Date Anomaly Area 2013.1589 0.3236561 16.2882099arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- stewartpid on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Jehzsa on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Robertvd on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Walter on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- conrad ziefle on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
Lol, well, sure that’s one way of putting it! 😀 Brevity, there’s no replacing it’s effectiveness. I went through much more bother saying the same thing.
Unfortunately, in a changing climate this is exactly the kind of thing we can expect.
That is complete bullshit. The whole basis of CAGW theory is feedbacks, with one of the largest being albedo (ice) loss at the poles.
heh – a very large number times zero is still zero.
Whatever happens is exactly what was expected…
The model says so.
Aldous,
the climate is ALWAYS in a state of change thus your statement is silly.
Aldous,
Have you read about Arctic amplification? Secondly, your nonsense about changing climate is exactly that. The climate ALWAYS changes. Why didn’t you use global warming?
Steve,
O/T and FYI.
More temperature fiddling highlighted
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/not-the-hottest-ever-summer-for-most-australians-in-sydney-melbourne-or-brisbane-not-extreme-heatwaves-either/
It was a relatively nice summer given the fact that the previous year’s was so cold and wet. Sometimes you get lucky.
I remember 1972, my first visit to Oz, and in Melbourne the temperature was 80C or above every day for the late autumn month of May. I don’t believe that this has been repeated since, even though 1972 was right in the middle of the “mini Ice age.”
Hi Steve,
NSIDC displays a 15.6 million km2 february mean for 1979-2000 range. I downloaded their data, excluded months where there were less than 14 days recorded and computed these datas : I got a 15.47 million km2 mean for this period.
I got a bigger difference for january, they displayed 15.1 million km2 and I got 14.63.
I think they artificially enlarge past ice sheet extent so the present one appears smaller.
Can you confirm my results ?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
I was writting about North Hemisphere datas, Arctic ice sheet !
I think they compensate for the Arctic satellite visibility hole around the pole
They compensate always in the same direction, I’m not comfortable with “datas” obtained not only by mesurement but by using some esoterics models…
(I’m French, my english is perfectible)