Arctic sea ice minimum in 2013 is sixth lowest on record (Update)

Sep 20, 2013
This is a depiction of Arctic sea ice on Sept. 12, 2013, the day before NSIDC estimated sea ice extent hit its annual minimum, with a line showing the 30-year average minimum extent in yellow. The data was provided by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency from their GCOM-W1 satellite's AMSR2 instrument. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr

After an unusually cold summer in the northernmost latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum summer extent for 2013 on Sept. 13, the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NSIDC and NASA showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.97 million square miles (5.10 million square kilometers).

This year's sea ice extent is substantially higher than last year's record low minimum. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average minimum extent from 1981 to 2010.

This summer's minimum is still the sixth lowest extent of the satellite record and is 432,000 square miles (1.12 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981-2010 average, roughly the size of Texas and California combined.

The 2013 summertime minimum extent is in line with the long-term downward trend of about 12 percent per decade since the late 1970s, a decline that has accelerated after 2007. This year's rebound from 2012 does not disagree with this downward trend and is not a surprise to scientists.

"I was expecting that this year would be higher than last year," said Walt Meier, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "There is always a tendency to have an uptick after an extreme low; in our satellite data, the Arctic sea ice has never set record low minimums in consecutive years."

The ice cap covering the Arctic Ocean shrinks and expands with the passing of the seasons, melting in the summer and refreezing during the long, frigid Arctic winter. This year, cooler weather in the spring and summer led to a late start of the melt season and overall less melt.

This year, Arctic temperatures were 1.8 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius) lower than average, according to NASA's Modern Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, a merging of observations and a modeled forecast. The colder temperatures were in part due to a series of summer cyclones. In August 2012, a big storm caused havoc on the Arctic Ocean's icy cover, but this summer's cyclones have had the opposite effect: under cloudier conditions, surface winds spread the ice over a larger area.

"The trend with decreasing sea ice is having a high-pressure area in the center of the Arctic, which compresses the ice pack into a smaller area and also results in clear skies, which enhances melting due to the sun," said Richard Cullather, an atmospheric scientist at Goddard and at the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center of the University of Maryland, College Park, Md. "This year, there was low pressure, so the cloudiness and the winds associated with the cyclones expanded the ice."

The remaining Arctic sea ice cover is much thinner on average than it was years ago. Satellite imagery, submarine sonar measurements, and data collected from NASA's Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, indicate that the Arctic sea ice thickness is as much as 50 percent thinner than it was in previous decades, going from an average thickness of 12.5 feet (3.8 meters) in 1980 to 6.2 feet (1.9 meters) in recent years. The thinning is due to the loss of older, thicker ice, which is being replaced by thinner seasonal ice.

Most of the Arctic Ocean used to be covered by multiyear ice, or ice that has survived at least two summers and is typically 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) thick. This older ice has declined at an even faster rate than younger ice and is now largely relegated to a strip along the northern coast of Greenland. The rest of the Arctic Ocean is dominated by first year ice, or ice that formed over the previous winter and is only 3 to 7 feet (1 to 2 meters) thick.

"Thinner ice melts completely at a faster rate than thicker ice does, so if the average thickness of Arctic sea ice goes down, it's more likely that the extent of the summer ice will go down as well," said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at Goddard and coordinating lead author of the Cryosphere Observations chapter of the upcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "At the rate we're observing this decline, it's very likely that the Arctic's summer sea ice will completely disappear within this century."

Comiso added that the slight rebound in the 2013 sea ice minimum extent is consistent with a rebound in the multiyear ice cover observed last winter.

"The character of the ice is fundamentally different: It's thinner, more broken up, and thus more susceptible to melt completely," Meier said. "This year, the cool temperatures saved more of the ice. However, the fact that as much of the ice melted as it did is an indication of how much the ice cover had changed. If we had this weather with the sea ice of 20 years ago, we would have had an above-normal extent this year."

The sea ice minimum extent analysis produced at NASA Goddard – one of many satellite-based scientific analyses of sea ice cover – is compiled from passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus 7 satellite, which operated from late October 1978 to August 1987, and the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, which has been used to extend the Nimbus 7 sea ice record onwards from August 1987. The record began in October 1978.

Explore further: Arctic sea ice update: Unlikely to break records, but continuing downward trend (w/ Video)

Provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

3.3 /5 (26 votes)

Related Stories

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

4 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2 / 5 (33) Sep 20, 2013
We all expected a big drop this year, and instead we got a big rebound.

You guys can stop trying to scare little children and stuff, even if the worst happens, it won't really be a big deal for another 50 years or so.

We(they) will have better technology by then: Electric freight trains, electric airplanes, etc.
dogsfromhell
3 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
@Lurker2358 I don't think you get it. It actually would make most since for a rebound to occur the next year after a record was shattered. It's still the 6th lowest year on record, not to mention the last 10 lowest years of sea ice have been in the past decade. Last year was an anomaly where a cyclonic like storm disrupted all of the 1 year and some of the 2 year ice. Of course it's gonna gain this year. That's a function of how well the 1 year ice remains in the system.
Something to note is that Antarctica is coming off it's highest sea ice totals ever this past winter. A stark reminder of difference in our poles of land vs sea.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2013
Lurker: You said: "We all expected a big drop this year, and instead we got a big rebound."

I find it incredible that you expected a big drop. You have been very vocal about your thoughts that the whole AGW theory is a conspiracy. Do you really expect us to believe that YOU expected a big drop?

In fact, it is not likely that a record low ice year would be followed by even less ice. Most people expect annual variation. It is the long term trend we normally think is associated with climate. Annual variation is weather.

So, please link us to the location where you predicted this year would have even lower ice coverage than the record low of last year.
Jim Steele
1.8 / 5 (32) Sep 20, 2013
Natural cycles predict recovery of Arctic ice in a decade so this may be the beginning. Less warm water now pumped into the Arctic. Growing Antarctic sea ice also suggests CO2 is irrelevant. Growing Antarctic sea ice is the better climate indicator http://landscapes...tor.html
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2013
Lurker: You said: "We all expected a big drop this year, and instead we got a big rebound."

I find it incredible that you expected a big drop. You have been very vocal about your thoughts that the whole AGW theory is a conspiracy. Do you really expect us to believe that YOU expected a big drop?
So, please link us to the location where you predicted this year would have even lower ice coverage than the record low of last year.


I don't have a link, but I admit I actually did "extrapolate" the curve and "predict" that this year would be below last year.

The volume trend suggested this year's minimum would have been 2500cu km for volume. Instead, it's back near where it was in 2007.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (35) Sep 20, 2013
thermodynamics is bullshitting, knowing full well that every climate alarm site used 2012 minimum to pronounce a death spiral, such as Google finds in a search for PIOMASS, the computer model version of Arctic ice volume:

http://arctic-new...rge.html
"Figure 11 shows an exponential regression of the Piomas yearly minimum ice volume data indicating that the start of complete melt back Arctic sea ice will begin in 2015...."

PIOMASS prediction *did* show exponential ice loss:
http://postimg.or...6lyf7ht/
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (35) Sep 20, 2013
"So, please link us to the location where you predicted this year would have even lower ice coverage than the record low of last year."

Arctic death spiral 2012:
http://www.google...%20+2012

Related Mayan calender 2012 apocalypse:
http://www.google...ocalypse
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
"We all expected a big drop this year, and instead we got a big rebound." - Lurker

Pffft. Nonsense.

I stated on this site over a year ago that this years ice extent would most probably be larger than last year's record low.

The pattern is a new ice extent minimum followed by 3 to 5 years of a rough plateau followed by a new dramatically lower ice minimum.

I find it quite telling that a denialist like Lurker would claim that all of his denialist buddies were expecting a big drop in arctic ice extent this year.

That admission tells us that the denialists are wanton liars since they publicly proclaim the exact opposite.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
"Natural cycles predict recovery of Arctic ice in a decade" - JimboTard

Denialists have been making that claim for the last 20 years.

Why are you perpetually wrong?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
"I don't have a link, but I admit I actually did "extrapolate" the curve and "predict" that this year would be below last year." - Lurker

You see children... Lurkers foolishness is a good example of why science should be done by scientists rather than denialist half whits.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2013
"Growing Antarctic sea ice also suggests CO2 is irrelevant." - JimboTard

The warming ocean surrounding the Antarctic argues otherwise.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
"thermodynamics is bullshitting, knowing full well that every climate alarm site used 2012 minimum to pronounce a death spiral" - NikkieTard

NikkieTard thinks that one point makes a trend.

Intellectual inferiors often resort to that kind of nonsense thinking.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (19) Sep 21, 2013
Arctic sea ice minimum in 2013 is sixth lowest on record
Yes, that is in-line with what has been predicted. Antroprogenic global warming (AGW, ie human created climate change) would cause such an effect and seems to be expressing itself loudly with the dramatically thinner ice during the arctic minimum. It's only the 6th thinnest in history, but it still shows how wrong the global warming deniers are. Suck it up deniers or forever be insulted as VendicarE say; "Intellectual inferiors"
gbpmeuk
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2013
great information...
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2013
Natural cycles predict recovery of Arctic ice in a decade so this may be the beginning. Less warm water now pumped into the Arctic. Growing Antarctic sea ice also suggests CO2 is irrelevant. Growing Antarctic sea ice is the better climate indicator http://landscapes...tor.html


Correct Jim, as I know you know ... CO2 is irrelevant (at the moment) in the formation of Antarctic sea-ice. It's such a frigid locked-in place that warming causes more snow, at the boundaries where moist winds penetrate. Salinity reduction (from summer melt) and the wind regime around the continent having a much greater effect than warmer seas/air.

http://www.scienc...Quality)
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2013
"So, please link us to the location where you predicted this year would have even lower ice coverage than the record low of last year."

Arctic death spiral 2012:
http://www.google...%20+2012


From a link you linksed to on Google....

"National Snow and Ice Data Center director Mark Serreze has called a "death spiral" that could lead to ice-free Arctic summers by 2030."

The "death spiral" (if there is one) comes from the trend graph - not from an extreme caused by a particular summer's weather.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/
alfie_null
3.4 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
We all expected a big drop this year, and instead we got a big rebound.

You guys can stop trying to scare little children and stuff, even if the worst happens, it won't really be a big deal for another 50 years or so.

We(they) will have better technology by then: Electric freight trains, electric airplanes, etc.


Or maybe fifty years from now your grandchildren will be paddling rafts up and down the streets of Manhattan, beating off saltwater crocs with their oars, declaiming "nothing has changed, it's always been this way".

Attaining a better future, with better technology requires investing in R&D today. Which in turn means accepting and supporting what science is telling you today.
EnricM
2.6 / 5 (26) Sep 21, 2013
NikFromNY and the other "smart" anti-climate guys:
To boil down your point to the basics, what you are basically saying is that you are smarter than anybody else.

So, answer me two questions, being so smart you will surely have a good answer:

Climate scientists have been able to conspire successfully to influence governments such as the Chinese, the USA, etc. And to force their agendas just for the sake of keeping their jobs.

Question a) Being so smart and powerful, why do they bother with climate and haven't just taken over the whole world silently?

Question b) From what you seem to express, these ultra-smart conspirators are however doing every calculation wrong and completely unable to sum 2+2 or create a computer model that works. So... how have the managed to conspire at a global scale and influence governments, etc?

And please, don't post me a Google search ;)
Dug
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2013
I love it when people argue over their religions.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 21, 2013
I find it quite telling that a denialist like Lurker would claim that all of his denialist buddies were expecting a big drop in arctic ice extent this year.

That admission tells us that the denialists are wanton liars since they publicly proclaim the exact opposite.


I am not a denialist.

I'm a realist.

You know full well climate changes bigger than this have happened without humans being the cause, so there is no rational cause for your "end of days" alarmism.

If scientists were so convinced, why is it that NASA and NOAA don't push for more stringent building codes, and more levees and sea walls in anticipation of greater storm surges?

Why is it that new restrictions only go into place AFTER catastrophes, rather than before them, even though alarmists keep predicting worse and worse disasters?

Obviously nobody in NASA, FEMA, or NOAA believes this alarmism, or else if they do believe it they aren't doing anything significant to prepare for it.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2013
The only thing FEMA changed is that they are increasing their premiums on flood insurance and other services, because the Congress required the program to pay for itself, and they also made a restriction on the number of times a person or group can file a claim on the same property, which these measures should have been the case all along.

Texas passed a no build law, and a build at your own risk law for parts of the Bolivar peninsula, following Ike, besides that, there haven't been any significant developments or plans by anyone to restrict coastal developments, even under the assumption of no sea level rise.

So why is that, Vendicar?

Almost nobody in elected positions, or in the government scientific agencies seriously believes this is as big a deal as is proclaimed by people like you. If they did, they have the power and influence to affect change in policy, but they do not exercise that power, which is proof they do not believe it a big deal, because they know it's NORMAL.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2013
EnricM:

Point A is asking an irrational question about human beings, who are themselves irrational. One cannot give a completely rational description of human behavior, since humans are not rational, further, since they are irrational, one should not expect rational behavior.

Point B:

You are quite wrong. The climate scientists computer models are repeatedly wrong, by their own admissions.

Climate models still can't even predict the pattern in 6 months, so why should you trust them for predictions going out 6 decades or 6 centuries?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 21, 2013
So much for climate alarmist predictions...

"The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013."

http://judithcurr...minimum/

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
thermodynamics is bullshitting, knowing full well that every climate alarm site used 2012 minimum to pronounce a death spiral, such as Google finds in a search for PIOMASS, the computer model version of Arctic ice volume:


Nik from New York is misrepresenting the truth - a usual tactic for him. It is amazing that this pretend skeptic (he is a denialist, pure and simple) continues to spout the conspiracist agenda he does in the face of such overwhelming evidence against him.

Denialism. It's like watching WWE; you know its fake, but its fun to pretend it's real.
orti
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2013
It seems that Algore quoted scientific predictions that the Artic would become ice-free by now when he accepted his Nobel prize. Now the prediction of "settled science" is the end of this century. When were the other 5 lower years? Are we on an uptrend now?
I've heard the strangely unpublicized rumor that Antarctic ice is at some kind of max this year, and that the upcoming IPCC report will scale back their warming prediction for this century by half. This should convince those ignorant old "deniers". Thank goodness we haven't wasted billions of taxpayer money and barrels of ink on anything less than "settled science".
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2013
I love it when people argue over their religions.


Yes ... something like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2013
You know full well climate changes bigger than this have happened without humans being the cause, so there is no rational cause for your "end of days" alarmism.


They have, but just not when 7 billion folk were on Earth and also the reasons why the "big changes" happened are well known - as is this one.
That premis is no rational reason to dispute AGW "alarmism". If that were the case we would never learn from any history and carry blindly on being ignorant, short-termist and selfish.
Jim Steele
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
runrig "Salinity reduction (from summer melt) and the wind regime around the continent having a much greater effect than warmer seas/air

The salinity argument is BS. The Arctic waters are far fresher. http://en.wikiped...2011.jpg

Increased northerly winds from +SAM compress ice against the the west coast of the peninsula by counteracting the southerly continental winds. More open water ventilates more heat, so that less ice extent causes (not the result of) higher western peninsula temperatures. To explain that contradictory increase in Antarctic sea ice CO2 advocates have argued nebulous "global warming" causes more melt, and thus more freshwater that freezes earlier. But studies the examine each locale only find more ice where temperatures have not risen.

Only an intellectual inferior (this is not aimed at you runrig, your are a rspectful debater) would be gullible to suggest warmer oceans cause more sea ice.
Neal Asher
1.7 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2013
"The 2013 summertime minimum extent is in line with the long-term downward trend of about 12 percent per decade since the late 1970s,"

This was when satellite measurements began, so the use of the words 'long-term downward trend' is being a little parsimonious with the truth.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2013
Yes Jim they are. But the point with Antarctica surely is the trend to less salty water providing a better environment to allow sea-ice to form.

Antarctica is certainly a unique place and it is evident that warming forecasts have not captured the complexity/nuances of sea-ice.

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
http://phys.org/n...293.html

I'm speculating here but extra WV giving greater precip at the boundaries of the Continent may have a bearing on reduced salinity but certainly the complex wind regime and any possible changes along with sea currents are a prime candidate for ice growth anomalies

Changes in lower stratospheric temperature and the consequent changes to the strength of the Polar vortex may come into play at a seasonal level - the following paper indicates a sig cooling there during the Autumn/Winter months (ozone hole) with increased convergence.

http://onlinelibr...abstract
(click for PDF)
Jim Steele
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2013
runrig,

Did you similarly evaluate at all the other factors that could explain the loss of Arctic Ice? Models underestimated Arctic sea ice loss and underestimated the changes in warm water flow into the Arctic. The same models predicted less Antarctic ice.

Globally water vapor is tied to El Nino and there has been a slight downward trend this last decade. Locally increased water vapor is tied to less ice cover. Only the western peninsular region, where winds inhibit ice growth, shows an uptick in snow accumulation.

Stratospheric cooling is consistent with lower solar output which would also explain loss of stratospheric water vapor. Ozone hole is a non-factor during the lightless winters when sea ice is growing. Lower winter temperatures at south pole surface are also consistent with more sea ice.

The studies that suggest more fresh water use an average that blinds to the local dynamics. Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice mass, no trend in fresh water but more sea ice
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2013
@Jim "Globally water vapor is tied to El Nino" is wrong. It might be true that El Nino/Nina has effects on water vapor across the continental US, but it's not that influential in other continents like Australia, for example. El Nino/Nina is like the red-spot on Jupiter, it's always there from shape and size of Pacific but it's not globe's only source of water-vapor!

The hurricane cycles from the horn of Africa have as much influence on water vapor in some locations as any other. Etc.

But as the headline of the article says; "Arctic sea ice minimum in 2013 is sixth lowest on record", while on another thread, "Global August temperature ties for fourth highest on record; global ocean temperature ties for record highest"

Did you read that, "GLOBAL OCEAN TEMPS TIE FOR RECORD HIGHEST". That is from NASA satellite measurements. And people wonder why the poles are melting.

Jim Steele
1 / 5 (17) Sep 27, 2013
@Howhot Wrong?? Of course the Pacific is not the globe's only source of water vapor, and I never said it was. But the global average is dominated by it according to Kevin Trenberth "Precipitable water variability for 1988–2001 is dominated by the evolution of ENSO and especially the structures that occurred during and following the 1997–98 El Nino event."

read Trenberth, K, et al., (2005) Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Climate Dynamics, vol. 24, p. 741 758

The trend in global precipitable water vapor from 1988 to 2010 shows global water vapor peaked with the 1997 EL Nino and since then has been on a downward trend as the PAcific Decadal Oscillation trends more negative causing more La Ninas and fewer El Ninos. Read Vonder Haar,T., et al., (2012) Weather and Climate Analyses Using the New NVAP-Measures Global Water Vapor Dataset. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39,
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2013
"The 2013 summertime minimum extent is in line with the long-term downward trend of about 12 percent per decade since the late 1970s,"

This was when satellite measurements began, so the use of the words 'long-term downward trend' is being a little parsimonious with the truth.

The downward trend doesn't depend on satellites as the sole means of observation, but your comment does. Just ignore the military aircraft, the icebreakers, the nuclear submarines, the Inuit, heck even the St. Roch that went through the northwest passage in the 1940s. And definitely ignore that silly International Geophysical Year of 1957....
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2013
"It seems that Algore quoted scientific predictions that the Artic would become ice-free by now when he accepted his Nobel prize." - OrTard

And he made it clear that it wasn't the consensus view.

You did know that didn't you?

Did your Masters fail to tell you that part?

Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
"The new dataset (1998-1992) as well as scientific analysis of the observed annual cycle and the interannual variability of water vapor at global, hemispheric, and regional scales. A distinct global annual cycle is shown to be dominated by the Northern Hemisphere observations."

@Jim Steele, that is from Vonder Haar,T., et al. So, yeah I see your argument and you make a good point. The El-Nino, La-Nina cycle does have a impact on the Northern Hemisphere. However, the average global H20 vapor concentrations is global, and while it *is* influenced by the El-Nino, La-Nina, the underlying base line vapor content is correlated directly to Global average temperature.

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
"the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013." - UbVonTard

First, it is the BBC not the IPCC, so who cares?

Secondly the BBC printed no such statement as fact.

UbVonTard is just a liar.

Lying is what he lives for.
Lying is what he does.
Lying is his life.
Lying is his reason for existence.

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
"The climate scientists computer models are repeatedly wrong, by their own admissions." - TardieBoy

All models are wrong.

The most simple model of motion we have is to model the movement of an object in space as it travels at a constant velocity.

That model describes the motion of exactly zero objects in the universe's entire history.

Yet it is a model that, while wrong, is good enough to be the basis for all physics.

You are ignorant about how science works.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
"You know full well climate changes bigger than this have happened without humans being the cause, so there is no rational cause for your "end of days" alarmism." - Lurker

Were there 9 billion people on the planet at that time?

How many of those people do you plan to murder? 8 billion? 8.5 billion?

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
"Question a) Being so smart and powerful, why do they bother with climate and haven't just taken over the whole world silently?" - EricM

More importantly, if the Warming Denialists are so convinced of major problems in the models, why can't they ever find them, correct them, and produce their own models?

Are the hand full of denialists who aren't just liars, incompetent?

The answer of course is... Yes,
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2013
You know full well climate changes bigger than this have happened without humans being the cause, so there is no rational cause for your "end of days" alarmism.


They have, but just not when 7 billion folk were on Earth and also the reasons why the "big changes" happened are well known - as is this one.
That premis is no rational reason to dispute AGW "alarmism". If that were the case we would never learn from any history and carry blindly on being ignorant, short-termist and selfish.

To the SUVs that were not there to cause it, the deniers need to add the 7or so billion people that were not there to make the point even remotely relevant.