The hockey theory is finally proven. The Arctic has 700,000,000 more hockey rinks (468 m²) of ice today that it did a year ago.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- MLH on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
- Jack the Insider on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Terry Shipman on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
Does that convert to hockey sticks ?
If you lay a hockey stick down on the ice, it covers a certain portion of the ice.
It would take thousands more to cover the rink.
If that is 10,000 (just a guess) then the Arctic gains would convert to 7,000,000,000,000 (7 trillion) hockey sticks.
Now that is a number even obummer would recognize.
700 million is a lot but did you include thickness if not it is actual more then 700 million hockey rinks. Hockey rinks are only about 3″ thick the so the arctic ice is about 2 feet+ thick average where there is more coverage then last year at this time. That comes out to 10,800,000,000 more hockey rinks floating in the Arctic.
equal to 10,800,000,000 hockey rinks of ice in volume of more ice then last year at this time.
Cute, but hardly advances the discussion.
Neither does the IPCC, who are NOT cute, and have cost us trillions. When will you criticize them? Why do you hate humans do?
‘So’, not ‘do’, on the end.
gee, what part of 468 square meters times 700,000,000 don’t you understand?
You’re new to this, aren’t you? Have you taken the time to review the reporting and predictions of AGW true believers over the past 25 years? You are like a freshly minted lieutenant who shows up on the battlefield and starts lecturing the grizzled Sargent about the tactics you learned in your Jr year at the academy. You look foolish, and everyone would be sniggering behind your back if the didn’t realize you could get them all killed with your ignorance. Do you really think all the nonsense you spout hasn’t been vetted on these pages for years? Vetted and found wanting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
They tell me you like wiki.
What’s the square cubic feet?Enough to cover all of United States with about 6″ covering of ice?
Perfect fit.
JAXA showing min on the 12th at 5.0 (Ver 1) and 4.81 (Ver 2). Will see if that holds depending on wind and compaction.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html
Shock news: Forbes says the Guardian, Nutticellie and Meier are FOS.
Put a fork in it. CAGW is cooked. And so is the carbon tax scam.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/