Discovery Channel Vision Impaired

16 Responses to Discovery Channel Vision Impaired

1. johnmcguire says:

   June 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

   i have no idea , or control over , how low the ice extent will shrink during the melt season. I also will not waste any time worrying about it. It would be interesting to go up there and look at it and try to get a grasp about what life is like on the edge of the artic circle, but I like gardening and growing things too much to want to stay.

   Reply
2. Stark Dickflüssig says:

   June 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm

   If only CO2 would directly melt the ice. Then all their genocidal fantasies would make sense.

   Reply
3. gangulysubhajit says:

   June 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm

   Interesting post..

   Reply
4. jak says:

   June 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm

   Hi Steve,

   Maybe them geniuses found this map…

   http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

   …which makes it easier for the vision impaired.

   Or maybe they can read a graph…

   http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

   And perhaps, in the light of these, they made the extraordinary decision not to deliberately go out of their way to mislead their readership.

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     June 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm

     Looks like you are vision impaired too. The Arctic Basin is almost completely full of ice, except for some wind blown leads. There has been little melting in the Arctic Basin so far this year.

     Reply
     • jak says:

       June 26, 2012 at 11:37 pm

       As can be clearly seen here…

       http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

       errr, NOT.

       Reply
       • stevengoddard says:

         June 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm

         Jak,

         Are you educable?. A large wind blown lead opened up in the Beaufort Sea about a month ago. It has nothing to do with melt. Temperatures in the Arctic Basin have been running below normal. Very little melting is going on.
     • jak says:

       June 27, 2012 at 12:29 am

       (replying to SG,11.56pm below)

       Well spotted Steven!

       In fact, the “large wind blown lead” is about the size of Arizona:

       http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area

       Tell me, as part of my continuing education, at what stage do you stop referring to a gap in the ice as a “lead”? I’d assumed that when it gets any wider than a football field, say, it ain’t really a “lead” anymore.

       Just askin.

       Reply
       • stevengoddard says:

         June 27, 2012 at 12:57 am

         It opened up about a month ago when temperatures were -5C and . Do you think the ice melted at -5C?
     • jak says:

       June 27, 2012 at 1:18 am

       Hi Steven,

       Could you be more specific?

       Here is a record of the temperatures “about a month ago” on the Canadian coast of the Beaufort Sea…

       http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYEV/2012/5/26/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

       I’m not seeing -5 anywhere, after 11 May.

       Maybe you’re just wrong?

       Reply
       • stevengoddard says:

         June 27, 2012 at 1:37 am

         Inuvik is 100 miles inland. Like the difference between San Francisco and Sacramento.
     • jak says:

       June 27, 2012 at 2:24 am

       Well, Tucson is over a hundred miles from Phoenix, but it’s still all Arizona.

       Unlike your elbow.

       Spot the difference?

       Reply
       • stevengoddard says:

         June 27, 2012 at 2:27 am

         You do understand the difference between marine and inland climates?
   • Sundance says:

     June 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm

     jak we are still 300% to 400% above the Early Holocene median Arctic ice extent so put that in your pipe and smoke it. 🙂

     Reply
   • Ben says:

     June 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm

     jak,

     Thanks for posting the link: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

     I note that recent minimum ice area is lower than 1981 through 1988, but that max ice area is surprisingly higher.

     Can we get someone to Hansenize the obviously bad 1980’s data, and add a hundred thousand km to the max 1980s area?

     I’ll sleep better

     Reply
   • rw says:

     June 27, 2012 at 8:05 pm

     jak,

     Your map shows the Arctic almost completely frozen over. I don’t think the problem here is visual impairment – unless you’re missing all but the edges of your visual field!

     Whatever the case, it does look like some sort of cortical impairment …

     (Just suggestin’)

     Reply