Green shows multi-year ice which is present now, but wasn’t present in week 37, 2012.
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”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Mac on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Francis Barnett on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Francis Barnett on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on Perfect Correlation
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
Multi-year ice is ice that has been around for one year?
Survived an entire year
That’s shocking. What if the same happens next year?
How old is that multiyear sea ice in green measured in months ? From your 2012 to 2013 comparison it seems to be about 12 months, which is 1 year, unless I am very much mistaken.
And 12 months is 1 year. So how can 1 year be multi year ? Unless 1 is more than 1 ?
You cannot say there is a massive increase in multiyear ice when comparing ice that did not exist 1 year ago. That ice is 1 year old by default,
This is nonsensical
Andy
WTF are you talking about?
Ice that has appeared since 12 months ago cannot be multi year by pure logic. It can be maximum 1 year old.
It’s you who needs to show WTF you are talking about in this instance. Doesn’t make sense. Stop trying to grab headlines when none exists.
Rest of your blog postings today are ok though.
Andy
ROFL. The ice was present 12 months ago, but was not multi-year ice yet.
Steve, while not ambiguous, the headline can lead the undiscerning reader to misconstrue your point. “wasn’t present in week 37, 2012” apparently leads the casual reader to miss the math and interpret, as Andy did, that it wasn’t present at all; when in fact, you’re saying it wasn’t present as “multi-year” ice. Dumb it down a bit damn it!
Damn Andy, how dense can you get anyway? The graph shows growth in multi-year ice just that that big old headline says. Hard to understand? Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!
He is considered a genius among his circle of green friends.
It may not be “pure” logic but it is a normal age counting method.
How old are you the day before and the day after your birthday?
Some one needs to put up ice dam at the Farm straights, Multi year ice is pouring out into waters that will melt it quickly.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
World sea ice extend above average: http://iceagenow.info/2013/11/world-sea-ice-average/
And this is from Dr. Death Spiral’s bunch (Mark Serreze- NSIDC at the University of Colorado).
It’s probably much worse (for them) than we think.
Ice is ice. The regression to “multi year ice” is a lie that uses old data as an excuse to ignore how cold and frozen the Arctic is this year. Lies and lies. “Multi-year ice” is a lie and a misdirection.