Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

muriel_volestrangler

(102,742 posts)

8. 3.41m sq.km was the min. extent in 2012; I think most people are talking area

Reply to CRH (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:01 AM

Jan 2013

which had a minimum of 2.23m sq.km. My guess for area is about 2 million sq. km - it seems to be that the last couple of big decreases in a single year have been followed by a year or 2 at not much worse than before.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Time to go on the record: Is this going to be the year? [View all] XemaSab Jan 2013 OP

I vote no, but it will go lower than 2012 and get pants-shittingly close. Systematic Chaos Jan 2013 #1

I had doubts last year it would go as low as it did. joshcryer Jan 2013 #2

interesting, we're exceeding 4/5 'yes' votes phantom power Jan 2013 #3

And here I thought I was a doomer! GliderGuider Jan 2013 #4

^ What he said. nt Dead_Parrot Jan 2013 #12

It is going to be a jaw dropping summer OakCliffDem Jan 2013 #5

Since it's happened before without man's influence, no. n/t OnlinePoker Jan 2013 #6

I think it could go below 1.5 million sq/km ... CRH Jan 2013 #7

3.41m sq.km was the min. extent in 2012; I think most people are talking area muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #8

Agreed, I think between 2.25 and 2 million sq/km ... CRH Jan 2013 #9

I agree volume is important muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #10

Thank you for your input, added perspective, ... CRH Jan 2013 #11