http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
This is due to cold weather, right at the 1958-2002 mean.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
- Earth Day 65 Years Ago : Life Expectancy In Greenland Was 25 Years
Recent Comments
- Peter Ellis on 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Ano on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Steven Goddard on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Lazarus on Leftists Increasingly Frightened By Free Speech And Debate
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
Partners
How many Gizas is that?
According to Wikipedia, Google and answers.com it is approximately 285 Great Pyramids of Giza to one Manhattan.
1 Giza Great Pyramid = 7 city blocks
1 Manhattan = 2,000 city blocks
It appears someone should call Al Gore and let him know polar bears won’t be drowning this year.
Al Gore’s gonna have to find a way to trim down that Arctic ice. Invest in the cherry syrup for snow cones. He’s got the money.
That looks like about 1,000,000 sq. kms. in about 30 days
=33,333 kms2 per day
= 1,388 per hour
= 23 per minute
Manhattan is about 60 kms 2
So it takes bout 2.5 minutes.
NOT 20 seconds.
Impressive stats nonetheless.
Anybody care to check my assumptions. I am not a scientist.
I think you are correct
i meant
NOT 30 seconds
John….that’s the size of Egypt in 30 days
Manhatten has 87.5 km2, multiplied by 2 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 7,560,000 km2.
You better take your article off the web again, “Steven Goddard”.
Anyhow, what’s your real name. Why are you hiding behind an alias when you claim to run a scientific blog site?
Interesting. What about Manhattan?
Charlie. Maybe you are dyslexic. 59 km^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
Take your meds.
So you take Manhattan’s 28 km2 of water area away. Is that a compulsory acquisition?
Anyway even if you only took Manhattan’s land area you’re getting 59.5 km2 * 2 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 5,140,800 km2.
The author can either not read graphs or he is unable to use a calculator.
Further: The arctic ice mass has a negative trend of -2,900 km3 per decade. That equates to the whole area of the UK covered with 12 metres of ice! And the trend is accelerating => http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/arctic_sea_ice_volume_PIOMAS_2011.jpg
I prefer getting my infos from real scientific websites and not from climate change deniers aka “Steven Goddard” => Really bad year for Arctic sea ice (ScienceNews, 6 Oct 2011)
End of story.
Charlie, I think you are mentally ill.
You’re some pussy…
The PIOMAS trend shows an ice free Arctic by 2015. I assume you are betting on that.
http://www.real-science.com/piomas-shows-ice-free-october-1-2015
Did you draw that graph yourself? This question is legitimate as I caught you presenting a false graph about northern hemisphere snow coverage (you remember) last year. I really visit your site very rarely. But every time I see mistakes.
Here a real PIOMAS graph => http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/arctic_sea_ice_volume_PIOMAS_2011.jpg
And how do you read zero ice mass at 2015 out of it? My conclusion in a previous post that you can’t properly read graphs must be true then.
:rolleyes:
Charlie,
You aren’t very bright. I plotted the PIOMAS volume data. You provided a link to their anomaly graph.
You can’t determine absolute numbers from an anomaly graph.
I’m sure you have a source for your plot.
Charlie,
Get a clue. It is right on the PIOMAS web page which you already found yourself.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
I knew I could debunk your graph again.
I don’t know which data you cherry-picked out of the data set, but here is the full graph => http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Volume-PIOMAS-1979-2011.jpg
Looks a bit different, “Steven Goddard”, doesn’t it?
So, your conclusion (title of your article = PIOMAS Shows Ice-Free October 1, 2015) is again a fake.
Yawn! Your fake “science” site sucks!
Charlie, you are a complete moron.
Obviously the ice free Arctic will come at the summer minimum, which is what I plotted.
That’s what YOU plotted. Exactly. Not PIOMAS. So your headline, “PIOMAS Shows Ice-Free October 1, 2015″ comes solely out of your brainstorm, not from PIOMAS!
qed
Oh good. A new village idiot.
As I said, you’re some pussy.
Two articles debunked as setup just in a couple of minutes…
Should be enough for another wee while now, “Steven Goddard”.
After you get your next dose of meds, come on back!
Charlie:
You apparently did not follow the minimum trend that you showed. Following the trend line forward it sure looks like 2015 to have an ice free minimum if not before. That is really good because they can increase shipping and mineral exploration in the region. One day soon they will have and oil rig sitting atop the geographical pole! Think of all the jobs that will create in the region!
Minimum trend…
Which formula? Where is it to be seen in that plot?
=> my comment on the article: it’s a setup coming from the author and not (as pretended) from PIOMAS.
Renewable energy creates more (and sustainable) jobs than drillng for Arctic oil.
Burning more fossil fuels resulte in more global warming = global climate change. That’s basic knowledge – but not for some obscure climate change deniers.
Two articles debunked for what they are: bad setups.
End of story.
Charlie:
Renewable energy is more harmful to the environment than fossil fuel energy and destroys jobs. In Spain they lost 2.5 real jobs for each renewable energy job created. Net loss.
Global Warming would be good as it would bring back conditions experienced during the MWP, with additional warming giving us the conditions that existed during the RWP. And further warming would be required to attain the better conditions from the Minoan Warm Period, which itself did not compare with the Optimum conditions of the Holocene Climate Optimum of eight thousand years ago.
For maximum climate optimization we would need to return to the weather patterns of forty million years ago before the start on this glaciation period when Antarctica started covering the south pole and freezing over which started the current ICE AGE with its cycles of glacial advances and retreats that we are still experiencing and they seem to be getting worse rather than easing.
COLD= BAD
WARM=GOOD
Charlie needs to retake his math course in problem solving again, Me thinks.
First Charlie, why are you multiplying 59.5 km2 by 2 and then by 60?
Right there is the hint to where you went wrong.
And even if you used 87.5 km2 for Manhattan, then the answer you would get is 1512000 km2 not 7,560,000 km2.
No wonder Climate science is so screwed up with people like you Charlie.
Sorry, that should be 1436400 km2 if you use the 87.5 km2 for Manhattan, as it would take 3.8 minutes to make the same ice content in km2, not the 2.5 minutes as I used earlier from what john mackie posted.
You know, with the kind of language the person who posted as Charlie Williams used here, it makes you wonder if he is who he says he is.
A minute has 2 times 30 seconds, right?
An hour has 60 minutes, right?
A day has 24 hours, right?
30 days are 30 days, right?
Therefore: Manhatten has 87.5 km2 (=> Wikipedia), multiplied by 2 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 7,560,000 km2.
Am I talking to first graders here?
Charlie:
You are still talking 30 seconds while the rest are talking 150 seconds / 2.5 minutes. You are using a different surface area measurement for Manhattan than the others are using. You are comparing your Dog’s Breakfast to their Cherries.
According to leading climate researchers you need to be very selective to achieve the desired results!
Your surface area requires using 228 seconds rather than 30 or even 150.
No wonder your responses are so FUBAR!
I suppose you have sources for your statements, Mike Davis. None of them I can trace.
In respect to Manhattan: I debunked the author’s article and headline as a fake. You can babble as much as you want about 2.5 minutes and take Manhattan’s water area way or whatever. A fraud headline is a fraud headline. Full stop and end of story.
Charlie:
When was the last time you looked at the headline. It was corrected.
You only provided fraudulent claims using your preferred Al-Gore-Rhythm. Sort of like saying 2+2=7 if the proper corrections are applied by recognizing water as land and other islands as being part of the island of Manhattan. To be honest about this the fill areas that expended the islands land mass can not be considered as they are human created rather than a natural feature of the original Manhattan that ended at Wall Street as that was the area the Dutch bought from the native inhabitants and not the entire island. The rest was stolen later after the English stole that part from the Dutch!
Me thinks Charlie has selective (cherry picking) reading skills as he seems to be lost where john mackie pointed out that it would take 2.5 minutes to form that ice and Steven Goddard agreed. So Charlie your rant is way out to lunch here. And if you think your talking to first graders here, then you must be in Preschool, because your whinning is being heard loud here.
Charlie: I have found the problem with your math … it is one Manhattan every two minutes, which is 59.5km2 divided by 2, not multiplied by two, which puts your calculations off by a factor of 4 (ie: 1, 285, 200 km2). I hope this helps …
Charlie, have you asked Tamino and DeepClimate the same? And, do you really care who it is? If so, why?
Charlie has won me over….
…his highly intelligent calm demeanor, it’s obvious he not only knows what he’s talking about, but that he’s correct…
…oh, and I’m giving up bathing and brushing my teeth too
I don’t see how the protesters can keep occupying these things at this rate.
this is more in the real perspective:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Another fantasy created by their favorite Al-Gore-Rhythm that extrapolates something from nothing!
The only “fantasy” here is your denial of AGW.
You are discrediting scientists without a single traceable reasoning. I suppose guys like you give a shit on real science.
Charlie:
There is nothing about AGW to deny because it does not exist in the real world. There are long term weather variations we have experienced and humans contribute to regional weather conditions because of land use and land change, but that is only about 1% of the global surface. Being that one percent is what is being measured it appears as if weather patterns have changed due too humans, when in reality they have not to any measurable extent, other than long term cooling since about five thousand years ago that is continuing today.
Of course living in your fantasy world you would not be able to see that.
=> http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
I wonder who’s teaching you such weird conclusions out of wrong assumptions.
I can see at this website are some real amateurs working. Far way from “real science”. The reason for that? Probably the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Just realising that the author has changed the headline from 30 seconds to 2 minutes (not the first time he had to change a headline because I disproved him).
Well. Manhatten has 87.5 km2, multiplied by 30 * 24 * 30 = 1,890,000 km2
Can we see 1,890,000 km2 on the graph? No.
Is it usual seasonal gain? Yes.
Why to stop the presses then and coming up with false headlines?
“real science” my arse!
Re “not the first time he had to change a headline because I disproved him” Do keep up! It was none of your doing. The headline was changed due to the comment by john mackie (see 3rd down from the top)
Re “Is it the usual seasonal gain? Yes.” Almost but not quite. Look at this graph by Uni.Bremen ( I hesitate to link to a Uni.Bremen product after their recent fiasco – but this “ice extent rate” graph is interesting) http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ext_rates_n.png
Note that a month ago 2011 was towards the rear of the field. Now it is leading it. Meaning that the recent rate of ice extent increase has been faster than any in recent years.
Charlie your wrong again.
john mackie says:
October 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm
That looks like about 1,000,000 sq. kms. in about 30 days
=33,333 kms2 per day
= 1,388 per hour
= 23 per minute
Manhattan is about 60 kms 2
So it takes bout 2.5 minutes.
NOT 20 seconds.
Impressive stats nonetheless.
Anybody care to check my assumptions. I am not a scientist.
So to be exact if Manhattan is 59.5 km2 then you divide that by the 23 km2 of Arctic Sea ice per minute and you get 1 Manhattan of Arctic Sea ice for every 2.58 minutes
Now Charlie if you use 87.5 km2 for Manhattan then you divide that by 23km2 and it will give you 1 Manhattan of Arctic sea ice for every 3.8 minutes
Now remember, john mackie says, “that looks like about 1,000,000 sq. kms. In about 30 days” you understand that’s what it looks like and not what it actually is it could be more it could be less.
Now at One 59.5 km2 Manhattan it takes 2.58 min to get that freeze rate, so you use 60 min in an hour divided by 2.58 is 23. 26 Manhattans of ice freezing every hour. Now you multiply that by 24, as there is that many hours in a day and you get 558.24 Manhattans of ice freezing every day, and multiply that by 30 days you get 16747.2 Manhattans of ice freezing every month. Now you have to multiply that by 59.5, because that is the size of the Manhattan we used here and you get 996458.4 km 2 of sea ice. I don’t know about you but that looks pretty close to the 1000000 km 2 of sea ice we see in that graph Steven Goddard used here.
Now at One 87.5 km2 Manhattan it takes 3.8 min to get that freeze rate, so you use 60 min in an hour divided by 3.8 is 15.79 Manhattans of ice freezing every hour. Now you multiply that by 24, as there is that many hours in a day and you get 378.96 Manhattans of ice freezing every day, and multiply that by 30 days you get 11368.8 Manhattans of ice freezing every month. Now you have to multiply that by 87.5, because that is the size of the Manhattan we used here and you get 994770 km 2 of sea ice. And again I don’t know about you but that still looks pretty close to the 1000000 km 2 of sea ice we see in that graph Steven Goddard used here.
Now obviously, when I was running the numbers last night I was mixing up the time and the km2 being used for Manhattan somewhere, but after laying it out here this is what you get.