Bill McKibben announces that “we melted the Arctic” just as Arctic ice extent is poised to go above normal.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “the science is absolutely certain”
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Bob G on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Peter Carroll on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Bob G on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Bob G on “the science is absolutely certain”
- William on “the science is absolutely certain”
- conrad ziefle on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Christopher Witzel on “the science is absolutely certain”
Isn’t this about the time they suddenly have problems and lose data? Happens every year at critical junctures.
NSIDC tried that last year, but it didn’t work out very well for them.
Obviously they will need to change the way they make their calculations
It is still mainly below normal so not a strong talking point yet. When the ice does reform it will be because the oceans are becoming desalinated due to all the ice in Greenlanad melting. I do agree it is recovering I would just wait to pop the champaine cork
Never put ice in champagne.
Never put ice in the Arctic, its already there 😉
This also explains why they don’t want to update their “mean value” dates (currently using 1979 – 2000, a 21 year period).
If the dates were changed to 1979 – 2010 (and covering a full 30-year cycle the scientists say we need), it’s likely that the mean would drop – and put a few more years into the average point.
And they don’t want to admit that the ice values are normal.
1979-2010 is HALF the cycle but fully sufficient for a more “normal” average. Why does it start at 1979? We have satellite data from 1975. But 1979 is a relative peak. 1975 data is well below the 1979 peak. The first IPCC report includes satellite data from before 1979 but later issues start at the peak of 1979.