COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- arn on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- arn on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Peter Carroll on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- conrad ziefle on Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- conrad ziefle on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- conrad ziefle on “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
Eric Worrall. over at WUWT, estimates the closing of the Drake passage in about 35 years at half the current rate of ice expansion in Antarctica. An interesting thing to ponder – what will happen when that current is cowed?
Is this even possible, with all those strong winds down there?
A more probable scenario IMO is the increasing spreading of colder sea surface anomalies to lower latitudes. In fact, this is already happening.
It definitely will not be a linear type of thing. With the currents and winds, it will be hard for ice to take hold. Some claim it happened during the past (in this ice age). But this ice age was caused by the closing of the isthmus of Panama. Do I wonder what effect the closing that passage would have.
Butt Obozo said we are all gonna fry!!
He said you could keep your doctor as well.
The Arctic death spiral has vanished instead of the ice.
Yeah, and it’s amazing how all the “death spiral” believers have also vanished (instead of the ice)!
Rotten ice!
the guys at the arctic sea ice forum will be so pleased the ice has not all disappeared this year 😉
It’s interesting to me how NASA is billing it. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84418&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_image
If you read the article they make it sound like we’re all still doomed and everything is still “way below average.” Their “average” of course starts when the ice pack was at it’s largest in 1981 to show a continual down trend rather than starting in the 1970’s when things were lower to acknowledge the potential possibility that things could be cyclical.
This looks like the place for scientific illiterates. You guys do realize that this blogger is only including six years in his data, which is not a long-term trend? You also realize that the long-term trend shows the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice? Why read a blog by a guy who has no scientific background?
You sound like a forst rate moron
Paul you want LONG TERM?
Another paper.
A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.
The authors of last paper simply states that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial growth has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.
Other data verifies these findings.
Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits
Abstract
Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from ? 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka. This highstand is further limited by a backshore and beachridge deposit that marks the maximum springtide sea-level just below the base of the overlying beach ridge. After 5.0 ka sea level dropped below + 1.4 m and fell almost linearly at a rate of 0.24 mm/year until 0.63 ka and + 0.2 m as evidenced by the youngest beachrocks….
(wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859
Another Sea-level highstand study shows similar findings:
Would that be the 100 year trend? Or the 200 year trend? Please support your speculation with actual data.
Why is that a single event (pick one) is enough for your side to claim doom and catastrophe, but anything that shows the opposite is ‘not long enough to be a trend’, ‘is just weather’ or any one of a hundred more lame excuses?