Who said that?
) 
70s you say.You really have no idea what you are even posting
ice extent was as low in the early 70s 30s and late 1880s
"1980s average" is a massive cherry pick fail as the 70s was the height of sea ice extend in the 20th century, all of the 20th century had lower extend than the 1970s both before and after, but you and all the climatards want to ignore pre 1970s ice lows because CO2 cant be blamed.
You types like Snopes so I'll use your type of fact check sourceNYT WAPO AP all reported the same things we hear today, in 1922
"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post — 88 years ago!"
The text in the above example is a genuine transcription of a 1922 newspaper article, an Associated Press account which appeared on
page 2 of the Washington Post on 2 November of that year:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/
You must log in or register to see images
30 year old research when more recent is available, why would you do that?IPCC 1990, as we see, even as recent as 1972, arctic sea ice extent. This why climatards only want to start at 1979
You must log in or register to see images
and if we look back a hundred years, we see CO2 cant be blamed on the mid 20th century low
And we can see exactly why you start at 1979, the highest point of sea ice extent in the arctic in the past 130 or more years
It's no worse now than it was nearly 90 years agoIn fact we had a 70s sea ice boon despite spewing out CO2 for 30 years, when WWII and the decades that followed caused emissions to shoot up
"70s cooling scare never happened" eh.. clearly, this was the biggest ice advance in modern history, and it indeed caused scientists to think it possible a mini ice age onset might occur, and that high is your "start point"
You must log in or register to see images
Only the little ice age gave us more sea ice than we have had in the 20th and 21st century, than the last 10,000 years
You must log in or register to see images
You have to be a moron to blame CO2, and a completely dishonest clown to keep ignoring all of the evidence that this is natural not man made.
Either that or you are not well. You are a science denier, a history denier too it seems
You are obviously a ****** who went looking for the first thing he could find.
1. "30 year old research" is not an argument of scientific merit.
2. You cant read, or see, papers from 2016 and 2017 are not 30 years old.
3. Your alarmist source was referring to the department of energy's reconstruction from decades ago, which I did not post.
You must log in or register to see images
@Tobes has no business even having an opinion on this topic, he never read either post or understood either, he has no idea what a reconstruction is, he is "dopamine hit" liking.
@DerekTheMole has almost as much of a lack of understanding of the basics as @Tobes
When you eventually figure out 2016 and 2017 are not 3 decades ago, let me know.
Importantly
Lastly, your reconstruction posts are bogus, and use selective screening methods and have no actual evidence to support them
My cited reconstruction, has a wealth of evidence to support it, from global temperatures, to scientific press releases and media reporting from those periods
[HASHTAG]#smashed[/HASHTAG]
You only have "97%" of "climate scientists" to lean on here, for evidence, so it should be easy.. yet... you've never posted any at all
You must log in or register to see images
@Diego @Looney Leftie As I said before, only when you choose to deny the existence of plenty of evidence, can you claim arctic melting is humans' fault
As we can see above, Loony's Sept graph is complete and utter bollocks
I was at work earlier and had not the time to respond properly.
Gotta do better than SKS loony
tut tut
From the lad who says "Greenland is just one place", you now try show the arctic, is evidence that human emissions are causing doom, even though sea ice decline has decreased since 2000 (year 2000, 1\3rd of total human emissions have occurred since that year)
AGW does not stand or fall on reconstructions, no matter how many ice hockeysticks you post, as essentially that is what you post. Sadly, reconstruction results are utterly dependent on how you handle the data, which proxies you select, which you screen out, and this goes for all, not just the ones you post. Reconstructions are not real evidence for or against AGW
So, with one 3rd of all emissions happening after 2000, how come temperature increase has declined since as well as sea ice decline?
Alarmist logic, less CO2 caused more warming and more sea ice loss than more CO2 has caused
@Looney Leftie
Holocene sea ice cover reconstruction, and below, I flipped GISP2, the "one place" you mention
Both 10k yrs
You must log in or register to see images
If only CO2 can cause this, how come we have this for 10,000 years...at half the CO2 levels of today.
easy, temperatures are not driven by CO2, never has been, neither has climate
He'll cherry pick from the conspiracy sites and show me more charts from scientists whose research in their field has led them to the conclusion that recent warming is not solely from natural causes.
