arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
- She Hates Her State
- Climate Friendly War
- Office Of Climate Change And Health Equity And Environmental Justice
- “100% Non-Carbon By 2030”
- 1991 : United Nations Calls For Genocide
- Mainstream Fascism In Academia
- California Finds A New Way To Drive Businesses Out
- Powerful Climate Mathematics
Recent Comments
- Gator on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Sonny on AI Doublespeak
- Sonny on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Russell Cook on AI Doublespeak
- Denis Rushworth on Net Zero Intelligence
- Disillusioned on AI Doublespeak
- arn on AI Doublespeak
Penguins won’t know what liquid water is…
It’s currently 31% above normal (if my math skills are not failing me) , which seems like a lot. Our Dutch Met Office (KNMI) reported last week that this increase is caused by global warming. The news about this research is currently on their front page (in Dutch) :
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/112833/raadsel_meer_zeeijs_antarctica_opgelost
If it was below normal, they would also blame it on global warming. There is no possible condition which they would not blame on global warming.
They’d do the same if it was happening in the Arctic. People are not that stupid to believe that kind of BS.
Dave I hate to disagree with you but your faith in people is misplaced.
I’m no atmospheric physicist, but I would still appreciate if someone could define “normal” so there is a baseline to measure against. I got tired of asking after the 500th time and getting no answer or having my questions deleted.
Like much in climate science, it’s arbitrary isn’t it? You pick a 30 year period and decide that’s your baseline for normal.
odds: 3.27E+150. It’s climate science.
The Jurassic climate must have seemed pretty normal for a while there to your average Diplodocus. I wonder if they bought and sold Ceratosaurus credits or something.
The new ‘normal’. 😉
“Normal” dates allll the way back to 1979 when the satellites started to monitor it. It seems that the historic accounts of an ice free polar region were just made up to scare people.