Global Warming Skeptic Loses Bet
A few months ago someone and I had a discussion about Arctic Sea ice. He was claiming that the Arctic ice coming back but I argued there was no reversal in trend. At that time the plot of sea ice was
The that person was arguing that the 2014 uptick was part of a reversal beginning in 2010. My argument was based on my background in finance where there was no one I know would make a bet that the trend was reversing on that data. Well new data is out and it shows he would have certainly lost his bet.
The vertical scales are different in to the two graphs, but the conclusions are clear, the Arctic Sea ice has further declined. There is no pause, no reversal in the underlying trend. The bet is lost.
Global warming deniers seem to be able to supply endless reasons why global warming isn't happening, but in my view they need to explain the loss of Arctic ice or nothing else they are saying matters. The deniers are at a disadvantage. They may find a piece of evidence here or another there to support their case, but none of that matters unless they explain it all. East Antarctica could be gaining in ice, but that doesn't negate that ice is being lost nearly everywhere else, and in fact may not be happening there. But even if so, one piece of datum supporting the denier cannot overcome the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support their position.
The that person was arguing that the 2014 uptick was part of a reversal beginning in 2010. My argument was based on my background in finance where there was no one I know would make a bet that the trend was reversing on that data. Well new data is out and it shows he would have certainly lost his bet.
The vertical scales are different in to the two graphs, but the conclusions are clear, the Arctic Sea ice has further declined. There is no pause, no reversal in the underlying trend. The bet is lost.
Global warming deniers seem to be able to supply endless reasons why global warming isn't happening, but in my view they need to explain the loss of Arctic ice or nothing else they are saying matters. The deniers are at a disadvantage. They may find a piece of evidence here or another there to support their case, but none of that matters unless they explain it all. East Antarctica could be gaining in ice, but that doesn't negate that ice is being lost nearly everywhere else, and in fact may not be happening there. But even if so, one piece of datum supporting the denier cannot overcome the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support their position.
Comments
Post a Comment