The map below compares Arctic ice vs. 1938. green is 2012 and red is 1938.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
A lot less, despite (a) overlaying this year’s data at substantially higher magnification [seriously, just look at the coasts of Iceland and Scandivania!]; (b) the fact that it’s only 1st August and I strongly suspect the 1938 data represents the August average; (c) You’ve taken no account of this year’s low concentration values despite the fact that the 1938 map clearly distinguishes between open ice (70%) and unbroken ice (100%).
To be honest, I’m struggling to see your point.
HTML weirdness ate part of the comment. The 1938 map distinguishes between open ice less than 70%), closed ice (greater than 70%) and unbroken ice (100%).
You are right. There was a lot less ice in 1938 than there was in 1979.
Impressive that you chose to demonstrate that by, er, not showing any data from 1979. Moreover, I simply don’t believe you. Here’s the August 10th and 20th maps from 1979.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=20&fy=1979&sm=08&sd=10&sy=1979
Observe how the North Canadian / Alaskan coastline is completely ice free in 1979, but frozen solid in 1938. Over the other side, 1979 does indeed have a little more ice in the Kara and Laptev seas, but not hugely different. 1938 has way more ice in the Greenland seas and Baffin bay. Overall, there’s clearly more ice in 1938, but the distribution is a little different.
I’m not sure what relevance this has to the current Arctic, so without further explanation your blog post appears to be pretty much content-free. Enlighten us?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/yet-another-arctic-data-problem/
Steve giving you one last chance (not really but it sounds dramatic and stentorious)
Still going for Astros winning the World series at 50:1 odds. They are only the 5Th worst team in any month since the 19th century (worse if you just go by satellite records).
and I will give you Arctic minimum at THIRTY to ONE 30:1 odds.
I just checked and the arctic is over ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED Manhattans more full of ice than 2007, Clearly, it will take hundreds of years to lose that much more ice.
So come on, take the $20 and laugh at me in October.
Please stop wasting my time
Peter Ellis, any data before 1979 can be seen as somewhat inaccurate because reliable satellite record for objectively measuring ice began in 1979, so to compare any particular year before then is somewhat speculative, though that’s not to say the ice records before then were inaccurate. The main issue I have is AGW alarmist basing their BS off of the fact that we’ve lost ice since 1979, when they purposely don’t show the years before 1979 in the 1970s which had less ice.
Actually, there were excellent satellite records since the early 1970s – which NSIDC chooses to ignore.
Oh, I didn’t know that, since that’s the case, I want to know what those records show.
They show that there was much less ice in 1974 than there was in 1979. It was in the 1990 IPCC report.
I knew we had records of ice before 1979, I just didn’t know they were satellite records. Wow, the NSIDC propaganda is even worse than I thought. I should have known they would do that.
Thanks Steven!! The data manipulation doesn’t seem to end over at there NSIDC does it?
NSIDC does not ignore this.
There are doubts on the usefullness of these early satellite data.
Still they produce a grapf from several sources and complie it to this graph.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/mean_anomaly_1953-2011-v2.png
Stop whining, Steve. Although you might have reasons:
http://tinyurl.com/RoosSeaIceArea
Which is the lowest line in the graph for the current date?
MFK Boulder:
The satellite records are still not reliable enough to determine actual extent going back any number of years, because of improvements in measuring and evaluating techniques. They are not doing like comparisons. They only thing they have managed to show is Arctic ice changes extent from year to year depending on weather conditions in the area.
For you and Pete in the cheep sheets I will repeat that temperature is a minor driver of ice conditions in the Arctic. There is evidence that more ice leaves the region during the coldest months of the year, because of wind conditions, than during the warmest.
The Ice “Experts” are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.
I suppose that even if there are differences in methodology, the chart seems to indicate that loss of ice over 74 years, if any, is not catastrophic. The burden is on the alarmists to prove their case, because they claim we are headed toward a catastrophe and must take drastic, immediate action.
Chicken Little always claims it is a catastrophe. They deny variable weather changes ice conditions constantly and we are not experiencing anything new.