http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/18.jpg
The ice is about six feet thick at the North Pole, and if it continues to melt at its current rate will only be six feet thick come mid-September.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- 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
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
That webcam is malfunctioning and has not updated for several days. It has a companion which shows the view in the opposite direction:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/9.jpg
Now, why would any honest person, in their right mind, pick malfunctioning Webcam 2 over operational Webcam 1?
So you must be ready to bet on on a record low.
Cut the crap jak. Put your money down on the table,
Steve,
I tried to bet with you based on your views, but although vaguely worded you apparently won’t accept my offer of free money at 50:1 odds
I assume since you only appear to be willing to accept an even bet that you believe there is close to an even chance that there will be a minimum.
that seems to be about what the corrupt fraudulent experts seem to think as well. Good to see that you finally agree with them about something
but, since you seem so worried about this, I am wondering if you are preparing your fall back position in case there IS a new minimum.
You have been going on for so many years about the “recovery” of the arctic ice, that I can understand how upsetting it has been the last three years to have it so clearly be doing anything but recovering. Of course your followers will accept whatever excuse you make if there is a minimum, but you should try to think of something that an outside observer might be able to believe.
my suggestion is that the arctic is in a new stable state and the ice will stay around this extent for quite awhile and eventually recover in 10 or 20 years. That should give you at least another 2-5 years of some sort of vague credibility among the extreme right.
The bet is record Jaxa minimum even odds.
Wow,
breaking news!
Steve Goddard thinks there is an even chance that there will be a record minimum low Sea ice extent in the arctic this year.
here I only think there is about a 1/3 chance of that, and I actually think the arctic is heading toward an ice free summer in the next decade or so
That is because you are mathematically and scientifically incompetent.
Steve,
How silly of me to equate the words “even odds” with “even chance”. What WAS I thinking.
So Steve what DO you think the odds are of a new record minimum? Remember just a few months ago the ice extent was “normal” and there is this cold front you are talking about and the ice is meters thick at the north pole. Apparently you think the odds are better than 50:1 because you refuse my bet even with all the guarantees I gave you.
The bet is record minimum even odds
I’m mathematically and scientifically incompetent enough to bet on a record low. Can I bet?
I don’t doubt your self assesment
I don’t see the “opposite”. I see surface melt ponds on top of the ice. Very common and not a big deal. How do I know they’re melt ponds? Because they’ve been there for “several days” and the ice hasn’t disappeared (which it would have if it was true total melt). Now, why would any honest person, in their right mind, claim that the other direction shows the “opposite”?
-Scott
3 days is hardly several, but I see your point.
The Arctic is doomed!
several
adjective
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several
Gee, I dunno…. When someone tells me something like several days they usually mean a fairly good number. Not… Three.
You know, there are two mass balance buoys at the same observatory, on different thickness areas of the floe. One started on MYI of ~280cm, one on MYI of ~130cm. Current melt rate is 3cm / day top melt and 1/3 cm / day bottom melt.
(note: top melt is being measured at the thinner site and bottom melt at the thicker site, because each site has had one of its sonar sounders stop working)
So, it would be more correct to say “the ice at the North Pole is between five and ten feet thick, and if the current melt rate continues, will be around 5 feet thinner by the end of July. The thinner parts of it are thus likely to melt out by the September minimum.”
Not quite as catchy though.
Blah, brain fart. Ice will be ~1.5 feet thinner by the end of the month, maybe 2 feet thinner by mid Sept, unless the ice edge retreats a lot farther.
So it would be more correct to say ‘you are completely wrong’.
Very catchy.
So you must be ready to bet on a record minimum.
The top melt must be that new kind of melt which has no visible effects on the surface.
No visilble effects? Good joke,
just contact an optometrist near you:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/9.jpg
Two days of snow melt on the surface indicates that the ice is melting quickly?
This is what it looked like on July 12.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screenhunter_84-jul-15-18-27.jpg
Your hysterics are not very impressive.
Melt ponds at camera 1 started developing on the 3rd of July, and were quite extensive by the 5th. At camera 2, melt ponding was just starting to get underway (look at the far right for example) on the 12th.
You can see the rate of top melt at the co-located sonar buoy here:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2012C.htm
Currently about 3cm a day – top melt started at the buoy location on the 13th, so it’s possible it’s closer to camera 2 than camera 1. It will be worth watching how this develops, although be aware that the whole observatory is now half way to the Fram Strait, indicating that the interior of the pack is unusually fragmented and mobile.
Sounds really bad. You must be ready to bet on a record minimum
Here we are, studying ebb and accumulation of Arctic sea ice, which has been variable from year to year since it was observed, with no attempt to correlate it with anything except “global warming.”
The whole thing is the most asinine abuse of scientific inquiry since the days of Archimedes, it is sickening
I can’t even look at it anymore
Welcome to the real Space Age.
Of course you can’t look at it anymore. It doesn’t reinforce your ideology. Avoidance is often the best short term approach.
Tony, you keep forgetting to put the /sarc off in your stuff.
You have to remember to to that or people will take you the wrong way
Point taken.
Bear drowning season is now in full swing.
The good news is, the Polar Bears still have a fleabag I mean researcher in their corner
Charles Monnett, polar bear researcher under scrutiny, returns to work
– By Juliet Eilperin, Published: August 26, 2011
“Bear drowning season is now in full swing.”
And if they get to float on ice from Greenland to Iceland over summer. They have a good chance of being shot for not carrying a valid passport. 🙂
Sadly, I was late to this party.
Still, I’m interested in what the current odds might be…
Looks like a recovery is due anytime now. The odds must surely still be even.
Who are you arguing with?