Green shows the 56% increase in Arctic sea ice extent since the same date in 2012. Red shows ice loss
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “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
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
Recent Comments
- dm on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- Francis Barnett on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Ulric Lyons on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
wow another reason to tax co2 where do they come up with all of this stuff? http://www.nationofchange.org/noaa-ocean-acidification-rises-marine-economy-sinks-1407338906
does anyone know how salt water can turn acid?
No, The Oceans are very well buffered.
As one of the guys at Jo Nova’s said: I use the term “Less Caustic” it drives the Warmists nuts.
Which flavour of “Arctic sea ice extent” would that be Tony?
The frozen H2O kind
ROFLMFAO 🙂
NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent numbers for August 8th (currently the most recent)
2014 = 6.61499
2012 = 5.24862
A simple sum for you: 6.61499 / 5.24862 = ?
NSIDC uses a very low concentration threshold for extent. I’m using closer to 30%
Perhaps this will help. It shows my cutoff point for concentration in green. I don’t include a lot of area which NSIDC does. My approach works out about the same as DMI’s 30% measurements.
sum or ratio? Do you know the diff, Hump?
(To ‘technicals’ there a world of difference btw those two operations.)
.
It’s hard to believe that anything can help him, Steve.
His religion is failing him, that’s a deep, existential crisis.
_Jim – I’m from the UK, where we refer to “math” as “maths”, and “sums” include division.
http://www.freeteacher.co.uk/
Here’s a series of sample sums for you to test your basic division skills out on:
http://www.freeteacher.co.uk/divide.aspx?division=r
Hump, I’m not from the UK. There is a reason we are here, and you are there … and it’s a long story but has a tie-in that we don’t accept carte blanche the dictates of ‘an authority’ without there being a damn good reason (and proof).
Of course, you in the UK are used to bending knee and accepting the dictates of ‘an authority’.
BTW, it’s well past 4 AM Greenwich Mean Time, what are you still doing up? Not based in the UK presently?
I wasn’t up late. I was up early!
I note you and/or Tony still haven’t provided an answer to my “simple ratio”
My maths teacher in Abingdon had a gap between her teeth, and whistled every time she said a word which started or ended with an “s”
Let me see if I have got this straight. Your 56% headline number is based on a methodology of your own devising? If so where is this novel methodology described?
I’m afraid “About the same as DMI’s 30% measurements” just doesn’t cut the mustard.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doesn%27t%20Cut%20the%20Mustard
Don’t be afraid, Hump. Embrace the ‘trvth’ … break out of the mold of same-dom and ‘trained’ repetition (as Pavlov trained his canines).
If you think that your endless talking is going to melt the ice, you are probably wrong.
This entire blog is based on using alternative methodologies to demonstrate how ignorant climate alarmists are.
However these so called “alternative methodologies” are never described anywhere, and your results cannot be replicated.
It seems instead as if this entire blog demonstrates how gullible your loyal readers are?
You really want to go there Jim? All your team has given us for the past 20 years is pictures of polar bears (with study after study showing increasing populations) floating on ice, ‘adjusted’ data that amazingly and with no statistical possibility always shows warming, endless worthless models demonstrating the exact opposite of their predictions/reality and in short – bullshit.
And you are calling us gullible? More of the same ol’ tired leftist projection….does it never get old for you? Grow a pair Jim and quit whining.
Quick question Jim – You obviously aren’t an idiot. So, are you profiting from this global warming scam or just a follower that desperately seeks relevancy? Based on your clinging to this obvious hustle, it’s got to be one or the other…so which is it?
Endless hot air=global warming! 🙂 They work hard at this.
Dr. Goddard, please, please, please, never “spam” Jim Hunt (until he goes to the “dark side” and has nothing to offer but insults).
His continual mis-interpretation of the data is important for all to see. In a small (very small) way, he represents “climate science”. He cannot see reality, just his pre-conceived notions of how it “should” be.
Was curious about the definition of ‘climate wierding’ so I looked up the term on an online dictionary…..and there was Jim Hunt’s picture.
Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area is up 45%
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
i actually had a guess for a minimum extent of 5.2 million km2 at the start of the melt season,i think that will turn out to be too low. if the low temperatures continue the melt season will end early and could well see the minimum extent pushing 6 million km2.
In 2012 at this time of year, NSIDC was losing a record 140,000 km2 of ice per day while, in 2014, the loss rates right now are only in the 40,000’s kms2, below the average of about 60,000 km2.
NSIDC’s September average minimum (used in the ARCUS sea ice outlook prediction game) is coming in at 5.45M km2 in 2014, up 50% from the 2012 figure of 3.63M km2.
http://s8.postimg.org/tz9qqiu5h/NSIDC_Sept_SIE_Proj_Aug9_14.png
Except as an attempt to generate excitement on your otherwise useless website, what gives you the right to say “doesn’t cut the mustard?” We know Tony’s bona fides and know he is capable of doing original research in these areas. All I personally see of you is the extreme arrogance of a typical drive-by propagandist hoping to make a quick score. The other thing we see are those beautiful satellite pictures of snow and more snow at the poles year after year. I’ve been hearing about the year the ice melts for 20 years. For a time I actually believed it. Now I can’t believe the breadth of the lies from the government and academia about climate and weather, but today I know why they are doing it. Meanwhile, the Arctic rocks on doing its cyclical thing with little or no input from us humans.
You meanwhile are a mosquito in a swamp of lies. Your are a rusty icepick against a growing granite mountain. Show those who comment here regularly what you bring to the discussion. “Where’s the beef?”
Ernest – In “Real Science” reproducibility is what “cuts the mustard”, not your “bona fides”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
In reality, scientific conclusions are always revisable if warranted by the evidence.
Science is not based on a consensus.
reproducibility is what “cuts the mustard”
As in – even though all the govt’s results, although repeatable (but NOT from year to year as the PLOTS of temperature show) being fallacious (on the ‘adjustment’ basis) and show warming *only* through adjustments and manipulation are nonetheless ‘scientific’.
GREAT …
.
Jim Hunt
In “Real Science” reproducibility is what “cuts the mustard”, not your “bona fides”.
The post modern science of the IPCC and their models do not run on such out-moded ideas.
Could you find out how the climate model are programmed and run.
And what independent validation and verification process were they subjected to to prove that –
1. The code did what it was designed to do, (model global climate).
2. The model products were close to reality (model output compare well to measured climate).
This is for Jim Hunt at 4:45. Practically nobody here needs a lecture on reproducibility in the scientific method. Steve/Tony has posted an article on his blog, not a paper. He produced a graphic using data from a credible source. He told you he uses 30% instead of 15% ice data. He tends to use established mathematical methods to produce charts and graphs. Nature, itself, has backed up his assertions by and large as anybody can see from satellite pictures. Arguments about percentages means very little as Nature will have the last word.
Steve Goddard (the name you use on your website) has “street creds” because he has successfully exposed Progressivist manipulation of real data to fit an agenda. My question, again, is what do you bring to this discussion besides false arguments with little merit? BTW, I’m not defending Tony. He certainly doesn’t need it. I just enjoy engaging arrogant Progressivists who crop up on the site from time to time.
Arctic sea-ice alarmists now reduced to disputing how much the ice has INCREASED.
That tells me everything I need to know.
+1
+2
+3
+10
And piomass as of aug. 1 agrees. You can feel the disappointment in Neven’s blog that the world isn’t ending, even as the Hiroshima heat bomb keeps counting up. How many Hiroshima bombs can explode deep in the ocean without any evidence. Evidentally several thousand.
Watch out for Polar Bear-nado, http://wn.com/polar_bears_falling_from_the_sky
Are you sure that isn’t The Onion?
No, not The Onion, that’s just the kind of commerciials the whackos produce. Fits right in with exploding children (look up one called “No Pressure”), drowning Santa (“Christmas 2013 might be cancelled!” ) and drowning puppies and kittens (h__ps://www.you tube.com/watch?v=QD2WTK94c1U)
Can’t forget the one shown in 2009 at Copenhagen, either.
There’s a ton of them out there.
I’ve seen “No Pressure”, and have no wish to see it again,
Dim?
It’s rhyming. slang, Jim, but not as we know it.
Hugh K says:
Was curious about the definition of ‘climate wierding’ so I looked up the term on an online dictionary…..and there was Jim Hunt’s picture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well he did go by the name of Snow White until he came out of the closet. (Was pushed and shoved out by A.W at WUWT)
As it happens Gail, I went by the name of Jim Hunt in cryo-cyberspace until I was pushed and shoved out of (un)Real Science by a certain “S.G”!
http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYO0joolR0
You’ll no doubt be pleased to hear I’m having more luck reproducing your JAXA results than I am with ACNFS: Thanks to your helpful hints this is where I’m up to:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/498948398012461056
I only get a 45.8% increase though, so something evidently needs tweaking. Precisely how do you select your approx. >30% concentration area?
DMI 30% should finish the season about 70% above the 2012 minimum.