NSIDC reports the lowest March ice extent on record. Areas of red show the current deficiency below the mean. Looks like the Polar Bear populations of Montreal, St. John’s and Sapporo are in deep trouble.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
- arn on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- Bob G on CO2²
- Bob G on CO2²
- conrad ziefle on CO2²
- arn on CO2²
I’m sure if it was increasing then the importance factor would actually be a lot higher on this blog, cough.
Andy
Nonsense. I have been highlighting the PIPS thickness story for longer than this blog has existed.
You seem very excited on WUWT when extent almost reached the 30 year mean on NSIDC graph in early Spring 2010. You then stopped mentioning it when it then dropped down well below the average.
Anythony Watts does the same thing. When Antarctic ice was well above the average he wanted NSIDC to mention it on their website on the monthly updates. Now that Antarctic ice is lower he doesn’t continue to ask them to mention it.
PIPS thickness is less accurate than extent as far as I can tell, it seems to clash with other means of judging thickness as well, not saying it is wrong but I would say extent is a better measurement than thickness at least till Cryosat2 starts giving estimates.
Andy
Ice extent is interesting this time of year as a proxy for temperature at lower latitudes. Most of the year it is less interesting.
Andy,
What would you think the ice extent figures would show if they they were limited to the Arctic Circle only?
You cannot sensibly point to loss of ice at lower latitudes without also taking into account extra snow cover at similar latitudes just because the latter happens to be on land.