Temperatures have been very cold recently in central Siberia, and as a result there is little melt or compaction going on in the East Siberian Sea. So I guess the permafrost is not belching out methane, as the Chicken Little squadron had feared.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.25.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KglqLnPCsU
Probably because it’s like this, with those people. You know the type.
And by those people, I don’t mean Muslems because it’s the young Turks. You know how Tony the juggling ass clown Bill Nye wannabeee and Ill wind tooting will try to spin things. 😉
Stupid Arctic. Warm, damn you!
Is Antarctica broiling the way they are showing it, or is that more BS?
It is getting really hot there with temperatures below -40.
Whenever you pull the plug, it has to go somewhere…. 😉
I guess we are also finding out why it’s called permafrost.
Ground temperature does not get above freezing year round! They need to coin the term tempfrost for locations where the temperatures get above freezing in some years such as parts of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. These conditions reoccur in some marginal regions. There are historic records showing this. Yet the area is said to have “Perma Frost” even though it is NOT permanent. Some locations have a layer of Perma frost because the sub surface dirt does not get above freezing even though the surface does. Those locations show melt ponds on top of frozen ground while the sun is warming the water, but they soon refreeze. Chicken Littles can use pictures of those melt ponds for dramatic effect just like melt ponds on glaciers.
“Those locations show melt ponds on top of frozen ground while the sun is warming the water, but they soon refreeze.”
You know that it doesn’t matter that some of those melt ponds refreeze during the winter because when summer comes the situation gets worse than the previous year. You also know that buildings that were built on the permafrost are destabilizing along with roads.
So go ahead and claim that the folowing video is part of some (imaginary) plot because the people who live there know what’s going on in their own land better than you ever will.
Now for a dose of reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ
lol, IWB, that’s an old scare video that isn’t reflective of reality.
The Russians, themselves, think that video was a crock.
“The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonable variations) has been remaining stable despite the increased average annual air temperature caused by climate change. If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly.
“Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive,” said Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, Doctor of Geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University. “
http://www.physorg.com/news108909706.html
Why the slow Arctic melt? Weather! To be more precise, variations in the regional ocean, atmosphere weather patter.
JAXA has performed very well for over two weeks now, but CT’s area continues to do poorly…I’m sure someone will be on here complaining about it. I’m guessing that at least some of that poor performance is due to melt ponds on the surface (aka noise). However, I’m surprised the downward trend has continued this long.
After several days of not being the record low for “compactness”, Aug 1 set a record, so expect to hear the howling. They don’t seem to realize that the area/extent ratio has much less predictive power than either metric individually…showing its lack of usefulness. For Aug 1, the R^2 for “compactness” wrt min extent is only 0.356. Compare that to CT area, with an R^2 of 0.866 for min area and JAXA extent, with an R^2 of 0.680 for min extent. Sorry, I’ll stick with the standard metrics for predictions and not this ratio and it’s poor correlations.
-Scott
Steve, I’ve noticed that your screenshots are always fuzzy in certain areas but clear on others.
So why is it that the temps are fuzzy on the positive range but all the negative temps are crystal clear?
Also, does it matter what the weather is in central Siberia in the short term when there are major week by week variations (See, I haven’t used the ‘C’ word!)?
You must not be able to see clearly.
The image he posts is the EXACT SAME image as that from the source. I downloaded them both and compared. A blink showed zero difference…none at all. Also, they had the exact same file size…with GIF compression that wouldn’t happen if one had certain color edges fuzzed.
So if you have a problem or think there’s some sort of conspiracy, contact NOAA.
Also, that test took me less time than writing this response…why didn’t you just check it yourself?
-Scott
lol, you mean pictures have sizes? Scott, not everyone is as adept at the nuances of imagery of the virtual world. I’m not saying IWB has that particular challenge, but some do. I’m still teaching the office help at work about cool things like right-clicking and looking at “properties”. I really wowed and impressed them when I showed that they could do it with folders, too!
That said, he’s right it doesn’t render well for my pc either, but I just open the image on another page……. looks just fine then.
Yeah, guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt. I just thought that due diligence would be to actually look into it before implying that someone was adjusting images (without making it clear that it was done) to give more support for their side than was really present.
-Scott
I’m very careful to represent any data I use exactly as it was recorded.
Back to the ice, the preliminary JAXA number for 08/02 is in, with a bit under 10k km^2 loss. That’s tiny and makes it 16 straight days of less-than-average loss, which is remarkable. Don’t be surprised if the revised number makes it a slight “gain” for 08/02 (which actually worries me a bit, as it might be some spreading, which could help promote rapid melt later). The past few days have had revised numbers with 14-20k less loss than the preliminary numbers.
-Scott
I see a gain from yesterday.
Looks like Tamino just updated his analysis to include July data. He’s now predicting that the NSIDC monthly Sept minimum will be below 2007 (previously he had it near 2008), though describes it as near a 50-50 chance. His number is now 4.22 +/- 0.62 (million km^2), so we’ll see how it pans out. Oh, and I’ll just quote his conclusion exactly so people won’t have to go there:
I’ll go ahead and update my prediction after today’s revised number gets in.
-Scott
what a moron
Odds are 50-50……. now that’s something we could all predict. With error bars that could take the ice greater than or less than 5 different years. Living on the edge Grant! Living on the edge.
Yeh, I think there’s a 50-50 shot the ice could end up lower or high than any of the 5 or 6 most recent years……..give or take.