Saturday, September 22, 2007

Business as usual

The National Sea Ice Data Center has an animation showing how the sea ice minimum extent has changed from 1979 - 2006. The 2007 extent is shown on the right. Click on the image for the animation.


A true successor to Bambi meets Godzilla.

13 comments:

Holly Stick said...

I read somewhere a suggestion that warmer water could come in through the Bering Strait. Maybe that could have produced that large bite at the top (based on my experience of defrosting my freezer and watching large chunks of ice melt in the sink)

Anonymous said...

Can Rabetts Swim

http://www.netdisaster.com/go.php?mode=flood&url=http://rabett.blogspot.com/

EliRabett said...

Ask Jimmy Carter

John Mashey said...

Perhaps that rabbit was related to that guard rabbit in Monty Python & The Holy Grail, i.e., "Run away, run away."

Anonymous said...

Doesn't it seem strange that the "large bite" noticed just happens to be north of China? All the ash from those coal-fired plants putting soot on the ice?

Can't get the animation to run. Is that "bite" occurring in the same place each year?

If so, it may be man-caused, but localized to one country causing the damage.

The other edges (next to Canada, and a line from Greenland) don't appear to be that far back.

Dano said...

I think all the #5 stations in the USHCN are up where the ice is melting. Their contaminated data is what's killing the polar bears. As soon as addled amateurs completely photodocument the network and AEI, NewMax and JohnDaly get a hold of them, the ice will grow back.

No, really.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

I asked about the "bite" in the ice.

I expected a serious answer, but then the Rabett Blog attack dog jumps in.

Really Dano, if you don't know an answer, why reply at all.

To the more serious bloggers, can someone point me in the right direction to show me:

1. Data for the sea ice MAXIMUMS, and

2. Some data that shows where the maximum loss is. From the pictures shown the bite is north if China. Is this a consistant area, or does the bite area change?

Anonymous said...

Really Dano, if you don't know an answer, why reply at all.

Really, anon, if you're not sure if my topic is germane to yours, why mention me at all?

I was merely pointing out, in general, the general weakness of boilerplate denialist arguments.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

"Dano said:

I think all the #5 stations in the USHCN are up where the ice is melting. Their contaminated data is what's killing the polar bears. As soon as addled amateurs completely photodocument the network and AEI, NewMax and JohnDaly get a hold of them, the ice will grow back.

No, really.

Best,

D"


Followed up by:

"Really, anon, if you're not sure if my topic is germane to yours, why mention me at all?

I was merely pointing out, in general, the general weakness of boilerplate denialist arguments.

Best,

D"


And I'm merely pointing out that when a serious question was asked you label the person as a "denier". Talk about a boilerplate reply.

How can anyone get a straight answer from the AGW believers on this blog, when the first reply I get is a cut-down?

So I'll ask YOU directly, Dano:

From the pictures shown, the bite is north of China. Is this a consistant area, or does the bite area change from year to year?

Dano said...

you label the person as a "denier"...[h]ow can anyone get a straight answer from the AGW believers on this blog, when the first reply I get is a cut-down? So I'll ask YOU directly, Dano... [emphasis added]


First, I wasn't replying to you. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my comments.

The original Dano comment was a riff on the uselessness of denialist arguments in the face of the situation on the ground, esp when re-framed in a way that makes this uselessness clear. And the riff framed the denialist "argument" to have the proper light shined on it, to best show the ridiculousness of it all - the lack of denialist testable hypotheses, explanations, data, journal articles, scrunched-up crayon scribbles on soiled napkins [the 'no, really' was the best reply possible to thinking people who would question the specious stance].

Second, I'm not interested in the question to such a degree where I'll do your research for you and your seemingly serious "question" of the "reports" that "Arctic" "ice" extent "is" "shrinking" "due" to "AGW" believers like Hansen's "questionable" "data". I'm focused on green infrastructure in urban environments right now when I'm not deriving amusement from the argumentation of the shrinking Denialist Corps ("Living by Markets, Loving by Chance, Annoying by Shrill Ideology" ).

Surely you can visit a half-dozen sites and answer the question for yourself. Let us know what you find.

Hope this helps.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Dano said:

"I'm focused on green infrastructure in urban environments right now when I'm not deriving amusement from the argumentation of the shrinking Denialist Corps ("Living by Markets, Loving by Chance, Annoying by Shrill Ideology" ).

Surely you can visit a half-dozen sites and answer the question for yourself. Let us know what you find."


In other words, you just post here to laugh at the "denialists", not because you have a real concern for AGW.

I just asked here because Rabett says "RTFR". I'm assuming that he has read ALL the reports, and had a quick answer. He doesn't.

I am researching the question, and it's not looking good (for the pro-AGW croud). And yes, I'll post results: on a better blog, Climate Audit.

Dano said...

In other words, you just post here to laugh at the "denialists", not because you have a real concern for AGW.

Step up your game, boy. No one here is stupid enough to do your simple research for you. Or to think because you have an easily-answered question that calls into question the AGW believers.

Yer a hoot.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Dano:

"Step up your game, boy. No one here is stupid enough to do your simple research for you. Or to think because you have an easily-answered question that calls into question the AGW believers."

Either that, or no-one there is smart enough to answer it.

AGW believers seem to have the answer to ALMOST every denialist claim (except this one, that is)

I am currently "working" the data now (introducing "biases" like Hansen has). When I'm done, I'll post the results: just don't ask me how I came up with it.