It turns out that the thin, rotten decayed description, was actually referring to the intellects of the experts.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Jehzsa on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Compassion For Terrorists
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Too bad our economy is not as ‘fragile’.
Boy, climate change is confusing.Who do you believe??
Definitely DON’T believe the “experts”!
Check the facts yourself and form your own judgement.
What caused the short term sag and recovery??
I saw a satellite glitch causing a one day lack of data over a pie piece shaped region near the pole. Never did see it confirmed as the problem.
looks like a data gathering glitch. The ice melted a great chunk in a day and the following day recovered. This would be unusual to say the least since the rebound covers a very large area. A few years age a report of ”sudden” temperature increase at the pole of several degrees was actually one reading with no sign included. Data went from -20C to +20C and back to -20C over two hours.
Edmomton Al:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaqRwFyoGgQ
Hah! Great. Thanks……….
Snapshot of 2013, 08 13 http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/edge/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201308131200_pal.jpg
I can’t remember who posted it, but it whoever referred to the temporary anomaly as “Pac-Ice Man” has indelibly burned that term into my memory. <
That was me, hope it was a good burn. 😉
Thank you sir, may I have another? 😀
:V
Are they going to take that downward glitch out of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph? Or perhaps the bottom of that glitch will be taken as the minimum for ice extent this year? Also, it’s odd but as I noted to Caleb at sunriseswansong blog the graph he presents (at the bottom of his post) does not have that glitch. So, odd: sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-big-chill-sea-ice-version/
Eric, The chart above is the 30% chart. The one showing on sunriseswansong.wordpress.com is the 15% chart. The km2 differences are very different between the two.
Ewps! That last sentence came straight from the redundancy department of redundance. ;-D
“Disillusioned” is correct. I was using that 15% DMI graph at my site. It is easier to compare to the other graphs currently in use, which all show 15% use. However I also consult the 30% graph, because it gives you a different view.
When you have a bunch of scattered ice blown up against a solid floe by the the wind, the scattered bergs are herded into a smaller space, and the 15% figure can drop, (as sea with scattered ice is now cleared and “ice free,”) while the 30% graph shows a slight upward blip. Then when the wind shifts open water can be filled with wind-pushed bergs, and the 15% area can rise. Even if the actual bergs are the same bergs and neither shrink nor grow, the graphs can have wiggles.
I wish they would keep that 30% graph, but for various reasons they are phasing it out.
That has cleared some of the fog, but not all. thanks
There is a lot of fog to clear. I’m learning more every day.
According to the DMI website, the above sea ice extent plot has been replaced by another one.
Unfortunately, every time I post a link to it, my comment doesn’t appear here, but you can link to it by removing the “old_” from the above link.
The new one doesn’t show the large fall on August 14th due to missing satellite data but only includes comparison years from 2009.
Also, the extend figures are much higher on the new graph, presumably for the reasons given in the red comments.
It seems strange that there is no reference to the new plot on the old one, particularly if the latter one is to be withdrawn at some stage.
Hmm, I didn’t notice that the “new” graph says OSISAF classifies 15% concentration as ice and the “old” one says 30%. An addtional complication.
I suppose that would account for the higher extent figures, but the red text on the “new” graph also says it is due to the “coastal mask”.
Do OSISAF really maintain figures based on two levels of concentration?