From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Utter garbage on Sky News:
The video makes two claims:
1) “The record low sea ice extent is due to higher ocean temperatures and warmer air.”
They do not mention that ice extent was at a record high as recently as 2014.
Nor do they mention that the ice has not “gone missing”, as they claim, but strong winds have pushed it polewards. As a result, the ice is thicker than normal:
Nor do they mention that temperatures are well below in Antarctica currently, about minus 30C. Not the heatwave they claim is happening, which they dishonestly base on one day in March 2022:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2&ortho=1&wt=1
2) “Sea levels have risen by 17mm since the 1990s because of melting Greenland and Antarctic ice. By 2100, another 170mm will have been added.”
In fact, according to DMI, all of that 17mm has been caused by melting of Greenland glaciers, something which has been going on since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19thC.
Some studies even suggest that Antarctica is actually adding ice, because of greater snowfall.
As for the 2100 projections, they are pure junk, just like this Sky News video.
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
Read more about Antarctica at EverythingClimate.com
“ As a result, the ice is thicker than normal:”
Really? Red/brown is a negative anomaly. Looks thinner to me.
I am usually a gadfly to Mr. Stokes. However, integrating the area and color intensity of the red/brown (by eyeball) also looks like thinner ice to me.
Don’t ignore all the blue.
Nobody is ignoring it, but it’s a fraction of the red.
Not for the first time, Paul demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the data he is presenting in support of his own arguments.
It’s a pattern.
Nick is right!
There is a first time for everything I suppose….
This is from Paul’s website written by himself.
“The second image shows that, although ice volume is much less than average, it is NOT the lowest on record. The record low appears to be from the 1980s, though it is not clear which year.”
Overall the ice is thinner than normal looking at the chart, but where the winds blow the sea ice too will be thicker than normal.
There are two large areas that have much thicker ice than normal where I believe the winds have blown it towards.
1) East of the Peninsula, where winds have blown it towards the pole and this land area itself.
2) SW of Antarctica, where winds have blown sea ice from the western side of the Peninsula and/or from the ocean south of Antarctica towards the SW. Likely why sea ice in the SW has increased above the red line of normal for time of year.
“This is from Paul’s website written by himself.”
Not in the article copied here. That quote cone from an article written 2 weeks ago.
The fact that he knew then that the volume was much less than normal, but now I sits there is no “missing” ice, says a lot about the author.
Did they mention the Antarctic research unit recently recorded its 5th coldest temperature? Thought not
MSM hacks lack any understanding of mathematics, namely Geometry (shapes)
Any 3D object has mass, that mass depends on its measurements – length, width, depth – these values give its volume
You can adjust all 3 measurements and yet keep the same volume, the same mass
It maybe smaller in terms of length and width, but if it’s depth has increased, it’s volume remains in synch, it’s mass is identical, you just see less of it (via satellite imagery) because more is under water – basic maths really
I understand strong winds have packed the ice, making the length/width smaller, but the depth greater – same volume, different shape
Gotta agree with Nick on this one, not that I think it’s anything unusual but current conditions show ice loss not gain
No. I’m sorry that is not correct. It is thinner on average as is plainly evidenced by the included graphic in the article. Also, concentration is running pretty close to average. That means the ice is not pushed poleward, but gone.
Notice that compaction is typically around 80% this time of year and right now it is 78%. And since compaction = area / extent we know that it goes down when extent goes up. So if anything the ice has been spread away from the pole, albeit by a small and insignificant amount. Alternately you can say that area has gone down as well. Either way this is exactly opposite what the article author said.
NSIDC says that there was possibly a similarly low level of sea ice in 1966, but satellite observations then were not good enough to confirm it. They do however conclude that “sea ice extent is highly variable.”
let’s see what happens next year.
That comes from [Gallaher et al. 2014]. They also cite [Fogt et al. 2021] which suggests 2023 is highly unusual in a period from 1905 to present. But yeah, this could just be a fluke. I think what has many scientists scratching their heads is that the expectation was that sea ice in the SH would actually continue to increase through at least to 2030 and possibly into the 2060s before beginning the secular decline.
I agree that the weather earlier in the year which inhibited sea ice growth in some (but not all) of the Antarctic regions is likely to be a fluke. However what you can say about weather is that it is unpredictable and often confounds expectations. We’ll just have to see.
Actually it was this time in 1976 when Antarctic sea ice extent was lower than it is at present.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1689361995055902723
Interesting. I was just quoting NSIDC. It confirms their statement re variability.
You do realize Tony Heller is flashing between January 1976 and August 2023 right?
No, they don’t realise that. ‘Skeptics’ here are unique. They never check anything that confirms their bias.
At the height of the ice age scare. When alarmists were declaring we were on the verge of another ice age.
This is typical of Homewood’s posts he doesn’t have a clue about the data he’s looking at (see his recent one about Greenland).
This is a misrepresentation of the english language.
There is a difference between saying where the winds blows as an result the ice becomes thicker than normal. What has the overall Antarctic ice volume got anything to do with this?
There are areas that are dark blue indicating where the sea ice has moved too.
Homewood is saying that the amount of ice (aka volume) hasn’t changed. It just contracted and piled up higher.
“as they claim, but strong winds have pushed it polewards. As a result, the ice is thicker than normal:”
Nothing to do with the overall Antarctic ice volume.
Where winds blow sea ice it results in thicker than normal ice volume.
From his website:-
“The second image shows that, although ice volume is much less than average, it is NOT the lowest on record. The record low appears to be from the 1980s, though it is not clear which year.”
I’m not sure what your point is. Homewood is saying the sea ice isn’t gone. It just contracted and piled up higher. I’m saying Homewood’s statement is incorrect since sea ice has done the opposite of contract and its thickness has decreased.
The only place it’s thicker than the normal is well off shore in the Amundsen/Bellinghausen seas, that’s the opposite of Homewood’s claim that the thick ice was pushed ‘polewards’.
The main other place is east of the Peninsula. (Weddell sea)
He has a long history of it.
When his blog started out he posted a monthly update of all the monthly global temperature data sets. This was a decade or so back, when all the talk was about the ‘pause’. He bought ‘pause’ theory hook, line and sinker.
So he kept updating the monthly global temperature stats on his blog in the expectation, I believe, that they would continue to pause or even cool. They didn’t, of course. One by one they all got warmer. He dropped the various producers off his monthly updates, one by one, as they continued to show warming, until he was left with UAH alone. And then UAH got warmer too.
The monthly updates stopped some time ago. It’s quite a funny story, really. He still has a ‘tip jar’ for the truly gullible.
Alternatively, you can say that the extent/area was low in early July but is increasing and returning to the multiyear average.
Yeah. Just eyeballing concentration the trendline would start at about 77% and end at about 79% during July.
“Not the heatwave they claim is happening, which they dishonestly base on one day in March 2022”
There was warmth when the ice started to fall behind in March/April. From here, the station-measured anomalies in March 2023:
And here, more emphatically, is April
why is you colored drawing red, for freezing temperatures, while all the other colored graphics show red for 100 degree?
Me thinks you need to do some learning about anomalies.
Because that’s how you misrepresent the data and
scare the crap out of people who don't do their own researchHmm. Seems that it is plenty cold enough to be frozen.
Thank you for posting the actual temps as well – the anomalies are fine but were misleading, since a +4°C anomaly doesn’t mean much when it’s -40°C!
It’s called “lying by statistics”
It’s trolling
Yes, off course, And it is freezing. But more slowly than usual, because it was warmer than usual.
Nope. However it is nice to see that finally, after weeks since I first posted it, you can see the unseasonable weather that caused the reduction or inhibition of sea ice growth. Unfortunately the rest of what you say is, as usual, garbage. Just because the weather was slightly warmer earlier in the year there is no reason to think that it can’t get even colder now – there is no kind of thermal inertia at work here. Have a look at the weather patterns around the Antarctic in the intervening period – whatever has/is happening is because of the weather patterns. Start looking there and stop just looking at the thermometer for heavens sake.
Nick if it’s that cold why would the ice have anything to do with climate change??!!
Being cold does not mean is was not warmer than average. Ceteris paribus being warmer than average means that freeze rates would be lower. If being warmer than average is caused by climate change then you can link climate change with less sea ice. But Homewood isn’t challenging the link to climate change. He is challenging the fact that it was warmer than average in March by posting a graphic of the temperature on August 9th.
But it wasn’t caused by climate change was it? It was caused by an anomalous weather event that we have been talking about for several weeks now on various topics. It’s weather, no links to climate change.
I don’t know to what extent climate change contributed to the Antarctic sea ice extent over the last year. That’s irrelevant since it was warmer than average in Antarctica for much of the last few months regardless of how much climate change contributed. And using the temperature on a single day from August to challenge the warmth in March is absurd.
It’s not as absurd as Tony Heller feigning incredulity about there being more sea ice now (in August) than there was in January 1976. That is a whole new level absurdity.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1689361995055902723
No, just no. I solely mentioned the anomalous weather event earlier in the year and challenged a possible attribution to ‘climate change’ why you then wanted to drag in this ‘day from August’ nonsense is beyond me – I had to go back several posts just to work out what you were talking about. Stick to what I said, please, don’t go inventing another conversation completely.
This thread is about Homewood challenging the temperature in Antarctica in March.
So what? I wasn’t replying to the main article. I was replying to a single point that you had made in a single post. You were the one that subsequently attempted to deflect the argument by introducing a completely different conversation.
So the water freezes slower at -40 than at -44?
As someone who has worked outside in the far north, your body cannot tell the difference once you get below -35.
It’s just cold.
Such nonsense.
Correct.
Then you should not be insinuating that a human can determine the rate at which water mass is converted from a liquid to a solid simply being feeling the air temperature especially when it is that cold.
I assure you…the thermodynamics of heat extraction and the phase change from liquid to solid and the amount of mass that be changed over a given period of time is not nonsense.
What determines the rate of freezing, when it is cold enough, is the rate of transfer of latent heat from water to air. That goes by a diffusive pathway, governed by Fourier’s Law. That is just like Ohm’s Law. The flux, and hence the rate of ice formation, is proportional to the temperature difference. Raise the air by 4C and the flux reduces, and ice production slows. As it has.
Nick, it’s really about water temperatures around the edges of the sea ice.
How many times does it have to be said here? Surface Mass Balance (SMB) is NOT the total mass balance. Using the definitions from [Mankoff et al. 2021] you need to know SMB, solid ice discharge (D), and basal mass balance (BMB) to find total mass balance (MB) via MB = SMB – D – BMB. The only area not losing ice is the EAIS. But Antarctica as a whole is losing mass as is Greenland. [Otosaka et al. 2023]
From the most recent annual data at the site you provided:
2022,-68.237296,90.701768,461.226890,41.510417,506.193843,47.900031,23.270332,5.520659
MB is -68Gt/y +- 90 Gt so the actual value could be a gain, and even so this value is dramatically less than previous years.
The MB includes the huge amount that is Discharged every year by calving and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers (506 +/- 47) – I don’t think ice that has been floating on the surface like an ice berg though still attached to the ice cap should panic anyone when it calves and separates – it can float around for YEARS before it possibly reaches warmer waters and melts away – regardless its bulk was already reflected in the mean sea level.
Finally, the best thing that could happen as far as the biosphere is concerned is that both ice caps completely melt away, releasing all that wasted, trapped water back to an essentially dry, parched planet, especially when compared to the Cretaceous and Eocene ‘paradise’ periods of health and diversity.
New York City and other low lying coastal cities will just have to suck it up and start building dykes because having the Sahara and Arabian deserts and the Outback restored to forests and grassland would be worth it.
Can you provide a link to actual government data? What about the fact that Antarctica hasn’t shown any significant temperature trend one way or another for 50 years?
Otosaka et al. 2023 contains government data [1].
Your maps show daily anomalies. You are not going to be able to parse out the drivers of seasonal ice extent by looking at a single day. Here is the map for June:
It’s quite obvious that the anomaly around Antarctica is strongly positive – temperatures this winter have been warmer than usual.
You are not going to be able to parse out the drivers of seasonal ice extent by looking at anomalies – temperatures are still way below freezing, even near the coasts – have a look at the map of actual temps that Nick posted.
A classic misleading comment you make since it is actually well below freezing as pointed out HERE
-1 is warmer than -2. It can be below freezing and still warmer than usual. Let me know if you need more help understanding how numbers work.
Yes and since we are considering the ice balance in this article a few degrees warmer is irrelevant when the temperatures in the Antarctic are -20 and colder.
And you are basing this assertion on… ?
95% of the region is normally below MINUS 10 below zero all the time, while the one-day map shows that the entire Ice shelf was MINUS 20 below zero and colder the map utterly destroys your claim why are you being this dumb?
The single day reanalysis map does not tell you much about conditions across the ice growth/melt seasons. You need to look at monthly anomalies to see that. It doesn’t mean very much in regards to ice growth to say that it was a particularly cold August 9th, but it does mean something to say that it was a warmer than usual June or July.
If you need help understanding why the difference between a single day and months matter with regards to seasonal sea ice growth let me know, I can try to break it down at a lower reading level.
You are flailing now since this chart destroyed your claim totally and this the normal range at this time of the year.
LINK
The anomalies destroy the notion that this is the normal range this time of year since the anomaly is positive. That explicitly means the temperature is above the mean climatology. The claim that the southern ocean around Antarctica is not warmer than usual is false. That the water is cold does not mean it is as cold as usual.
Ha ha ha, no one disputes the small warming event but it is still around MINUS 20 below zero and COLDER there.
Thus, not remotely close to a melting point and it that means your ignoring actual temperature information makes clear you are unreliable on this topic because you don’t take up the sum of the evidence into a coherent reality which is a common problem warmist/alarmists have because they have a one eyes view of the entire story.
Homewood disputes the warming. So if you agree with me that the waters around Antarctica are warmer than usual then you need to take this up with Homewood instead of arguing with me, since you disagree with his assessment.
It might also be helpful if you realised that the warmer weather earlier in the year occurred at the height of the Antarctic summer. Warmer weather in summer is not unusual – let me know if you need more help understanding how the seasons work.
A warm summer means more sea ice melt which means lower sea extent going into the winter growth season which means lower overall annual sea ice extent. A warmer winter means less sea ice growth which means lower overall annual sea ice extent.
Hope this helps.
No it doesn’t. The temperatures are usually so low that sea ice forms all year round – the rate of sea ice formation slows down or speeds up depending on how far below freezing it is. How else do you account for the thick, multi-year sea ice?
The usual method of removal of thinner sea ice is by wave and wind action during storms – which has far more effect on the thinner sea ice than on the thicker sea ice. The conditions this year were such that the sea ice was slow to thicken up and was broken up and dispersed by storms.
And no, your ‘explanation’ really didn’t help in the slightest.
Sea ice around Antarctica forms during the winter and melts back during the summer. There is multi-year sea ice because it never melts away fully. This is the same in the Arctic. The rate of sea formation and melt are in part determined by the temperature of the ocean surface. When the ocean surface is warmer than usual during the summer melt season, the rate of melting is greater. When the ocean is warmer during the winter growth season, the rate of sea ice growth is lower and the extent is lower.
Of course there are additional factors to consider, such as wave and wind action, but the topic of debate is sea surface temperature, which Homewood claims is not warmer than usual this year, and the basis of his claim is the anomalies for yesterday, which is not an appropriate or valid basis for such a claim.
Please explain to me exactly how ice melts when even Antarctic Summer temperatures are usually below freezing?
What will usually happen is the wind and wave action will break up the sea ice, whilst sea ice formation slows down as the temperatures get comparitively warmer then increase as the temperatures get colder towards the winter. Summer sea ice growth cannot replenish what is being lost whilst Winter sea ice growth is usually much greater. This year, an anomalous weather pattern inhibited the sea ice growth into early Winter and the winds broke up more of the thinner ice causing an overall loss of sea ice.
Not true, most of Antarctic sea ice is first year ice, the Weddell sea is where there is some multiyear ice. The Antarctic sea ice area reached a record low of ~1.05 million km^2 at the end of Feb 2023, it has since grown to about 12 million km^2 about 2 million below average and most likely will be that amount below the annual maximum in October. So currently ~90% of the present sea ice is first year ice.
Please post the map with actual temps instead of anomalies right away- before thousands book their holidays to that bright red West Antarctic beach!
I think the average person can tell the difference between anomalies and absolute temps, it only seems to be on this forum that people are struggling with the distinction.
You went out of your way to use the misleading Anomaly chart while ignoring the actual temperature map that you will never accept because it is at least MINUS 20 below zero.
LINK
There is nothing misleading about using anomalies to point out that the Antarctic is warmer than usual, after all that is the point of anomalies. What is misleading is to say it’s still cold so what’s the problem?
Your anomaly comment is useless junk because you again ignore the fact that it is still waaaaay too cold for it to matter as it is MINUS 20 below zero F to Minus 60 F thus no ice melt is possible.
Anomalies are based on a short time frame baseline thus inherently misleading anyway, but actual temperature is always valid.
Warmist/alarmists love affair for short baseline time frame Anomalies while ignoring actual temperature values is common which is why they lack credibility in this.
It’s hardly useless. More liquid water mass freezes at -60 F than at -20 F over the same period of time. You don’t even need to know the absolute temperature. Just knowing that it is 40 F cooler is enough.
Do you admonish UAH for using anomaly data?
Haven’t seen you doing that.
But you always have to keep in mind (if you had one) what the temperature is an anomaly from.
That is the problem with parrots like FN, they only have room for one partial thought at a time.
If it’s ‘warmer than usual’ and misleading to say ‘it’s still cold’, then why don’t we drop you off there in t-shirt and shorts? Or would that be a little too ‘misleading’ for you?
Poor Simon, bereft of science as always.
Now the poor little mite thinks that ice melts at -20ºC.
Basic knowledge and science, missed at primary school level.
It really is quite simple. The colder it is the more ice/water freezes. That means when it comes melt time if there is more ice to melt there will be more ice left over = increase. the reverse is the same. See if you can work it out?
Sometimes I get so used to the fact that the contrarians here argue against the most universally accepted scientific principles that I forget how absurd it all is. I mean…do we really have to defend the fact that the colder it is the more liquid water freezes? Really?
bdgwx – I would normally agree with you on this one point except for the muppets insisting that, because an ‘anomaly’ is positive, ice must be able to melt, despite the fact that the actual temperatures aren’t within spitting distance of the temperatures at which ice melts. If you could perhaps have a little word with the ignorant so-and-so’s, perhaps explain what melting actually is and why it doesn’t happen to the sea ice at the Antarctic, I’m sure we’d all appreciate it. Because if I have to see one more moron quoting from his “Big Buk of Klimit Kaos” about how ice melts at -10°C or -20°C I will likely be thrown off this site for the inevitable response. It’s worse than the moron’s pontificating on the Kilimanjaro ice ‘melting’ when it was nothing of the sort.
Indeed. If you can understand what ‘par’ means in golf then you should be able to grasp what an anomaly is, I would have thought. Not a stretch for most people; but it can be quite different here.
So you do understand that a +1ºC anomaly from a real temperature of -20ºC, is not going to cause melting !?
I’m surprised if you were able to figure that out.
Why climate data uses a rolling period to calculate anomalies is beyond me. It’s as if the whole of climate science has never learned anything about time series analysis. The data should be deseasonalized as the first step. Next, the question to be asked is if the resulting deseasonalize data is stationary. The whole anomaly approach in climate science is just wrong if you want to use the tools of time series data analysis.
Anomalies are deseasonalized. For example, here are the baselines UAH uses for each month.
It doesn’t. It uses the most recent full 3-decades as the anomaly base for normal reporting and the 1961-1990 base for comparing climate change over time. Mystery solved.
Would love to see where they got all their measurements from in the 1950s
Even CRU said that nearly all the SH ocean data was “just made up”
You are posting a non-factual anti-science fabrication.
So, none of the troll-like parrots can explain where the measurements in the SH or any of the northern oceans, from the 1950s came from.
It is as if the KNOW FULL WELL that they are pure fabrication.
Or maybe they are as dumb and ignorant as Nick-pick and are clueless what the “reference” period is on their own charts.
Yep, now proven, through no counter argument…
… that they KNOW FULL WELL that they are pure fabrication.
Just two years ago Antarctica recorded the coldest 6 months since records began. Did man made CO2 cause that too?
Most of Antarctica has been warmer than normal very recently for June 2023 but not for May.
Air temperatures are well below freezing even on the coasts for the mainland.
Max -10c to -18c and lows -16c to -38c. (June 2023)
When the bi-polar seasaw actually becomes more noticeable soon, the alarmists focus will be on Antarctic rather than the Arctic.
Bit annoying that Roy hasn’t posted the July chart yet .
When he gets time, I guess.
He has
See Australia had its warmest July in the UAH record.
Australia year-to-date is in 19th place (out of 45)
Apart from one month, it’s been pretty normal
Jan… 31st place
Feb… 24th place
Mar… 9th place
Apr… 17th place
May… 24th place
Jun… 16th place
July, btw, is the middle of winter down here
Nobody is complaining about a single slightly warmer winter month. !
In fact, everybody I know is saying how glorious it has been !
Mostly full-on blue skies, not too windy, very brisk mornings though. Nice days, warm enough to remove the jumper.
Now, what possible idiocy can you dream up to put any human causation on this absolutely glorious weather ?
This winter reminds me of the drought year winters when I was growing up on the plains out of Narrabri.
Around freezing first thing, then warming up to the low 20s (metric, low 70s Imperial) and not a sign of rain.
It all seems alright (apart from the cold start) until you think that the crops and feed aren’t growing, and it’s likely that the remainder of the year will be just as dry.
Oh, and the strong chance of a late frost just as the heads are starting to fill on whatever wheat has struggled through so far.
</digression>
2 – 22 and dry has the same midpoint as 8 – 16 with rain. The joys of average temperatures.
That’s odd , it was still coming up as June for me.. must have been a cache issue..
Notice that all the bright orange places are towards the poles, except the slight one on South America.
No dark orange across the Mediterranean area the alarmists were all yelping about a couple of weeks ago.
The two dark orange spots in the NH, one just below Greenland and one over the Canadian Archipelago… Who is going to be concerned about them ?
So, no arguments, no counter…
.. obviously agree with the facts…but just don’t like those facts.
So funny ! So petulant. !
What facts am I supposed to have countered this time. You post hundreds of comment at me, and then claim some petty victory because I didn’t respond to this particular one.
So funny! So petulant! So needy!
Still an empty little slave, I see.
No counter, just blather.
“blather” from someone who posts dozens of comments mostly insulting anyone who doesn’t give you the attention you crave.
What fact did you want me to address? Literally all I did was post the map for July. All you have done is point to where on the map the warmest anomalies are. What’s there to address?
We already knew that globally this was globally the warmest July by some margin in the UAH time frame. We now from what Spencer said that this was the warmest July in the tropics by a large amount. We can now see from the regional data it was the warmest July in the northern hemisphere outside the tropics by a small margin 0.05°C.
Maybe in topic for this post it was a very high anomaly in the Atlantic Ocean, though only the 2nd warmest behind 1990.
I’m really not sure what point you think you are making. That it the earth doesn’t count because it was more spread out? That it doesn’t count because the warmest places where not where many live?
Just to illuminate the scientific ignorance of journalists in general with an example:
On 9-10th February 2023 we had Sky News (UK) – reporting on the aftermath of the 7.8 Richter scale earthquake in Turkey – the report switched to their “Science & Technology” editor Tom Clark (the same guy above) – who stood in front of a chart clearly indicating the values of lateral acceleration the buildings had been subjected to as 743cm●Sec-2 acceleration which he reported as “nearly a meter per second” velocity. He apparently doesn’t know the difference between acceleration and velocity – which by Prof. Snow’s admonition in the Two Cultures lecture is the technical equivalent of being unable to read (more likely he could not read the scientific notation of
743cm●Sec-2 {exactly} as it appeared on the slide – can you ? – it means centimetre per second per second – 743cm●Sec-2 is about 0.076G)
And he’s their “Science & Technology” editor. This was not a simple error it was repeated every hour for 24 hours without correction which means not one of the journalistic staff noticed the slip up – or worse simply considered it unimportant but more probably, not one of them can read “science” ! (Except whoever created the chart – which I suspect was supplied by an outside bureau – probably the BGS – British Geological Survey department.)
Well he probably had never had to consider peak ground acceleration before – he probably always had someone giving him simple Richter scale numbers.
743cm * s^2 is 7.43m * s^2 which is relatively close to 9.8 m * s^2 and quite far from 0.076G (The expression “1 g = 9.80665 m/s2” means that for every second that elapses, velocity changes 9.80665 metres per second (≡35.30394 km/h). This rate of change in velocity can also be denoted as 9.80665 (metres per second) per second, or 9.80665 m/s2.)
P.S. Unless it’s 7.43cm…
L.J. Sorry decimal error -.0,76g – you are quite right – I’ll go stand in the corner with my pointy hat with a “D” on it for an hour.= given the rant, that’s embarrassing..
I once designed and built a vibration tester that emulated a truck load area at 1g vertical at 4-6hz (since it was driven randomly on opposite sides it produced erratic motions( – everyone in the shop tried to stand on it and walk or jump off it – no-one could – that’s why you often see people crouching on the ground during an earhquake – it’s impossible to move when you become wightless there is no friction to propel against – so you end up on all fours – it also makes getting out of a building impossible. FYI
If you only know how many times I make a mistake like that. I’d be willing to bet I make embarrassing mistakes like that more often than you do.
I once repeatedly said carbon had 12 protons. Obviously it only has 6. It’s atomic number is 6 while its atomic mass is ~12. I’m still beating myself up for that flub.
You rise in everyone’s estimation, especially your own, when you admit an error. (I should know!)
TFN you have never had to admit to errors in any of your posts.
And yet is perennially WRONG about basically everything.
That was the implication I was getting at – the basic assumption is that ALL of TFN’s posts will be wrong!
Your estimate of yourself must still be as a mindless, ignorant grunter, then.
Yes, but still miles above my estimate of you.
Seems like there is some uncertainty on what’s really happening at the South Pole. No surprise there.
Some people believe it is ‘climate change’ and are busy creating a theory and narrative around CO2 causing it all to happen. Others realise it is the weather doing what it does and have ambled off to put the kettle on. Ooh – biscuits.
None of this matters, there are cycles upon cycles, and we can not control the weather or climate, we just have to ride along with whatever mother nature does, no choice.
Why don’t we ask the recognised expert in Antarctic sea ice behaviour “Ship Of Fools” leader Chris Turney?
Did they mention the Antarctic research unit recently recorded its 5th coldest temperature? Thought not
MSM hacks lack any understanding of mathematics, namely Geometry (shapes)
Any 3D object has mass, that mass depends on its measurements – length, width, depth – these values give volume
You can adjust all 3 measurements and yet keep the same volume, the same mass
It maybe smaller in terms of length and width, but if it’s depth has increased, it’s volume remains in synch, it’s mass is identical, you just see less of it (via satellite imagery) because more is under water – basic maths really
As others have said, SMB does not equal total ice mass. Funny that the measurements which actually measure the total ice mass are never shown here. Here is the history up to 2020 (if anybody can find a graph which is more recent than 2020 – that would be helpful). https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/31/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2020/
Please explain where the decrease in ice-mass on Antarctica landmass has gone if it hasn’t melted into the ocean and therefore raised sea-levels.
GRACE “data” not accepted here,
Too much volcanic and magma movement for gravity based measurements to be of relevance.
Here is a graph of total Antarctic ice mass since 1900.
FACTS are really hurting the cowardly worm now, aren’t they.
When they need to go get their friends to come on here just to downvote the comments you know they’re running on empty!
It really is simple. Where is the spike in SLR if melting is accelerating? Not present! Thus GRACE is junk when it comes to providing accurate data on ice masses.
This is obviously a sudden event , most probably caused by another recent sudden event.
I suggest that instead of panicking manically, and carrying on like pack of headless chicken-littles we wait and see what happens over the next year or two.
Meanwhile, realising that the Antarctic sea ice has been at low levels for many period of the Holocene.. (see link below)
… and the world is still here. !
Who suffers anything from low Antarctic sea ice?
This a great time to send another “Ship of Fools” 😉
Stability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet during the pre-industrial Holocene | Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
ps.. the Southern Ozone hole started increasing in size much early than normal as well.
Something in the Stratosphere, perhaps? 😉
No-one sane and rational could possibly give any human causation to the low levels of Antarctic sea ice this year.
The cretin down marking has absolutely no evidence of any human causation to the low levels of Antarctic sea ice this year.
Just doesn’t like to be shown that fact.
Poor petal !
No-one sane and rational could possibly give any human causation to the low levels of Antarctic sea ice this year.
Prove me wrong, or forever be a coward.
Forever a slimy little coward… marked so by your own actions.
I don’t suppose you have any self-shame at all, do you.
I think we may have experienced a tipping point! The upticks were mine btw!
Strange things happen when the optical transparency of the Atmosphere changes.
Mt. Redoubt Eruption date range: Mar 15 – July 9 Plume: 65,000 ft.
Note: Antarctic Sea Ice sets record low 3 years later. Prior was 2007
jan-2009 2009.0416 0.9307
feb-2009 2009.1250 0.9337
mar-2009 2009.2084 0.9012 <— Redoubt, No doubt
apr-2009 2009.2916 0.9129
may-2009 2009.3750 0.9289
_______________________________________________________________
Australian Brush Fire (2019-2020) particulates cross the equator, possibly? No Strat. injections in 2021
Note: Antarctic Sea Ice sets record 1 & 2 years later.
mar-2021 2021.2084 0.9246
apr-2021 2021.2916 0.9216
may-2021 2021.3750 0.9128 <— ???
jun-2021 2021.4584 0.9251
jul-2021 2021.5416 0.9236
aug-2021 2021.6250 0.9279
_______________________________________________________________
ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory – Global Radiation and Aerosols (noaa.gov)
2009 Mount Redoubt eruptive activity – Wikipedia
This is not about surface temperatures. This is about heat coming from below, not above.
It’s not a melt off it’s a slow freeze. That drop in the anomaly occurred while the extent grew by about 13 million sq km it would have taken about 16 million to reach the average now.