Arctic sea ice at 7-year high

Wait. Wasn’t global warming meant to be melting it all?

Good news from the Arctic. Sea ice extent (area covered by ice greater than 15%*) is at a seven-year high (See NORSEX SSM/I ). It’s nearly back to within one standard deviation of the 30 year normal at 14.5 million square kilometers.

This year’s ice extent is the highest since 2006 at this point in the year.

No worries. Temperature data for February released today show readings at a 32-year low.

Meanwhile, our government continues to spend about $5 million on the Flannery Centre, named after the bloke who predicted our dams would never be full again, the same bloke PM Gillard is paying $180,000 for three days “work” a week to peddle what the evidence has clearly proved to be nonsense.



  1. Hi,
    If we in OZ were not about to be hit with the dearest carbon tax on earth I would definitely have a good laugh about that one. But I just feel like screaming out to the Labor/Greens, but of course nothing will change their minds now, they need the money for the budget.

    • they need the money for the budget.

      And yet it will cost them $4 billion a year…


      • Very true, but I still here the words Penny Wong said, when Rudd said he would move to an ETS in 6 months.

        • Thank goodness. I’ve forgotten what she said!

          • This may refresh your memory.

            • I was actually hoping to keep whatever Wong said in blissful forgetfulness, lol! (but I’ll click anyway…)

              • Ahh, had missed that one. Feb 27th was a TV and watching kittens being born day.

                What’s confusing is that before, the govt. said, sure, it’ll actually cost $4bil the first year, but now they’re saying they need it for the cash.


                Which one is it, Julia?

    • jcsmith
    • March 5th, 2012

    Yes….what global warming?

    And the Arctic sea ice long term trend?

    • I love graphs!

      Seriously? 0.04% of the atmosphere is C02 of which around 95% is natural. So man’s 0.002% CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is driving climate? And if we reduce that 0.02% by 20% it’ll make any difference except to our finances?

      Also, a lot of the MetOffice readings would have to be using unreliable ground based temperature measurements. They are far less reliable than modern-day satellite measurements which aren’t affected so much by things such as urban crawl.

      No one’s suggesting climate doesn’t change. The question is how much of it is caused by us, is any warming really such a bad thing, and is there any tangible benefit for all the trillions we may potentially spend?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: