• Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Less ice is a good thing. It opens up huge areas of the arctic for sea travel, making trade easier and cheaper. Thus all the products we buy will become cheaper, since transportation costs of getting them in from the far east will go down. Even better, the opening of northern passages means that California will no longer be important for its pacific ports, so companies shipping products into the US won't have to deal with their utterly absurd labor laws that let brainlet dock workers strike every other weak for ridiculously high pay. Over all, it means more money in the pocket of most Americans and California finally becoming completely irrelevant. So a big win for everyone who actually works for a living.

That's a lot of grey in all the areas that matter the most. Considering the topic. I wonder why that is?

fucking delirious

>The Russian Sea
based as fuck.
I wish I was Russian, badass leader and 10/10 slavic girls everywhere

I just got a beer from the fridge, and it was way cold. Global warming my arse.

>hurr they're making it seem like the earth is warmer than it is by ignoring the poles
this better be b8, or you're just a retard.
the map is not of temperature, but of temperature anomaly (i.e. warming or cooling RELATIVE to the historic temperatures for that location and month)
and the poles are, of course, warming significantly more than the temperate or tropical zones.
>nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

Ah, so why isn't that data included in the model? If they know what the temperatures are, then they are intentionally withholding by your logic.
Again with the "retard". I'd stoop to your level, but I don't want to crawl that low.
>Have a nice day

>Ah, so why isn't that data included in the model? If they know what the temperatures are, then they are intentionally withholding by your logic.
The map is not "everything we know about temperature"; it is "here are the temperature anomalies from these two specific data sets". The data displayed are from GHCN (a weather station network) on land, and from ERSST (a compilation of buoy and ship sensor data) at sea. The poles aren't displayed because there simply isn't dense enough coverage there to get an accurate temperature record FROM THESE DATA SETS. (See also the gaps in coverage in the Amazon and Congo jungles and the Sahara Desert, again due to a lack of stations.)
We know that the poles are warming (and warming faster than the rest of the earth) from other data, such as satellite measurements and individual weather stations. But those data aren't what's being displayed here. In science, we report what we have as we have it; we don't try to just mash everything together.

retard.

Very good point. Many people talk about the area of ice sheets and thing this is evidence there's nothing wrong.

I can't imagine a worse fate than being a Putin peon stationed in the Arctic. Please seek asylum and report back with your findings on attractive slav potential.

But we're already doing that, kinda. Look at the pacific / atlantic garbage gyres.

Yes, and the most important thing about sea ice loss is the loss of multi-year thick sea ice. pic related.

I think there's a lot of speculation to be had about the clathrate hypothesis. There definitely needs to be a lot more research on the subject, because if it can occur, we could be dealing with rapid climate change to the point of mass extinctions globally.

74.91.188.122/earths-climate/ewExternalFiles/Shakhova 2010.pdf
>Here, we show that
more than 5000 at-sea observations of dissolved methane demonstrates that greater than 80% of
ESAS bottom waters and greater than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane
regarding to the atmosphere

So there's not just methane in clathrates, it;s dissolved in arctic waters as well, and as they warm more of it will escape.

found the Republican

>speculation to be had about the clathrate
sure, and cigarettes could be harmless

duckduckgo.com/?q=measured methane rising from arctic sea&t=lm&ia=web

>derailing the ecosystem is worth it so we can stick it to those damn socialists in California

fucking conservatives every one

Given the choice between derailing the ecosystem and destroying our economy by banning fossil fuels, I'll take derailing the ecosystem any day.

This is pure delusion. No one wants to outright "ban" fossil fuels. The solution is to create regulations on emissions to promote divestment from fossil fuels, and investment into renewable energy solutions. It would open up much larger amounts of investment into alternatives, maybe from the energy corporations themselves. No one suggest that we stop using fossil fuels immediately, what they suggest is that alternative energies such as hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal be developed. This makes complete sense, renewables are the future whether you like it or not, but there isn't significant investment in the industry right now.If Incentives are created for investment and research funding, we could see a lot more of our energy coming from renewable resources in the near future. That not only applies to electricity generation, but also industrial applications, as well as transport.

Fossil fuels won't go away overnight, and possibly never will until we run out because our society relies so much on plastics. However, moving the electrical grid to renewables and finding solutions to the issues that we have with energy storage and transport will be a huge step in the right direction, even if we continue to use fossil fuels in smaller amounts. If we decrease the amount of emissions though, we can hopefully offset some of the more devastating global warming scenarios.

Misleading.

>(still not stooping)

> No one wants to outright "ban" fossil fuels.
Liberals always claim this with guns, yet time and again we see that their end goal really is an outright ban.

> No one suggest that we stop using fossil fuels immediately, what they suggest is that alternative energies such as hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal be developed.
Since when have liberals been open to nuclear power? Of all the things you listed, that's the only real energy source that can power a modern nation, and liberals are dead set against it.

>it's misleading to only report a particular data set instead of filling in the gaps with other data
>they're trying to make their claim seem stronger than it is by not reporting other data that would make it seem stronger
okay

you do realize that stitching together multiple different kinds of data to form a record with broader continuity is how we get the hockey stick, right? and of course deniers throw an absolute shit fit whenever someone puts (low resolution) tree ring and isotopic data on the same axes as (high resolution) thermometer records. but apparently it's a crime NOT to combine these different records in this case...

>time and again we see that their end goal really is an outright ban
[citation fucking needed]
>Since when have liberals been open to nuclear power?
>liberals are dead set against it.
you'll notice that there's nothing in the Democratic Party platform opposing nuclear power. you're confusing us with the Greens.
nice strawmen brah

> you'll notice that there's nothing in the Democratic Party platform opposing nuclear power. you're confusing us with the Greens.
> implying there's a difference
Cultural marxism is still cultural marxism, even it you try to be clever a slap a different label on it.

>Liberals always claim this with guns, yet time and again we see that their end goal really is an outright ban.
Shocking, I know, but I'm a liberal and I own multiple firearms, and am pro-second amendment. Pro-tip, not everyone is on the extreme sides of the political spectrum. The most extreme parts of both parties are the most vocal. Shocking too, I know, but I'm also anti-illegal immigration, but not anti-immigration, but I still don't support Trump.

>Since when have liberals been open to nuclear power?
I consider myself pro-Nuclear when it comes to dealing with climate change. I'm also definitely pro-science in general, which means I'm interested in developing alternative nuclear fuels such as Thorium (MSR / LFTR for example). There was a lot of research into MSR in the past until Nixon shut down the program, but there has been a boon in interest in the MSR in recent times as an alternative energy source. The reason the US government shut down the research was because it couldn't be used for nuclear proliferation, which is a shame. Makes me wonder where nuclear energy would be if that kind of program got funded for decades.

Straw man again like the other guy said, what the fuck does "cultural marxism" have anything to do with a discussion about fossil fuels / nuclear power?

>their end goal really is an outright ban
It's hard to pin down "their" and a ban is not the end game, control of the remaining fossil fuels is the end game because they will be spent, the only question remaining is by whom and obviously the middle class is not the primary recipient.

I fear the end game is to build a highly mechanized and global military police state that will just smack the shit out of anything that threatens it once established, if we are not already there. It needed to be voluntarily enabled first for obvious reasons, enter the AGW religion. There are no plausible alternatives to fossil fuels yet and we needed that many years ago now for time to scale up and avoid collapse of modern life into anarchy this century, this is what "they" want to avoid.

How accurate is this minus the pokemon thing?

xkcd.com/1732/

>Straw man again like the other guy said, what the fuck does "cultural marxism" have anything to do with a discussion about fossil fuels / nuclear power?
Try using your brain for once. Liberals want to create a massive government that controls the lives of the people. The biggest obstacle to that is a prosperous middle class that resists liberal attempts to grow the government. So they've created "global warming" to justify a massive carbon tax that will siphon away the wealth of the middle class, opening the way for further expansion of government control. Fossil fuels are the backbone of the middle class. Without them, the cost of everything rises, energy becomes a luxury that only the rich can afford without government handouts, which themselves make people dependent on government and easier to control.

The liberals are conspiring with the Chinese to destroy jobs in fossil fuels, especially clean coal, to stop me from making America great again. Everyone knows climate change is a hoax. Sad!

t. Donald Trump

>How accurate
cavemen didn't speak english at 16000 b.c.

otherwise accurate

>Step 1: AGW propaganda
>Step 2: ???
>Step 3: highly mechanized and global military police state

Could you fill that in please?

> How accurate is this minus the pokemon thing?

It's not. Historical temperatures have varied wildly before. Portraying recent changes as somehow extreme or unusual is just flat out wrong and is clearly intended simply to justify alarmism rather than actually inform people.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that it's misleading. It's a webcomic run by a professed shillary supporter who defends silencing people in the name of political correctness.

See

>shown clear difference between Dem and Green platforms
>claims there's no difference
stay delusional

it's pretty damn accurate. the caveat is that older data are lower resolution, so the line might not be quite as smooth as it looks. still no evidence of any excursions comparable to modern change though

I gotchu senpai
>Step 1: AGW propaganda
>Step 2: AUTISMAL DELUSIONS
>Step 3: highly mechanized and global military police state
as per

Nah we discarded that plan at the last Meeting of the Elders, this is what we're going with now.

Carbon taxes

>shown clear difference between Dem and Green platforms
By listing things that the dims don't actually believe.

>Dems don't believe this
>but the Greens do believe this
exactly the same thing, right?
keep living in your imaginary /pol/adise