The ice is the thinnest, rottenest and least extensive in human history.
http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2011-07-20/4-N82.846025-E123.32815
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Bob G on NASA Sea Level
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
It looks like Bret, the first North Pole landfalling hurricane is moving back out to sea. It is expected to rapidly intensify over the broiling hot waters of the Arctic Ocean.
> The ice is the thinnest, rottenest and least extensive in human history.
Steven, do you claim copyright?
?
NSIDC beat him to it!
That was for arctic io
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
OMG. The Arctic is doomed by all that surface melt which microwave sensors can’t distinguish from open water. Do you have difficulty believing your own eyes?
Yes, they can distinguish open water from ice. Also, the PIPS method that you use, If I’m not mistaken, also uses microwaves. But then, what would I know?
As for ponding, that’s somewhat of a legitimate issue. Nevertheless, it works against you because ponding, other than suggesting that the situation is really warm; has the nasty habit of melting through ice. That means more disintegration which creates rotten ice, that is, in turn, more susceptible to melt the following summer.
As far as “eyes” are concerned, Steve, there are quite a few of them who live in the region and could tell you what’s going on. These “eyes” do not need satellites. Some “eyes” have actually plowed through the rotten ice (eg the Amundsen 2009) and watched 10 kilometer ice floes disintegrate before their very …ah…eyes.
Some “eyes” have actually walked the ice (don’t you love puns?)and have seen how the arctic is disintegrating.
And why do you even bother to post ice thickness images, including PIOMAS, if they’re as ineffective as you say?
Doomed I say!
Were those eyes there checking arctic melt 5,000 years ago? National Geographic didn’t exist back then to alert the world to a “crisis”.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Northern_Sea_Route_vs_Southern_Sea_Route.svg/550px-Northern_Sea_Route_vs_Southern_Sea_Route.svg.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYggwkDdI2Y
Show me the mechanism for extremely extreme ice loss in the Arctic, Ill.
Show me how global warming causes this in the Arctic and I promise I won’t call Global Warmers losers again.
Until then, global ice loss = loserville
By the way you can’t call Kilimanjaro snow ablation into a dry sky “global warming,” can you.
HA HA HA HA
For global ice loss you’d have to show Antarctic ice loss as well not just Arctic Brian. Antarctica currently isn’t losing ice though.
What’s that got to do with the NW and Northern passages being open though?
Andy
Brian; I will respond to your question concerning the mechanism of Arctic ice loss sometime later. I’m a bit tied up now.
That’s a big 10/4, good buddy.
[Don’t ask the man with the magic flute. He’s claiming an aberrant Polar irradiation that makes no sense. Maybe ask Peter Cottontail. I’ve never heard his take on it.]
Oh dear. There must be some balls in the air. We’d better call Bon Scott!
Big Balls there Eh. 😆
Blow – another sex-capade?
Good buddy? or aberrant? You had a change of ways or is this you from the start?
No ya gotta call Peter Cottontail. He knows every single denialist lie there ever was, he’ll fix it.
So it’s both then. got it.
Or should I say, that’s a big 10/4 too. Got It. 😉
I did like Bon Scott.
That was in the days before rock stars were puling Al Gore acolytes.
That was in he days before global warming existed
Soooooo, are you doing a news of the world here on my 10/20?
Just Steven knows.
These damn denialist sites ought to be shut down
People can’t tell the difference between denialism and science
Science is the gold standard of peer reviewism
No wait I got that backwards
Peer review is the gold standard of denialism science
Jesus I can’t get this right to save my life
Are you getting all this Steven?
10/4 means, yes, I agree with you, 10/20 is what’s your location. Get it?
Denialism is the gold standard of science. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fraud.
Right, Ill?
That was fast, but I know that spy talk. 😉
but it’s not spy talk, it’s old CB raido code, so spy talk fits as not too many realize that. good luck in the future.
Did the NY Times give as much air time to this press release as they do to hysteria over the north pole melting?
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Brian G Valentine says:
July 22, 2011 at 5:28 am
“Denialism is the gold standard of science. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fraud.
Right, Ill?”
That depends on what you’re denying.
PS: Will be tied up for over a week, so I’m going to respond on a future ice thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GjfNepBImE
All knowledge begins with a doubt. We wouldn’t have 300 years of science since Newton without it.
The best scientists have been their own best critics, finding arguments to counter their hypotheses that no one else could think of, then answering them. They welcomed criticism.
Pretend scientists answer critics with pronouncements of “finality,” followed by condescension and ridicule.
BGV,
You’d best not peruse the history of the wave theory of light, if you want to retain your beliefs about eminent scientists.
There were some very eminent scientists who were deriding those who proposed the wave theory. In fact, Fresnel (probably the greatest of the wave theory proponents) had trouble publishing his work for a while.