Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 Next
Comments 64551 to 64600:
-
bill4344 at 12:55 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
John Abraham don't much resemble a long-boiled crustacean in that graphic, do he? -
sauerj at 12:34 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
John, do you plan on broadcasting the video of the event on SkS? This sounds really interesting; sure hope the rest of us will be able to see it!Response: [JC] I don't know if they're videoing the event and to be honest, I wasn't planning on going out of my way to ensure that happens :-) -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:32 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
DB at 2 That's funny! -
sauerj at 12:23 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
Note: First link (Climate Change: Busting the Myths) doesn't work.Response: [JC] Sorry, fixed the link which is to a PDF flyer of the event. -
Bernard J. at 12:10 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
The truth is out there... -
owl905 at 12:05 PM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Bowhead whale remains do not confirm a MWP Arctic warmer than the present from an early Dykes/England study: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic56-1-14.pdf (91K doc). There is a recent Swedish study that lays out proxy data for a double-spike around 1000 AD that exceeds modern values: http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedladdningar/Poster_Ljungqvist_and_Grudd.pdf (328k doc) It doesn't appear to be a peer-reviewed publication, but the analysis seems solid. The most recent coverage available is based on the hypothesis that ice-core samples from 9kya parallel temps 4kya and 1kya - periods when bowhead whale remains have been found in the north-west passage (ergo it was ice-free in summer). http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/climate-change/landscape-ecosystem/paleo-environmental/3947 Unfortunately for Camburn, "the Arctic was warmer during a significant amount of the past than present day temperatures." falls on its facia ... and the reconstructions also don't make a good case for the loss of Viking colonies collapsing due to falling temps. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:01 PM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
Separated at birth???
Enquiring minds want to know...
-
Camburn at 11:48 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Sphaerica@4: You are correct, I was wrong. Thank you -
Pete Dunkelberg at 11:43 AM on 14 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
I don't have any picture like that. Sigh. -
Camburn at 11:42 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Tom@9: I have responded on the NW Passage blog. -
Camburn at 11:41 AM on 14 February 2012Northwest passage has been navigated in the past
Tom: I wasn't talking about the NW Passage, but that's ok. Bow head whale proxy data: Calgary Research Bowhead fossils Please note that the above paper mentions a period of low ice and expansion of bowhead whale domain approx 1,000 YBP which correlates well with the pollin proxy data of 2,000 years of Climate Reconstruction. -
Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
andylee - That presumes all the energy imbalance goes directly into the ice. But only ~2.1% goes into the cryosphere.
80 * 0.021 = 1.68x (within a factor of 2 for back of the envelope), and given that recent years may have a radiative imbalance (not insolation) closer to 0.65 W/m^2, around 1.2x, so again fairly close for my rough numbers...
-
robert way at 11:33 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
There are a range of indicators which show that the hypsithermal occurred in different places at different times because of the impact of ice sheets etc... Lets remember the ice sheets only disappeared in the NE portion of the Arctic about 6-7000 years ago. Anderson et al (2008) document significant ice melt 3000 years ago and before that on ice caps in the Eastern Canadian Arctic. There are many other papers which suggest such things. I preach caution when approaching this issue using the hypsithermal and insolation as analogues. -
Tom Curtis at 10:58 AM on 14 February 2012Northwest passage has been navigated in the past
Camburn elsewhere maintains that the N-W Passage was significantly warmer than current for long periods of the Holocene, citing as evidence Bow Head whale skeletons. My understanding is that bow head whale skeletons can be found across the length of the North West Passage during a period the preceding the Holocene Climactic Optimum:"The distribution and radiocarbon ages of whale remains indicate that during at least one interval of the Holocene, Bering Sea and Davis Strait bowheads could intermingle, (Figure 1b). The Bering Sea bowhead was the first to reach the CAA about 10,000 carbon-14 (14 C) years ago (11,450 calendar years B.P.). Bowheads entered via the Beaufort Sea about 1000 years after submergence of the Bering Strait, and they ranged up to the fronts of receding continental ice sheets [Dyke et al., 1996; Dyke and Savelle, 2001]. Until about 9500 14 C years B.P. (10,700 calendar years B.P.), by which time the Davis Strait bowhead ranged into the eastern Northwest Passage, the Bering Sea and Davis Strait stocks were separated by a glacier ice barrier. With dissipation of this barrier, the two stocks were able to intermingle, ranging well beyond historical limits. About 8000 14 C years B.P. (8900 calendar years B.P.), the Bering Sea and Davis Strait stocks were separated, as they are today. Thus, a year-round sea ice barrier must have become established at that time in the central part of the Northwest Passage."
(Fisher et al, 2006, my emphasis) In other words the NW Passage was open only for 1,800 year interval ending approx 9,000 years ago and there has been no skeletal evidence since for the intermingling of Atlantic and Pacific Bowheads. That strongly suggests any opening of the straits since then has been brief, and intermittent at best. For what it is worth, genetic evidence suggests the Bering Strait Variety of Bowhead are more closely related to the Hudson Bay stock than to the Davis Strait stock. It also indicates genetic separation of Hudson Bay and Bering Strait stock for at least 8,500 years; which is consistent with a forced separation by the closure of the North West Passage since before the Holocene Climactic Optimum. It should be noted that Atlantic and Pacific Bowheads have once again started intermingling. This evidence strongly suggests that the North West Passage and Canadian Archipelago was warmer than at present approx 10 thousand years ago at the last peak of northern summer insolation (red curve and figures):
However, it also strongly suggests it has not been warm enough in that region to maintain open waters since then, even though the Earth itself was warmer due to the gradually melting ice sheets.
Unless you have specific evidence of Bow Head populations intermingling in the North West Passage post 7,000 BC, you should stop using this evidence as though it suggested intervals of the passage being open throughout the Holocene. You frequently make that suggestion, but I see no evidence that supports it.
(Note: cross posted from here as I believe this to be the most germane place for this discussion.)
-
Tom Curtis at 10:53 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
Camburn @3, my understanding is that bow head whale skeletons can be found across the length of the North West Passage during a period the preceding the Holocene Climactic Optimum:"The distribution and radiocarbon ages of whale remains indicate that during at least one interval of the Holocene, Bering Sea and Davis Strait bowheads could intermingle, (Figure 1b). The Bering Sea bowhead was the first to reach the CAA about 10,000 carbon-14 (14 C) years ago (11,450 calendar years B.P.). Bowheads entered via the Beaufort Sea about 1000 years after submergence of the Bering Strait, and they ranged up to the fronts of receding continental ice sheets [Dyke et al., 1996; Dyke and Savelle, 2001]. Until about 9500 14 C years B.P. (10,700 calendar years B.P.), by which time the Davis Strait bowhead ranged into the eastern Northwest Passage, the Bering Sea and Davis Strait stocks were separated by a glacier ice barrier. With dissipation of this barrier, the two stocks were able to intermingle, ranging well beyond historical limits. About 8000 14 C years B.P. (8900 calendar years B.P.), the Bering Sea and Davis Strait stocks were separated, as they are today. Thus, a year-round sea ice barrier must have become established at that time in the central part of the Northwest Passage."
(Fisher et al, 2006, my emphasis) In other words the NW Passage was open only for 1,800 year interval ending approx 9,000 years ago and there has been no skeletal evidence since for the intermingling of Atlantic and Pacific Bowheads. That strongly suggests any opening of the straits since then has been brief, and intermittent at best. For what it is worth, genetic evidence suggests the Bering Strait Variety of Bowhead are more closely related to the Hudson Bay stock than to the Davis Strait stock. It also indicates genetic separation of Hudson Bay and Bering Strait stock for at least 8,500 years; which is consistent with a forced separation by the closure of the North West Passage since before the Holocene Climactic Optimum. It should be noted that Atlantic and Pacific Bowheads have once again started intermingling. This evidence strongly suggests that the North West Passage and Canadian Archipelago was warmer than at present approx 10 thousand years ago at the last peak of northern summer insolation (red curve and figures):
However, it also strongly suggests it has not been warm enough in that region to maintain open waters since then, even though the Earth itself was warmer due to the gradually melting ice sheets.
Unless you have specific evidence of Bow Head populations intermingling in the North West Passage post 7,000 BC, you should stop using this evidence as though it suggested intervals of the passage being open throughout the Holocene. You frequently make that suggestion, but I see no evidence that supports it.
(Note: to moderators, I believe this post to be on topic here because, although I most frequently refer to the N-W Passage, the associated Canadian Archipelago temperatures are clearly on topic. I have also cross posted in the N-W Passage blog, and recommend Camburn responds there.)
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:48 AM on 14 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
So... 500 billion tons = 5 x 1017 grams. 333 Joules to melt 1 gram of ice, or 5 x 1017 grams * 333 J/g = 1.665 x 1020 J Surface of the oceans of the earth is 360,000,000 km2, convert to square centimeters multiply by 10,000,000,000, or 3.6 x 1018. So Joules per square centimeter of ocean = 1.665 x 1020 J /3.6 x 1018 cm2 = 46.25 J, per year, per square centimeter of ocean. Energy to raise 1 g (roughly 1 cm3 of ocean at 4˚C) by 1˚C = 4.2 J. 46.25 J/cm2 / 4.2 J˚/cm3 = 11 ˚-cm Or enough energy per year to raise the top 11 centimeters of every inch of ocean on the surface of the earth by 1 degree. Alternately, enough energy to raise the temperature of roughly the top meter of the earth's oceans by 0.1˚C per year. Ten years of that and you've raised the temperature of the top meter of the ocean by a full degree. -
robert way at 10:40 AM on 14 February 20122000 Years of Climate Reconstructed from Pollen
The modern period refers to the 1961-1990 average. Yes the baseline refers to that period. The end dates and the start dates for the MWP and LIA are 800-1200 AD and 1400-1850 AD respectively. -
andylee at 10:34 AM on 14 February 2012Peter Hadfield on Himalayan glacier melt
@KR, I presume +0.9 W/m² is average insolation, but there must be a reason that it has taken 8 years and not 1.2 months to melt this amount of ice. This is a difference of 80x, so how to account for it? If this imbalance continues, then it has the capability to eventually melt most ice - if the ice goes, there'll be nothing holding back thermal runaway until the Earth reaches thermodynamic equilibrium again and reradiates as much as it receives. I don't see oceans boiling, but the increase of a few degress would definitely be a Bad Thing. -
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. -
william5331 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
Prev 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 Next
