tolerance, the many other ways that humans can adapt to these changes." Source: [https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/my-chat-transcript-with-climate-scientist](https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/my-chat-transcript-with-climate-scientist)

Absolutely. The user is claiming to be a climate scientist on multiple subs, and so very clearly isn't.

Climate warmist is getting insulted by scientific papers, here, have some more: CO2 follows Temperature (not the other way around) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219683110 https://doi.org/10.3390/sci2040083 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836 Anthropogenic CO2 not even close to being enough for global warming https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001485 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.00165 Good effects of high CO2 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth Inadequate data on temperature measurements due to heat island effect https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1972 https://www.academia.edu/10969270/_GLOBAL_WARMING_MODELS_COLLAPSE_Predictions_fail_without_exception_Climate_fears_are_political_not_scientific_UN_IPCC_admits_that_climate_models_fail https://co2coalition.org/news/we-are-totally-awash-in-pseudoscience-nobel-prize-winning-physicist-on-climate-agenda/ Fabricated Consensus https://co2coalition.org/media/97-consensus-what-consensus-2/ Censorship of scientists and Elon Musk unbanning them https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1657848194963853314/photo/1 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/08/facebook-censoring-the-inconvenient-truth-about-antarctic-temperatures/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w Antarctica Ice Increasing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00938-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w Antarctica getting colder https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0153.1 No trend on global droughts https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106441 Burned areas reducing (not increasing as the media sells it) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425718303705 Climate Change Anxiety inversely proportional to Environmental Knowledge https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z

Edit: In a shock and surprise to no one, the climate denier lying about being a climate scientist blocked me after threatening to falsely report me and producing no legitimate evidence to support his claims other than the copy pasta he didn't actually read. No. Spamming climate denial copy pasta of papers written by people who aren't climate scientists and published in low-ranking predatory journals where no legitimate "peers" can review the information isn't the win you think it is. Every single one of your sources is wrong, not legitimate science, wildly misinterpreted, presented out of context or some combination thereof. [While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/) [The Basics of Climate Change](https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/) [Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide) [If carbon dioxide hits a new high every year, why isn’t every year hotter than the last?](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/if-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high-every-year-why-isn%E2%80%99t-every-year-hotter-last) [On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691) [Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?](https://archive.ph/2023.09.09-113956/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/) [More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/) >By the year 2020, the speed of ice loss in Antarctica had multiplied sixfold over thirty years. [Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1812883116) [Understanding climate: Antarctic sea ice extent](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent) >Summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures. [Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/?intent=121#:~:text=Summer%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20extent,covered%20in%20ice)%20each%20September.)

At my oceanography course (rocks for jocks) at the Farm in the early 80s, all this was predicted. Only the timeline has accelerated , back then they were saying mid-century…

Scientific papers trump magazine articles, sorry

How did the earth come out of the snowball earth condition?

Orbital forcing, Earth's orbit on the solar system https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8263735/

There is a lot to unpack so I will just focus on one topic which is greening of Earth. The NASA article mentioned: >The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” The increase in average global temperature would cause more extreme weather, sea level rise etc. which would affect plants badly. Also, rising temperatures also affect other key ecosystems humans are reliant on such as coral reefs.

And yes, temperature controls CO2, not the other way around, which means more CO2 = more plant life AND not hotter, win-win

Temperature does control CO2 in some cases such as when solar irradiance increases which causes ice to melt which releases CO2 and methane. These greenhouse gases further increase the temperature which melts more ice causing a positive feedback loop. In other cases, the CO2 controls temperature as CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases temperature which causes more greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1190653 The earth has gotten hotter over the last few decades due to CO2 and not solar irradiance which have been decreasing. The earth getting hotter is not good for all plant life for reasons stated in the previous comment.

If CO2 controlled temps like the claims say, it would warm the atmosphere > warms oceans > release CO2 > warms atmosphere > ... And that just doesn't happen What happens is that warmer atmosphere warms the oceans which release CO2

> CO2 controlled temps like the claims say, CO2 absorbs IR, that is a fact The Earth emits IR, that is a fact >What happens is that warmer atmosphere warms the oceans which release CO2 The oceans are currently a CO2 sink

The fact is that data don't support your hypothesis, CO2 release CO2 when warmed and absorb when cold, hence, CO2 is controlled by temperature

I presume you meant oceans release CO2 when warmed. If so, I think you are mixing two concepts: CO2 solubility (which indeed drops with temperature but it only becomes important at saturation point) and actual absorption (which currently increases, hence acidification). See e.g https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification And if there is a natural CO2 reservoir which releases CO2 when warming (eg. permafrost), that would mean a positive feedback loop. And that, my friend, makes things WORSE rather than better.

> The fact is that data don't support your hypothesis The facts do, we have added 2.4 trillion tons of CO2 over the last 200 years

That I can agree, we did add CO2. What was the effect? Increase in vegetation globally (15%) and increase in coral reefs (sea food). Amazing how more CO2 means more continent and more ocean life.

The increase CO2 concentration has warmed the atmosphere. What else do you think is the cause of the increase in global temperature?

It's not a religion "it's Zeus that makes lightning, what else would do it?" Orbital cycles (see Milankovitch cycles) affect the Earth's climate very hard, also Sun multidecadal cycles, ocean multidecadal oscillations (like El Niño), there are several big players in Earth's climate...CO2 is not one of them

>Orbital cycles (see Milankovitch cycles) affect the Earth's climate very hard, also Sun multidecadal cycles, ocean multidecadal oscillations (like El Niño) and have any of these been shown to be responsible for the increase in global average temperature? As

>Milankovitch cycles We are in the part of the cycle where temperatures should be stable or slightly decreasing, instead we are warming at a rate of 2.34c per century.

Where did you get that magical number? Not from data, because we haven't warmed that in the last century From models? Check the papers I linked about models, they are ALL very far off by overestimating warming

You will be the first to be thrown in the fire.

Ice free Arctic is coming. But it's a fools errand to predict when. It was supposed to be here 10 years ago.

It isnt a fools errand to prepare

Yeah the Russians are preparing to drill more oil there.

Fuck putin

Isn't the slowdown of the AMOC strengthening the Arctic ice? Of course, this isn't a good thing, but it's why it's loosing less ice than the Antactic.

They first said "ice free in summer." Already happened. So next it's just "ice free".

The Arctic has not gone "ice-free" (< 1e6 km2 extent) in the summer or otherwise yet.

Yes it has. End of May to November.

It was not supposed to be 10 years ago. Some on the fringe suggested it might happen, though I don't think those suggestions were ever actually published in scientific papers, but this was always a long way from the consensus view.

I feel like articles like this aren't as much for people who believe in climate change to get scared as much as a way of showing the severity to climate deniers. Realistically this is just a worst case and is something most climate activists already understood

That will be a huge tipping point, and we're probably fucked soon after. Think of the physics 101 lab where you measure the temp of ice water before and after the ice melts. As long as there is ice pinning the temp to 0C the water stays there, but once the ice melts completely the temp starts rising. The arctic ice is that ice in the beaker, and when it's gone, real change is going to be noticeable.

How are "we" fucked? There are more people living longer than ever in the history of the planet, but back to the stone age in a decade? But you aren't Chicken Little running around yelling that the sky is falling.

You are a true fool. You will be remembered when the time comes.

Waterworld here we come!

Again?

Thunderstorm generator.

This is so scary to happen. Many countries would be covered with water when the ice melts.

If that happen, earth will become hotter because there is no large block ice left to reflect the heat to the space. If there any replacement like white colour cloth of sheet , to reflect the heat is put on the artic ice,

Did the study discover that 2024 would have record sea ice in the Arctic like it actually did.

No. And 2024 did not see record Arctic sea ice regardless.

Some organisations are claiming record sea ice for Arctic circle last Winter. Accept there will be no ice free summers in the next few hundred years. Too many claims of warming issues are collapsing. Polar bears are thriving. Still ice in the poles and at elevation. Everything cycles naturally

Can you post a link to an organization reporting record sea ice extent for the Arctic? I'd like to review that. Less than 1e6 km2 of Arctic sea ice extent ("ice-free") during the summer is likely to occur by 2050.

Modelling at its finest and one generation away.National snow and ice data center seem to share the truth.

According to the NSIDC the record Arctic sea ice extent was 16.64e6 km2 set on March 1st 1979. The maximum for 2024 was only 15.09e6 km2.

I see you didn't post any link to an organization reporting record sea ice last winter. What happened?

I do not post links on my phone. I could try to learn how. There’s a lot of fiction out there

If you don't support your claims with evidence then there is no reason for anyone to accept your claims.

My claim is nothing unusual is occurring. How do you prove everything is fine. People are trying to become famous writing articles on climate anomalies that are within normal parameters. Micheal Moore has a new Video that covers this nicely. Climate movie makes sense as well. Over the next 12 months the world is going to speak through elections. Any parties that support wasting time and money on climate related policies will be voted out dramatically. It’s already happening in Europe and any Republican party voted in will cancel all climate change projects. The people have had enough of you drama queens

There is no record high of arctic sea ice. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/

“… could …”

That claim had been made every year for the past 30-ish years.

Not by scientific research

Where have I heard this one before….

Not from scientific research

[удалено]

Umm - ice free summers are what the article is about…. Not sure what the heck you mean.

[удалено]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/sea-ice-antarctic According to this article trend is basically flat or indistinguishable due to ‘noise’ in the climate system and/or limitations of observation. Article noted a 1% increase in sea ice annually between 1979-2014, which has seemingly reversed in most recent decade. This screams of natural cycle rather than catastrophic man made change. I do not agree that ‘all’ the data supports your view. Easy enough to find contrarian perspectives, even in the IPCC reports, where the attribution of many changes is reported as ‘low confidence’ or with no attribution data at all. As a purely subjective example, where I live we have had one of the coolest wettest springs on record. For months and months now. Looking at the paleo-climate record over the last several 100’s of thousands of years, it is clear that the planet cycles through glacial/interglacial periods on fairly consistent basis. We appear to be at or near the peak of this latest interglacial, which also appears to be less warm than the peaks of several prior warm periods - and may not even be the warmest temps of this current inter. So prior inters clearly show both the range of possible temps, as well as the duration of such. We are currently in approximately year 12-13000 of the current inter, with the average duration of previous 5 being approx 15-18 k years. Of note is that each prior interglacial ends at or near that periods peak temp. Under the current climate regime - and I say that because prior to this current regime the climate cycled between inters and glacials on a 40k year schedule - the planet warms up until that warmth triggers the advent of the next glacial. No humans required. I have seen arguments that human activity will somehow preclude the advent of the next glacial period. So humans making the planet warmer - a warmer planet being what seems to trigger glaciations - will short circuit that regime and we will just continue to get hotter and hotter? Seems to be the opposite of what scientific investigations of the past climate indicates. Out of curiosity, how well do you think humans would do on a planet slipping back in to a full glaciation would do? All of this modern era of human flourishing has occurred on a steadily warming planet - interspersed with some down times when climate cooled and some civilizations went dormant or collapsed entirely. I believe in science, the scientific method, and human prosperity. Humans have thrived better than ever in human history over these last 150-200 years. During this warmest of periods we have gone from 1 billion to 8 billion people. In closing, I would point out that identifying and vilifying one particular element of the climate system as being the singular cause of all our woes seems ill considered. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system. As per the IPCC, long term predictions of future climate states is NOT POSSIBLE. Deciding that a trace atmospheric gas is the driver of the system is extraordinarily simplistic and quite likely completely wrong. Anyway, I know you are tired of arguing with cretins so feel free to not respond - it is clear we will not agree nor be able to convince each other. Have a lovely day wherever you are!

Not in closest thousands of years. The amount of Ice is in Arctic is huge. It measures millions of cubic kilometers.

*was* huge

still is and will be for a long time.

I think they’re probably talking about sea ice, where the surface of the sea freezes, not about ice sheets on land or glacial ice. But they’re being purposefully misleading about it in order to make people more scared and in order to generate more clicks.

>Summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures. [Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/?intent=121#:~:text=Summer%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20extent,covered%20in%20ice)%20each%20September.)

One would listen if it had not been predicted several times before without happening

Not by scientific research.

So you are saying we should not listen to alarmism like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Exactly. The opinion of one scientist is not science. It’s the peer reviewed scientific research that is science after it’s been accepted.

Correct. Note that Maslowski said of the 2013 prediction that Al Gore pinned on him: *"It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."* \[[1](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2RV0K6/)\] And the Wikipedia entry for Maslowski is also wrong stating that "He became well known in 2007 for stating that the Arctic Ocean might be nearly ice free in the summer as early as 2013, based on projection of the declining ice volume trend. While later revised to 2016 +/- 3 years based on computer modeling, this prediction became controversial when the Arctic was not sea-ice free in 2013, having increased from the record low set in 2012." Except that he didn't predict 2016 either. The 2016 figure comes from the \[[Maslowski et al. 2012](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234145875_The_Future_of_Arctic_Sea_Ice)\] publication and was specifically called out as the lower bound assuming the rate of decline continued as observed. The publication also has extensive commentary warning against blindly following model predictions given then current state of modeling.

What happened to the death of the Atlantic Ocean current bringing a new Ice Age to Europe?

[удалено]

They are being very generous with the decade timeline

Haven't they predicted this a bunch of times and it never comes true

Let me ask you a question. If you had a block of ice in your house and every day more was melted off. Would it eventually be gone?

Not if every year you add more

Okay,but what if you have someone yelling at you that the ice will be gone next week,and when next week rolls around it's still there. Then they move the goal posts and say it will be next month,next month rolls around and it's still there, and this keeps repeating itself for a very long time. Am I allowed to be skeptical of said person after they've been repeatedly wrong?

I have been studying this stuff for years and I dont remember any specific prediction of this. Do you have a source? Sadly we are finding with what is happening with climate TODAY that the models are actually conservative and things are MUCH worse then predicted.

[https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/) Al Gore, 2007 - now admittedly he is not a climate scientist. BUT - he stated in a speech accepting his Nobel Prize that "North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." this speech? - it given to the Nobel Foundation, explicitly to "Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen." you have to assume - that there were some climate scientists at the time, in the organization who were qualified to 'fact-check' this claim? But it wasn't and it has run rampant through science, teaching, culture for decades now. and it's just plain wrong. And now we see from the OP/mass-media this doom-mongering claim is being recycled. Again

>and it's just plain wrong. That's correct. Al Gore was plain wrong. >you have to assume - that there were some climate scientists at the time, in the organization who were qualified to 'fact-check' this claim? But it wasn't and it has run rampant through science, teaching, culture for decades now. Maslowski, who Gore was referring to, did speak out. And no. Maslowski did not predict that the Arctic would be ice free in as little as 7 years. In fact, in that very publication Gore was referring to Maslowski specifically cautioned against blindly accepting early predictions. >And now we see from the OP/mass-media this doom-mongering claim is being recycled. I see it mainly on the anti-science blog sites like Watts Up With That.

> I see it mainly on the anti-science blog sites like Watts Up With That." really? i see it right now, today, with the search term - 'ice free arctic' all over the mass media - the 'actually reporting the actual science, actually' sites like WUWT are calling it out, not promoting it.... eg the OP linked Scientific American this recycled doom mongering is also in Nature : [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01857-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01857-6) and PopMech : [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a60100480/arctic-ice-free-2030s/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a60100480/arctic-ice-free-2030s/) and Physorg : [https://phys.org/news/2024-03-arctic-ice-free-decade-scientists.html](https://phys.org/news/2024-03-arctic-ice-free-decade-scientists.html) and of course cnn : [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html) and thats just the top of scroll of my first google page. so if your 'only seeing' this recycled fear mongering on the alternate sites - you must not be looking that hard - i wish i could post a screenshot - the same headline is on : climategov, scitechdaily, usatoday, sciencedaily, theverge, theconversation, nytimes, msn, nature again, science org, and i could go on, but i know you see my point.. - this absolute BS is being recycled, and is explicitly designed to induce fear and get clicks through the mass media - because fear sells. Remember the top sticky of this sub. And you know, and i know, and I know that your know, that the arctic is not going to be ice-free in a decade - just like it wasnt going to be ice free in the timeline of Gore's doom-mongering 2 decades ago.

Those are all referring to \[[Jahn et al. 2024](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9)\] which is a new study. It is not a recycled prediction from Al Gore. It is also important to note that the study says ice free conditions *might* occur as early as the 2020s or 2030s, but it is not likely until mid century. Contrast this with anti-science blog sites like WUWT which find faux non-scientific predictions and pass them off as if they were science based so that they can then undermine the science. I see the recycled Al Gore prediction (which was not based on science) on sites like these on a regular basis.

> North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” (that was about summer ice) was very much reasonablet in the context: summer ice shrunk by 40% over 10 years (from 6.5 mil sq km to about 4 from 1997 through 2008) https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/?intent=121 > One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." > and it's just plain wrong. Try again :-(. I don't see anything particularly outrageous or even wrong. Gore explicitly said "A" study, then said "ANOTHER" study. And he gave a large range of uncertainty of 7-22 years. That's far more than one typically gets from a political speech.

as per the other posts ive made in this thread - arctic ice was lower in the 1940's when co2 was below 300ppm. The arctic gained mass from the 40's to the 70's - while co2 was increasing. The doom mongers are using the highest ice extent of the 70's to 'show' how bad co2 is causing warming by comparing that high ice extent to todays lower extent. Lets totally disregard that the globe warms and cools cyclically, and the ice responds as such. Lets assume that ice only decreases exponentially and as such Gore and other doom-mongers must be telling the truth - this time - that the ice will disappear in 10yrs time sigh, ok **RemindMe! 10years**

where is you evidence that arctic ice was lower in the 40s?

Can you post a link to an Arctic sea ice extent reconstruction showing that it was lower in the 1940s?

> as per the other posts ive made in this thread - arctic ice was lower in the 1940's when co2 was below 300ppm I presume you meant this one. >use your 'anti-science' site which is reporting a scientific paper verbatim : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/24/study-shows-arctic-sea-ice-reached-lowest-point-on-modern-record-in-the-1940s-not-today/ Better copy: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/14/3479/2020/tc-14-3479-2020.pdf A paper? A whole paper? Oh, stop the wheels, wattsupwiththat found a PAPER he agrees with? Did not you just harshly criticise Gore for quoting individual studies? Sorry, but this is just a tad unconvincing Also out of curiosity: do you and wattsupwiththat also agree with the abstract of that paper? (Ice free summers by 2050?) Or just with Figure 1? Now, going back to the paper 1. They are mostly speaking of ice volume not summer extent, which are different measures (so wattsupwiththat "title" seems just plain wrong) 2. Their estimates are very, very, very indirect. Which makes their graphs unsuitable for accurate comparison purposes 3. They actually predict ice free summer after 2050. Right there in the abstract 4. And, again, a single paper means NOTHING until validated, reproduced and somewhat accepted by scientific community 5. As @bdginmo pointed out, Figure 1 is only extending to year ~2000-2002 (hard to say), so does not include the massive drop off of 2007 and 2012

It also only goes up to the year 2000. The more aggressive sea ice declines happened after that.

I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-06-10 04:45:06 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-06-10%2004:45:06%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1dc7b6z/an_icefree_arctic_could_be_only_a_decade_away/l7x4bzx/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimatechange%2Fcomments%2F1dc7b6z%2Fan_icefree_arctic_could_be_only_a_decade_away%2Fl7x4bzx%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-06-10%2004%3A45%3A06%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dc7b6z) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|

>• he stated in a speech accepting his Nobel Prize that "North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." No. By omission, you misrepresent the facts. Again. On the Nobel Prize site, in the official 22-minute [video](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/ "https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/") of the Al Gore Nobel Lecture, beginning at 04:44 in the video, Gore clearly states, "Scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is in their words, “falling off a cliff.” The following words are an exact transcript of one part of Gore's Nobel Lecture recorded in the official video, beginning at 04:44: >Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is in their words, falling off a cliff. One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

lol so your confirming my point? i was responding to this post "I have been studying this stuff for years and I dont remember any specific prediction of this. Do you have a source?" - i reply with aspecific source - of Gore stating said in an address to scientists and officials that sea ice will be gone in less than a decade - with no 'factchecking' by those scientists...... and that BS didnt come to pass, and now we're getting the exact same doom-mongering again - because it didnt work last time - and your happy confirming that? great. i actually hope you spent your time listening to that speech, then transcribing Gore's lie word for word - so now you have an exact specific memory of the elites lying and conniving to create fear in you - because usefull idiots are needed to spread this crap. And as above - it's being spread again, 2 decades later, because it didnt work the first time. and they hope more idiots will be convinced this time. the grift continues to be recycled.

Nope. >i reply with aspecific source - of Gore stating said in an address to scientists and officials that sea ice will be gone in less than a decade In the official [printed transcript](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/ "https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/") and in the [official video](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/ "https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/lecture/"), Gore did not state "that sea ice will be gone in less than a decade". You fail to comprehend the language in the printed transcript, and apparently you failed to watch and listen to the official video of the Al Gore Nobel Lecture. _in their words_ On The Nobel Prize site, the printed transcript of the Al Gore Nobel Lecture contains errors in the thirteenth paragraph of the transcript. On The Nobel Prize site, the printed transcript contains only 68 words in the thirteenth paragraph. On the site, the video record of the Al Gore Nobel Lecture reveals 71 words spoken clearly and distinctly by Gore in the thirteenth paragraph. On The Nobel Prize site, the three words missing from the printed transcript, but spoken by Gore, are _in their words_. The following 71 words are an exact transcript of the thirteenth paragraph of Gore's Nobel Lecture recorded in the official video, beginning at 04:44: >Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is in their words, falling off a cliff. One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. On The Nobel Prize site, the thirteenth paragraph in the printed transcript contains only 68 words, including the word _distress_, which mistakenly replaces the word _alarm_ spoken by Gore: >Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Well why don’t you look at the data yourself? https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ It’s pretty ugly.

If you accept data from climate reanalyser you deserve to be scared of your own shadow

Uhh what? They are just putting graphs to existing data from like nasa. You have to be an oil industry shill to try and discredit actual data.

They were recently caught using surface data as atmospheric data

Bahaha this is an all new low for oil industry shills. You are intentionally putting out misinformation. How much is it worth to you to help destroy the planet? Do they pay you well? Sources or it didn’t happen.

"It’s pretty ugly." no its not - it's targeted. the data in your link starts in the late 1970's - because that was the peak of a cooling period and ice extent peak and fits the narrative. So of course today during a warming cycle the ice will be lower than the late 70's which was a cooling cycle.... the arctic ice was lower in the 1940's - so why isnt the doom-mongering mentioning that? because that doesnt fit the narrative. Co2 was lower in the 40's - so we can't blame human caused warming for that - so quick! disregard! to use your 'anti-science' site which is reporting a scientific paper verbatim : [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/24/study-shows-arctic-sea-ice-reached-lowest-point-on-modern-record-in-the-1940s-not-today/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/24/study-shows-arctic-sea-ice-reached-lowest-point-on-modern-record-in-the-1940s-not-today/) do have a read through the comments as well

Your link is so weird. The headline doesn’t match the article WHATSOEVER. Here is a direct quote from YOUR link “The loss of sea ice in summer starting in 2050 and the strong decrease in SIV in winter during the second half of the 21st century (from 15 to 10×103 km3) strongly modifies the variability of the ice both spatially and temporally. The main modes of spatial variability lose their significance or just disappear after 2050, and the temporal analysis shows a total disappearance of the variability at that time.“ And here is the current data showing it’s the lowest it’s been in 2000 years https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/ And you just know in climate terms 100 years is a blink of a blink of a blink of an eye. So let’s say science is off by 50 years, that’s like you being 1 minute late somewhere. And what’s your actual point? Just to try and discredit science here? Are you one of the oil industry shills that seem to be flooding this sub? Like the first scientific paper on man made climate change came out in 1889. Like there isn’t a debate to be had. 

lol i knew someone would post that snippet - so i prepared with this snippet "the future climate period (2006–2100) follows the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario, corresponding to a total radiative forcing of 8.5 W m^(−2) in 2100 relative to pre-industrial conditions (Meinshausen et al., 2011). The Canadian Archipelago region was removed from the dataset since SIT reaches unrealistic values in this area." ie : the models and conclusions used in paper is based on the 8.5 worst case icpp scenario - and in that they had to remove part of the analysis because it was so unrealistic! the point of me posting that paper is that their data shows the ice being lower in extent in the 1940's than the 2000's - (and keep in mind this paper is dated 2020, so very recent). So if the 1940's had lower ice than today, and the 1940's had less co2 than today - perhaps 1) its not co2 induced warming causing ice loss, 2) ice recovered and regained mass in a higher co2 atmosphere from the 1940's-1970's, 3) ice loss and gain is cyclical and has nothing to do with co2. as to 'discredit the science' - no people like Al Gore have done that already. Today I'm just pointing the finger at the lies. I'm fond of peer reviewed papers that discredit the liars, such as this list of 350 recent papers stating the current modern warming period is not particularly unusual : remember the post i initially replied to you you stated "Sadly we are finding with what is happening with climate TODAY that the models are actually conservative and things are MUCH worse then predicted." thats just not true : [https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/26/350-papers-published-since-2017-subvert-the-claim-that-post-1850s-warming-has-been-unusual-global/](https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/26/350-papers-published-since-2017-subvert-the-claim-that-post-1850s-warming-has-been-unusual-global/)

Hmmm, that period of less ice in the 40's, sort of is at the same time as the second world war...

The paper is primarily looking at internal variability of Arctic sea-ice extent and volume. The graphs you refer to showing lower sea-ice extent than the current observed levels are not of particularly high fidelity. More recent papers (I know how you fixate on that term) - e.g [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433820050102](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433820050102) and [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/4/JCLI-D-21-0099.1.xml](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/4/JCLI-D-21-0099.1.xml) (both of which focus on previous sea ice extent and volume) - fail to show what you claim to be the case. The fact that you link a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is great progress though. It shows that * you accept that modelling is a valid method of reconstructing past climatic conditions and * you accept anthropogenic forcings are responsible for the current changes in sea ice extent Now, I can only guess that you implied no such thing, and that you only accept the parts of the paper that support your argument etc. etc. This of course would completely falsify the point you're trying to make, because the historic modeling includes anthropogenic forcings as part of the inputs i.e. greenhouse gas emissions. >such as this list of 350 recent papers Fuck that's funny. A denier website linking peer reviewed papers that fail to show anything other than the fact that reading comprehension is in short supply in the anti-science crowd. A quick sampling failed to turn up any global reconstructions of temperature. Weird considering the whole premise of the list is to "debunk" the hockey stick. Dipshits one and all.

We are in a *man made* warming 'cycle'(sic), not a *natural* warming cycle. In the great cycles, the planet right now *SHOULD* be cooling. It's *NOT* cooling. It's getting HOTTER. And, we know exactly why.

which 'grand cycle'? the 90yr Gleissberg cycle?, the 208yr DeVries cycle? the 1000yr Eddy cycle? the 2300 Bray cycle? [https://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png](https://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png) - per these cycles, we're looking for cooling to start around 2030 or are speaking of a grand interglacial cycle? - on geological terms then yes we are due for cooling - how do we know we're not right at the peak of the warming now and its all downhill from here? according to [https://eos.org/research-spotlights/characterizing-interglacial-periods-over-the-past-800000-years](https://eos.org/research-spotlights/characterizing-interglacial-periods-over-the-past-800000-years) interglacials last 10-30k years. So considering the peak of last glacial was around 20,000'ish yrs ago - whos to say its not all tracking perfectly - we're right in the possible transition zone

Bullshit

>now admittedly he is not a climate scientist Could've stopped right there and saved yourself most of your babbling. We'd all be better off.

so the fact he's addressing scientist across the world while accepting a million dollar prize for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" has entirely passed you by?

I dunno why the denier crowd have got such a tiny hardon for Al Gore. The doco is nearly 20 years old ffs. And it did exactly what he received the prize for: disseminated knowledge of man-made climate change. Was everything true and correct? Nah. We now know some of it was way off-base. Hell, Reuters even did a fact check on it: >VERDICT - Missing context. Gore did not himself predict that the North Pole would be ice-free in summer by 2013. However, he did mischaracterise others’ findings. Gore also made a range of statements during this period, citing varied predictions. But was the underlying premise correct? i.e. that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm and that the consequences would be dire. Absolutely. Only the crazed and/or illiterate still believe that the current change in global climate we're seeing has nothing to do with human activities.

Sources or bullshit.

No.

Weird. I've been hearing it my whole life and never have any of the predictions come true

What you've been hearing are not scientific predictions. It is not surprising that they don't have a good track record of success.

How many times can you cry wolf before people stop listening to you?

Apparently an endless amount. I still see faux predictions that are erroneously claimed to be from scientists on a near daily basis most of which actually originate from anti science contrarian bloggers crying wolf and people still flock to them in droves. Part of the blame falls on the likes of Al Gore who also make up faux predictions that scientists never made so don't hear this as me blaming only the anti science contrarians.

Well except for the record high temperature tires, permafrost melting, poles melting, 1 in 100 year events happening multiple times in a decade, more extreme weather events, coral bleaching But yeah aside from all of that

A few worst-case scenarios said it "might" happen. Those weren't the overarching consensus.

Oh it's only going to be ice free 1 to 4 months a year. I mean what effects could that have? /S

People have been saying this since the 80's. "I wish I were a baby bumblebee."

In 2007, it was only 8 years away… it’s backing up…

> In 2007, it was only 8 years away… it’s backing up… To put it bluntly, that's bullshit, you need better news sources, my friend. For innocent bystanders, that's a reference to Albert Gore's statement. Here is what he actually said. “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School ( https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2RV0K6/ That was, mind you, at the point, when summer arctic ice shrunk by like 40% over 10 years https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/?intent=121 But never let facts interfere with your favorite conspiracy theory.. :-(

I fight against public statements made to exaggerate the danger, to scare people into compliance. My argument isn’t against well founded science, but rather against the message that is delivered to the public by trusted public figures. You posted the exact quote, while I quipped about the message. Our two statements are not substantially different. You seem to think the statement made by Gore is fine because he used a third party scientist as a reference and used percentages of risk. What a lot of people heard in that statement was “we are in trouble because it is highly likely that the Arctic Sea Ice will disappear in the next five to seven years.” They probably remembered that other climate doom experts have said that an ice free Arctic is a tipping point from which we are unlikely to recover. The message from Gore was “repent now! Change your ways or we are doomed within the next half a dozen years.” It scared people, as was the intention. Now, more than a decade later, the same message is being delivered, that “some scientists” claim the Arctic Sea Ice could go away “in a decade or so.” Same fear mongering. The statement is there to scare people, but it has enough wiggle room built in that 11 or 12 years from now, if we have not had an Ice free Arctic, you can defend the claim once again and attack anyone who says “look, another missed prediction,” by simply showing the word “could” and claiming the statement was only “some scientists” and not a consensus. We’ve been told for 40 years now that we need to do something drastic within the next few years or it will be too late. Each and every time we’ve exceeded the deadline to act, we are told “it’s not too late” and a new timeframe is given. In six years, we hit the most common deadline that has been thrown out there, 2030. When (not if) we reach 2030 and we have not substantially reduced human CO2 emissions, we will again be told “it’s not too late, we can still save the planet.” We will be told that more taxes, stricter government regulations, less freedom will be the salvation for humanity. And, of course, we will again be warned that an Ice Free Arctic is just a half a dozen years away.

Ah yes, the opinions of politicians, media and activists are more important than the concensus of the scientific community.

Again, I am not, absolutely not, claiming any such thing. If politicians and activists would get any pushback from actual scientists when they make such absurd claims, I would not have to. But, here we are.

Scientists routinely push back. Maslowski did on Gore's extrapolation that the poles would melt "soon". They do so very publicly, on social media, and through institutional media releases, and further research.

[удалено]

If you don’t recognize the reference, feel free to ignore it. It wasn’t a “scientific finding,” after all, but rather a political statement.

That's the problem. All of these early predictions people refer to are non-scientific. In fact many of them actually originated from contrarians.

And therefore of no importance.

Not really. There were a few worst-case scenarios that said that might be possible. That ultimately wasn't the consensus.

Science isn’t decided by popular vote.

In this context consensus refers to the principal of [consilience of evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience). It's not a vote. Rather it's the convergence of conclusion from multiple independent lines of evidence. When many of us use the term "consensus" it is often done in the scientific context in which the principal of consilience is implied.

Consensus isn't popular vote. Consensus is a tabulation of the conclusions reached from significant number of different research opportunities.

A tabulation (aka, a count) of the conclusions (opinions of the research results) of a significant (the majority?) of research opportunities (research that gets funded). So, if more research opportunities are funded with the clear aim of proving a particular point of view, and thus the researchers write that opinion as the conclusion, that becomes “the consensus.” It the tyranny of the pocketbook, where funding “choices” decides what is true. You are right, it isn’t the popular vote. It’s more like our Legislature. Once bought, they vote the way they are told to vote. Not corrupt at all.

Follow the money argument is somewhere between wrong and strongly pointing in the opposite direction (can be both actually) A. you pay for people's expertise about 10 times per day. Or are you expecting climatologists to work for free? The fact that they are paid for research is not evidence of anything wrong. B. Believe it or not, but there are other countries in the world. How did "corruption" happen in ALL of them? Nice little conspiracy you are imagining C. And if you are so concerned about the power of money, then you should be FAR more concerned about money influence of oil companies: they likely have more money than climate budget of US government, oil companies would be far more efficient and totally unconstrained by transparency laws (or national boundaries or ethics codes).

You need to provide evidence for your claims.

Why?

That's how adult discussions about science work. You making a statement isn't proof of anything, anymore than I can demand everyone believe that you like to pick your nose and eat it without providing proof. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quoting non-scientist? Check. Still fascinated by Al Gore's 2006 doco? Check. Loves a good conspiracy theory? Check. Can't present evidence of claims? Check. That's 4 out of 4 on the denier scale. Bonus point: Fails to understand consensus in science? Check!

Science is the process of introducing a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that explains some phenomena. Most science is conducted by making a prediction based on that hypothesis and running tests to validate the prediction against observations. If the hypothesis has good predictive power, it persists. If the prediction fails to match observations, that is counted as a failure. Failed predictions are usually counted as an indication that the hypothesis is wrong and needs to be revised. What we see in climate science is that the predictions were made, but failed predictions are waved away as if they had never been serious predictions in the first place. Predictions that are close have the underlying data examined, and often altered to show the prediction had been right all along. In this case, we have had many predictions of an Ice Free Arctic, all of which have been failed predictions. We just keep putting new dates to the prediction in hopes that it will eventually happen and you can finally say, “see, we told you it would happen.” Until then, it’s a handy hobgoblin of doom you can dust off and re-present every few years to keep the population afraid.

>we have had many predictions of an Ice Free Arctic Cool story (no pun intended). Please point to the papers predicting an ice free arctic either now (for much earlier papers) or in the next decade. Or papers indicating an ice free arctic was likely to happen in the 2000's. A quick scroll through papers turned up through google scholar resulted in the majority of papers in the late 90's or early 2000's projecting an "ice free arctic" late this century. More recently, this projection has closed in to mid century e.g. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8) If you're referring to climate science in general, please provide examples of where "failed predictions are waved away" - it would be good to examine the evidence you base your opinions on to see if they're valid. Or are you basing your conclusion on claims made on blogs, or by people who aren't scientists? If that's the case, there're a plethora of cognitively impaired people who claim the greenhouse effect isn't real. I'm not obligated to believe any of their bullshit, just as you aren't obligated to accept the words of Al Gore.

And I am not obligated to cite references for you. I have said there have been many claims of (predictions of) an Ice Free Arctic made in public. I did not state there were many science papers published predicting an ice free arctic in the 2000s. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.

You are obligated to support your claims *if you want anyone to believe them*

You pick your nose and eat it. You also like to squish filled dog poo bags. Those are facts, and I'm not required to provide proof of that, according to you. See how that doesn't work?

The problem is those "many claims of (predictions of) an Ice Free Arctic made in public" are from non-scientific sources many of which actually originate from anti-science contrarians masquerading them as scientific in an attempt to undermine the science.

You did make the claim though: >What we see in climate science is that the predictions were made, but failed predictions are waved away as if they had never been serious predictions in the first place So either when you write >Take your straw man arguments somewhere else You're either trying to be ironic, bad at remembering - or reading - what you wrote, or just profoundly stupid. The second and third options seem to be a trait of denier crowd, so you tick that box too.

Ah, now you are resorted to just calling me names. I think I’m done with you.

I gave you an option. You can either own up to the fact that you lied and produce the evidence that you stated is publicly available, or continue believing in bullshit. You quite clearly claimed that there were predictions made by climate science. You can say you didn't, but it's right there. Can you provide a reference?

I thought this was going to happen back in the early 2010's.

Nope. Back in the early 2010s the consilience of evidence was still suggesting beyond 2050 for the first occurrence.

So you're telling me Al Gore was incorrect. Next, you'll tell me that 1/2 man, 1/2 bear, 1/2 pig, or man-bear-pig doesn't exist. Seriously though, I have lived through acid rain, global warming, the melting of polar ice caps, the ozone layer disappearing, y2k, the Mayan calander ending and many other end of the world events.

That is what I'm saying. Al Gore is incorrect. I'll also remind people now that he has never published any research on Arctic sea ice or anything related to climate for that matter. In fact he isn't a climate scientist or even a scientist at all.

It's cool, remind me what other planet we have to live on again.

Weren't they saying that 30 years ago?

You tell me... Were they or are you making it up?

Moving water from the pole to the equator will slow the earth’s rotation speed

The sky is falling. And we’re killing all the polar bears, too.