Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  Next

Comments 96251 to 96300:

  1. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @84. Yes, the pole is only shown to have more insolation than the arctic circle for about three weeks on that chart. But it is also shown to have at least the same insolation for 2 months as the the arctic circle receives for only a month and a half; and the same for over three months as the arctic circle recieves over the same interval. For three months of the year, the pole receives either as much or more insolation on any given day as any point on the arctic circle. Those three months are the period of maximum insolation, and also the time of minimum albedo. Over the rest of the year the a point on the periphery of the arctic circle recieves more insolation, but total daily insolation during that period is half or less what it is in summer.
  2. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: "the past 3 years I referenced ... I simply pointed out a contradiction to that claim." Three years does not a contradiction make; there is always noise in these data. If 3 years of data is all you have to point to, I'd suggest finding another position on the issue. "I'm not familiar with the Walsh historic time series" Whether you accept the Walsh data or not is irrelevant, except that you're attempting to create the perfect block: 'There are only 30 years of satellite data. 30 years is not enough data. Repeat.' Look at the PIOMASS graph. Can you objectively describe those curves as anything but concave down? That would mean the rate of change of ice mass is accelerating in the negative direction.
  3. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech... "Rob, do you support that none of these numbers 954,000, 850,000, 189,553 or 17,761 represent the number of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly or implicitly endorse "anthropogenic global warming"?" The exercise here was merely to show people that they can't just look at one number, such as 31,000 scientists or 850 papers, and think that tells them anything at all. They have to put the number in context. Whether 987K is correct or 17k is correct, I don't really care. Any of these denominators still makes your number very small. And don't say "this has not been established" again for the 300th time. It's utterly foolish to entertain for even 2 seconds that 850 papers represents a significant portion of climate research. And that's my last word in this thread. I'm done.
  4. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rick G (RE: 78), "The Antarctic ice cap is on a land mass with an average elevation 7500 ft surrounded by ocean. Conversely, the Arctic is surrounded by land masses and is sea ice at sea level. Why would you expect them to be following the same trend?" I know. I'm mainly referring to the ice extent over the sea, which has not decreased and has even increased slightly, especially in recent years. If 'global warming' is causing the Artic sea ice to melt, why isn't it doing the same in the Antarctic?
  5. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 85 & 89, from this question it becomes evident that you are not even reading the points you are trying to rebut. To answer your question, they show TOA insolation. That means they do include the effect of angle of incidence on insolation, along with the effect of seasons. They do not include the effect of clouds. This is also true of the second graph @55. In contrast, the third graph @55 and the graph @83 show insolation at the surface, and hence include the average effect of clouds. They show between 10% and 20% variation between 60 degrees north and the poles, ie, the same degree of variation over 30 degrees that in mid-latitudes you would expect over ten. @88, you can believe what you want. However, I did not simply rebut your limited source of information. I looked up further information based upon multiple annual reports of sea ice extent, not just for one year, but for every year between 1750 and 2002. That information showed that 1922 had a low sea ice extent for its time, but only an average sea ice extent for the later half of the 20th century, and a higher sea ice extent than every year to date in the 21st Century. That you choose to ignore that information is very telling. @87, you have got to be kidding. The report Robb found contains every point yours made, and was printed in the fall of 1922, ie, after the minimum sea ice extent of 1922. You simply do not like the confirmation that it was only one ship, and at only one location that ice free water was found to 81.5 degrees north.
  6. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus, "This is what I love about these so-called "skeptics"-they stubbornly retain a "skeptic" stance, in the face of *mountains* of data & observations, yet said "skepticism" evaporates in the face of a *single* newspaper that relies solely on *anecdotal* evidence." The point of the story is it's simply consistent with large Artic variability nearly 90 years ago. However, it's hardly the basis for my skepticism.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html tag.
  7. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter, "Unfortunately, this situation is very serious indeed. So, yes, rest assured, I am serious about this issue." Sorry, I don't understand you then. I'm not claiming the past 3 years I referenced represents any indication of any coming trend or any trend at all for that matter. You claimed that the downward trend was 'accelerating'. I simply pointed out a contradiction to that claim. As far as the first graph in that post, I'm not familiar with the Walsh historic time series, nor what method was used to get the data, though I think I can safely assuming isn't anywhere near as accurate as satellite measurements.
  8. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1..."I don't think those articles are the source of what I posted." According to Anthony Watts it is.
  9. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "I think the 'story' speaks for itself though." This is what I love about these so-called "skeptics"-they stubbornly retain a "skeptic" stance, in the face of *mountains* of data & observations, yet said "skepticism" evaporates in the face of a *single* newspaper that relies solely on *anecdotal* evidence. Come on RW1, where's your skepticism now? That sounds more like *denial* where I'm from.
  10. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 77), You do understand that the average insolation hitting the top of the atmosphere is not the same as the average insolation hitting the surface (even assuming clear sky conditions), right?
  11. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: "Are you serious?" Unfortunately, this situation is very serious indeed. So, yes, rest assured, I am serious about this issue. "I'm not the one claiming any significant trends," Then your prior post was purely facetious? "outside the range of natural variability." The 'range of natural variability' is depicted in the first hundred years of the first graph here. Is there anything other than this seal story, preferably in the form of a published scientific study, that substantiates this 'range' of yours? Oh, wait, there was more ice in the distant past. And less ice in the distant past. So I guess that proves your point?
  12. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 77), Is that first chart in your post #55 insolation at the surface or the top of the atmosphere? In other words, does it factor in the decreasing angle as you get closer and closer to the pole, which spreads the incoming sunlight over a larger area, reducing it's magnitude at the surface?
  13. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom, "However, from what we do know from the information you presented, there is no reason to believe the summer 1922 ice extent was any greater than the February 19th ice extent in 2011." If that's what you want to believe, fine. I disagree, but I can't really argue since there isn't enough information to constitute proof. I think the 'story' speaks for itself though.
  14. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rob Honeycutt (RE: 81) "Doing a little research on that "US Weather Bureau" report you posted at 59. It seems it's been making the rounds a lot on the internet and has gone through quite a bit of massaging. Here is the original article the report obviously comes from. Courtesy of Anthony Watts." I don't think those articles are the source of what I posted.
  15. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 76), "But in a prior comment, you take some significance in what you describe as 'the past three years'??? Sorry, your seal story does not suggest 'a large degree of variability' -- because 1 year is hardly enough data to do that. Are you serious? I'm not the one claiming any significant trends, let let alone any trends outside the range of natural variability. The point of the 'story' is it's consistent with a large degree of Artic variability from year to year. That's all.
  16. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 77), Is that first chart in your post #55 insolation at the surface or the top of the atmosphere?
  17. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 77), "So, whether you consider just summer insolation (as you now claim was your point) or annual average insolation (as you previously claimed was your point), you are simply wrong about this. Geometry is not very complex, but even its complexities appear to be to much for you in this discussion." OK, for a period of about 2 and half weeks (roughly 2/3rd of one month) the poles are getting more insolation than the rest of the Artic circle? Is this what you're claiming? That is how I'm interpreting that first graph in your post 55.
  18. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    TOP @74, it is well known that the Arctic receives a lot of energy by transport from lower latitudes, and in fact most of it by that transport in Winter. It does not follow that the greenhouse effect is negligible in the Arctic, nor that changes in the greenhouse effect have no impact on Arctic temperatures. On the contrary, the variation in outgoing longwave radiation with latitude is much smaller than the variation in incoming solar radiation, the difference being made up by the heat transport you mention. (See note below.) Consequently the extent of the greenhouse effect is very important in determining arctic temperatures. An increase in the greenhouse effect will slow the escape of energy to space, thus raising temperatures. (Note, the graph determines intervals on the x axis based on area, thus generating a non linear scale in terms of latitude. If a linear scale for latitude had been used, the near constant insolation at higher latitudes would be apparent. Scaled linearly, for example, the interval between the last two northern values would span from the current 60 degree north mark to the first "i" in "deficit".)
  19. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    The seals finding the water too warm was a clue.
  20. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1... Doing a little research on that "US Weather Bureau" report you posted at 59. It seems it's been making the rounds a lot on the internet and has gone through quite a bit of massaging. Here is the original article the report obviously comes from. Courtesy of Anthony Watts.
  21. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Sorry, the first chart did not come out. It can be found here.
  22. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @75, I am happy to agree that we don't know all the specifics, which then begs the question as to why you presented the information. However, from what we do know from the information you presented, there is no reason to believe the summer 1922 ice extent was any greater than the February 19th ice extent in 2011. The information you are in fact looking for is this: (Sea Ice extent in Nordic Seas) Before you get too excited about all those low values, you should notice that 2002 is the last point on the graph, and and the second lowest point is 2001. So clearly 2007 and 2010 have fallen of the chart by comparison. You will also note that 1922 is only about average for post 1950 ice extents, and well above the recent figures. For comparison, here is equivalent data for other regions of the Arctic (for April). As you can see, the Nordic sea shows the greatest variability, so your case will not be improved by appealing to other regions.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed broken image URL.
  23. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: 30 years is hardly enough data to show whether this is anything significant or just random noise of natural variability. Then why do you keep trying to make something out of year to year anomalies? RW1: Why hasn't the Antarctic shown the same trend? The Antarctic ice cap is on a land mass with an average elevation 7500 ft surrounded by ocean. Conversely, the Arctic is surrounded by land masses and is sea ice at sea level. Why would you expect them to be following the same trend?
  24. Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
    Smoking is unhealthy in typical quantities but may have homeopathic qualities in very small quantities explaining the 'health smoker' anecdotes, see http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7280/203.2.full/reply#bmj_el_12322 for an anecdote (it's hard to find studies of homeopathy). One might think "if climate change doesn't kill you it makes you stronger". But that does not seem to be true for amphibians, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01159.x/full. The analogy might be like this: occasional exposure to cigarette smoke is probably not harmful and may even be helpful; likewise occasional exposure to severe weather probably builds resilience. Constant exposure is almost certainly bad in both cases since there is no time to recover and strengthen.
  25. Meet The Denominator
    One might also note that, according to the same paper 2000 new papers a year are being published. That adds at least another 10k to the number. "...the phrase "climate change" does not mean it explicitly endorses "anthropogenic global warming"..." It doesn't have to. We are putting your 850 papers into the broader context of the full body of climate science.
  26. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @68, on the northern summer solstice, at the North Pole, the sun is approximately 23.5 degrees above the horizon, the equivalent to being at 4:30 PM in the tropics, and it remains at that elevation for 24 hours. On the same day at the arctic circle, the sun ranges in elevation from 0 to 47 degrees over the horizon over the course of the day. The result is that there is slightly more insolation at the pole than on the arctic circle. This can be seen in the first chart @55, although you will need to look closely to pick it out. So, whether you consider just summer insolation (as you now claim was your point) or annual average insolation (as you previously claimed was your point), you are simply wrong about this. Geometry is not very complex, but even its complexities appear to be to much for you in this discussion.
  27. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: "30 years is hardly enough data" But in a prior comment, you take some significance in what you describe as 'the past three years'??? Sorry, your seal story does not suggest 'a large degree of variability' -- because 1 year is hardly enough data to do that.
  28. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 72), We don't know - there aren't enough specifics. The point is it suggests a large degree of variability even nearly 90 years ago.
  29. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    First off the graphic in Figure 3 showing the albedo of water in the 8-9% seems a bit high. I'd put is at 3-7.5%. Albedo The Arctic Circle is a line above which there is continuous sun in summer and no sun in winter. Arctic Circle The high temperature anomaly in the Arctic this winter was not due to the greenhouse effect directly on the Arctic Ocean. It was due to heat being transported to the Arctic by global weather patterns. If you run the animation you see the transport of heat from as far south as the Sahara to the Arctic through a cluster of vortices that swirl around the arctic like giant hurricanes pulling warm air from southern climes and pushing cold air back down. Cold air can pour out of the Arctic into the more temperate areas such as caused the large snow events in the US and England. When this happens you get something like this: Anomalies It should be obvious that the warming of the Arctic is not due to the greenhouse effect taking place in the Arctic. There isn't any to speak all year round and especially in winter. You might say, "What about summer? Isn't there greenhouse effect due to the open water?" Not much because the albedo of the open water is so low that there is little long wave radiation or any other kind going up out of the water after the sun's rays hit it. All that energy is deposited deep in the water, CO2 or no CO2. So regardless of CO2, an ice free Arctic Ocean is going to contribute a lot to global warming during summer months. What was not addressed in the article is whether the polar regions are any less effective in radiating energy into space in the winter seasons regardless of the ice state.
  30. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Albatross, I'm not disputing that the documented period we have shows a downward trend, but 30 years is hardly enough data to show whether this is anything significant or just random noise of natural variability. Why hasn't the Antarctic shown the same trend? If anything, it's slightly increased over the same period.
  31. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @65: 1) Some, not many, locations were still iced over at the 2007 minimum at 81.5 degrees latitude, mostly between the Canadian islands where they are protected from the influx of warm water from the Atlantic and Pacific; protected also from wind breaking up the ice; and also have a limit on the Ice Albedo effect because of the more constant albedo of the nearby islands. 2) North of Spitsbergen there is one location ice free at 81.5 degrees north on the February 19th Ice Extent. (Not the maximum, and not claimed to be the maximum, but still a winter ice extent). 3) Your report says, "EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES." The phrase "as xxx yyy as" is always used to indicate the furthest extent of which something is true. So multiple expeditions (possibly 2, possibly 20, we don't know) found ice free water were they expected to find ice, and the furthest north of which this was true (ie, one sighting by one expedition) found ice free water at 81.5 degrees north. Which was also true yesterday, during winter. I suspect the furthest northerly extent free of sea ice in the summer of 1922 was also just north of Spitsburgen as well. After all, in 1599, ie, during the LIA the southern coast of Spitsburgen (about 77 degrees north) was also ice free.
  32. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Albatross, you beat me to it this time! RW1: I usually define 'accelerating' as describing the motion of an object where the first derivative and second derivative of position have the same sign; but we can just say 'speeding up'. -- both from Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal? Pay attention to trends, not a year or two. But if you insist, here's how this year stacks up: -- NSIDC sea ice news "Record low January extent" You'll note that this year is more than 2 std devs below the average and playing tag with 2005-06 (the prior record low extent). The annual max occurs in March. There are websites where they bet on such things.
  33. Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
    I think it's pretty obvious that a lack of smoking causes global warming. Think about it. People started to back away from smoking around the late seventies. When did the current warming trend appear to start? The only way to stop global warming is to push tobacco products (and to keep using fossil fuels).
  34. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @68, Now you know very well, or should at least, that is is the long-term trends which count. And the minimum in 2010 was the third lowest on record, not the fourth. And that the best fit to the data in the above graph is a quadratic not a linear model.
  35. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 64), "The trend of summer minima is down and accelerating." How can it be accelerating when the past 3 years have seen a larger summer minimum than the record low of 2007?
  36. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom, "but nor am I forgetting that the Earth is tilted on its axis, bringing much greater insolation to the poles in their respective summer season, both by increasing the angle of the incoming sunlight, and by increasing the length of the day." Even in the summer there is less and less insolation the closer you get to the pole. This was my initial point.
  37. Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
    Climate skeptic Richard Lindzen has testified in court that the link between tobacco and cancer is not proven.
  38. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 60), "@57, you appear to confused about which side of the argument you are on. You are arguing that high winter snowfall and ice formation will limit the summer melt, and hence the Ice albedo effect. But now your want to use a lack of correlation between winter ice extent and summer ice extent as proof that ice albedo effect is irrelevant." No, I'm simply using the lack of a clear correlation between winter ice and summer ice as an indication that a larger confluence of factors are contributing, especially since 2006 and 2007 were not particularly warm years, for example.
  39. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @63, no, but nor am I forgetting that the Earth is tilted on its axis, bringing much greater insolation to the poles in their respective summer season, both by increasing the angle of the incoming sunlight, and by increasing the length of the day. Nor am I forgetting that even at the equator, the sun spends half the time out of the sky (it's called night), and a quarter of the time at low angles (its called morning and evening). The net effect of this, as clearly indicated by the charts, is that insolation across the tropics is near constant regardless of latitude averaged over the year, and that insolation withing the arctic circle is near constant regardless of latitude averaged over the year; but that between the Tropic of Cancer and the Arctic circle, insolation changes significantly for relatively small changes in latitude.
  40. The Dai After Tomorrow
    David Horton at 07:08 AM on 18 February, 2011, whilst the paper referenced, "Drought under global warming:" attempts to address global climate projections, I'm not sure how the projections in the paper for Australia, and by logical extension, Africa, India, Indonesia, all those countries bordering the Indian Ocean have been arrived at given the limited attention given to the cycles so far identified in the IO. Greater attention was paid to the Pacific ENSO cycles etc, the only mention of the IO was about "steady warming", put down to GHG global warming, with only one brief mention of decadal variations of SST in the IO. Nowhere was there any analysis of the IOD, despite it being identified over a decade ago, and much work having since been done which links the phases of the cycles to variations in the Australian climate. Prior to the identification of the IOD, researchers had found some correlation between droughts in Australia and the ENSO cycles finding reasonable correlation of droughts with El-Nino events, however when such findings were examined in reverse by others, only lower correlation of El-Nino events with droughts in Australia was found. It was only by incorporating the IOD into the calculations, that high correlation between drought events in Australia and events in both the IO and the Pacific were found. An extension of that was then finding the link between the various cycles that affect the other countries surrounding the IO, something that had been observed by some of the very early settlers in Australia, but only explained more recently. Given the significance of the IOD to the IO regional climate, I would have thought it would have been given as much attention as ENSO before any trends could be established or projected. I also note the early caveat in the paper, "Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs." At the moment this appears somewhat limited to perhaps one or two years out depending on the various models. Lastly, the statement "Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but might see persistent droughts in the next 20–50 years." seems to not rule out the possibility that perhaps despite all the projections, it will also be natural climate variations that might determine whether persistent drought over the next similar period of time occurs or not. All in all, given the repeated acknowledgement given to the difficulties predicting tropical SST variations on seasonal to decadal time scales, I am left with the impression that greater understanding of what might eventuate in the time scales projected is to be found in the historical perspective examined in the paper, rather than the modeling presented. The author virtually acknowledges this, stating, "Further advances in model developments may make it possible to predict drought on seasonal to decadal time scales." Whilst the OP claims the paper concludes on a somber note, I feel it concludes on an uncertain note by again noting the underlying deficiencies in the models used to make the projections presented.
  41. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 62) "RW1 @59, what a revelation. Do you mean to say that in the summer of 1922 arctic sea ice had no more extent (ice free in some locations as far north as 81.5 degrees than it has in the winter of 2011:" I don't get it. At 81.5 degrees many locations were still iced over in the record low 2007 minimum, and all the areas at 81.5 degrees are iced over in the 2011 maximum you provide.
  42. CO2 was higher in the past
    Uncle Marc: Please take some time to get acquainted with SkS. See the newcomers guide, browse the 'Skeptic arguments.' There's a lot to learn; it will take some reading, but if you want to understand what's happening, it's well worthwhile. As far as the geocraft graph, see prior discussion starting with comment #6 on this thread, in which this graph gets debunked.
  43. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: "a much larger confluence of factors are determining how much ice melts or doesn't melt?" Into all of the accumulated threads on Arctic ice melt here on SkS (there are quite a few), you play the 'confluence of factors' card? Can you be any more specific? Offer some peer-reviewed science to back you up? "30 years isn't a very long period of time. The Artic climate is notoriously variable." We've posted the longer term reconstructions of Arctic ice on prior threads. The trend of summer minima is down and accelerating. Ice-free summers ... not too far off. You can find the graphics with 'Search'. "SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT" Please. Quoting a single weather report from 1922 says nothing at all about climate and trends.
  44. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 60), "RW1 @56, and you were wrong about the average as I clearly indicated. As the second graph shows, there is little variation in Top Of Atmosphere annual average insolation north of about 60 degrees latitude. Insolation at the surface is more complicated because of cloud cover, but as the third graph shows, there is again little variation over sea north of about 60 degrees, with an exception north of Europe." Are you forgetting that the Earth is sphere and as you get closer and closer to the poles the angle increases, resulting in less and less insolation?
  45. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @59, what a revelation. Do you mean to say that in the summer of 1922 arctic sea ice had no more extent (ice free in some locations as far north as 81.5 degrees than it has in the winter of 2011: Well that certainly puts a whole new perspective on things!
  46. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Nice try RW1 @59. Really, this silly argument that "it has happened before" is a ridiculous red herring used to confuse and mislead lay people. Of course scientists know very well that conditions warmed between 1910 and 1940-- no-one in the know is denying that. However, the rate of warming then not as great as in recent times. Also, that was a transient event, what we are in store is going to last much longer. Anyway, this has all been refuted before, b/c this Monckton Myth #12 that you floated has been soundly refuted here.
  47. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @56, and you were wrong about the average as I clearly indicated. As the second graph shows, there is little variation in Top Of Atmosphere annual average insolation north of about 60 degrees latitude. Insolation at the surface is more complicated because of cloud cover, but as the third graph shows, there is again little variation over sea north of about 60 degrees, with an exception north of Europe. @57, you appear to confused about which side of the argument you are on. You are arguing that high winter snowfall and ice formation will limit the summer melt, and hence the Ice albedo effect. But now your want to use a lack of correlation between winter ice extent and summer ice extent as proof that ice albedo effect is irrelevant. In fact, the proof of its relevance is given in my immediately preceding post where I point out the correlation between minimum summer ice extent and springtime temperatures. For a large initial (springtime melt) to reliably reproduce large summer reductions in ice volume independent of the summer temperature suggests a strong feed back mechanism in which early ice melts drive later ice melts.
  48. CO2 was higher in the past
    I've seen this graphic come up a few times to refute this argument and similar ones. Here's the original source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html The page's author, Monte Hieb, is listed at the bottom. Poking around a little more on Google will give you a sense of his paleoclimate qualifications.
  49. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Rob (RE: 54) "No one claims that the trend is going to be a steady decline. You get year to year noise in the data, as expected. If you look at the annual sea ice extent you'll notice that it only rebounded to the long term declining trend line." 30 years isn't a very long period of time. The Artic climate is notoriously variable. Consider this report from the US Weather Bureau: "THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED." The problem is this is from 1922!
  50. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @52: Seeing you are discussing ice melt, you should be discussing Ice Volume rather than Ice Extent: Large reductions in ice volume correlate very well with elevated arctic spring time temperatures, so temperature is the determinant of arctic ice melt. Wind strength and speed, along with the extent of multiyear (thick) ice are additional factors determining ice extent. Of course, no body has claimed that the greenhouse effect or the ice albedo feedback are the sole determinants of global temperatures, let alone regional temperatures, which can vary based on a large number of factors, the most important of which regionally is the direction of prevailing winds. So you can put that strawman firmly back in the basket.

Prev  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us