Mid-day temperatures range from -57F in the center of the ice sheet, all the way up to 20F on the tropical southern coast.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html
The other ice sheet is also melting down faster than expected, at -70F
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael L Dee on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Bob G on Mann Says He Was Correct
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12687272
U see this crap???
It’s not crap Scarlet, unless you want to put your money where your mouth is and do some research and present counter evidence to scientific peer review?
Sorry, you want it to be crap don’t you. Subtle difference 😉
Andy
OK
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/jpl-explains-that-3mm-is-larger-than-6mm/
The amazing thing about peer review is that complete crap gets through all the time.
Andy
As there is no data to show the rate of melt before 1990 they simply don’t know whether the rate is increasing or not. Hence all they can say is that is that the rate is more than models predict. Rather meaningless I think.
“Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, the team says ice loss here is speeding up faster than models predict.”
Peer review? Any prognostication that includes conditional words such as “if” “could” etc., fully justifies the use of the descriptive word crap.
Scientific peer review requires scientists, and so far very few AGW tax sustained researchers could qualify for that description.
Peer review means:
1. We all spout the AGW party line and make it sound as frightening as possible.
2. We never criticize one of our own (even if what they say is absurd).
3. We ostracize and demonize anyone who disagrees with AGW doomsday scenarios.
4. We slobber in unison for handouts we need to keep the gravy train rolling.
So there was no ice added??? Is there supposed to be a net ice loss?