Any mention to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice caps in 2014? What does a failed prediction do for a hypothesis?... Hmmm, I wonder...
A failed "prediction" about climate change from the politician who claimed he invented the internet. Seriously? Can anyone say "argument from authority fallacy?"
How is this an "argument to authority fallacy"? All I did was ask about one of the failed predictions made of "global warming"... Or do the failed predictions get to be swept under the rug when falsified?
You admit that it was a failed prediction made of "Global warming" or are you attempting to distance Al Gore and his predictions from yourself? No True Scotsman fallacy anyone?...
1) It's an "argument to authority fallacy" because Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and certainly not a climate scientist. Al Gore's opinion on the matter bears no more weight than yours or mine. You should know better.
2) According too the article you cited, Gore said "could be" not "will be." Ignoring the fallacious nature of citing Gore as an authority, that alone is enough difference to show that the "prediction" is anything but the kind of firm, declarative statement that would be used to falsify any model.
3) There are many predictions about when the Arctic Ocean may be "ice free." Even the article you cited produced estimates in the 2050 and beyond time frame. For example: "the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050." (Source, article cited by Gilbo)
4) Global warming can still be taking place if the Arctic Ocean doesn't lose it's ice "on schedule" (so to speak).
If you want an admission from me, it will be that politician Al Gore made a failed prediction on global warming. There are, and have been many predictions on when the Artic Ocean will be ice free.... the one selected by Gore was (probably) the most alarmist. After all, he is a politician, not a scientist.
Do you think these glaciers were even larger or were less during the Medieval hot period? (Which was warmer than today, despite no industry creating CO2).
In my research, I saw one glacier that had been recorded back to 1650. It was also much smaller now.
My sources indicate the Medieval hot period wasn't significantly warmer than today.
In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.
Source for both the chart and statement: https://www.ncdc.noa...g/medieval.html
Would that mean that this is merely OSCILLATING CHANGE as what I stated before.... Increase then decrease then increase then decrease.... Think seasons over a longer time.
I am thinking seasons over a longer time. It's why I posted images dating back over a hundred years. You're the one who complained about missing data for only the year 2015 (which may not even be available yet).
"Merely OSCILLATING CHANGE" may be entirely likely. Depending on just how much it "oscillates," it can still be devastating. As I said before, humans may or may not be responsible for the change. It's reasonably certain all the CO2 we've been dumping into the atmosphere isn't helping. At this point in time, I feel it is irrelevant because we are extremely unlikely to change our habits any time soon. It's pretty clear that we are in a period of rapidly increasing temperatures on a global scale. IIRC, there have been at least three record hot years globally in the last 10 years or so and it's highly likely 2015 will be another.
As Schera Do stated your evidence is anecdotal
Not true. As I pointed out, glaciers are retreating on a global scale so I could have picked just about any picture of the same glacier a hundred or so years apart and gotten pretty much the same thing. Maybe you could provide a few pictures of glaciers that have advanced in the last 100 years.
But, lets take the glacier issue to more than anecdote:
Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and NSIDC. The increasing downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia...iers_since_1850 Note: WGMS is the World Glacier Monitoring Service and NSIDC is the National Snow and Ice Monitoring Center.)
... its cherry-picking (much like Minnemoose did above), where you only look at a single occurrence. Minnemoose did this by completely ignoring my the fact that it snowed in the Adelaide Hills which hasn't happened for over 100 years.....
Really.... I provide four different lines of evidence:
1) Retreating glaciers globally.
2) Rising sea levels.
3) Declining Arctic ice pack.
4) A series of record high global temperatures.
I also produce multiple images of glacial retreat over the last 100 years showing I'm thinking in terms of decades, not single events.
On the other hand, you point to one event that "hasn't happened for over 100 years" ... snow in the Adelaide.
And I'm the one who is cherry picking.
Let me give you some advice .... "think seasons over a longer time." Also, think global not local.
A warming climate doesn't produce snow....
Not necessarily. Leaving aside the fact your Adelaide example is weather, not climate....
What is the largest desert in the world? If you said the Sahara, you're totally wrong. The largest desert in the world is Antarctica. The reason is that it's simply too cold for the air to hold any appreciable moisture.
If the climate of Antarctica warms up, the air will be able to hold enough moisture to have significant precipitation. As this happens, much of the precipitation will be in the form of snow. So, a warming climate can, in fact, produce snow.