Global temperatures are lower than 17 years ago.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Look for alarmists to continue ramping up the lies for as long as they can get away with it.
-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- 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
May 2013 M T W T F S S « Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Recent Comments
- Dave Burton on Sea Level Data Corruption – Worse Than It Seems
- Chris Korvin on Canadian Polar Bears Doomed
- Scarface on Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- Barry Musser on Joe Bastardi Nailed It
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Rob Ryan on About Me
- Andyj on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
- Scott Brooks on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
Partners
OT Did you know that there is an ad at the top of this page to sign a petition to tell the epa to fight climate change? Sponsored by the league of conservation voters.
Don’t be surprised at the colder temperatures. It is hard to warm things up when 70% of incoming sunlight is reflected off the planet at wavelengths that cruise through CO2. There are more consequences! The Eurasian albedo will assure an Arctic refreeze in excess of 300,000 Sqkm, but NOT at depth, so the new pack ice will last perhaps through most of this season, but not into next.
Solid sea ice packs Hudson’s Bay as of Jan–
temps minus 20 – 30.
Polar bears cavort with seals in their bellies.
http://churchillpolarbears.org/2012/01/churchill-bears-on-ice/
When I look at the two pictures of sea ice, there is abviously less land and more open water for ice in the older picture. Has anyone bothered checking if the number of pixels for counting sea ice are the same? I know there was a post about the straight by Canada, but when ice is only getting close to the mean “average”, but the sat pictures shows almost the same ice, I wonder if it is even possible to hit the same highs now there is more land and less ice. Have they adjusted the old counts to account for the loss of water too?
The actual count is done on the data pixels, which are equal-area. They are then remapped to a different projection to generate the visual maps, after which the snow overlay is added. Technically the projection used for the visual images (and ONLY for the visual images) is one where you are looking directly down on the North Pole from a given height. This increases the apparent area of the pixels in the centre, and decreases (by foreshortening) the apparent area of the pixels towards the edge. For a visual illustration, this is entirely appropriate as (a) it focuses detail on where the ice actually is, and (b) it’s “what you would see by eye if you were there”.
At some point in the last few years, they changed the projection for the most recent maps, which is why the apparent land areas change. It does not affect the underlying data, only the low resolution illustrative gifs on the website.
Please keep in mind that the 5 foot depth (or greater) multiyear ice that permeated the Arctic in 1995, is now reduced to a thin strip along the Canadian islands. Coverage in area does not equate to coverage at depth, so the extent of the total area will be far greater in summer 2012, but its melting in subsequent years is almost assured. The fragility of the remaining, and much thinner, icecap is stunning!
What will happen if the wind piles the ice back up…making it thicker
Winter ice is one thing, how about summer ice?
A nice article by Dr. Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/could-arctic-sea-ice-decline-be-caused-by-the-arctic-oscillation/
The piling up of ice through floating plate movement against the Canadian islands is the only reason we still have a section of 5 feet or greater ice anywhere in the Arctic ocean. Multiyear ice (ice that makes it through the summer) averages less than three feet in thickness now, down from 5 to six feet throughout the Arctic Ocean in the 1980s.
There are still pressure ridges that form when the plates collide, and those can exceed 10 feet in depth, and somewhat less height above the cap, but as a percentage of total floating ice, they are miniscule.
The difference between one summer’s ice depth and the shallower following year is between 2 and four inches, depending upon how cold the previous winter was (and 2011-1012 was quite cold). It doesn’t take too much in the math skill department to see where this is headed.
…so you seem to think multiyear ice is caused by cold
As opposed to heat??? Or perhaps aliens???
Sorry! Couldn’t resist – I try to keep blog posts serious, so hope apologies are in order and accepted!
We’ll see… there a lot of underwater volcanoes heating the Arctic Ocean as well which aren’t given enough attention. Also the Atlantic is still kinda warm, so that part of the Arctic sea ice has taken a hit as well.
…wind
It is obvious that ice thickness takes a long time to grow. After multi year ice hit rock bottom in 2008 we have seen it gradually rebuilding
This year 4 year ice figures are likely to increase substantially, and next year 5 year ones should follow suit. Gradually this will lead to thicker ice becoming more widespread.
Tomwys:
You are ignoring the most important factor in ice conditions, WIND! The wind will either push the ice out of the region or restrict it from leaving. A good portin of MYI is pushed out during the winter. The cold allows the ice to form, the wind packing the ice determines the thickness.
Hi, Mike!
Certainly wind is in there, but its a bit more involved! I’d be hard pressed to call wind “…the most important factor in ice conditions,” as ocean currents have an enormous effect. The thicker ice leaving the Arctic Ocean each year passing through the deep channel between Greenland and Spitsbergen is current driven, as the polar easterlies hit this ice stream broadside. Current inflow through the northwest and southeast shallower Bear island passages also pushes the ice plates, when those currents enter the Arctic Ocean.
When the plates collide, pressure ridges form, and when they separate, the ridges find equilibrium and sometimes break off, flipping over on their sides to do so. Accumulations of these “ex-pressure ridges” used to constitute the majority of the 6 feet or greater accumulations of ice depth, and permeated the entire Arctic Ocean. However, as posted above, the few that are left just were (current and wind) driven towards and alongside the Northern Canadian islands.
The remaining pack (and more permanent) ice plates average three feet or less in depth and continue to slowly shrink in depth.