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
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
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.