Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 Next
Comments 64001 to 64050:
-
Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Robert Way, a very interesting post. To help me interpret it, 1) What are the start and end dates for the MWA and LIA periods used in the comparison in figure 2; and 2) Does the 0 degree baseline in the temperature anomaly graphs in figure 3 represent the average over the 1961-1990 "modern" interval. Also, it may be helpful to mention the modern interval within the post rather than relying on readers reading the abstract. -
andylee at 10:11 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Rob @17, thanks - I'd like to think that most people can quantify an average 1GW power station, however nebulously. 1 million 1kW heaters is a lot of power! The UK has 75 GW of generating capacity, about 1kW per person. Humanity uses and wastes orders of magnitude more energy than it should need. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:09 AM on 14 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
muoncounter @ 27 Thanks for the link to the video. I enjoyed the simple demonstration when it was first posted at SkS and use it as an example when talking to people. Cute doggy. KBow @ 26 Thanks for the link to the Khan Academy. I am excited by the prospect of breaking through the education barrier and that site looks very promising. I have the home page open as I write and many topics are jumping out at me to be studied. Looks like a great resource and it is now in my Favourites. "8-) -
ranyl at 09:26 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
True Camburb, but from the abstract the present day is taken as the 1961-1990 average temperature. Hasn't the arctic heated a little since then???
Response:[DB] Please limit image widths to no more than 500 pixels.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:22 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Colour me skeptical, Camburn, but you make yet more unsupported assertions. Got any peer-reviewed sources from reputable journals that tie those two proxies into such an Arctic-wide presumptive statement? It's Ok, I'll wait... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:21 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
3, Camburn, No. The proxy shows temperatures at most 0.6 degrees C over about 1950, not present day. By contrast, annual temperatures in 2011 in that same region were 1 to 4 degrees warmer than 1950-1980 baseline. Today's warming is very frighteningly beyond what the proxy says. Robert Way, To clarify things for Camburn... what is the latest date on the proxies for that region? -
Tristan at 09:17 AM on 14 February 2012Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
If more energy has been 'used' to melt ice than predicted, does it follow that less energy will have gone into heating the ocean/atmosphere than predicted? If so, how much less 'heating' would we have seen since the ice decline parted company with the IPCC predictions? -
Tristan at 09:12 AM on 14 February 2012Temp record is unreliable
Any word on how much HadCRU4 will rectify this discrepancy? -
Camburn at 08:30 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
One item of note is the temperature of the forest-tundra area, figure 3. The pollen proxy data is confirmed by bowhead whale proxy data in that the Arctic was warmer during a significant amount of the past than present day temperatures. -
Yvan Dutil at 08:14 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
I am always amaze hot much scientist can do with fragmented data! Nevertheless, I wonder how figure 2 and 3 refer to the same values? -
Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
andylee - On the other hand... At a TOA imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2, with an Earth surface are of of 5.1x10^14 m^2, the imbalance adds up to 459 TW (not GW)! Or sufficient energy to melt that ice in 1/10th of a year. -
william at 06:33 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Nice comment by John Russell (I'm paraphrasing) on how the air stays the same temperature in the vicinity of ice as latent heat keeps the whole system at or around 0 degrees C. Once the ice is gone, the incoming heat can warm the air. How much truer in the case of the Arctic ocean. As long as the ice is there in large quantities, the Arctic ocean will stay around 0. When it is gone we should see some real temperature rises. Watch the clathrates break down then. -
David Lewis at 06:24 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Ice doesn't have to melt to contribute to sea level rise Eg: Williams et.al.: Evidence for iceberg armadas from East Antarctica... -
Roger D at 06:09 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Very informative video on the significance of what the study implies regarding sea level contribution and contributions from different melt sources – thanks. If I can, I’d appreciate any input from people on something I’m not clear on. I’m enquiring because I anticipate that a – cough- “skeptical” friend of mine, a very nice person, but who seems to be unaware of the difference between science and a headline in the Telegraph, might bring this up soon. Question: In hindsight it does not seem surprising to me that the ratio of shrinking to growing glaciers documented for observable/ measurable glaciers that are comparatively accessible to researchers would not match what this study found using GRACE data for higher elevation glaciers in the Himalayan Range. In short, I’m wondering if anyone can say whether or not the “answer” that is derived from the GRACE data could have, should have, or may was expected simply based on temperatures in the high Himalayas. Or are there gaps in temperature coverage for the Himalayan range that might have made such a seemingly logical expectation (i.e. the % of glacier shrinkage at comparatively lower altitude is greater than at very high elev.) less straightforward than what it seems to the layman like me? Hope that made some sense and sorry for the basic-ness of the question. -
David Lewis at 05:58 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Tad Pfeffer, one of this paper's co-authors, was recorded on video as he gave the Nye Lecture at this year's AGU. He noted that the status of glaciology as a science has changed somewhat since 1960, when its definition was included in "Mrs. Byrnes Dictionary of unusual, obscure and preposterous words". "We're in the spotlight now" He talked about the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of glaciology. The importance of sea level rise to civilization makes glaciology an "applied science", as opposed to the more purely intellectual endeavor it once was, he said. He called attention to the great efforts scientists in his field are making to provide global data and analysis at this crucial time: "Up until recently our inventory, our knowledge of where the glaciers are in the world and how big they are - this isn't just a matter of the total area or volume of ice in the world, but what's the area and elevation of distribution - we only knew that for about 48% of the glaciers in the world and even that was brought up from about 40% - 48% ... in 2009. This increase from 48% to nearly 100% has been accomplished by this group of about 40 contributors... in one year in anticipation of AR5 and I think its a magnificent accomplishment" One thing I found when comparing the chart of data from the Jacobs et.al. study that was published in the Guardian (I haven't been able to get the actual paper yet) to Hansen's estimates for what is going on published in his Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications paper, i.e. his Figure 14, was that Hansen's mean value for the total contribution from Antarctica and Greenland to sea level rise was 0.85 mm/yr, whereas what Jacob et.al. found was 1.06 mm/yr. I.e., Jacob et.al. find that in the regions where most of the remaining ice on the planet is, ice mass loss is greater than what Hansen recently thought. -
John Russell at 05:31 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
It's also worth remembering that it takes 80 times more energy to melt a block of ice at 0 degrees C into water at the same temperature, as it does to raise the temperature of the same amount of water by each subsequent degree C. This phenomenon is called the 'enthalpy of fusion'. It means there is an inherent 'inertia' in temperature when a large amount of ice is present in an area. Air temperatures will then tend to rise much faster in an area once the ice has gone, as it requires less energy to warm it up. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:38 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
andylee... "Context: It would take a 1GW power station 45,439 years just to melt this much ice! " That's a fantastic way to state it. -
owl905 at 04:24 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
@Dr Joju - thanks for explaining the different percentage references. -
owl905 at 04:20 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
If this means another addition to the hockey team, give them the sweater with #10 on it - that was Guy La Fleur's tag. -
Neven at 04:15 AM on 14 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
gpwayne, you are absolutely right. I will put a colour bar showing percentage of sea ice concentration in next time (you can see it here at the source). Of course, the emphasis in this post was on ice cover vs open water. -
Tristan at 04:09 AM on 14 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I'm trying to find the met office release that the daily mail cited, but I cannot locate it, any help would be much appreciated (it'd probably be good to link to it in this article as an example of how to misinterpret research). -
rustneversleeps at 03:16 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
I did not read the previous post on this, so I apologize if this rather obvious bit has already been pointed out. GRACE does not measure the changing mass of the ice sheets and glaciers. It measures small changes in the distance between two satellites in orbit, one chasing after the other. And, from that, determines what the mass must be to create the gravitational force to cause that change in distance... But, but, that means... that the change in mass of the ice sheets is being inferred by... gasp!... a model!!! 'Course, this didn't cause any hesitation by the "it's only models!" skeptics from leaping to support the parts of the recent GRACE results that they found reassuring... -
andylee at 02:44 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Sapient @10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion Transforming 1kg of ice to water = 333.55kJ Therefore 1 tonne of ice needs 333.55MJ or 3.3355x10^8 J 4.3 trillion tonnes needs 4.3x10^12 x 3.335x10^8 J = 1.43405x10^21 J (1,434,050,000,000,000,000,000 J) Context: It would take a 1GW power station 45,439 years just to melt this much ice! -
CBDunkerson at 02:09 AM on 14 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Luke wrote: "I wonder if it might not be possible to map recessions (tied to lower energy use) to lower warming, thereby identifying delays in the system." Very unlikely. We can detect the impact of economic activity on GHG emissions, but the variations there are just too small to then in turn pick out their impact on temperatures. Keep in mind that it is the accumulated total GHGs in the atmosphere which determine warming. When a recession comes along we might see the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation drop from ~2.1 ppm per year to ~1.9 ppm per year... so even if the recession lasted five years we are only talking about around 1 ppm difference in atmospheric CO2 levels. Compared to the ~115 ppm total accumulated increase over pre-industrial levels that difference is going to get lost in the rounding. Thus, unless our ability to model the atmosphere becomes vastly better than it currently is (to the point that every storm can be precisely predicted weeks in advance) or we see a massive economic collapse, there is no way that we will be able to pick the 'decreased warming signal' of an economic downturn out of the uncertainty range. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:58 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Sapient Fridge, it takes 333 Joules to melt 1g of ice and IIRC there are 10^6 grams per tonne so a little over 10^21 Joules. From the energy chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29, that's about an order of magnitude less than the daily incident solar energy. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:14 AM on 14 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
30, Luke, The statistical methods used are far from perfect. They attempt to resolve the influence of the various factors, but can't do so perfectly, especially if the actual influence (or in some cases confluence) is not linear. So I think a lot of the variation you still see in the adjusted graph is simply unaccounted residue from volcanic (1983) and ENSO (1998, 2007) events. In a nut shell, there's still more natural variation within the natural variation. -
Luke Poliszcuk at 23:34 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Robert> That was my first reaction when I was skimming the article. But then I noted the key concept for the adjusted data was: "When the effects of ENSO and solar and volcanic activity are removed from the temperature data". Just wondering what is left after those three variables have been adjusted for. I thought that as the remaining forcing seems to be predominantly due to AGW there may be an economic footprint in there. -
CBDunkerson at 23:23 PM on 13 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Camburn writes: "Educate people without the constant 'fear' factor." and: "The current projections show that an economic breakdown is only a few years away" Might I suggest that you read up on the concept of psychological projection. Last I checked, absolutely no one has been claiming the equivalent of; 'global warming will cause an economic breakdown in just a few years'. So who is the real 'fear monger' here? -
Robert Murphy at 23:18 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
"Does anyone know what are the remaining major variables? I note there is a particularly large dip around 1983." El Chichon, Mexico, erupted in 1982.
-
Luke Poliszcuk at 22:48 PM on 13 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Excellent illustration of the overall warming trend after teasing out natural variation due to ENSO, volcanoes and solar activity. Does anyone know what are the remaining major variables? I note there is a particularly large dip around 1983. What other variation could that be due to? Has anyone analysed the correlation between economic output and CO2 emissions, and any consequent variation in net warming? I wonder if it might not be possible to map recessions (tied to lower energy use) to lower warming, thereby identifying delays in the system. From wikipedia: The IMF estimates that global recessions seem to occur over a cycle lasting between 8 and 10 years. During what the IMF terms the past three global recessions of the last three decades, globaly per capita output growth was zero or negative. It would be interesting if there was a (delayed) statistically significant correlation between global recessions and the remaining variability above. -
DrJoju at 20:45 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Great summary by the way! Very clear and informative. I thought the silver lining comment at the end was pretty hilarious! -
DrJoju at 20:42 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
@owl905, at the 2:56 mark, Peter Hadfield comments upon the 30% figure. Glaciers and ice caps = 148 Billion tonnes (63Gt less) (excluding Antartica and Greenland) Peripheral glaciers and ice caps = 81 Gt (in Greenland and antartica) Ice sheets = 303Gt (in Greenland and antartica) Total = 532Gt The 30% figure is calculated from the loss from the glaciers and ice caps (excluding Antartica and Greenland). This figure is 63Gt less than previously estimated. previous estimate is: 148Gt +63Gt = 211Gt Therefore the 30% loss = (63Gt/211Gt)x100 The 10% figure is from derived from the total ice loss. Previous total estimate is: 532Gt + 63Gt= 595Gt therefore the 10% loss = (63Gt/595Gt)x100 -
Sapient Fridge at 20:39 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
How much energy is needed to melt 4.3 trillion tonnes of ice? -
gpwayne at 18:28 PM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
May I suggest that a colour key for the first set of images would help laypeople like myself to understand what the false-colours represent? -
jimspy at 17:31 PM on 13 February 2012The real doping scandal: Weather on steroids
Damn, why didn't -I- think of that analogy? Better than my measly stock market analogy. -
jimb at 17:23 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
dagold@6 I don't deal with it very well either. I was just finishing "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" by Dr. Mann, and couldn't help but compare the tone of his book to the tone of most of the adverse comments following this article (and everywhere else following many mainstream press articles on climate change). Surprisingly, Dr. Mann seems to hold out some hope that the contrarians may have passed their peak of influence- one can only hope he is correct. It is always telling to see what portions of the research papers are highlighted and what portions are either ignored or left to the end of the analysis. -
jmsully at 16:43 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
owl905, Or didn't cry Wolf! -
owl905 at 15:50 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Tom Chivers in the Telegraph is under siege by a swarming from the pro-pollutionists. They appear to be congregating at Bishop Hill's blog ... Not sure about Hadfield's shrinkage as a 10% reduction (3:55 mark); the Nature paper states: "The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html The news that the overall mass may be less volatile over a short-term really isn't big news at all - it's a repeat of mass redistributions noted for Greenland (elevation-driven), and Antarctica (east buildup, west loss). The real news may be the problem the study was built for - closing the budget on sea-level rise. CSIRO's claim of 'closed' takes a hit - http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Auditing-the-Earths-sea-level-and-energy-budgets.aspx and papers that support the 'missing GSL-rise components' gain leverage: www.igsoc.org/annals/v52/59/a59a019.pdf (Moore et.al. "The Historical Global Sea Level Budget", Annals of Glaciology, 2011) The itch that needs scratching is the sacred-cow acceptance of GRACE data revisions. UAH data has been reassessed multiple times. It's only a matter of time before someone refers to GRACE as the satellite that cried 'Wolf'. -
dagold at 15:27 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
jimb- I also went to the article and read the comments. I still can't help myself; I get reactive when I read the litany of breathtaking ignorance, will self-deception and outright lying that inevitably follow any and every article on climate change. Skeptical Science is an incredible site and resource- but, does there come a time, when patience and the didactic approach becomes a futile proposition...do not some of these folks need a bit more scorn or, at least, Stephen Colbert like satire directed towards them? How do you handle it? -
jimb at 14:39 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
It wan good to read the article, but depressing when I started going through the comments. -
Tom Curtis at 13:19 PM on 13 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @51, in your post @ 21 you claimed:"One problem is that even if the ice melting halted the oceans would continue to rise at about the same rate. The result of irrigation pulling water from aquifiers that had the water locked away and now going into the surface water balance."
You quoted a figure from the total ground water used as irrigation and determined from that a projected increase in sea level. You did not mention recharge, and did not attempt to determine recharge before calculating the impact on sea level. In fact, you concluded that:"So the water added to the system via irrigation is fairly close to the amount of water added by melting ice. Meaning the sea water will continue to rise regardless if the ice melting stops and the problems of the future will still remain."
For that to have been true, recharge must have been very small relative to withdrawals from ground water. If, as you now claim, "...I did understand the concept of withdrawal and recharge..." your failure to mention recharge in post 21, and your failure to allow for it in your calculation of the impact on sea level is a case of deliberate misrepresentation. You (claim you) knew about a relevant factor which would significantly effect your calculation, but chose neither to mention it nor to include it in your calculation. That, be definition, is telling a half truth, and a half truth is always a whole lie. You further state that "... I was showing how different aquifiers are being recharged at different rates." But you made no mention of different rates, and no mention of any aquifer other than the Ogallala aquifer. Generally when a person makes no mention of something, they are not trying to show people that thing. What is more, and this is the crux of the issue, you could have quoted the Edwards-Trinity aquifer* as easily as the Ogallala aquifer. That would as easily shown that you understood the concept and its relevance. It also would have suggested that recharge rates are over three times discharge rates, clearly indicating that may point @ 26 was well made, and that you did need to investigate and quote recharge rates in order to make the argument you were making. In fact any other choice of data from that site would have reinforced my point, and shown that failure to quote recharge rates was an obvious flaw in your reasoning. That is what makes it a cherry pick. Your continued defense of that cherry pick leaves no conclusion open except that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead. * The Edwards-Trinity aquifer is atypical of Texas aquifers in that it is the opposite extreme to the Ogallala aquifer. My point is that it is sufficient to show what Norman claims to have been his point, so there was no reason not to choose and discuss it. Certainly there was not reason not to discuss the state total, except of course, for the crucial point that it would have (again) shown the failure of Norman to present relevant data.Response:[DB] "Your continued defense of that cherry pick leaves no conclusion open except that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead. "
Agreed. Back to Norman for a final plea.
-
bill at 13:00 PM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Full marks to Hadfield and thanks to John Russell for that great commentary from Tom Chivers. In The Telegraph! What truly disturbs me is that The Guardian performed as badly in this as they did over the CRU hack / 'Climategate' (where they were very bad indeed! And learned nothing, it seems.) As I noted on the other thread discussing this they even managed to turn this global satellite research into 'the Himalayan Glacier Study' and somehow ignore their own reporting of the manifestly evident lower-altitude glacier melt! And then run a sort of agony column about whether we should still believe in Global Warming and Glacier melt after this... Really, The Australian could scarcely have spun the tale more to the anti-science brigade's benefit! And I completely agree - if AGW were to ever be 'disproved' (or, more likely - but unlikely nonetheless - sensitivity was to be revised significantly downwards) it'll be real science that produces the research, not the fake-skeptics who only specialise in muddying the waters! -
NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman - "My original post made the claim that even if all ice melting were halted the oceans would still continue to rise because of the water removed from deep sources that is not being replaced at the rate of removal and will find its way into the ocean as the ultimate water sink on the surface." And that assertion is wrong. The link I provided to Milly specifically excludes ice melt both glacial and ice cap - discussing anthropogenic water movement. Their conclusion, including all the sources and sinks they could identify, the best information available, is that the best estimate for water usage contribution to sea level rise is: zero. -
Norman at 11:53 AM on 13 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Tom Curtis @ 49 Tom it is not me being the one lacking the understanding in this situation. I did explain it fairly well if you would take the time to read my post and not (-snip-) react to it. In post 31 I was addressing specifically your point in post 26. Reread the beginning of my post in 31, it is in this frame that I am bringing up the link to Texas. You make the claim in 26: "you make the assumption that extracted groundwater is not being replaced. That is not correct." In the Texas aquifier link I was showing you that I did understand the concept of withdrawal and recharge and I was showing how different aquifiers are being recharged at different rates. I chose the Ogallala aquifier to show you that some aquifiers recharge at very slow rates, it was not a deception I was making a specific point to address your claim in 26 the I made this assumption (which I did not) and that I was not correct in making this assumption which I had not made. Please read the post in 49 about the 8.9 figure. It was not included in my Texas link at all and is a totally seperate concept that has nothing to do with the link of the Texas aquifiers (again was only brought up to demonstrate that I did indeed grasp the concept of withdrawl vs recharge rates which you believe I do not understand). Please reread the posts if necessary but the 8.9 was a ratio difference between the work in KR's link that has the claim that withdrawal rates of water mining equal 61 km^3 per year but all other sources I look at indicate a much higher value than this. My original post was actually on topic, the defense of the original post has led to the off topic string of posts. My original post made the claim that even if all ice melting were halted the oceans would still continue to rise because of the water removed from deep sources that is not being replaced at the rate of removal and will find its way into the ocean as the ultimate water sink on the surface. Please follow the line of reasoning in my posts and you will see that it is not what you are claiming, mostly defending a postional statement that you have not proven wrong.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory trolling term snipped. -
John Russell at 11:45 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Great post from the Daily Telegraph on this subject. As the author, Tom Chivers, says, this is proof that 'AGW' is not some huge global scientific conspiracy. The research that the those in denial are crowing about was undertaken and published by a group of regular climate scientists without any axes to grind. If anyone is ever going to show that 'AGW is wrong', it won't be fake sceptic bloggers -- it'll be the climate scientists that they despise. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:12 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
"What on Earth could be causing that...?"
What, pray tell, indeed? -
Neven at 10:45 AM on 13 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
Lovely! -
wild monkeys at 10:30 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
I think it should be noted that the current data are from a different instrument as the AMSR-E instrument is not working. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:06 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Chris G, I also thought that the strong polar jet bottled up cold air which then plunged into Europe, but that does not appear to be the case from these anomalies: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php After building an jet stream animation for January here http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/archive/jetstream_archive.html I have even less confidence the bottled up theory, but frankly I don't know how to evaluate the animation. -
Chris G at 09:31 AM on 13 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Hmm, if this year's jet stream pattern starts to repeat in the next several years, maybe arctic ice will last a little longer than the current rate of decline would lead us to believe. No doubt that would be small consolation. Plus, if the La Nina weakens, I suspect that might snap the pattern to something else.
Prev 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 Next
