Drewski says :
Steve Goddard: “The Arctic Ocean is smaller than the US.”
Actually the Arctic Ocean occupies a roughly circular basin and covers an area of about 14,056,000 km2 (5,427,000 sq mi), almost the size of Russia — the United States (including Alaska and interior lakes) is 3,794,083 square miles — roughly 50% smaller.
Steve, how many simple geographical mistakes does that make for you now?
http://geology.com/world/arctic-ocean-map.shtml
Google Earth animation at eye altitude 6795.59 miles. The lower 48 states are slightly larger than the Arctic Ocean, and Alaska makes it much larger.
lol, fun group of people you have watching you, Steve. Kinda makes it all worth it sometimes.
Wow,
Steve I see another Nobel on the way. By using the unimpeachable scientific procedure of eyeballing, you have totally disproven the socialist idea of actual measurement!
I can’t wait to see every source of geology rewriting all the geological references of the entire planet.
So even if ACC is right and Manhattanites need gondola’s to get around, you place in history is secured.
Good point. Observational skills are the antitheses of climate science.
It really depends on what you count as the Arctic Ocean. Drewski seems to have gotten his info from Wikipedia (uncited).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean
The next paragraph at Wikipedia says:
Again, this comes down to the definition of what the Arctic ocean…this argument has been had here in the past and people clearly choose the definition that best suits what they see fit, so there’s no point to have it again.
On the other hand, numbers don’t lie, but Drewski apparently does. Using his very own numbers, the U.S. would be 30.1% smaller than the Arctic Ocean. How is that at all 50%…it’s not even close! The only way I’d see to get 50% would be to round to the nearest 50.
Well, let’s use that method too…we’ll round to the nearest 50, but I’m choosing to go on the assumption that Hudson Bay is not part of the Arctic Ocean. Using the size of Hudson Bay here (yes, I cite, even though it’s Wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Bay
I subtract that size from Drewski’s numbers and get the U.S. as being 23.5% smaller than the Arctic Ocean. Drewski’s clearly a super expert, so I’ll use his round to the nearest 50 approach, meaning the U.S. is the same size as the Arctic Ocean (for the slow, because 23.5 rounds to 0).
I hope this keeps all the arguments that happened last time we discussed the definition of the Arctic Ocean from happening again…they’re a waste of time. It goes to show how you can say whatever you want by choosing to include/exclude various seas/bays.
-Scott
I find two definitions on the interwebs.
The first, which appears to be what the Wiki article is based on, is here:
http://arcticocean.org/
The second can be found here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Arctic_Ocean.aspx#2
The difference in area is small 14,096,000 sq. km. vs. 13,986,000 sq. km. Both are substantially larger than the US.
Were you unable to locate the link I provided in the article? Hold your mouse over it and click the button. This internet stuff is tricky.
Yes I did look at it. However that link does not have a definition of the limits of the ocean. The shaded area represents minimal limits of summer ice, not the limits of the ocean.
So does that map include the Hudson Bay?
A little more poking around finds this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_oceans#Arctic_Ocean
The IHO definition is is intended mostly for notices for mariners to ensure that terminology is standardized and specifically excludes seas *contained within the ocean*. These would included the seas listed in the Wiki article.
The northern reaches of Hudson Bay are shown on the map. See, the legend is right there at 90W.
The northern reaches of the Atlantic Ocean also appear on that map.
The other definition is from the CIA.
Maybe Saddam’s WMDs are there now.
Steve
Hansen hacked into the link you provided and removed the numbers that would have proved your case!!
Are you purposefully making more and more ridiculous arguments? Is this some trap you are leading me into? Here some one new tries to help and you lead them in this ridiculous attempt to explain something to you. You should have a picture of Sisyphus on your masthead to warm people what they face if they contradict the smallest thing you contend!
I’m assuming that you passed third grade math. What is the average of (0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 10.0) ?
Everything seems to be going right over your head.
Steve,
1.2 but I used a calculator,
But I don’t see where your link gives any area for the Arctic. that is why I suspect Hansen.
Here is what Wolfram says:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+area+arctic+ocean+area
Drewski’s Arctic Ocean area includes our old friends Hudson Bay + co!
total: 14.056 million sq km
note: includes Baffin Bay, Barents Sea, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea, Greenland Sea, Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, Northwest Passage, and other tributary water bodies
Perhaps the US figure ought to include Kenya!
The US is actually part of Kenya now.
Steve,
then you admit the birth certificate issue is total nonsense. Glad we agree about something.
I really enjoyed that comment!
-Scott
Do you think that pdf would be admissible as key evidence in a court case? Not a chance.
Steve,
The ironic thing is that the Certification of Live Birth released in 2008 *is* admissible in a court of law as evidence. Says so right on the thing.
It also meets all the requirements for obtaining a US passport.
You are correct. he needs to produce the actual document, not a digitally altered pdf file.
Rattus:
True, but if the certification is a forgery, bringing that to court as evidence is a B Felony.
Tony Duncan says:
April 30, 2011 at 3:46 am
Tony, normally I like your comments, but this time you’re really grasping at straws. Look at the sentence structure for your 30% example…”US” is the noun. Compare that to the 43% larger one…”it” [Arctic Ocean] is the (pro)noun. Now compare to the original quote.
Getting rid of the extraneous words gives “United States is 50% smaller”…essentially the exact structure of your 30% example. I don’t see any way that the sentence can be interpreted the other way.
And lets just presume it could be. Where in the world does 50% come from? Rounding to the nearest 5%?..no. Rounding to the nearest 10%?..no. Rounding to the nearest 20?..no. Rounding to the nearest 25%..yes! Why in the world would a person round to the nearest 25% in this case? The only reasons I can come up with are: (1) did the math wrong, (2) didn’t do the math, and (3) did the math but exaggerated Steve’s error. Are any of these defensible?
No, I don’t agree with Steve’s conclusion here. But at least one can make an argument that the choice of area measurement is at least somewhat subjective. Simple division is not subjective, so trying to defend bad math is a bit ridiculous. If the AGW believers were as objective as they say, shouldn’t we see articles being written by Tamino showing how poor Drewski’s math is?
-Scott
The context of the discussion with Drewski was the Arctic Basin where Hansen has no data.
Paul,
don’t see any google connection between kenya and the US, not even from geosynchronous orbit!
Maybe people need to get their parameters straight before ridiculing each other. Certainly everyone I read, denier or believer, includes All the places you mention when referring to sea ice extent. does the Pacific include the sea of Japan, Sea of China, etc?
is that Arctic sea ice cover we’re talking about, or Arctic Ocean ice cover?
Hudson Bay is in the Arctic. But if Hudson Bay is in the Arctic Ocean, Crimea is in the Atlantic.
So is the Mediterranean.
Only if you round to the nearest 50%. 😉
This was by far the most grievous error in Drewski’s comment, yet no one else seems to discuss it. Differences in assumptions are one thing (that are argued over and over again here to no avail), but horrible math is unquestionably bad.
-Scott
According to Mark Serreze, Quebec ice is part of the Arctic too.
Tony
My atlas shows the Arctic Ocean as clearly not including all the extraneous seas. But as Scott says, why get bogged down over semantics?
So the “Arctic Ocean” includes all areas of the Northern Hemisphere that were/are covered by ice.
Therefore my London house is in the Arctic Ocean too.
I think it has been determined by James Hansen that Florida is part of Europe.
I remember those posts.
Paul,
every source that I have seen on the internet from Wiki to universities to NASA used the 14 million KM number. Unless they all changed to that number after seeing Steve’s post, I see no validity in Steve’s post. He can argue that the accepted area is not the best description, but looking at what areas are considered part of the Pacific it is not unreasonable.
and the person who put the arctic at the size of the US by basing it on 75°, the antarctic seems to be considered to extend from 60°
also the 50% could come from where one is comparing the fraction. it could either be 43% larger than the US or US could be 30% smaller than the Arctic
The context of the discussion was the Arctic Basin where Hansen has no data, extrapolates large numbers and bumps the global temperature way up. Is that difficult for you to understand?
Steve,
you are right again. Obama should personally bring the paper copy of his birth certificate to every American citizen for them to ascertain it’s validity. After all as president he is our servant. The business of running the executive branch can be left to Biden for the next 5 1/2 years
Your comments get increasingly stupid
Scott,
i was not defending the math, just pointing out that it might not be as egregious as it sounds. Even 43% is not 50. What I was saying was that he might have been thinking that the Arctic was 50% bigger than the US, which would actually be ~43%. He may have just been exaggerating for effect. I don’t defend that. As I have pointed out on this blog many times it is silly to exaggerate when it is so obviously wrong.
A= (pi)r^2
1 deg lat = 69.172 miles
using 75 deg N as a rough ring for Artic Ocean
90-75 = 15 deg
15 * 69.172 = 1037.58 miles equals r
1037.58^2 * (pi) = 3382151.49 sq miles
Or slightly smaller than US.
Check my math.
Of course, your calculations comprise land masses. I guess land is part of the sea, according to the genius Drewski.
Have another brewski, Drewski! Then pulling out your hair won’t hurt so bad.
I should have included to translate the center of the circle southerly towards the magnetic pole to get rid of as much land as possible.
I am checking your math:
If you are using “a rough ring” it makes no sense to do such an exact calculation. So I would use 1 ° lat = 69 sm (if you take as radius of the earth the radius of a sphere with equal volume, you get 69.108 anyhow). And your result would just be 3.4 million square miles, which still is a bit smaller than the USA.
And it is not a circle, but a “cut off” piece of a sphere (does anyone know the proper english name for that?).
I think that would be an ellipsoid
“Spherical cap,” maybe??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
“Spherical cap” it is, thank you, PA.
Well, keep that in mind that it includes all these other areas, I’m sure down the road, something will come back and bite them when they try to exclude those areas….as being part of the arctic ocean.
Yes, yes, but the Arctic Ocean will be getting larger as the sea levels relentlessly rise.
So all this debate about its relative size is premature.
Since we can’t come up with the real data, we can always just photoshop in the Arctic ocean. That now counts as evidence. It could even cover Hawaii.
“The Arctic Ocean is smaller than the US.”
Not a mention about the seas or bays.Therefore it is just a specific area.
Just the ARCTIC OCEAN,he writes.
Therefore it is smaller than America.
The context was the Arctic Ocean where Hansen has no data
The United States at what point in history?