They show ice extent expanding towards Siberia, and shrinking a little in the Chukchi Sea.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- arn on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Richard E Fritz on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- William on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Gordon Vigurs on COP29 Preview
- Peter Carroll on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Why don’t you compare this to a decade ago–Trying to hide something?
Given that the Navy system has only been in place for a few months , that might be difficult.
Steve,
Still time to support your own facts and make some money. Surely at 6 million you will have those warmist dupes jumping all over a bet
why do nature deniers like to call themselves after b-grade comedians?
ever heard of comedian robert honeycutt who likes to post at denialscience.com?
Shirley there is still time for you to get help.
Something else to bet on will they make it?
http://www.rowtothepole.com/
The magnetic pole is far away from the geographic pole.
Steve,
well you should TELL them before they get too far! There might be climate scientists on board who don’t know the difference
They’re not even going to the magnetic pole
http://www.rowtothepole.com/the-expedition/
“Scots adventurer Jock Wishart is mounting an expedition to the Magnetic North Pole (as certified in 1996) to highlight the already dramatic effect of climate change on the ice around the Polar Regions.”
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_earthchanges22.htm
“The magnetic north pole had moved little from the time scientists first located it in 1831. Then in 1904, the pole began shifting northeastward at a steady pace of about 9 miles (15 kilometers) a year. In 1989 it sped up again, and in 2007 scientists confirmed that the pole is now galloping toward Siberia at 34 to 37 miles (55 to 60 kilometers) a year.”
78.595°N 104.1983°W Isn’t that the 1996 magnetic north? Pikers. The current magnetic north pole should be some 600km NNW of there by now.
Thay have left Resolute, crossed the Wellington channel, and are very close to Devon Island. Looking at MODIS (c/o arctic.io) one can see that there is a huge amount of ice ahead of them. Right now their Home page is down and so is there Latest News page. I hope they are OK.
They could always drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ&feature=sh_e_sl&list=SL
I certainly hope the US Navy are right. That will be (more) good news. I wonder what P.I.O.M.AS$ are predicting?
The Navy forecasts seem to be almost perfect.
If this forecast pans out, we could see something like 20 days of JAXA daily extent losses being lower than the average for 2002-2010…that’s absurd. Even assuming an daily average melt that was 20% lower than the database average, I’d expect at least a couple days in that span to be higher than average melt just due to “noise” in the signal. The avoidance of any high-loss values like that would be impressive…most impressive.
For those who didn’t see my earlier comment, JAXA is now at 13 days of below-average losses (immediately following 12 days of above-average losses). During that time, loss is 37.4% lower than average. If it can maintain that level of performance vs the average for another 10 days, we’ll be right at 2010’s level and just below 2008 & 2009. Honestly, I don’t think the odds of that are super high, but it’d be impressive if it happens. Three weeks with not a single day above the average would be incredible. I should write a script to see what the longest run is for a single span with below average losses…
Oh, and during this recent stretch area has only fared so-so. But as I’ve stated before, the area values can be quite noisy. Right after the focus on area by some here (when the area tanked for a few days), CT showed an area GAIN for two days, followed by a small loss and then an above-average loss. Sorry…don’t think that was the actual performance (something like a steady avg or below-avg loss is more realistic), so it’s why I use both extent and area (and no, not their ratio) when making evaluations.
-Scott
As an update, make that 14 days with below average loss for JAXA daily…assuming the preliminary number doesn’t change much anyway (which it shouldn’t change enough, as it’s 40% lower than the average).
Also, make above calculations had an error in them. If the relative performance (37.6% below average loss) of the last 14 days is kept for the next 9 days, we’ll still be below 2008-2010, although obviously much closer. We’d actually have to keep this performance for another 17 days to catch 2008/2010 (passing them both on Aug 17). What’s really needed is a day or two of near-zero loss, as that’s a way to make up a deficit in a hurry.
-Scott