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
- 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
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- Russell Cook on A Giant Eyesore
- Greg in NZ on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- Greg in NZ on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- arn on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- arn on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Peter Carroll on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
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.