There are 17,000 more Manhattans of ice now than there was on the same date in 2006.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- COP29 Preview
- 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
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on The Clock Is Ticking
- William on The Clock Is Ticking
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- dm on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
I don’t think I have enough vermouth. 😉
Just wait till they model the number of holes in that ice. CO2 has made it all rotten.
That’s just fine! .. Sounds like a good game of golf is likely to break out with all those holes!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
The mantra in real estate is location, location. location. In the Arctic it is volume, volume, volume.
Anyone want to bet that ice extent won’t be the highest in a decade in September (relative to that time of year)?
Maslowski says the Arctic will be ice-free this summer.
Did you forget to read the blog before posting this morning?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/piomas-smoking-gun/
There was nothing in this blog (the one I am posting on) about Maslowski until you posted it as a confused response to my comment.
Anyway, this is all deju vu all over again — you were saying pretty much the same thing this time last year.
I wonder what you will be saying in September?
Stop being stupid.
That was not only rude, but it is wrong. I have noticed that that the more wrong you are, the more rude you get.
I gave you a link. You didn’t read it. Stop being an idiot.
What am I wrong about? Arctic ice extent is the highest in a decade. I’m so sick of people like you coming here and throwing mud. Everything I said was 100% accurate, and you say that I am “wrong” without providing one shred of evidence to support that idea. Why do embrace a philosophy of bullshit?
RE: Lazarus – “There was nothing in this blog (the one I am posting on) about Maslowski until you posted it as a confused response to my comment.”
Is the truth so foreign to you sir Lazarus? How do I call thee disingenuous? Let me count the ways.
162 posts for Maslowski, prior to your false assertion
Search google for Maslowski site:stevengoddard.wordpress.com
614 blog posts for PIOMAS, prior to your false assertion.
Search google for piomas site:stevengoddard.wordpress.com
Ben, reread the first sentence and pay extra special attention to what is in the parentheses.
I did read your first sentence, carefully.
If you had referenced either, “this post I am responding to”, or “this blog entry I am responding to”, it would have been technically accurate.
You said “nothing in this blog”. The blog consists of all the posts, in their entirety, so if I make an assertion regarding “this blog (the one I am posting on)”, it covers the entire blog.
Have a great day
Ben,
Lazarus is a leftist and as such he is credited with his intentions (if they advance the cause). He intended to say post, so as a card carrying member, it is his intentions that count.
RE: Lazarus – “Volume is important”
Yes it is, but so is extent. We have time for a thought experiment before the recess you promised.
Identical volume-to-volume comparison. Your choice, would you rather have
a. 10 meter thick ice of 1,000,000 km^2 extent,
or
b. 1 meter thick ice of 10,000,000 km^2 extent
Identical volumes. Which makes the greatest difference to the Earths albedo?
No Steve, everything I said was accurate. That is why your stupid remark is so off target.
Volume is more important than cover and you know it. And ice volume has shrunk a staggering 80% in 33 years and you want to play up ice extent. You spend so much effort denigrating PIOMAS and making a big hooha about ice cover but you just have to look at last year’s Arctic ice results to know it is not a very important metric.
BTW, 9 years is not a decade (2005 to 2013) and, in any case, it is not close to the average for this time of year if you wish to go further back.
Arctic ice extent is the highest in ten years and PIOMAS is crap.
Now produce an ice-free Arctic, or STFU. This endless whining about the Arctic is for little girls.
Endless whining? Little girls? Who posts endless blogs about ice extent but nary a word about the much more important ice volume except to trash the people who measure it?
You want me to produce an an ice-free Arctic? Why, for God’s sake?
Are you an imbecile? I posted about ice volume this morning. Do you not understand what PIOMAS is?
Ice area and extent is what affects the earth’s radiative balance, not volume.
Why PIOMAS values would have any importance, regardless of the way datas are computed ?
A low ice extent in summer means a lower ice volume in winter, an after that ?
Albedo results from ice extent, and ice volume is just a consequence of a low extent in summer.
Volume is important because thin ice melts faster and that means more open water sooner during the warmer months (when the sun is out) which means more time and more areas to absorb more solar radiation which means more global warming.
Everyone understand now?
Recess is in 30 minutes.
Ice volume is primarily controlled by winter wind, not summer melt.
DOH Homer. There is almost no sunshine in the Arctic in September at the minimum.
Why is it that alarmists are invariably stupid, and imagine themselves to be smart?
RE: – Lazarus “Volume is more important than cover and you know it”
Ice export and storms (mechanical action) are more important than melting, and you should know it. Go back and review the yearly temperature graphs for the arctic. During the warm season, the temperature follows the average. It is the winters that display the greatest anomaly, tens of degrees, vs tenths of degrees in summer.
Next, go back and review the ice export videos. Multi-year ice is being exported out of the Fram Strait. Multi-year ice, far below the freezing point, is being exported.
When are we going to go beyond paying lip service to the sheet integrity? Cut out the ice breakers, the soot exhaust, the artificial wave action.
Do no harm.
RE: Lazarus – “Volume is important”
Yes it is, but so is extent. We have time for a thought experiment before the recess you promised.
Identical volume-to-volume comparison. Your choice, would you rather have
a. 10 meter thick ice of 1,000,000 km^2 extent,
or
b. 1 meter thick ice of 10,000,000 km^2 extent
Identical volumes. Which makes the greatest difference to the Earths albedo?
So to repeat: Who want’s to bet that ice extent will be the highest in a decade come September (and, of course, this is relative to other Septembers)?
My bet is that we will have a lower ice extent than any year other than 2007 or 2012 but I would not be surprised if we beat either of those years. My reasoning is that because volume is so low, ice will be melting strongly by July.
Care to make a prediction on this matter, Steve?
Who wants to bet that you will continue to waste time with stupid posts?
How about this Steve, You stop posting about how much ice cover there is in winter (when there is very little sun to reflect) and I will stop posting about how much ice cover there is in Summer (due to ice volume) when there is much more solar radiation.
Deal?
Wow Steve,
You are really getting to these sock puppets. They are just so righteous in the face of any evidence that CAGW is a scam. “Repent! Repent!” – they say.
LOL
They are such funny people!
Andy,
I have made one point and one point only: Ice volume is what should be the issue, not Winter ice extent (which is well below the mean in any case) and that is because thinner ice melts more quickly which will provide more open space for a longer time to absorb more solar radiation. Ice cover when the sun isn’t even over the horizon is is an interesting factoid but hardly as important as how much open ocean is absorbing radiation when the sun is directly overhead.
Steve is repeating the same assertions he made at this time last year about ice cover (the year of the lowest ice extent on record) and I am making the point that what happens in Summer is what is truly important — thus my post on ice volume and Steve’s ensuing insults.
What is all this repent, repent nonsense and what has it got to do with ice volume?
Last September, alarmists were hysterical about extent.
Saint Al of the Gore: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Lazarus says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:31 am
So to repeat: Who want’s to bet that ice extent will be the highest in a decade come September (and, of course, this is relative to other Septembers)?
My bet is that we will have a lower ice extent than any year other than 2007 or 2012 but I would not be surprised if we beat either of those years. My reasoning is that because volume is so low, ice will be melting strongly by July.
========================
Are you in a fossil-fueled home ?, depending on others to keep the lights on ?
Now for the bet:
What do you want to bet ?
That the engineers keep the power on long enough to cover the bet ?
Or, that strongly melting will cover the bet.
Reasoning, never paid a debt.
Why don’t we bet on Barcelona winning the Champions League? It has about as much to do with Summer Arctic ice extent as your bet does.
I’ll agree, the outcome of the Barcelona game affects the Arctic summer just as much as our bet would have.
Lazarus,
Identical volume-to-volume comparison. Your choice…would you rather have
a. 10 meter thick ice of 1,000,000 km^2 extent,
or
b. 1 meter thick ice of 10,000,000 km^2 extent
Identical volumes. Which makes the greatest difference to the Earths albedo?
It is freaking March. Alarmist morons base their whole life around hoping that the ice will melt in September. Why would anyone want to be so pathetic?
Ben, the answer to your question is: When?
Are we speaking about ten million k’s in March or are we talking about what that ten million looks like when July or August rolls around? If that ten million becomes 100 thousand whilst the one million stays one million, then the answer to your question is that the one million k2 of thicker ice is more important to Earth’s albedo. But I think the year 2012 has already answered your question in any case.
Happy?
And what happened after that?
The Earth continues to orbit the sun, but it will be a warmer Earth.
No it won’t.
😆 so that is all virtual ice up thar is it?
More solar radiation being absorbed into a hitherto reflective ocean will not warm the Earth? Are espousing a radical new theory on thermodynamics or is it just your gut talking to you?
And what happens again in the winter? 😆
So, I guess we shall see what we shall see in September regarding the importance of ice volume now vs ice extent later on.
No taker;s on my bet? BTW, I am also going for Barca in that Champion’s League — gotta love that Messi.
Ciao
Bwaaaahahahahaha!
What sort of mental disorder causes people to obsess about possible low ice extent for two weeks in September?
“What sort of mental disorder causes people to obsess about possible low ice extent for two weeks in September?”
Says the man who has written hundreds of posts on the subject.
It was a simple question, but I’ll bit on your moving goal posts.
By 2012 standard, the ten million becomes three million extent.
The one million multi-year ice is calved, and exported out of the Fram strait. Firm video evidence demonstrates that multi-year ice is exported via mechanical action.
As gator said before grantologist would be one!
Hey Lazyarse, he probably wouldn’t have to do that if the ones you support wasn’t doing it first!
I couldn’t care less about the ice extent. What I care about is imbeciles using Arctic ice as an excuse to steal our money and freedom.
You are such an idiot.
Ben,
I didn’t move any goal posts, your goal posts were floating and I set them in concrete.
“Firm video evidence demonstrates that multi-year ice is exported via mechanical action.”
Not since 2009 when the AO reversed which is why the recent shrinking of ice extent and volume is such a clear signal to climate scientists.
Gotta go.
Please go, and take your psychotic fears with you.
😆
Now I am going to be late, but i couldn’t let this one go without a response:
“. . .imbeciles using Arctic ice as an excuse to steal our money and freedom.”
Please tell me that you didn’t actually write that.
That is exactly what this whole global warming scam is about.
RE: Ben – ““Firm video evidence demonstrates that multi-year ice is exported via mechanical action.”
RE: Lazarus – “Not since 2009 when the AO reversed which is why the recent shrinking of ice extent and volume is such a clear signal to climate scientists.”
No winner this time, try again.
The area of the ice floating through the Fram Strait is now about 200 thousand km2 larger than in the late 1950s, which is similar to the total area of the United Kingdom.
See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114092521.htm
Lazarus, why must you deceive? The truth would be enough, but you must deceive?
Ben, Ben, Ben,
Did you actually read the article you asked me to read? If so, then how is it that you left out such choice bits in your response to me.
This bit is a good one: “Not all simulations show an increase in the ice export from the late 1950s and up to today. Some simulations actually show a decrease in the ice export.”
Or this one: “Not all simulations show an increase in the ice export from the late 1950s and up to today. Some simulations actually show a decrease in the ice export.”
This one is my favorite; “we find that a thinning of the Arctic sea ice is associated with an increase in the ice export, whereas a decrease in the ice export is related to a smaller thinning.”
Thinning ice — hmmmm. Interesting.
And just to show you that I wasn’t being deceptive about AO reversing itself, here are two citations:
“A strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation brings warm weather to high latitudes, and cold, stormy weather to the more temperate regions where people live. Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phase. For a period during the 1970s to mid-1990s, the Arctic Oscillation tended to stay in its positive phase. However, since then it has again alternated between positive and negative, with a record negative phase in the winter of 2009-2010.” http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/weather_climate_patterns.html
“The Arctic Oscillation Index goes strongly negative
Posted on December 28, 2009 by Anthony Watts
In the last month, the Arctic Oscillation Index (AO) has gone strongly negative.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/28/the-arctic-oscillation-index-goes-strongly-negative/
Happier now or do you think the goal posts have moved again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wl47EEYrAc
😆
Sorry Ben,
Point 2 was an accidental repeat — this the other choice bit from your article: “The Arctic sea ice is shrinking, both in extent and thickness. In addition to the humanmade contribution to the sea ice loss, there are also natural factors contributing to this loss.”
I was gone then I returned now I am will go again and leave you guys to your global conspiracies. BTW, did you hear about what actually happened in Roswell?
LMAO! Yeah Ok! we heard that before!
Jct: Gee, I thought it was only the Antarctic that had record ice, now we find out both! Har har har har har har. Looks good for my bet with Greenie Adriana Magnutto who said the temperature rise was continuing!
Actually, ice extent for the Arctic is well below the record — just slip off this site to the NSIDC site for accurate information.
JAXA are the pros and if you subscribe you’ll see what the deal is.
So what does JAXA say about this March’s Arctic ice extent relative to the 1979 to 2012 mean and what does it say about the ice volume trend over that same period?
Steven,
Have you seen the graph “Ice Volume, Planktonic Foram O-18 as Proxy” at
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
IMO most interesting in its display of glacial cycles and their volume variance.
Lazarus says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:45 am
How about this Steve, You stop posting about how much ice cover there is in winter (when there is very little sun to reflect) and I will stop posting about how much ice cover there is in Summer (due to ice volume) when there is much more solar radiation.
Deal?
========================================
Lazarus made a childish mistake, poor chap. There is far more raidation in the NH winter, about seven percent more, which falls on SH ice which is at lower laditudes then the NH ice. So, area for area, the SH surplus has far greater reflectivity then the NH decrease. Right now the SH is reflecting about 700000 sq kilometers extra TSI at lower latitudes then the NH ice anomaly decrease of about 400000 sq K. However, I doubt the troll responds.
Interesting, but the real point is that Summer sun lays down FAR FAR more radiation on a surface than Winter sun and if the ocean is water rather than ice, it will absorb a large amount of that radiation rather than reflect it.
But thanks anyway for that interesting tidbit on SH reflectivity.
You nust be having an Obummer moment where you say one thing and do the opposite! 😆
You are right — I am gone (but, hopefully, not forgotten).
Yes, the SH summer sun!!; which on average is falling on about 400,000 to 500000 sq K ice more then it did thirty years ago. The summer sun in the NH falls on ice or water further from the equator where the reflectivity of water approaches that of ice. You see, the NH ocean is surrounded by land at lower latitudes, so the ice is in less direct sun further north, while the SH pole is Land, surrounded by water and or ice closer to the equator. Does one often have to repeat aeverything to you?
David,
Lazarus was making the point that it is the summer sun in the Arctic (which is nearly directly overhead) will be absorbed into that area which formerly had the sea ice.
For the last 30 years, the Arctic has been losing an average of 5.7 square miles of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica. Are you saying that, in terms of Earth’s albedo, SH reflectivity more than compensates for the nearly 6-fold loss of NH sea ice?
You have to be intelligent to realize that your stupid – Also as Lazarus Long would say – I try not to have beliefs, they get in the way of learning