Ben & Mike posts, moved from Pekka thread

[Ban Kenobi]

Single year variability isn't an indication of the overall trend. 2011's minimum extent was a stunning record low, rebounding a bit from that, is no big surprise, the trend is still clearly reducing.

Some people will be too thick to understand that.

Or they're just willfully ignorant.

[pchang]

Some people are just smarter than everyone else. They only need 1 data point to extrapolate to infinity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Single year variability isn't an indication of the overall trend. 2011's minimum extent was a stunning record low, rebounding a bit from that, is no big surprise, the trend is still clearly reducing.

How about a fifteen year trend away from warming since 1997? 1997 was 'peak temperature', and it's declined since then.

Some people will be too thick to understand that.

I can see the warming argument, but it doesn't explain climate changes over the last 15 years well. It explains 1982 to 1997, sure. But, like anything else - the data has changed. Why are we clinging to an obsolete theory?

[pchang]

Someone is conflating air temperature and ice coverage. Lookup albedo to see why ice coverage is important.

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone is conflating air temperature and ice coverage. Lookup albedo to see why ice coverage is important.

Yes, I'm aware of albedo. I was in physics and astronomy. Has there been a significant change in solar irradiation? No.

[molly bloom]

Some people will be too thick to understand that.

You're allowed to write Sister Bendy. We know the code, but don't feel shy.

[molly bloom]

I was in physics and astronomy.

You mean like you were 'in history' and gifted the child-free William III Orange with children and descendants and thought that the United Provinces were a kingdom and not a republic in the 17th Century ?

Those are called errors, and do not imply that simply because you claim to have studied a subject, that you actually know what you're talking about.