Rapidly Melting Arctic Ice Right At 30 Year Mean

The UK Met Office says that extreme cold this spring is caused by missing Arctic ice. Only they forgot to check whether or not the ice is actually missing.

ScreenHunter_01 Apr. 15 05.32

ssmi1_ice_area.png (1667×1250)

It is great how climate scientists can develop a cause and effect relationship, skipping directly past the “cause” part.


About stevengoddard

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

13 Responses to Rapidly Melting Arctic Ice Right At 30 Year Mean

  1. David says:

    I know we toss the word gullible around a lot about the climate change cult . However I know many otherwise intelligent and educated people who believe this religion. They flat do not like you to make fun of there god CO2. When I showed an article from WUWT how a Tesla S really put out more CO2 than an SUV I thought I would be burned at the stake.

    Mainly people can not be bothered with old news paper clippings because people then were stupid and only todays high priests no anything.

  2. kirkmyers says:

    The MET office is becoming a laughingstock. Its growing desperation has moved it to offer some of the most ludicrous explanations for the lack of global warming over the past 16 years. The agency simply can’t face the facts: there is no catastrophic CO2-induced global warming, and mankind’s impact on global climate (if there is any at all) is immeasurably tiny.

    • tckev says:

      The Met Office is fast becoming the homeopaths of weather services. Dilute a minuscule amounts of CO2 in air for maximum effects.

  3. Tom Bakert says:

    ‘Cause they can get away with it!

    OK, that was somewhat snarky, but I couldn’t resist.

  4. Mike Mellor says:

    According to Richard Feynman, scientific theories arise as follows. First comes the Guess, then the Prediction, then the Observations from Experience, and only then the Conclusion.

    CAGW is a good hypothesis. It is based on good physics. However it has not been borne out by observation. There are alternative hypotheses to explain the same phenomena. That they are equally flawed is not a proof of the CAGW hypothesis.

    Unfortunately the only proof that counts today is how much political support your Guess can gather.

  5. gator69 says:

    It is a cherry picked 27(?) year mean(ingless).

  6. rick pay says:

    It is worse than you thought Steven …. often they skip right past the “science” part too!

  7. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Well, we’re certainly below the ‘thousands-of-years-at-a-mile-deep-over-chicago’ mean. I guess that’s my fault. 😦 And when that mean does return, I’m sure that will also be my fault.

  8. morf says:

    I have been preached to that “volume counts more than extent” – does that fly ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s