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
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
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?