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  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  Next

Comments 129951 to 130000:

  1. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi PS AGW alarmists talk about the end of life, the other talk about the end of civilization. The damage will be done if we pay too much attention to either. Skeptical examination of both arguments should lead to a realization close to the truth so I suggest keeping an open mind.
  2. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi I am not a professional any longer, I am retired. My lifelong interest is paleontology and I am a continuing student in that field (I bought my retirement home because of the rock on the property, you cant walk without stepping on fossils). So I do also study paleoclimates and that is why I come to this site. When I did work it was in engineering research. Specifically automotive engineering, specialized in engine and emissions. So my work the measurements of all things mechanical, climatatic and gaseous in the interest of improving product and self policing to maintain federal compliance, both in the lab and in the field. Truth is something that we search for, honesty is an attitude. If you read my recent statements in the solar thread I think it clarifies my points fairly well.
  3. It's the sun
    Here is the "180_years" PDF.
  4. It's the sun
    Millions tons of SO2 in the stratosphere, Mt. Pinatubo was a great example. Now it’s overestimated or was. The scare tactic is dying.
  5. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Back to the post: We simply have not studied life for long enough to be able to state categorically how it responds to rapid environmental changes ( a bit like climate!!) We do know there were massive and rapid changes in the past that life coped with..the so called extinction events. Down but not out. Species evolve/adapt to fill niches: over time that niche alters and if the organism cannot adapt to those changes (whatever the cause) then it dies out because it can no longer compete in that niche.. This is part of the process however much we may dislike it. Species, by adapting to niches are risking extiction by becoming more and more specialised, yet, with the possible exception of man, this is what all species do. We should therefore expect to see species decline as a natural part of the overall process. Our effect on local environments may accelerate matters and give certain species a greater problem than they would otherwise have had, but that is part of the 'risk factor' of life itself. The underlying issue here is what kind of natural world do we want and what are we prepared to give up in order to achieve it? And the answer to that question depends entirely on your perspective. If you posit that the 'purpose' of evolutionary processes is to produce a species that is capable of adapting to any kind of environment then the logical culmination of that is a species that can colonise ALL possible habitats...including other planets. Only man has that potential through his technology. If in the process of achieving that goal, the earth is radically impoverished ( from a humanistic viewpoint) does that matter in the overall scheme?
  6. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    QM: Humans like quick fixes; they can then forget that problem and move onto the next one ( whatever it might be). Clearly trees played a big role in sequestering CO2 in the past ( that's how we got coal) so the quick fix is plant more trees and this also has the benefit of increasing habitat space. Unfortunately, many schemes ( such as propagated by the UK Forestry Commission)are monocultural...one genus such as pine is planted because it is fast growing and thus locks up CO2 rapidly. The short term effect seems good, but in the medium term the soil and local water table suffer dramatically. Studies in the US show up to 13% loss in stream flow within a short radius of plantations and increasing soil imbalance which eventually gives rise to salty soil. Both these effects are detrimental to bio-diversity. The answer is planting a wide mix of trees rather than monocultures....in other words just like Mother Nature did.
  7. It's the sun
    July 2008....report by Beck on 180 yrs of chemical CO2 analysis...showing previous values of CO2 from 1800'2 have been understated.....google "beck's 180 year analysis of CO2"....lots of info.
  8. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, I'm anti-alarmist as well, but I define an alarmist as someone who predicts the end of the world if we act to prevent AGW. If we fail to act to prevent AGW, these alarmists may be correct, whether we act to prevent AGW or not. I'm anti-fundamentalist, but on the fence as far as terrorism and communism. I fear unregulated capitalism. I'm an environmentalist (including GW and AGW) and conservationist...at least compared to most Americans. I'm from upstate NY where we believe in deception and never say what we mean. Sarcasm! New Yorkers think they have a monopoly on honestly and frankness, not to mention most other things. I'm from a small town--_do not_ buy into the "small town values" nonsense as our values are no better than yours. Darwin and evolution, yes. I think the ID people are a bit crazy. Charles Darwin's hypothesis is not a hypothesis. It's a given at this point. At least you say you state your views honestly, vs. truthfully. "Truthfully" implies infallibility which none of us should claim. Who likes like being called a liar? But if you lie, you will be caught! Finally, I'll say that I enjoyed my last three trips to NYC Broadway/E. 89-th St area immensely, and much to my surprise. NOW, we can talk. BTW, I thought I saw you mention involvement in SAE someplace and was curious as to what work or interests brought involvement that about. As for me, my degree is in Math/Physics (joint major), with a course in Climatology and Atmospheric Physics (all that education from the 1970s), some work in the field of Air Quality Modeling and 18 years as a Senior Programmer/Project Manager at a driving simulator used for safety research. Unemployed now and, perhaps, for good. So, I'm trying to catch up on science issues and trying to avoid the cursed Dunning-Kruger effect. That's me in a nutshell.
  9. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    HealthySkeptic, Regarding your comment at #184, I did read the article at the link provided. It's the article and Noel Sheppard that I dismiss. His first statement is pure hyperbole and should be dismissed: "With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science." Really? If true, there would be no IPCC scientists left that were not skeptics. The reader of the article, if they even care, will have a difficult time separating Sheppard's comments about what the IPCC said from what the IPCC actually did say (or write). I have every reason to doubt Sheppard's motives in writing such an article. I assume that whatever Tom V. Segalstad said was said in good faith. But his comments have been taken out of context and put in Sheppard's context (filtered by Lawrence Solomon, it turns out). Reread the article and tell me definitely who wrote what...much of the text is Sheppard's but is indented (but w/o quotes) to appear as if said or wrote by the IPCC. Some of the text appears in quotes after the indented text and is probably Segalstad's own words, but proceeded by Sheppard's comments. The writing style confusion is intended. OK, rereading the Sheppard(just a small business owner), he's simply restating much of Lawrence Solomon's Canadian Nation Post (Financial Post) article. It's not clear where Solomon got his Segalstad quotes. Did he interview Segalstad? He doesn't really say. Solomon is just a journalist. So try http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm to sort through what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it. Why should others have to do your literature search for you? Like I said, don't rely on NewsBusters.org. Go to the source.
  10. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PPS My field also has research papers. The SAE has it's own journal and annually publish the collection in hard cover for reference. The difference is that in the private sector many of us can not publish the results of research as the knowledge gained is deemed proprietary. Hence, when I was working I had to publish any articles under an alias and be very careful not to reveal any company secrets.
  11. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Generally, anywhere you find a mountain range you will also find a fault line or a subduction zone. The other place to look is major rivers as they often follow a fault that has rifted.
  12. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I left out the "and" between why and where, sorry.
  13. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe As usual I agree with much that you say. But If you check out the paleomaps at Palaeos.com you can readily see the plates that make up Antarctica. If you follow the last link I placed in the Volcanos thread it explains why where the Antarctic heat is generated. PS The need to defend Darwin and the ToE in general is precisely that the educational system itself is under attack by fundamentalists. If they get their way science education will be even worse than it has been since the 1960s when the standards were lowered.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 06:10 AM on 6 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Dunno what earthquake you're talking about. There was one in West A. in August, after the July WIS collapse. There was one in July, around 5 magnitude and very, very far away. http://www.gdacs.org Enough blogging, I have real stuff to do.
  15. Philippe Chantreau at 05:33 AM on 6 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    You statement that Antarctica is not one plate is inaccurate. It is one very large plate, with boundaries with the Pacific, Nazca, Scotia, African and Indo-Australian plates.
  16. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    So the sudden drop in sea ice in 2007 was due to weather conditions, not climate change ( excepting weather is the end product of the climate process). How many times do we need to remind ourselves "one swallow does not a summer make"? Sea ice is a part of the negative feedback system that keeps climate (reasonably) stable. Melting requires heat (334J/gm if I remember rightly)and this mostly affects local sea temperature. It also keeps plankton et al very happy and bloomimg nicely, (they like it cool)which is good because they lock up a bit more CO2 and the food chain speeds up.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 05:23 AM on 6 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, the recent break up is only part of the story. WIS lost 425square km to melting in Feb-March this year. It is the subject of much research that, to my knowledge does not mention seismic earthquakes as a significant factor. Other ice shelves that have collapsed include Wordie, Mueller, Jones, Larsen A and B. All earthquakes? In the years leading to its collapse, LarsenB lost 18 meters of ice to melting from the bottom. Ice shelves collapse as a result of a process, not a single event. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;271/5250/788 http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/341/2008/tcd-2-341-2008.pdf http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2005_vdB_GRL.pdf
  18. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Oh, silly me....it's the anomaly, not actual temps....but the colour scheme IS dramatic isn't it? All those reds and oranges really catch your eye and make it LOOK hot... There are several sites dealing with Use of Colour to Alter Phsycological Perception and Mind States. Red is associated with danger/alarm/anger/hostility and generates an internal need TO DO SOMETHING. Now, if they had used blue, green, indigo............
  19. Antarctica is gaining ice
    "NASA Finds VAST Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past 05.15.07 A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that EXTENSIVE areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to WARM TEMPERATURES. This was the first WIDESPREAD Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the MOST SIGNIFICANT MELT observed using satellites during the past three decades. Combined, the affected regions encompassed an area as big as CALIFORNIA." My caps. - just look at the map and tell me the use of those words is justified. The ACTUAL area involved is a FRACTION of the ice sheets, even the IPCC reckon it would take over 1000yrs to melt if the worst of their predictions materialised.
  20. Philippe Chantreau at 04:39 AM on 6 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Reality is the only test and is what defends Darwin now better than anything. It does not matter to Darwin (who is dead) or to reality that armies of superstitious people attack evolution, its validity stands regardless. It matters to us because of the social implications of having irrational superstitious people designing school curricula and shaping policies. It's not Darwin or evolution that needs to be defended, it's ourselves, really. By the way, the immense majority (which is not saying much) of creationism or I.D. "scientific" stuff out there is non published, why do you think that is? Working in the private sector and not having to peer-review your work does not mean the work is better or more interesting. Most of it is so specialized in a given area of application that it would not be of great interest to a science journal, except a specialized journal on that particular area; there are plenty of those and private sector scientists publish more than you describe. However, when they see that they're on to something really interesting, guess what, they publish in a major journal. It happens a lot in chemistry and pharmacological research. It happened to Penzias and Wilson, and many others. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is a minimum and by no means a guarantee of validity, but scientists know the value of it for both personal recognition and fostering of their field. Newton waited years to publish his gravitation work because he did not have all the data to make an iron clad case (even at that, Mercury was still a bother). As hard as he believed in a unified theory, Einstein could not publish on it and he did not try. As uncomfortable as he was with Quantum (on which he was perfectly fluent), he did not question the validity of the theory itself either and had major publications on it. When scientists believe that they really have an insight into reality but can't back it up solidly, they write a book, or an op-ed, or whatever. The insight might be perfectly valid, or not. When they have the full deal, they publish. By the way, it's not because a researcher is "respected" that he can't be wrong or somewhat nuts. Newton is a case in point with his obsession with Alchemy. Spencer's published work is interesting and does not do that much to question the acquired knowledge of climate science to date. What transpires of it in press releases or in the right wing media is another story. His non peer-reviewed work is not published because it would not pass review and for good reasons. By the way, peer-review abuse swings both ways, i.e. the Soon-Baliunas fiasco. Spencer and Christy encouraged politically motivated use of data that they knew to be erroneous for years, and did not correct their work, leaving that task to others. Trust Spencer more if you want, but don't try to convince me I should.
  21. Models are unreliable
    QM: The earth-moon barycentre is around 1700km BENEATH our crust..so the tidal effect of the moon/sun would 'stir up' the lower mantle...presumably a very low frequency effect....and increase surface volcanic activity??
  22. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe On the cracking ice shelf. Are you aware of the major recent earthquake? Antarctica is not a single plate. That shelf rests on a smaller plate and the plate recently shifted along the fault with the larger plate, about the same time as the china quake.
  23. It's the sun
    Pep Thanks, that works. Mizimi They have determined that some volcanos also eject high amounts of SO2 on earth. It was mentioned in one of the articles that I linked on the volcanos thread here.
  24. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PPS Now more than ever Darwin needs to be defended.
  25. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Peer review is not required for the private sector, results are all that count. Peer review is required for academics for good reason but it has been and is being abused.
  26. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe I guess that you had to be there. Watch some old news clips about Viet Nam and how we were greeted as we arrived home. First stop for many of us was california. I lived there for several years, near LA, so I speak from experience. When I got back east the reverse was true. The attitude then, as now, was anything to help.
  27. We're heading into an ice age
    On sea levels: In Australia a bed of semi-fossilised molluscs has been found above current sea level and dated at between 4500 to 6000 years old. This suggests current MSL has fallen over the last 6000yrs. since Australia is not very active tectonically. Wait til the creationists find that one! I can't remember the exact page but more detail is at John-Daly web site.
  28. Models are unreliable
    Sandy Winder: Gustav was weather, not climate. Gustav was the end product of the climate process. Weather can be predicted over VERY short periods with a reasonable level of accuracy; at present, climate cannot. This is a good chunk of what the argument is all about. The uncertainty with Gustav was not that it would hit, but exactly where and at what level ( eventually I think downgraded to Cat2) so it would have been foolish to ignore it. A side benefit of the dispute is that we are learning a lot more about climate,history,the biosphere etc.
  29. It's the sun
    On Venus: When the Galileo satellite passed by, it collected a lot of interesting data. Including the fact that at IR levels, the atmosphere appears black...ie strongly absorbing IR. This is attributed to the SO2 clouds. There is further thought that the 'greenhouse' effect on Venus is caused by high level SO2 clouds rather than lower level CO2, and that most of the solar energy absorbed is via SO2. Any water vapour present would have been dissociated by UV and 'blown away' by the solar wind due to the lack of a magnetic field, thus stripping the planat of water. Currently there is a project to carry out a detailed 2 year investigation of Venus' climate and compare its' evolution with our own. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/may2008/presentations/5Titov.pdf
  30. It's the sun
    www.er.doe.gov/OBER/CPDAC/January_14_2008_DraftReport3_1.pdf
  31. Philippe Chantreau at 15:25 PM on 5 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    What the heck are you talking about WA? The Northwest and Northeast passages are open at the same time. Arctic sea ice extent experienced the fastest decline ever observed for a single August this year. The statement that Arcic sea ice is up 13% is about the most misleading and dishonest BS you could possibly come up with. 13% above what? The 1979-2000 average? What data are you using? I assume that you are trying to say that it is 13% more than last year at the same date, notwithstanding the fact that last year had a pefect storm of weather conditions leading to the greatest melt ever observed (27% below average). That 13% is probably no longer correct as of now anyway. It looks more likely now than at any other time this year that the 07 minimum could be exceeded, even though the exceptional weather conditions that caused last year's melt did not repeat. Meanwhile the Antarctic sea ice has not experienced any statistically significant change, but ice shelves are falling like flies, the latest is the Wilkins. Interestingly, the Wilkins ice shelf has seen its worst collapse in the Austral winter. I understand one who is skeptical, but don't go around throwing BS, it's almost as annoying as conspiracy theory rants. http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/denial/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710115142.htm Quietman, your characerization of scientific peer-review is grotesque. Einstein's work was peer-reviewed, even his very daring first relativity paper in 1905. Some doubted the validity, because they did not understand the maths. Those who did embraced it. Darwin does not need you to defend anything, nature is his advocate and nature does not care about human opinion at all. By the way, I asked around about that California thing, haven't got anything yet but people looking at me with round eyes. It's pretty sad that one can reach your age and lack wisdom so much as to call a place despicable, as if everything and everyone there was beyond hope. Loose the rancor, it'll do nothing but clog your arteries.
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi: Did you even read the article at the link I posted? Prof. Tom Segalstad is a well respected scientist, and one who has left the IPCC because he simply doesn't believe that their "science" is correct. Unlike yourself, I'm not one to dismiss the view of a respected scientist simply because it is reported by a source whose politics I don't agree with. No matter where you get your news, the undeniable fact remains that more and more IPCC scientists are abandoning the sinking ship. With respect to the term "alarmist", there simply is no better word to describe the behavior of many AGW proponents. You advise me to "read the science". Well, I suggest you widen your choice of scientific reading matter and take your own advice. The writing is on the wall. Good luck...
  33. Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
    PS Ignore Franks comments, he seems to attack everyone who does not fully endorse AGW. A definate Troll.
  34. Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
    Will Nitschke Well stated. The fundamentalists in my country still deny plate tectonics as well as Darwin's hypothesis. It does not alter the fact that Darwin was correct in the assumptions he made by observation (his errors are essentially due to time scales, he thought that the earth was much younger than it is). EvoDevo has borne out his hypothesis and also borne out the estimated time splits with a small margin of error. Check out Dr. Aaron Filler's web site The Upright Ape or "A new Origin of Species". Aside from a few publication errors, an excellent book as well.
  35. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    John and John and Josh Nice job.
  36. Greenland is gaining ice
    There is no argument of overall ice loss in Greenland. The glacial growth is not keeping up with glacial loss. The argument is the cause. Without the additional heat loss from the earth (vulcanism) through both tectonics and volcanism it might not be a net loss. In other words the reason behind Greenland's and the Arctics ice melt is in question. See the volcano thread.
  37. It's the sun
    Pep I cant open that site. Is there a typo maybe?
  38. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi And you are correct that I do have a bias, I am adamantly anti-alarmist, anti-activist, anti-fundamentalist, anti-terrorist and anti-communist and definately a conservationist and environmentalist. Above all I believe in honesty and being a native New Yorker tend to be frank. I am a stout defender of Charles Darwin's hypothesis and the Theory of Evolution. If that is upsetting to some I really don't care. I state my views honestly and do not like being called a liar. Now we can talk.
  39. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi Re: "Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs." The same is true of left wing blogs. I do read the papers, I just do not attempt to interpret them in any way. I take them for exactly what they say. Peer review today has become political and basically useless. Both the deniers and alarmists use only the like minded to do the review so why even bother. I have read many non-peer reviewed papers that have proven to be true, why should today be any better than yesterday. Was Charles Darwin's work peer reviewed? Its a way for some to shut others out, right or wrong. Dr. Fairbridge wrote many papers that were not peer reviewed. The Fairbridge Curve has been determined factual despite a consensus against him (it was named in derision). Dr. Spencer did a good article on CO2 sensitivity. I don't give a rats ass if it was peer reviewed or not. Spencer's reputation is a good one despite mistakes, it only proves that he's human. As for which blogs are right or left wing I don't know. If the blog is political in any manner I avoid it.
  40. It's the sun
    About overestimating in climate models after all we created them, there are errors and room for debate. http://www.er.doe.gov/OBER/CPDC/January_14_2008_DraftReport3_1.pdf
  41. Wondering Aloud at 06:35 AM on 5 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "Lee Grable at 19:05 PM on 2 September 2008 My user name is my real name Quietman, as is every other person on this website who speaks the truth." Some of us are protecting real scientists working in the field from pc witch hunts. When you head an organization to which many researchers belong it is dangerous to be honest and outspoken on this issue. The IPCC is a political organization it is most certainly not the "600" leading scientists in the field, nor is it holy writ or even accepted by the contributors. Leaving all of that aside the original point of this thread "arctic see ice melt..."; since sea ice is up 13% this year in the arctic and remains at or near the highest recorded in the Antarctic, should we assume cooling has settled in? What next endangered polar bears?
  42. Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
    Use raw data without corrections and see what they say.
  43. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    Well I don't know how many (nor do I actually care) but I have talked to quite a few and read the papers of quite a few more now, that refute the IPCC stance. They do not refute the issue however, just CO2 as the cause.
  44. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    Interesting comments and links, thank you both.
  45. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Mizimi The single largest issue on carbon capture (and habitat) that I read in the UK papers like the Telegraph or the Times is the deforrestation issue. It is not ssen as easily in the US as it is in the UK and that is a real problem here.
  46. It's the sun
    PS I am glad that the absurdity was not lost on you.
  47. It's the sun
    sandy I suggest that you read Spencer's work on sensitivity. It is linked here somewhere, possibly in the "sensitivity" thread. The fact is that CO2 and all other GHGs are feedbacks to solar energy. Change the solar input and the feedback changes with it. So when you see an increase in temp from GHG it is caused by changes in solar output. The case for venus is a bit more complicated but as that isn't the subject I kept it on a simplified level, using it the same way that the alarmists have (they claim we will look like venus if we don't take action, so I used their absurd notion).
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Sorry about the spelling, I am disabled and my eyesight varies throughout the day. The B/W contrast blurs the letters so I don't see the errors untils they are on the orange field.
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi If you look through this website you will see that I do not deny AGW but accept it as a valid hypothesis. My argument has been and continues to be the validity of the alarmist calims specifically for CO2 induced AGW. I can not see the climate sensitivity as high and do see other factors that are more likely causes. I certainly do not deny warming but I am greatly skeptical due to personal observations in my travels and the combined observations of other travellers that it is indeed global, hence the argument as to the accuracy and validity of the measurements as quoted. My "side" if you want to call it that, is Anti-alarmist, although I consider it anti-terrorist or anti-fundamentalist. John Cook is pro AGW but not an alarmist and for the most part I agree with his articles and comments. There is a difference between "taking sides" and being open minded.
  50. Antarctica is gaining ice
    The misinformation on this site is astonishing. Antarctic ice is increasing. In addition to the cryosphere link provided Anthony, This is confirmed by NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/regions/total_antarctic.html by NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html#seaice and by numerous scientific papers, including Cavalieri and Parkinson, J. Geophys. Res. 113, C07004 (2008), Comiso and Nishio, J. Geophys. Res. 113, CO2S07 (2008). You have managed to find one paper that finds a decrease - but that only covers a 3 year period! Obviously you cannot get a significant trend from 3 years data.
    Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.

Prev  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us