Date Arctic ice area 1996.1644 13.5241079 2013.1644 13.7504234
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Mike on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Timo, not that one! on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Bill on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Mission Accomplished
- Gordon Vigurs on Mission Accomplished
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
Steven … any idea why Cryosphere has that ice free area on the north of Svalbard but the Naval data has it ice covered? This discrepency has gone on for weeks now.
Satellite vs surface observations.
I’m not as nice……..adjustments vs non-adjustments
From eye-balling the images above, 1996 would appear to have the more ice. Has there been a change in the way they calculate the figure in the intervening period?
They changed the eye elevation in 2008 in response to an observation I made.
One man can make a difference.
Of course… We all know the Arctic ice cap is only skin deep right… Maybe a few inches here or there. Oh wait, no. Actually its Metres and Metres of ice.
(Latest estimates to end January)
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png
Jan 1996 volume: ~22,500 cubic kilometres
Jan 2013 volume: ~15,000 cubic kilometres
33% less
And fyi:
Sept 1996: ~14,000
Sept 2012: ~2,500
82% less.
Ice free September in 3, 2, 1…..
RE: Chris Alemany – “Ice free September in 3, 2, 1…..”
Ice volume is a model, not a measure… go argue with realclimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/arctic-sea-ice-volume-piomas-prediction-and-the-perils-of-extrapolation/
“So using a model constrained by observations is quite possibly the best we can do to establish a long-term ice volume record.”
Why you are at it, for the sake of consistency, ask haveland.com to make a corresponding antarctic-life-spiral
Hi Chris,
Most of the reputable sources say Arctic Sea Ice extent now is either 14 or 15 Million Sq Km.
Ice thickness looks to me to average about 2 metres across the entire extent, but let’s give warmists the benefit of the doubt and say its 1.5 metres average.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif
Therefore, 14 x 1.5 = 21,000 Cubic Km of sea ice, so no significant change from 1996.
Taking the just slightly higher numbers, you get 15 x 2 = 30,000 Cubic Km of sea ice or the same as Feb 1979 at the start of the satellite era.
I forgot what your point was……………
What is the ‘white’ area on these graphs supposed to represent? White is not shown on the scale. Disregard the white areas and we have much less ice in 2013.
Huh? Look at the numbers I posted.