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
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
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?