Over the past week, most of the ice “loss” in the Arctic Basin appears to have been due to ice compaction rather than melt. Winds are circulating clockwise and compacting the ice towards the North Pole. Also important to note that the albedo of clouds is generally higher than the ice.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
It’s melting. We are DOOMED!!!
Disgaree, most ice is melting in place, most fractured ice is on the Canadian side and that is not being pushed anywhere.
This obsession with wind always making ice disappear is the main problem climate sceptics fall upon to try and avoid any sort of warmth melting ice. Pamela Gray is the main proponent on this at WUWT. So much so she is going for a plus 5.5 million KM 2 extent based only on wind patterns. Give me a break. She says if the AO stays negative it will be 5.5+, funny how AO is low and yet we are seeing massive 2007 style melt at the moment. She really really does not have a clue, even Steve Mosher is getting bored with her claptrap.
Right. You can see individual floes of ice moving undeformed.
Well, given floes have a visible melting of 10% during few days, you’d sell your carbon car?
I don’t see it.
Watching polar ice melt/blow away is like watching paint dry. On what basis do you define the 2007 melt/blow away as “massive”? A meager thirty years of satellite observations is woefully short of sufficient duration to establish “normal” arctic summer ice coverage if indeed there is such thing as the optimal amount of ice coverage. So let’s have fun with this thing, like buying lottery tickets. Because plus or minus a few million square kilometers of Arctic ice means squat to our well-being.