Mid-day temperatures range from -57F in the center of the ice sheet, all the way up to 20F on the tropical southern coast.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html
The other ice sheet is also melting down faster than expected, at -70F
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
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- 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”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12687272
U see this crap???
It’s not crap Scarlet, unless you want to put your money where your mouth is and do some research and present counter evidence to scientific peer review?
Sorry, you want it to be crap don’t you. Subtle difference 😉
Andy
OK
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/jpl-explains-that-3mm-is-larger-than-6mm/
The amazing thing about peer review is that complete crap gets through all the time.
Andy
As there is no data to show the rate of melt before 1990 they simply don’t know whether the rate is increasing or not. Hence all they can say is that is that the rate is more than models predict. Rather meaningless I think.
“Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, the team says ice loss here is speeding up faster than models predict.”
Peer review? Any prognostication that includes conditional words such as “if” “could” etc., fully justifies the use of the descriptive word crap.
Scientific peer review requires scientists, and so far very few AGW tax sustained researchers could qualify for that description.
Peer review means:
1. We all spout the AGW party line and make it sound as frightening as possible.
2. We never criticize one of our own (even if what they say is absurd).
3. We ostracize and demonize anyone who disagrees with AGW doomsday scenarios.
4. We slobber in unison for handouts we need to keep the gravy train rolling.
So there was no ice added??? Is there supposed to be a net ice loss?