Arctic temperatures are currently at -30C, much warmer than the normal -30C.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- spren on “filled with racist remarks”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Bob G on “falsely labeling”
- Bill on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
The Arctic looks fine from what I see. Lots of nice dense ice.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=31&fy=1980&sm=12&sd=31&sy=2010
Wasn’t USA Today a pretty good paper at one time?
Ralph, there is a lot less ice than normal so I am not sure where you are looking, certainly not at the image you posted. A lot of it will not be very thick either, for instance in the Eastern part of Hudson bay.
Steve, note the word “average”.
Andy
PS How is the Antarctic doing currently?
There is never any ice in those regions in September. They have no relevance to the summer minimum.
Antarctic temperatures have been far below normal.
I’m talking about now, not the summer minima.
Andy
Depends on one’s definition of “a lot”. Judging by the two pictures “a lot” = “not much” and as Ralph said, concentration is greater in the one on the right, including Hudson Bay.
Having said that, they’re just one day each out of 30 years of data, out of billions of years of climate change.
You need your eyes tested 😉
Hudson Bay has only just frozen completely.
Andy
AndyW says:
February 4, 2011 at 7:32 am
You need your eyes tested 😉
Hudson Bay has only just frozen completely.
No testing needed. Please provide proof that this has never happened before in the Hudson Bay. The subtext of your claim is that something unusual is happening. SO PLEASE PROVIDE THE PROOF OF THAT.
The deeper the red the denser the ice. the right side, if you look at the density bar on the upper left, is far more dence than 1980 on the same date on the left.
AndyW says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:42 am
Ralph, there is a lot less ice than normal
Please supply proof of your your alarmist claim.
AndyW says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:42 am
there is a lot less
You know Andy, you are incompetent.
AndyW says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:42 am
I am not sure where you are looking
After reading your comments over the months I see you are not certain of anything.
Hudson Bay will be long forgotten as it always is when the seasonal min comes in.
What difference does it make if the Hudson Bay is remembered or not. Nothing unusual is happening there. But you run around claiming the sky is falling.
My apology. I may not have understood what you meant. Just tired of AndyW’s half baked view of the world and his alrmisms.
I probably misunderstood what you were saying.
if outer regions of the arctic sea ice melt back faster this spring that can only facilitate melt of inner regions too
Please provide proof of your sky is falling claim.
but i’ll give you all the benefit of the doubt that this record low jan anomaly is expected.
but wrt the loud mantra about an arctic sea ice recovery and an end to global warming, arent you guys pretty much hosed if a new record breaking year hits in either category?
Given that the ice has thickened and aged, and that we are having a La Nina, guess what is going to happen this summer?
All the ice will melt and a cruise ship will circle around the pole while al gore and company dances the polka on the poop deck?
If they don’t hit a rock again!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOCnC7vRyPyCBp39BBTxlcXG6kqg
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=87798
No, not really, quite the opposite, in fact. There are some of us skeptics that cheer when ice decreases. Every time it sets a record low of some sort we get closer to invalidating many of the sub-tenets of CAGW, tipping points, albedo, run away warming, etc….
You see, I know the arctic has had much less ice than today, and even the “record” lows documented in 2007. Nothing happened then, nothing happened in 2007 and if the arctic, once again, completely melts, nothing will happen then either. Of course, if the arctic regains much of its mass, then a tenet of CAGW will collapse there, too.
I like this game the alarmists have of attempting to reverse the onus of the null hypothesis. Its getting to be fun.
cthulhu says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:20 pm
but i’ll give you all the benefit of the doubt that this record low jan anomaly
Please provide proof that there was not less ice in January’s during the Medieval Warm Period. But be careful.
cthulhu says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:20 pm
but wrt the loud mantra
You global warming people are well aware of what a mantra is.