A region of low concentration ice near the North Pole has team climate moron all excited. They call this a “giant hole” in the ice.
arctic.io – Arctic Terra – (2013/181)
The ice there has been spread out by persistent cold north winds, is covered with fresh snow, and shows no indication of melt. Any melting which occurred at the latitude would have to happen in the next 4-5 weeks, and it would require southerly winds which would compact the ice to higher concentrations, making their “giant hole” disappear.
Steve,
Have you ever seen anything like this in the central Arctic before?
It is quite amazing and with still 10 weeks of melting and a high pressure system soon to arrive to give things a big boost. And did you notice, how all those ice “sheets” have rounded corners? Classic evidence that they have been worn and melted away as you would expect with thin ice.
10 weeks of melting? ROFLMAO
At 88N the sun will be too low in the sky by the end of July to produce any significant heating.
Steve,
Are you saying that all those historical Arctic graphs and satellite imagery showing ice decreasing right up to the 2nd or 3rd week of September are lying inventions?
No, I am saying you are a moron.
August ice melting occurs further south
The reason that people are climate alarmists is partially because they are incapable of accurately reading or comprehending simple concepts.
Well,Steve,
We are in a whole new ball game aren’t we? There aren’t any records of the central Arctic have such a huge hole of very thin deteriorating ice in it before (much less in June and before you start, polyanas are not the same thing). And, of course, we are certain to be seeing melting of ice further south as usual, but there is no denying that the central basin is also melting this year.
Laz, that’s not melting…..wind does that…and somewhere it’s piling up and making MYI
Latitude,
Where is somewhere?
don’t know….I’m not paying that much attention to it
You can easily see the leads in the ice….caused by wind
Latitude,
Correction: Caused by wind on very thin ice.
LOL…..no it isn’t
The leads are running diagonal from the bottom left to the top right….
follow the wind to the top left
You can see the shadows where the ice is jacked up on itself
that where MYI ice comes from…..
You are completely full of shit
Latitude,
i have no idea what you are looking at but I am looking at a very large slushy in a very large are of the central Arctic.
T.O.O. – your brain is slush.
very large….slushy! LOL
…no wonder you believe in this crap
stop posting long enough to follow the description I gave you…..
TOO, were you staring at daily images of the Arctic Ice in the 1980s?
Don’t hold back Steve,
Hit me with some more “Real Science”.
I’m going to hit you with “real spam” status if you continue spamming this blog with bullshit.
No Glacierman,
I am looking at a Steve’s picture taken on June 30, 2013. If you want to post some June Arctic pictures taken in the 80’s, I would be happy to compare them to Steve’s.
TOO Says: “you want to post some June Arctic pictures taken in the 80?s, I would be happy to compare them to Steve’s.”
No. I don’t have to. I know there was ice and snow there as there is now. I’m sure none of the blocks of ice had rounded cornerns then (as you have observed above) as they were not being attacked by CO2 smart bombs like they are now.
Well Glacierman,
Who can argue with CO2 smart bombs? You obviously have an incite into climate we can all benefit from.
Latitude,
Funny, my definition is different from yours:
Old sea ice
Old sea ice is sea ice that has survived at least one melting season (i.e. one summer). For this reason, this ice is generally thicker than first-year sea ice. Old ice is commonly divided into two types: second-year ice, which has survived one melting season, and multi-year ice, which has survived more than one. (In some sources, old ice is more than 2-years old.)
Deformation
Sea ice deformation results from the interaction between ice floes, as they are driven against each other. The end result may be of three types of features: 1) Rafted ice, when one piece is overriding another; 2) Pressure ridges, a line of broken ice forced downward (to make up the keel) and upward (to make the sail); and 3) Hummock, an hillock of broken ice that forms an uneven surface. A shear ridge is a pressure ridge that formed under shear – it tends to be more linear than a ridge induced only by compression.[5][6] A new ridge is a recent feature — it is sharp-crested, with its side sloping at an angle exceeding 40 degrees. In contrast, a weathered ridge is one with a rounded crest and with sides sloping at less than 40 degrees.
Level ice is sea ice that has not been affected by deformation, and is therefore relatively flat
ok Laz….you need to read that again….slowly
You can’t say that thin single year ice melts…
…and not think about what would cause it to not melt
and if you will ever take the time to follow the directions I gave you….
….you will see recent deformation….from the wind piling the ice up
the gigantic colossal slushy hole you see…..is because the wind is blowing the ice somewhere else….follow the leads and you can see it
Latitude,
I will make it real simple. Thin ice breaks easier than thick ice. Ice moves around more easily when it is broken up. Broken ice is more susceptible to wave action and erosion. Thin broken ice will melt quicker than thick solid ice under warm conditions. Relatively warm conditions will occur in the Arctic over the next 10 weeks. Put this altogether and you get a big melt.
and I’ll make it simple for you too..
One ice cube in a glass of water will melt faster than and entire glass full of ice….
….when the wind piles the ice up, it melts slower
That giant slushy you are looking at is not melting ice….the wind blew it, you can easily see the leads in the ice from the wind…..piled up ice is like a glass full of ice and melts slower….that is exactly where MYI comes from
Well Latitude,
We shall see what we shall see.
I don’t care what it’s doing a week, a month, a year from now….
this is what it’s doing right now
…and you can easily see it from the link Reggie posted
the wind is blowing the ice around…and piling it up…all around your giant slushy
it’s the dark purple….
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png
“We are in a whole new ball game aren’t we? There aren’t any records of the central Arctic have such a huge hole of very thin deteriorating ice in it before (much less in June and before you start, polyanas are not the same thing). And, of course, we are certain to be seeing melting of ice further south as usual, but there is no denying that the central basin is also melting this year.”
Look T.O.O ,
You’re just bullshitting yourself. Don’t you get it? You are just a tool of some abstract fancy painted by opportunists. Do some reflection…you will find you are just absorbing and regurgitating some self-promoting pipe dream that doesn’t really have a solution of how to get from here to there. Unless of course tools like you get on board. Get a clue man….
OK, I got to scoot. Much more important things to do on Saturday night….and she looks so much better than the dismal vision you are obsessed with….
Hugh K.,
July 2, 2013 at 2:58 am “Much more important things to do on Saturday night….”
My Saturday night was on June 29 — what time zone do you live in?
Klimate Conniption intensity increasing, Polar Bears alerted, Death Spiral….spiraling.
And we have video of team Conniption in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r7B0NdbCSog
Traiter,
We are discussing Arctic ice and you bring the 3 Stooges into it because you think that it makes you appear more knowledgeable?
The video is entertainment. Much like your comments.
The video is really funny, but the Totally Obnoxious Oaf ALMOST out does the Three Stooges. Reggie Pooh and the Totally Obnoxious Oaf actually do out do the Three Stooges.
Thee is absolutely nothing in the weather models to suggest unusual winds or unusual warmth over the Arctic basin during the next two weeks.
Andy,
Now you trust models?
TOO,
Are you honestly gloating because there is a small area in the artic that has broken up, but is still cold and icy and will likely refreeze? Is this what it has come down to for you people? You guys act like this is the Super Bowl and these are favorite teams: on one side, normal variations and on the other side catastrophic global warming. Rah! Rah! Record lows in the artic and surging ice extent, that’s all you need to know. So settle down guy, the central part will refreeze in the next couple of weeks and all will be well again. You and your “team” will have to find something else to prove the coming apocalyse.
Jorge,
First of all this a unique situation — a hollowed out Central Arctic basin — and second of all it ain’t small. And of course it will refreeze but the likelihood is that next winter the Arctic will have even more first year ice than this year and that will inevitably lead to more melting next summer. And so on and so on until the climate begins to cool again (somewhere in the deep future).
you cant possibly be as dense as you pretend to be
Laz, it’s not unique at all….
do you know what leads are?
do you know that ice will not freeze thick enough to make MYI?
~90% of it is under water
This is exactly how MYI is made…wind piles it up
If the wind does not blow it out this year….there will be more MYI next year
Andy, being a REASONABLE human, does not trust the models that are 100 percent wrong. I suggest a more introspective question. Why do you trust the climate models when they are all wrong? ( Please note this is retorical, and meant for introspection, meaning you should really take some time to meditate on your honest answer to yourself.)
I think the artic is making the alarmists crazy this year. They put too much into that, if that fail they will fail. They will try to recover and ignore all their doomsday predictions, but it will be difficult to live it down.
I find their idiocy remarkable. You would think they would be so stupid as to make all of these outlandish claims. You would think they would be so stupid as to put all of this onto center stage. What happens when they are wrong [again]? You would think it would embarrass them. I guess when you don’t have two IQ points to rub together, embarrassment isn’t an issue.
Squid,
I guess I just believe in the PIOMAS model which is telling me that ice volume is only 20% of what it used to be. And if the extent is reasonably large (though well under the 1979 to 200 mean) then that means there isn’t much thickness and thin ice melts quicker — everybody knows that. And with Steve’s picture showing a totally fragmented central Arctic basin, we are seeing the consequences of the thinner ice.
Simple really. 10 weeks to go before we will see if I am the smartest guy in the room.
WTF is a 1979-200 mean? Or for that matter, a 1979-2000 meaningless mean. 21 years?
This is called ‘cherry picking” guys. It “means” nothing. 😆
you just seeing how MYI is made……
The SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM – – Totally Obnoxious Oaf – when you are ALONE in your mommies basement smoking that weed, you are NOT the smartest guy in the room!
20% of what it used to be?
It may actually be .5% of what it used to be…
“And did you notice, how all those ice “sheets” have rounded corners?”
Yep! Just like river rock, all melty! 😆
Gator:
How did the ice get all those rounded corners, do you want to hazard a guess?
It isn’t from melting, there is a different mechanism causing the rounded edge.
So you did not understand the river rock analogy? Sheesh!
Newsflash! Heat is not the cause of all things!
No wonder you folks are so easily duped. 😆
Ah crap, sorry, was my bad. I left my grill turned on too long last night. I’m sure that is what has caused all of this. My bad … sorry, won’t let it happen again
The river rock analogy does not explain the rounded edges, but you are correct it isnt heat either.
Care to try again?
So,floating ice blocks being blown around by the wind manage to NOT bump into each other. That’s amazing choreography! 😆
wow, the level of your stupidity is rising faster than the sea! Perhaps if your precious Arctic melts, sea level rise will catch up?
ROFLMAO….
Squid, everyone knows that the melting of sea ice only has an effect on sea levels that is a result of thermal expansion. The melting ice itself does not raise sea levels.
Just when you think Reggie Pooh has said the dumbest most stupid thing possible, he OUT DOES HIMSELF!!! HE REALLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ANALOGY to ROUND RIVER ROCKS. AFTER ALL, ICE is HARDER than any rock. GOOD GRIEVE!!!
No wonder Reggie Pooh follows `Dr“ Mann!!!!
OMG! … I see water! … In the freaking Ocean no doubt! … when will this madness stop?
Help, help! … we’re all gonna die from Arctic melting! … It will surely raise the sea levels by thousands of feet! Quickly, dawn your scuba gear! Arctic tsunami coming! …AAHHHH!!!!
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png
Yesterday’ sBremen Sea Ice Map clearly shows substantial decline in concentration at the area under discussion
“The ASI sea ice concentration algorithm used here has been validated in several studies (Spreen et al. 2005, Spreen et al., 2008).
However, no warranty is given for the data presented on these pages.”
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/seaice/amsr/
Hey Reggie,
There are all these green and yellow splotches in the middle of the Arctic — ever seen that before?
yep, surrounded by deep purple….where the wind blew it
Latitude, In the past it would all be deep purple, you are missing the point once again.
no I’m not…you are
you are claiming the land temps are higher and melting the ice…
….yet the ice is thicker…100%…next to the land
…that’s wind
TOO
The concentration appears to be anomalously low for the first day of July in the area under discussion.
you mean that small area under discussion the wind blew it out of…and is your only hope right now?
That is not a small area, we are talking thousands of sq km
That mess was caused by a persistent arctic cyclone (PAC2013) that lasted weeks from the end of May until the middle of June. Unfortunately it was completely ignored at this blog.
.You need to check out blogs that actually do rational scientific discussions of current conditions.
Julienne says anything smaller than a million sq/km, would be considered ice free…
so yep, it’s tiny
Well, since you know about the winds…you obviously have looked at the ice animations….and you saw where the ice went…and you saw where it got thicker
You know it didn’t just disappear……
Latitude, hopefully you can see from this exchange that “discussion” with the likes of Reggie is pointless. There could be a Slushie on the surface of Lake Superior today, and in the Zuider Zee and slowly working its way down the Hudson toward New York City, and still they would take to this blog in force to proclaim that this is the worst evidence ever of global warming, and that we are evil personified for continuing to “deny the obvious”. What is the point of trying to convince someone who thinks like that? Nothing short of their Obama definitively silencing us and cracking down on our CO2 emissions will satisfy and calm them. It is a philosophy born not of rationalism but rather of hate and anger over a twisted interpretation of history fed to them since primary school.
Latitude:
The actual melt season is just starting, we have at least 75 days to go.
Do you know how much multi year ice get’s flushed down the Fram Straight?
Something very strange has been occurring there the last few weeks. The ice that has passed through the straight has been quickly melting out. Currently the only reasonable explanation for that phenomenon is that the badly fractured multi-year ice was weakened by PAC2013
then bremen didn’t get the memo…
…because your link is showing most of the Arctic is 90-100%
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png
…and right now, the wind is not blowing it out, it’s blowing the ice up against the coast and making MYI
Latitude:
The overall ice concentration in the area that is relevant to this discussion is certainly not anywhere close 90 percent, you are spinning again.
Since you went off topic, Did you happen to notice that the concentrations at the mouth of the McKenzie river has dropped significantly in the last week?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
Reggie … ice is looking very “normal” on cryospheres graph of the arctic basin. Oh except I suppose it is all rotten first year slushy ice 😉
nope, and don’t care….and I’m not spinning anything…..the overall concentration in the area that is relevant to this discussion was moved by wind….temperature had nothing to do with it…..the wind is pushing it up against the coast…and it’s making MYI
Yep, and it looks perfectly normal…..a little bit off shore there’s 90 -100% again….and a little further out there’s a lead from the wind…that moved the ice to make that 90-100
Latitude:
I have been reading your posts for a few days and am not sure you quite understand what creates MYI.
What is your definition of MYI?
translated: I’ve been reading your posts where you gave your definition of MYI and I’m bored and want attention…..
Spin, spin, spin
Wouldn’t it be much easier to just answer a simple question, what is your definition of MYI
TOO gave his definition and it is quite reasonable, but you disagreed. Why not enlighten us with your definition, since you didn’t like his?
translated: I read your definition of MYI and I’m bored and want attention……..oh and you’re spinning
Let’s see, I have frost in my freezer leftover from 2010, I call that MYI ..
The CEO of the sponsor of the Arctic row can be seen here making several inaccurate statements on climate change. This looks like nothing more than green rent seeking by corporate special interest.
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/climate-change-skeptics/
Wow! SO many lies and distortions in just 69 seconds! 😆
OK, let’s review the ‘claims’.
The science of climatology was established 200 years ago. 😆
“Life not livable without CO2.” No shit, so why call it ‘carbon pollution’? 😆
The science is ‘predictive’. 😆 😆 😆
“Historic or ‘classic’ CO2 levels unchanged since man appeared on Earth.” BS, anyone who does not know that historic CO2 levels have been measured all over the map, is ignorant of the science.
“.6 C change over 150 years is significant.” 😆 😆 😆
“There is ‘no doubt’ about the science.” 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Latitude
It has been obvious for days that you do not know the correct definition of MYI.
You know that I know you are wrong, hence you spin instead of give what we all know will not be the correct definition of MYI.
someone show these guys the photo of the skate surfaced in open water at the pole……from 1962
They know it. They ignore it.
Those “tiny holes” are a wee bit larger than you think
I measured a few that were greater than 30 km wide. The following link allows you to magnify and it shows the scale. I have included lines of latitude and longitude, so all you have to do to find the area in question is to go to 85 degrees north 60 degrees east.
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/?map=-45110.286291,-48690.54186,322505.713709,138957.45814&products=baselayers,MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_Bands367~overlays,arctic_graticule_3413&time=2013-06-30&switch=arctic
Make that 88 degrees north, I better start wearing my glasses because I am making too many typos.
And it looks like most of it is on FIRE! … yikes! … I hope the canoe team brought some fire extinguishers and marshmallows!
phodges,
I know that it was a short time opportunity that the Skate took advantage of. It was a polyana that opened and allowed the Skate to surface for 22 minutes before the wind and/or currents caused the floes to jam up again. I also know that the ice was at least 3 meters thick in that area — too thick for the submarine to poke a hole through it.
Reggie blathered: “TOO gave his definition and it is quite reasonable, but you disagreed. Why not enlighten us with your definition, since you didn’t like his?”
translated: I read your definition….I’m bored and want attention….and this is my last hope
Reggie in regards to Latitude:
Translation: Don’t press me for details on things I don’t know because it will show that my opinions are based on nothing but preconceived bias.
TOO:
Did you notice that latitude referred to the area with the thickest MYI as the”coast” and claimed that the ice would have all melted out by now if the wind hadn’t pilled it up?
I literally couldn’t type for a couple minutes reply because I was laughing so hard.
They are so unaware of how clueless they appear to people who have done a little research into ice dynamics.
If you want to see something really cool. check out the Breman map. There is something which someone described as an arm, extending out from the McClure Straight, all the way to the Siberian Sea. It is going to be interesting to watch that area.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png
Total Obnoxious Oaf aka TOOIE POOHIE Translation: Don’t press me for details on anything at all because I have my head up my rectum, and ALL I can see is my fecal matter…. AND IT STINKS!!!!! .
stop lying Reggie….
=======
Reggie, sponsored by Brawndo says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:33 pm
That ice on what you call “the coast” is the oldest ice in the Arctic and is located where ice doesn’t melt
========
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
The ice that I call “the coast” is….for the umteenth time….the entire coast….all the way around the Arctic….where the purple shows it’s 90-100%
and Laz, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at you lying too…
You and I had a conversation about MYI….I told you exactly what my opinion was about MYI…and why
and claimed that the ice would have all melted out by now if the wind hadn’t pilled it up?
===
Good Lord, you’re a moron….
You were the one saying it was melting…I was making fun of you…and you’re so dense you didn’t even know it
How about photographs?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uss-skate-open-water.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/3-subs-north-pole-1987.jpg
JJ,
See reply to phodges.
Total Obnoxious Oaf aka TOOIE POOHIE Translation: Don’t press me for details on anything at all because I have my head up my rectum, and ALL I can see is my fecal matter…. AND IT STINKS!!!!! .
I’m not sure why this is so exciting. in basically every graph of the arctic I’ve ever seen there is a nose dive around this time in the ice extent. What’s new here? What PIOMAS says about ice extent in the past is a load of BS; if they say we are at 20% of what it used to be that is BS. Are we 20% of the what it was in 1979? One can reasonably see the current state of ice extent in the arctic and not be in this debate—and not be surprised at whats happening.
Piomos is volume, not extent.
Whatever Reggie, answer my question. How is this surprising to anybody? By this I mean a decline in ice extent at this time of year. I’ll be honest, I’m a skeptic, but all I see here is everybody sticking tight to their worldview and you being an antagonist. Goddard is no doubt a big boy and can handle dissent (unlike perhaps other blogs that you frequent); but I don’t get your excitement with this. There is literally no surprise here, no proof that temperatures have done whatever has happened with some ice movement (or melt). Every graph I’ve ever seen of the Arctic shows a sudden sharp decline in ice around this time. I’m guessing this is why the ‘rowers’ are going now or waiting and not say….in October? Come on
There isn’t any sharp decrease going on. It is second highest in the DMI record and flat over the last couple of days.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Very cool Steve. I have never played around with their forecast tool before. According to their forecast tool, temperatures for the entire Arctic are forecast to be significantly below average for quite a while. I don’t see how the Arctic is ever going to catch fire, at least not this week. 😉
coperrnicus,
In terms of extent we are 40% less (volume is 80% less) and yes, the Arctic does melt at this time of year but what makes this exceptional is that no one has seen it melt from the inside out before.
Steven,
I went to that site and certainly see a decline, certainly not out of line to what we should all expect and certainly as you stated well above previous years. I’m just taking issue with why some commenters here seem to think this is a signal of doom (specifically TOO and Reggie). I don’t know about what all you in here expected, but all i see is a little more ice than normal and nothing out of the ordinary.
cop..that’s because they refuse to admit this graph ever existed…
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/screenhunter_707-apr-25-06-06.jpg?w=640&h=491&h=491
Yes yes Latititude,
Is it possible that you guys could ever find a NON Goddard and Watts reference to help prove your point? You know, something credible?
T.O.O. finally admits that the IPCC is not credible.
That graph was from the 1990 IPCC report. Is that good enough? 😆
Laz!…the IPCC printed that graph! that directly from their report…….
Steve,
Latitude’s link goes to one of your own graphs and it says “IPCC Satellites launched” and points to 1974. I would say that is pretty INcredible as the IPCC did not exist in 1974.
You really do have reading comprehension difficulties.
Steve,
A 23-year old mislabeled graph may be your idea of credibility, but its not mine especially as it relates to present say observations.
but Laz…even if the graph was off by thousands of sq/km….there was still less ice
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
“The ice that I call “the coast” is….for the umteenth time….the entire coast….all the way around the Arctic….where the purple shows it’s 90-100%”
That is a measure of concentration, it tells you nothing about thickness, or for that matter, nothing about ice age.
Are you claiming that highly concentrated ice is thick MYI?
WOW!
no I’m not you lying moron…..
Latitude>
Are you now claiming you didn’t say that the ice along the northern coasts of Siberia and North America are not thick MYI?
Which is it, yes or no?
What an lying moron….
I didn’t phrase that properly,
Are you claiming the ice off the north coasts of Siberia and North America is thick MYI?
show me….post it here…quote me….date time and thread it’s on
I am asking you a question, why can’t you answer it?
Here you said
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
“The ice that I call “the coast” is….for the umteenth time….the entire coast….all the way around the Arctic….where the purple shows it’s 90-100%”
Those are your words, you typed them, or are you calling me a liar?
I am asking you, are you referring to the northern coasts of Siberia and North America in that quote?
yes or no
Please, please, please don’t tell us about your aching hemorrhoids, especially right before dinner:)
The uproar will ease, just give it time…
Now liar, you lied and said I called that MYI….show me where I said that…..
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
“The ice that I call “the coast” is….for the umteenth time….the entire coast….all the way around the Arctic….where the purple shows it’s 90-100%”
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:45 pm
“and the ice is getting thicker the closer it gets to the coast because high land temps are melting it..
That’s a lead caused from the wind pushing the ice you dimwit…………
It’s July, normally the ice at the coast would be melted and gone by now……..not thicker”
Those are your words, you clearly typed the words “the ice is getting thicker”
Are you claiming the ice along the coast is getting thicker?
yes or no?
here’s the link I posted to go with it….that shows the 90-100%
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png
and here’s the link showing the MYI…
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict_nowcast_anim30d.gif
What kind of dimwit would think someone is talking about MYI and 90-100% at the same time…..they are completely different things!
I’m out for good……tell more lies….don’t care
Latitude says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:19 am
“and here’s the link showing the MYI…”
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict_nowcast_anim30d.gif
=========================================================================
The only place I see MYI in the animation are north of Greenland.and CAA
One more question
Are you claiming that you see MYI on coasts other than north of Greenland and the CAA?
YES or NO?
I noticed that once again Latitude ran away rather than answer a simple yes or no question.He has not answered a single question today. It seems all he can do is resort to namecalling and then runaway
Neither of the links he posted showed any thickening of ice on any coasts beside those north of Greenland and CAA
I can see why he turned tail and ran.
You gave him ten whole minutes too…Not everyone is on this thread 24-7 homie.
dimwit….we’re in different time zones..LOL
arguing can be fun….and it was!……but both people have to be on the same page
If you think someone is talking about MYI, when they are talking about 90-100% cover, that’s not on the same page
Of course I’m not saying that, it’s two completely different things….
BTW, it’s not a phone call….no one hung up on you either
Reggie, sponsored by Brawndo says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:41 am
I noticed that once again Latitude ran away rather than answer a simple yes or no question
=====
that’s because I’ve answered that same question every time you’ve asked it….
I posted two links, one showing MYI, and one showing concentration..to illustrate that they are two different things
I posted that MYI and concentration are two different things and you are talking about two different things…
…and for some reason you got it in your head that MYI and concentration are the same thing ….and keep asking the same question over and over
Latitude:
bull!
You haven’t answered a single question in 2 days
All you do is spin. spin. spin
We have a problem Houston……
============
Reggie, sponsored by Brawndo says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:31 am
Are you claiming that you see MYI on coasts other than north of Greenland and the CAA?
YES or NO?
===============
Latitude says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:30 am
If you think someone is talking about MYI, when they are talking about 90-100% cover, that’s not on the same page
Of course I’m not saying that, it’s two completely different things….
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:53 pm
“no I’m not…you are
you are claiming the land temps are higher and melting the ice…
….yet the ice is thicker…100%…next to the land”
==========================================================================
Here you are confusing ” thicker” with concentration…..don’t call me a liar, those are your words
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm
…”and right now, the wind is not blowing it out, it’s blowing the ice up against the coast and making MYI”
======================================================================
LOL, that comment is a comedy classic
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
The ice that I call “the coast” is….for the umteenth time….the entire coast….all the way around the Arctic
======================================================================
Here latitude explains what he is calling the coast.
Here you are confusing ” thicker” with concentration…..don’t call me a liar, those are your words
====
nope….the wind is blowing the ice toward the coast….the wind is replacing the ice faster than it can melt….piling it up….and that’s making it thicker….as opposed to melting, which would make it thinner
Are you claiming the ice is piling up on what you define as the coasts.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict_nowcast_anim30d.gif
It isn’t getting thicker, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Keep digging!
Latitude says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm
…”and right now, the wind is not blowing it out, it’s blowing the ice up against the coast and making MYI”
===
Yep, because at the time, the conversation was about which way the wind was blowing…
The wind was blowing toward Greenland and Banks Island….making MYI
You are twisting two conversations and lying….your can’t be that stupid…
yep, the wind is pushing the ice to the coast toward Greenland and Banks Island, making it thicker…
…that’s exactly what it’s doing
Reggie….been fun….have a great day
This thread is buried and over…..
Latitude, you are a petty little liar who can’t admit being wrong,
Go run away, you gave me all the material I needed
Thank you
None of the ice that are along the Siberia and North America have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming MYI
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticict_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Where do you see any ice that is getting thicker on what you define as coasts?
Chill out Reggie…I understand haters got to hate….but may I offer an alternative. Love bro….in the most pure form of the word. Please understand that when we are trying to educate you out of love…..nothing more. When we see someone sucked in my a whirlpool of treachery and deceit it is incumbent upon your brothers and sisters to throw you a lifeline to bring you out of the cesspool of despots you choose to support. K? In short, don’t be a sucker man!
Said the Mad Hatter to Dorothy.
Curiouser and curiouser!’ cried Alice
Come back into the light cried your conscience….
Give us some plausible future expectations of the rowing teams mission, you top notch TOO & Reggie fellas.
Would you say that the team can achieve success and be at Pond Inlet by freeze up?
Do you think the warmed environment and their progress will have good media coverage?
Are they realistic in their mission and is 80 days of food good planning?
Chewer,
I have no comment on rowing — I prefer water skiing and I plan on being the first one this summer to do the North Pole.
TOO:
Will that be shown on the History Channel or National Geographic? Are you also attempting to become part of the Darwin award club like the crop of rowers that are setting out to “Conquer the Arctic” ice this year?
An alarmist said what was needed was a “public-owned and democratically run utilities, which we all knew the goal was to put energy under the thumb of the govt. They think the govt will run it non-profit and of course all profits are hated.
Gofer, what you have quoted is an excellent example of pure, original Marxism — dictatorship of the proletariat. But being Marxists, these people do not just want “public-owned and democratically run” utilities, but all means of production. If one believes in outlawing private utilities, then there is no logical reason to stop at utilities.
The rank and file of our opponents are mostly the classic pure Marxist, and their leaders are Leninists because they have sufficient education to know that pure Marxism never works in practice, only on paper.
Thus our opposition is a Leninist movement, since the leadership is secretly Leninist. (Secretly until they have secured themselves in power.)
Thank you for reporting this quote.
RTF