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
- 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
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
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?