Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "'Devastating' loss as Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest ever" video.

Oil companies are by far the largest investors in green energy.
2
This is utter tosh.
2
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a much misunderstood concept cited by stupid people to describe other people whom the wrongly believe to be more stupid than they are.
1
@JP-sm4cs Except we don't. Artic sea ice lessens and increases according to established cycles. "Records" which climate change freaks cite mean records they have cherry-picked and even altered. They were no proper records kept in the 1920's but there were widespread reports of rapidly diminishing sea ice then.
1
@JP-sm4cs Of course sea ice comes in several forms. No-one is denying that. We are not losing glacial ice, which isn't sea ice anyway but impacted snow that has travelled along glaciers until it reaches the sea. The front sections then "calve" into the ocean due to the pressure of the impacted ice behind them. This ice is constantly replenished by winter snowfalls which remain more of less totally constant throughout time, depositing many miliions of tons each year. Sea ice is subject to variations created by wind and ocean currents, some of which circle the pole at incredibly slow rates. The one which affects sea ice coverage most takes 99 years to complete the circuit. I am not a fossil industry shill by the way. I am a highly developed Russian bot on permanent loan to the Koch Brothers. What did you say your degree was in again?
1
@tomasbarrett7517 So it is alleged. What is actually happening is that glaciers calve at different rates, Whenever a particularly large chunk breaks off this is heralded as evidence of loss of mass. Which it is. However this loss of mass is replenished over time as snow falls inland, the weight of which eventually pushes the leading edge of the glacier to its original position. Snowfall in both the Arctic and the Antarctic remains fairly constant year by year, as far as I am aware, and indeed has increased in recent years. None of this is of any consequence anyway. No matter how much climate warming fanatics cherry pick data these are very minor alterations to the picture. Land ice on both continents is miles thick in places and has been there for millions of years.
1
@tiramisumochi4787 Well all data has to be selective when there is so much of it. It's preferable to stick to the known facts wherever possible though. In this instance temperature records which do not fit in with the climate change narrative are dismissed as being mistaken. Such as the highest temperature ever recorded in Alaska, namely 100f in Yukon in February 1900 as I recall. What cannot be denied is that land ice in Greenland and Antarctica is miles thick in places and that for it to reduce in volume in any substantial way it would have to be subject to a constant huge rise in temperature for several centuries. As for glaciers, they of course consist of impacted frozen snow and ad long as snow keeps falling they will keep growing and only reduce very slightly and temporarily in size when icebergs calve from their ends.
1
@tomasbarrett7517 There is no doubt that an impressive volume of material is produced on these topics every year, but the fact that there is a lot of it doesn't make it any more true. The data is selected to support a narrative, not encountered in the real world and objective conclusions drawn from it. Articles such as these have been published for decades with no actual consequence in the real world ever becoming visible.
1
@tomasbarrett7517 You really have to be joking! A glacier moves along a fissure in the ice sheet which mirrors a fissure in the land mass below it. The glacier is frozen. It exists in temperatures many degrees below freezing. It cannot melt. The only loss of volume it can experience is when its downstream extremity meets the open sea and is pushed into it by the bulk of frozen snow behind it. As for the ice sheet that of course also exists in temperatures many degrees below freezing. For it to melt worldwide temperatures would have to increase to such an extent that we would all be fried to a frazzle before the ice sheet even lost millimetre in thickness.
1
@tomasbarrett7517 I'm not even going to bother to look. I have seen this kind of thing many times before. Do you know at which seasons of the year these photographs were taken? What proportion of the glaciers in these continents do the examples represent? Do you consider these examples present evidence of global warming, or could they be localised events?
1
@tomasbarrett7517 So the air and sea temperatures in the arctic and Antarctic are above freezing now are they? When did this happen? And the inland glaciers exist in some corner of the world where glaciers melt? We are talking about Pakistan I suppose, where some glaciers do reduce in size in the summer. But there is no summer worth the name in Antarctica or central Greenland..
1
@tomasbarrett7517 Can it?
1
@tomasbarrett7517 You do realise don't you that glaciers have been melting and reforming forever, and have been recorded as doing so ever since the1850's? There was a particularly warm spell in the 1920's when the situation in the Arctic was very similar to that of today. I don't dispute climate change. It is, however, usually localised and the result of warm or cold water being carried from place to place due to ocean currents. And yes of course temperatures in both polar areas do rise briefly in the summer - although not enough or long enough to make any impact on the ice mass. The information you have, even if accurate, can in no way be extrapolated to indicate a long term trend, however. We have only observed the world in any detail for a couple of hundred years which is as nothing in terms of climate history. Proxy data is unreliable and can be interpreted to indicate almost anything you like. This is my quarrel with climate alarmism. It is essentially myopic. It's face is pressed close to the canvas and it sees only dots and squiggles of paint. We need to stand back to see the whole picture. I'm afraid too that there is just far too much money and effort invested in the AGW industry for anything resembling scientific objectivity to be achieved any longer
1