https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/155/video-annual-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2019-with-area-graph/


Try again.

Bashing on Al gore does not, has not and will never provide credence to your argument.
Al Gore is not a climatologist... He is just another politician. - And like everyone else who is not a climatologist... Their opinions are irrelevant.

I have already written that Arctic Ice was declining in 1980-2005 during the rebound from the "New Ice age" and stayed flat after 2006.

We have exactly as much Arctic ice coverage today as 14 years ago, the opposite of a hockey stick.

Arctic Ice was also declining in the 1940s and 50s and went up again. Cherry picking the 1970s high point to begin is misleading.

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5885458

Same hysteria back then... catastrophic collapse, rising sea levels, swamp seaports

https://www.newspapers.com/image/89276088/?terms=greenland%2Bmelting

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/133724270

Let's take a look at the Antarctic ice (total southern hemisphere), longest data set available is starting 1978.

We have as much ice coverage in summer 2019 as in summer 1979. Where is the hockey stick?

Funny thing is the ice max spike in 2015 right before the Paris climate show. God's sense of humor. 

https://nsidc.org/data/G02135/versions/3

There is no data measurements for thickness available (just computer models). Data, not models.

I wonder what's more stupid. Denying the rise of temperatures around the planet without using any data or believing that specific years or days of data for specific regions prove something long-term.

It's as if I would tell someone that investing in the stock market for a period of 40 years is stupid because you have some periods of a few years in that long period in which you will see 50% or more of your depot worth to disappear

You just aren't getting it.

Newspaper clippings from 30-70 years ago is outdated, it is more prone to being incorrect, the fact you are using them and continuing to use them is more or less to reinforce your own confirmation bias... They neither reinforce or contradict anyones position, they are just snippets of time.

Not to mention we shouldn't be taking any credence from media publications anyway.

NASA is saying that the Sea-Ice coverage is the 6th lowest on record in 2018.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/annual-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-announcement

That is a little bit more empirical than your newspaper clippings from over half a century ago.



Fact is, you are going to have highs and lows, Arctic Ice coverage grows and shrinks, but the trend is clear, that the height of it's coverage on a yearly basis has diminished as time goes on, that is a symptom of climate change. - One year or highs or one year of lows doesn't debunk anything.

NASA has shown that the mass of ICE (Not to be confused with coverage and is ultimately a more important indicator for the health of our Arctic regions!) has been on a consistent decline.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/



I would argue there is no God. Just sound science.

Show me time series for actual measurements of thickness.. they do not exist. Adjusted models with simulated "data" can create anything.

Remember the claim was that the summer Arctic is ice free for the last 12 years and we have more Arctic coverage now than at the beginning of the modern MASIE data set in 2006.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

I have given you the information for Mass, which trumps thickness.

Try again.

Mass requires continuous thickness measurements (actual data) which do not exist. You are posting simulated models and the article explains how it is simulated based on proxies and assumptions. All I am using is real measured data without "adjustments", "simulations", "proxies" or "models".

If the hockey stick of polar ice melting is real we should see a spike in ocean levels.

Tide gauge data from around the world. Real data, not models.

Stockholm water levels for the last 130 years. Home of angry G. Does not look like they are drowning...

New York City from 1850 on. A linear, slow increase with no hockey stick whatsoever.

Reykjavik, a small increase until 1990 followed by stagnation.

Cuxhaven, an increase until ca. 1970 followed by stagnation

Tokyo, no change visible for the last 40 years (only a shorter time series available)

All data: https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

Again, non of the "we are drowning" climate hysteria can be found in real data.

(The small divergence between the continents could be explained by plate tectonics considering we are looking at minuscule changes)

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

3.3mm a year of increasing sea levels.

Try again.

Not only is that statement blatantly false... Are you asserting that NASA is incorrect and you know more than NASA?

Tread carefully, because "throwing out" NASA's claims is exactly what Flat-Earthers do to assert that the Earth is Flat... And we know how crazy those folk are, right?


I am directly dealing with climate change every day, what credentials do you have?

What exactly does someone have from denying climate change and why would he believe almost all scientists and experts in general just lie to us? What kind of logic is that? Is it just for economical reasons? Is the money in your pocket for the next few years so damn important for you to try so hard with telling yourself and everyone around you that it's all just a big lie? Do you fear so much that some measurements on this planet against climate change could cost you a few bucks a month?

I just don't get it why some people invest maybe hours every day to tell everyone that there is no climate change. Invest that time for something else, will bring you more joy in life than the few bucks more in your pocket which you try to get out of it.

People who believe that climate change is real fight for their whole future and existence. What do you fight for when you believe climate change isn't real?