Understanding The Ice-Free Arctic

NSIDC shows a large swath of the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska as ice-free.

N_20180802_extn_v3.0.png (420×500)

But if you zoom in on satellite imagery, there is actually a lot of ice there.


But why let reality get in the way of global warming propaganda?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Understanding The Ice-Free Arctic

  1. Phil. says:

    15% ring a bell?

  2. Gator says:

    “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”
    -J Stalin

  3. frederik wisse says:

    The perpetuation of the lies educated to to our children is raising to bizar levels

  4. spike55 says:

    Russians show that region as 10-60% sea ice

    I would trust the Russians ANY DAY, over the socialist scammers at NSIDC.

  5. R Shearer says:

    Might that actually consist of plastic straws?

  6. Crashex says:

    When I saw this I thought this is a perfect example of intent and reward.

    If your goal is to find ice, and you get a reward for finding ice, you see the ice.

    If you goal is to find not-ice, and you get a reward for it, then you see empty sea.

    The very same thing is going on in the Hudson over the last couple weeks.

  7. Anon says:

    I am not sure Tony understands the full range of mathematical tools we have available to us these days. Hopefully his new software will reflect them, as I outline below:

    Another useful mathematical approach would be to round down all of the sea ice that is less than two meters in thickness to zero. There are quite a few good justifications for doing this.

    1] The ice covering the surface of the Arctic is only a thin “rind” and when mixed /
    incorporated with the rest of the water column, which is thousands of meters deep, the surface covering is really insignificant. (certain less than 15%)

    2] Is it really ice or just compressed snow? A lot of what is termed “ice” up there is really just accumulated snow, from precipitation, not actual “sea freeze”. So this would be another reason to discount ice of less than 2 meters in thickness.

    3] Much of the ice that is less than 2 meters in thickness is likely only going to melt anyway. This type of ice is really only “temporary” and transient and should not be given the same weight as thicker more permanent ice.

    4] Boat hull technology has improved to such an extent, that 2 meters of sea ice, back in the 1900s, is more akin to 12 inches with today’s technology. Yet another reason, albeit technological, to discount ice that is less than 2 meters thick.

    So, if this modern and rational calculation approach is adopted, it would open up huge parts of the Arctic for all kinds of navigation, economic and tourism opportunities that are currently denied to humanity by antiquated calculation algorithms, methods and biases.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      One of the funniest things I have read all day!

    • Disillusioned says:

      Since the empty marine traffic maps don’t seem to have any effect on Phil and the rest of the natural climate change deniers about how clogged the Arctic is, perhaps this scientific New Math will help one of them to accept the challenge to kayak their way through the Arctic and prove to the world just how navigable and ice-free it really is. ;-)

      Phil took Tony’s bait hook, line and sinker.

      • Phil. says:

        Empty marine traffic maps don’t have much to do with what is being discussed here which was the status of a particular region of the Beaufort sea. Tony claimed that the Worldview image showed that the seaice coverage there ‘is much more than 15%’. Analysis of that region where there are no clouds using ImageJ shows the contrary.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I think this is a very good proposal based on solid mathematical reasoning but I don’t like the arbitrary limit to ice thickness under 6.56168 ft. Folks may question the precision and rightly so. What if the ice is 6.56169 ft thick?

      We should use a round number everyone can understand and remember like 2.1336 meters.

    • Louis J Hooffstetter says:

      Makes perfect sense to me. And while we’re at it, why don’t we just call snow, rain? That way snowfall will be a thing of the past and children won’t know what snow is, just like David Viner of the climatic Research Unit at East Anglia predicted in 2000.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.