Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- Imaginary Cold And Snow
- Six Years Of No Conversation
- THE YEAR OF NO WINTER
- Climate Misinformation From AI (Part II)
- Grok’s “Anecdotal” Data
- Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Ancient Astronauts
- Hillary To Win By Double Digits
- Global Communism To Save The Maldives
- Another Top New York Judge
- The Saudi Arabia Of Wind
- Defending The Faith
- 90% Certainty – Four Meters Of Sea Level Rise By 2030
- NOAA Climate Fraud Index
- 98 Degrees Too Hot For Phoenix Residents
- Global Warming Threatens The Children
- Defective Memories
- The Last Refuge
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- Bob G on Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Ed on “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Bob G on Climate Trends In The Congo
- mddwave on “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- John B on Climate Trends In The Congo
- John Francis on Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Bob G on Understanding The US Government
- John Francis on Understanding The US Government
- conrad ziefle on Understanding The US Government
2008 sure has some erratic melting events. I wonder if these are related to large cyclonic wind storms?
Forecast for the next 6 weeks is looking cold for the arctic (and antarctic):
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/320540525302251521/photo/1
Arctic cold is caused by Arctic warming
I have to disagree, Arctic ice is anything but ‘normal’. It’s magical! 😉
You might like this
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83797
Ski-tastrophe deferred
Steve,
2013 is still below 2012 and that turned out to be anything but normal. And your use of “normal” is correct only if you wish to exclude all dates prior to 2002.
Normal is within one std deviation for anyone with an IQ over 30
Steve,
I will be interested to see what your term for “normal” will be in August.
I’d be interested to know why you are incapable of living in the present.
Steve,
I am not the one who references 1974 CIA reports or 100 year-old newspaper articles when speaking about Arctic ice. But I am the one who must repeatedly bring you back to what is relevant in the present and in the near future.
Shrinking ice volume in the Arctic and its effect upon the size of ocean area now capable of absorbing summer solar radiation is what is relevant.
“Shrinking ice volume in the Arctic and its effect upon the size of ocean area now capable of absorbing summer solar radiation is what is relevant.”
In terms of what is responsible for what is happening now, what has happened in the past is extremely relevant.
“Exactly how is a 1974 CIA planning paper about a coming ice age relevant to a discussion on Arctic ice in April of 2013?”
Interesting that you left out the most relevant part: about 100 year old Arctic ice articles, to which I was referring.
“And why is the size of ice extent (only 15% needs to be actual ice) when the sun is close to the horizon more important than size of open ocean when the sun is overhead?”
That has no relevance to what I said.
It’s quite ironic that you complain about relevance.
How do think the next 130 – 138 days will pan out?
Look at the temperatures around the block…
http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com/conditions/north-america
Maybe there’ll be a huge warm up of catastrophic proportions:)
Too…
You learn this stuff on, like, day 3 of any university level science course. It’s not too late for you though 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
You are TOO optimistic that he will learn what that is and how it applies to the topic.
I will be interested to see what your term for “normal” will be in 7013.
“…2013 is still below 2012 and that turned out to be anything but normal. And your use of “normal” is correct only if you wish to exclude all dates prior to 2002…”
And, at this time, 2013 is ABOVE 2007, 2008, and 2011.
BTW, the use of “normal” is decided by those who hold the data – in this case, according to the chart, “normal” is the period of 1979 to 2006.
How did 2002 enter into the discussion?
Steve,I think you will need to make a full post showing the real cause of the multiple ice loss in the 1990’s that led to the reduction of ice cover in the first decade of the century since there is far less older ice around to support the year old ice.
CAGW has nothing to do with the ice loss in the arctic.