From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Antarctic and Arctic Ice Trends Defy Climate Models And Dire
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:25:27 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 6/4/25 15:07, JTEM wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>>> https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/04/09/crying-wolf-
>>> predictions- of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean/
>>
>> Let's look at some of those:
>
> Let's.
>
>> 'âThe ice-packed Arctic Ocean may become navigable in another 25 to 50
>> years if the present warming-up tendency of the polar region continued.â'
>>
>> What does the word "may" mean to you?
>
> It means they know they're full of shit and lack any model that points
> towards the doomsday scenario they are NOT predicting, as you just
> testified.
YMMV; I see it as a translation of statistical scientific data to be at
a simpler level that the nontechnical public can understand it.
FYI, the same thing happens when you go to see your Doctor and they
discuss risks of things like side effects to you: they don't say "a N%
probability", but instead use common language expectation terms like
'can', 'may', 'should(n't)', 'rare', 'very rare', etc.
>> ââFor the recordâI do not think that any sea ice will survive this
>> summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very
>> moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.â
>
> People have sailed from the Atlantic to the Pacific man times.
Most of the time via Cape Horn, not the Northwest Passage, so just
what's your actual point here? Admitting that historically, the NW
Passage hasn't been yet been reliably navigable, even in high summer?
> We can't go back too far in history -- the Americas are called "The
> New World" -- but the Vikings are known to have gotten very deep into
> what is now ice-covered waters, back before The Little Ice Age.
Poppycock! We have climatic data that goes back much, much further than
recorded human history.
> But, again, there was so much ice loss 130,000 years ago that sea level
> was 16 feet higher. CO2 was lower. Temperatures were higher. The
> Neanderthals owned no coal plants.
And the rate of change from that condition to the next was what,
compared to today's rate of change?
> So we have more than half a century of fake "Predictions" and science
> that completely shatters your narrative...
>
> Now grow a pair and tell us why your fake "Predictions" are any better
> than the half-century or more of fake predictions.
There's been 7.5" of observed sea level rise since just 1980: what
historical period has had a rate this high? Be specific.
And FYI, levels have risen by ~4" between 1993 and 2023, at a rate of
3.9mm/year which was 160% increase from the prior 20th-century average
of 1.5mm/year...
...and the bad news is that the current rate is now 4.62mm/year, which
is an additional +18% increase, for a 200% increase from the prior 20C
average.
Now there's no question that the 'Earth will Survive', but that's not
really our primary concern: it is how much economic damage will it
invariably do to the US & World economies which will reduce our quality
of life?
-hh