arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Luigi on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Bob G on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
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.