Reggie Hits The Jackpot Again

Reggie claims that 2013 Arctic summer temperatures have been similar to 2007

Let’s check his claim out. The graph below has the 2013 area (degree-days) above freezing colored in red.

ScreenHunter_59 Jul. 05 18.34

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The next graph shows the same thing for 2007. Note that the YTD number of degree-days above freezing in 2007 was almost ten times greater than 2013.

ScreenHunter_60 Jul. 05 18.36

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The 10X difference in area is unrealistic however. Given that the latent heat of melting ice significantly depressed the temperature in 2007, it is safe to assume that the amount of heat available for melting ice in 2007 was much more than 10X the amount of heat in 2013.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Reggie Hits The Jackpot Again

  1. Latitude says:

    even with the higher temps….NASA still said it was the wind in 2007

    “Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”

    “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

  2. Glacierman says:

    Off by one order of magnitude? That’s actually excellent performance for Climate Scientists/Alarmists. They can’t even come close to that on temps while constantly adjusting decades old data to fit their models.

  3. When you have to pick cherries like that, it shows you are getting desperate

    Have you seen the latest Bremen ice concentration map?

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png

    There is a massive area north of 90 that is showing 50 percent concentration and if you enlarge the map you can see areas streaks of blue, which is concentration below ten percent.

    All that unprecedented cold is eating gigantic holes in the ice north of 90.

  4. Now you’re scrapping bottom with that out of context Maslowski quote

  5. Traitor In Chief says:

    You know, Grace wasn’t bad when she was a young-un. Even if she was floating around north of 90.

  6. The freezing point of seawater is -1.8C. The melting point of snow and freshwater ice is 0C.

    Latitudes north of 80 typically have an almost 100 percent cover of snow and freshwater ice, this constrains the temperatures to the melting point of snow and freshwater ice. This is visible on all the DMI graphs in the data set.

    2013 is an anomaly because for the first time we see large areas north of 80 with low sea ice concentrations. This has altered the temperatures. The air temperatures are now being constrained by the ocean temperatures.

    Bottom melt accounts for about two-thirds of the total arctic ice melt. Bottom melt is greatest in the marginal ice zones. 2013 has seen large areas of the central arctic turned into a marginal ice zone.

    If you don’t understand the physics of ice, ice melt, and the arctic energy budget – then it might be difficult to explain how a year with DMI showing temperatures consistently below freezing can also be the year with the lowest sea ice concentration north of 80. All that open water just magically appeared despite below freezing temperatures and absolutely no melt. Yeah, right 🙂

  7. The areas of low concentration are not MYI .

    Strike one, dumbass.

  8. Billy Liar says:

    Here’s another Reggie classic from an earlier post. I think he and Kevin are teleconnected:

    Reggie, sponsored by Brawndo says:
    July 5, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    What did I say the was factually incorrect? I qualified that statement with the word mostly.
    At what temperature does sea ice met?
    Hint, it isn’t 273K

    [he means ‘melt’, of course, not ‘met’]

Leave a Reply

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