COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Timo, Not that one on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
Well that’s only extent, not thickness and weather and then the hole and….. blah blah blah. Let me show you my graphs. Blather Blather Blather.
Brad,
You are almost qualified to be a Climate Chatterbot. All you have to do is sell your soul to the devil and remove half your brain and you too can be a useful idiot to the left.
Working on it. 🙂
May I be so kind to catergize Brad in the mephistophelian syndrome.
Why do they go with 1979-2000 mean value? Why not use mean value to present date?
Totally agree—I don’t understand that, either. Twelve years of data are not included in the mean value, which should lower the mean because of years like 2007 (e.g.).
Doing so would imply that this year’s values could be ABOVE the mean value. Oh, wait. That wouldn’t look good for the warmists, now, would it?
Nature was in perfect equilibrium in 1979 (must have been Jimmy Carter’s influence). Since then ice can only melt, it can no longer freeze. At least that is what the lunatic left believes.
Hey Lou! You are working my side of the street again. 😉
The alarmists need some heavy duty adjusting of the data or maybe even super Reggie and his blow torch.
They are probably picking up the flotilla of alarmist boats.
If you take out the wind in 2012….there’s absolutely nothing to see
Very different numbers here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
They have a lot of problems this time of year distinguishing surface melt from open water.
Ok… good point
Ignorance is bliss, especially when trying to make sense out of Arctic ice satellite data.