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  790  791  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  Next

Comments 39851 to 39900:

  1. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #52

    chriskoz, that article about Abbott's adviser had me shaking my head in disbelief. That the country is being guided by such 'Looney Right' opinions only confirms my worst fears about where the current government is heading. The only light on the horizon is the increasing number of people I am meeting, who are starting to worry about Abbott & Co's blindness to scientific advice. The most unlikely people are starting to realise AGW is real and they don't like the government being so out of touch.

    Will 2014 be the year when we brought the Liberals kicking and screaming into the 21st century? I can only hope so, but the auguries are bad.

  2. Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013

    I think this is an exceptionally good and balanced article. It states the facts as observations, without the usual overload of interpretations (we will see if others in the know dispute them and for what reasons). This is therefore an article which insites credibility. Others may argue the causes, but the observational facts are something we all should be able to agree on. This is the basis of science. Thank you.

  3. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #52

    At the end of 2013, Tony Abbott (by his advisor) has given us the gift of revelation that he and his advisers are true anti-science nutters:

    'Scientific delusion is crumbling'

    Todate, I had some hope that current Oz govs are at least some sort of "luke-warmists", arguing the implications and policy responses, etc., but not denying the obvious logic of AGW. After that comment I have no doubt they have taken seriously John Howard's preaching that "scientists are religious zealots" and even extended it to the next level. That portrays them as absolute, uncurable nutters, like Jim Inhofe in US.

    I wonder how far they are going to reach with such foolish agenda. Are australian electorate as silly as to believe it?

  4. Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013

    Not simplistic, but seemingly uninformed. Why don't you study the issue on these pages (or realclimate.org etc., or a textbook specific to your interests?) a bit more, and then come back with a more specific question or questions.

    Moderator Response:

    gws, garethman's question was not particularly over-the-top, and in fact, his/her question was in support of what the science states. Please be more considferate, and less confrontational, in your remarks.

  5. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science

    Except that there is no such thing as being "pro-AGW" ... nobody here advocates it to happen.

  6. Southern sea ice is increasing

    One connection is missing here.  As the westerly winds increase, increasing the push on the sea ice, it increases the speed with which the ice is moving clockwise around the Antarctic.  In the southern hemisphere, moving objects veer to the left.  In a clockwise rotating system, left is away from the centre.  This may be part of the explanation of why the ice is spreading outwards.  We see this in the Bearfort gyre.  It normally rotates clockwise and in the norther hemisphere, moving objects veer to the right.  In a clockwise rotating system in the northern hemisphere, right is toward the centre and indeed, the centre of the Beaufort gyre, contary to one would think at first thought, is higer than the edges.  Ocean garbage patches are also an example of this phenomenon.

  7. Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013

    I am not a scientist, an academic or well qualified to judge the validity of climate science, but if the long term temperature trend is up, and we know climate never stays the same, and the data does not show any cooling, what is left apart from the fact that it has warmed and continues to do so. Or I am being too simplistic?

  8. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52

    I agree with chriskoz @#1 and don't see how Doug @#2 explained his misunderstanding. Unless I'm missing something, it's a bit like I see from the Skeptic side with its non-sequitor. As scientists discover some of the detrimental side effects of messing around with the ecosystem even more than the present +CO2 they should be reported as such, not as something else.

  9. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    There's something disturbing about the perspective in this animation. The blocks of ice are foreshortened or something, which creates a misleading impression about the relative decline. The block on the left does not align itself with its value on the axis, and the final volume on the right is not 30% as tall as the one on the right, either by eye or by screen capture followed by measurement. I like the idea, the data are horrifying, but the animation has exaggerated the loss by the manner in which it has been constructed.

  10. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    joeygoze, the usual measurement is "accumulated cyclone energy".

    Basically, hurricane Sandy was much larger than most storms. Category 1 winds covering nearly the entire US east coast is a much more powerful storm than Category 1 winds covering a few hundred square miles. The amount of rainfall, size of the storm surge, duration of high winds, et cetera, are all increased.

  11. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52

    We mustn't be tempted to use artificial methods to remove Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  While we are pumping ever increasing masses of Carbon into the atmosphere, it is obviously an insane idea but even if our output of carbon ceased tomorrow it is a not starter.  Natural processes are so much more powerful as shown by our annual 7ppm variation (8up, 6 down) in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  We must, rather restore these natual systems.

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html

    http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html

  12. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Question on statement above. "While Sandy was technically a Category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, it was also more energetic than Hurricane Katrina at landfall, and inflicted about $50bn in damages."  The Categories are based on windspeed, right? What is the "more energetic" assertion based on?

    Additionally, level of property damage is not a good value to utilize in arguing about increases in storm intensities as that value very dependant on population growth in geographic areas and community preparedness for storms. If Sandy had hit an unpopulated, undeveloped area or hit an area that was very well prepared for storm surge and the resulting $ value of damage was very low, it would certainly NOT be evidence that climate change is not causing increased storm intensities. 

  13. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52

    chriskoz, you didn't quote the last part of the article:

    'The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.”'

    We can't simply cool the Earth that way, because it would cause a catastrope. In this case, the sense of "can't" is "we can't do it because it is a stupid idea", not "we can't do it because it's impossible". So, I would say the heading is valid, although it could have been phrased differently..

  14. Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously

    Now is the Winter1 of our discontent, to misquote the Bard. You have replied to the unimportant part of Tom Curtis's post, so have clearly read and understood it. The important part is this:

    "the presence of IR active molecules in the atmosphere warms the surface relative to what its temperature would have been in their absence"

    What do you have to say about the science backing Tom's statement? Is your new persona more amenable to examining the evidence and following where it leads, as a true sceptic would?

  15. Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously

    re Ahuramazda. Thanks for drawing my attention to the inference which I was inviting by choosing the early Zoarastrian god as a user name. That was not the intention and certainly does not reflect my opinion on the subject of gods or superstitions generally. I have now chosen another user name, as can be seen.

  16. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52

    The title "Reducing sunlight ‘will not cool Earth’" is wrong and misleading. Simple energy preservation law implies the opposite: less energy in - the planetary temperature must drop to restore the energy balance.

    Even worse than that, the author implies: "two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight". In fact, the researchers said nothing alike. They said, as quoted at the end:

    ...traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences

    and that's quite different.

    I understand and share the author's dislike of geo-engineering, reinforced by the results of the quoted study. However in reporting it, one must take care to cite the correct news only. Bloating the headlines into bogus/irrational claims is unacceptable and only gives the "sceptics" an argument that "warmists exaggerate the reality".

  17. Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously

    Please provide an example of inappropriate use of the term greenhouse gas. Your objection is extremely unclear.

  18. Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously

    @54, I, if others do not, appreciate the irony of somebody, who, having taken the name of God, prattles on about so-called religious traits in others.  I also understand and detest the arrogance of those who so name themselves.  That arrogance shows in your framing of the discussion.  The simple fact is that the term "green house gas" arose from historical usage.  That usage is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no benefit gained to counter the confusion that would result from a concerted effort to change terminology.  The use of the term no more implies acceptance of a green house model of the "greenhouse effect" than does saying you are in good humour, or find something humourous, implies you accept the greek theory of the four humours.

    On a more substantive issue, that the presence of IR active molecules in the atmosphere warms the surface relative to what its temperature would have been in their absence is established beyond any reasonable doubt by direct observations.  That climate models predict the approximate magnitude of that effect is also well established.  If those climate models then go on to confirm the expected increase in temperature derived from simple consideration of the theory, that gives me far more reason to trust that expectation than do the comments of a person who seeks false authority by giving themselves the name of a god, and who demonstrates by their comment that they do not understand the basic science.  

  19. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    @william at 04:38 AM on 29 December, 2013

    No, the amount of melted water would contribute only a very small rise globally.

    21 feet would be for the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet.

     

    "In the unlikely event that all the water retained in the ice sheet melted, it is estimated that the global sea level would rise about 21 feet"

  20. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

    bvt123, did you also read the advanced version of the article? Why less <1? Well you do the maths on the physical system (or do an experiment) and that is the number that comes out...

    When you say "average temperature of Earth was stable", what temperature range do you consider "stable"? The risk from climate change is when it happens too fast for adaptation, and having a temperature change of the order that you get from glacial to interglacial happening over say 500 years instead of 10,000 is too fast.

    Over long time scales, chemical weathering of silicates (which in turn control CO2 absorption in the ocean) act as a crude thermostat. See for example Archer 2008.

  21. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Yeah, what Kevin said :-)

  22. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

    of course I read that article, and of course I don't catch the idea.  There are nothing said why the gain is less than one. There are no arguments about positive feedback of water wapor and the gain for it.

    Nothing  said about negative feedback factors, but just proposed some not proved diagrams in very wide temperature range.  The average tempereture of Earth was stable  (d=10C) for the last millios years, and we need a clear answer of cause of such stability. Not a model, but some good theory.  

    Moderator Response:

    [TD]  You seem to be assuming that positive feedback must run away unless there is some special, unusual, magical factor to make the gain less than one.  You are wrong.  As scaddenp now has explained to you, feedbacks are what they are.  Positive feedbacks of various phenomena in the wide universe are no more common than negative feedbacks.  To determine the signs and values of feedbacks we must measure.  Just one example is in the post on water vapor feedback.

  23. Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather

    Old Mole - I agree it could be phrased a lot better.

     

    As to distributed climate models, Climateprediction.net is already doing that.Sign up.

  24. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    If we were to calculate the amount of ice that could melt due to either incoming radiation or a walker cell, linking the warming ocean with the Greenland ice sheet, we would come up with a certain amount based on the latent heat of ice as it converts to water.  However, with all this water already melted, the melt of ice only has to breach this aquafer to release much of this water. By the by, I thought that the whole of Greenland would have to melt to raise sea level 20 feet.  Am I misreading or does this article suggest that just this amount of fern water, if released, would raise sea level 21 feet.

  25. Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather

    "Another limit to the accuracy of climate models deals with processes that do not obey basic laws of the universe (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy)."

     

    Perhaps this might be more elegantly phrased. I sincerely doubt that even in the most chaotic systems, matter, energy and momentum are getting created or destroyed, even if it seems that way in the macro perspective of a climate model.

    This article does raise a question in my mind, though ... if most models are being run on (very expensive) supercomputers 24/7 based on one small grid square at a time, it seems to me that this would be an ideal candidate for massively parallel distributed computing, if you could find programmers clever enough to write the software for it. I for one would be willing to volunteer the use of any spare cycles in a good cause, and I think most of the denizens of SkS feel the same way.

     

    Best wishes,

     

    Mole

  26. Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?

    Hokeith...  The paradox would be merely the fact that we have increasing sea ice in the Antarctic (for now) in response to warming. Guy Williams has listed what are believed to be the primary influences causing this effect.

    Not sure what you have to be disappointed about.

  27. Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?

    Disappointing article. Sorry. I expected more of the "paradox of Antarctic sea ice” being explained than a less than exhaustive list of hypotheses (plausible though some may be) and "take aways" of: "while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic ...." (that's irrelevant) and ".... this is not unexpected" (when is a paradox expected?!).

  28. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

    yes, we can't see a positive feedback.  But the theory of greenhouse gases predict it.  So it's something wrong with theory itself or some other factors give more influence then predictions of greenhouse theory.   So my Q is - Which factors stabilize the climat in the relatively low temperature range for a long time frame? I can't find any powerfull enough factors by visiting a link "several influences on the Earth's temperature".

    That's why I'm asking here for critics or comments of Biotic Regulation Theory of Prof. Gorshkov 

    Moderator Response:

    [TD]  bvt123, you either did not read or did not understand the first post I pointed you to, which explains that positive feedback can and does exist without it being runaway positive feedback.  As long as the gain is less than one, positive feedback limits itself, progressively reducing in each of its feedback cycles until it reaches zero feedback.  You are incorrect in saying "we can't see a positive feedback"; we do indeed see multiple positive feedbacks.

  29. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Dana's figure of 0.21C over 15 years is a trend of 0.14C/decade. This figure comes from the new monthly updates to our hybrid data, using the period Nov 98-Oct 13. We're hoping to release the monthly updates in the next couple of weeks, but bearing in mind people may use this in papers we're being very careful.

    (I've already made and fixed one mistake in reconstructing the Hadley land ensemble. Trying to maintain professional QA labels in your spare time is really hard.)

  30. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Approx 2 billion hiroshima bombs of heat added since 1998. That sounds frightening. It would be informative to know the heat content of the oceans in hiroshima bombs in 1998?

  31. One Planet Only Forever at 15:45 PM on 28 December 2013
    More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    TonyW @6.

    There can be many evaluations of the rate of change. Trend lines through the data sets can take many forms, as can the 'rate of change' of any portion of the data set.

    Very simple evaluations of The NASA/GISS temperature data set show the following change has occurred over the past 15 years (from 1997 to 2012):

    • Annual average 1997 is 0.46, 2012 is 0.57 which is 0.11 increase
    • Average of 2 years ending in 97 is 0.395 vs. 0.56 = 0.165 increase
    • Average of 5 years ending in 97 is 0.344 vs. 0.576 = 0.232 increase
    • Average of 10 years ending in 97 is 0.327 vs. 0.587 = 0.260 increase

    Just for fun, the same comparison can be done for 1998 to 2013 using te December to November Annual averages presented on NASA/GISS:

    • Annual average 1998 is 0.62, 2013 is 0.59 which is 0.03 decrease (the magic decline or cooling that some hope many among the population will accept as a valid assessment)
    • Average of 2 years ending in 98 is 0.53 vs. 0.58 = 0.05 increase (the very small warming that some desperately want the general population to believe if they will not believe the 1998 to 2013 cooling scam)
    • Average of 5 years ending in 98 is 0.418 vs. 0.596 = 0.178 increase (a comparison from 1998 that would never be made by those trying to fool others)
    • Average of 10 years ending in 98 is 0.389 vs. 0.589 = 0.20 increase (A comparison from 1998 that would definitely never be reported by those trying to fool others)

    Similar results will be found in the other data sets, including the satellite data sets developed by Christy and Spencer.

    Those who want to claim there has been no warming or little warming or cooling can find ways to 'show what they want people to believe', but they have to keep people unaware of all the rest of the information and what it shows.

    That 'keeping people less aware' is the game played by everyone who is a cheater and knows they are a cheater (most of the Republicans, and even some of the Democrats). And on this issue it is very easy to 'fool many people'. Many people have been made greedy by the socioeconomic system. And they have also been made desperate by the same system. The greedy desperate ones are the most easily impressed by claims that the unsustainable and damaging activities they are familiar with getting benefit from cannot be blocked and must be allowed to increase. The easily fooled believe that is their best and only hope. They do not care that what they want to pursue is unsustainable and damaging. They are desperate and greedy.

  32. More misleading Congressional climate testimony
    I was confused by the statement that the bottom of the atmosphere has warmed by 0.21°C over the last 15 years. The paper by Cowtan and Way shows 0.11°C-0.12°C warming per decade, according to the story linked to. Doesn't that make about 0.18°C warming over the last 15 years? The data set from UAH, would appear to show even more rapid warming of the surface than Cowtan and Way.
  33. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    Water is curious, in that it can exist in solid and liquid forms at ~ the same temperature. Who'd have thought liquid water lurked beneath the Greenland snows? Not me. It seems counterintuitive, until the insulating property of a snow blanket is explained. What a fascinating world: let's hope we don't wreck it too soon.

  34. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    Tcflood,

    Since this aquifer has just been discovered its importance may not yet be known.  However, it is well known that the area of melting ice is rapidly expanding upward on Greenland.  Part of the area of the aquifer likely was too cold to retain liquid water in the past.  How much?  It takes a lot of energy to raise the previously cold ice to the melting point (if liquid water exists the ice has been raised to the melting point).  This could result in much more melting in the future as the warm ice melts and the aquifer, now full, flows into the sea.  We will have to wait a few years to learn more about the possible importance of this discovery.

    A few mm here and a few mm there and pretty soon it looks like real sea level rise.

  35. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    tcflood@1,

    I think Forster et al 2013 is talking about SLR potential in case of a sudden release of waters from the aquafier like this. At 27,000 sqare miles, it is just ~ few times smaller than lake Agassiz.

    We know from paleo that SLR due to icesheet melt is a non-linear process, punctuated by sudden rises, for example the release of lake Agassiz is thought to contribute 1-3m of SLR during 8,200 yr climate event. This may also account for various flood myths of prehistoric cultures, including the Biblical flood myth.

    The aquafier just discovered may not be the only one existing within the GIS or AIS. Understanding their properties and the mechanisms of their release may hold a clue to the understanding the non-linearities of icesheet contribution to SLR.

  36. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #51

    That cartoon needs a sequel.  or two... about the prizes for winning and losing. 

  37. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    And so it goes:  "Extreme Whether" tells this story from our side!  And we just received at $5000 matching grant from an angel who believes this play has to be widely seen.  Any donation you now give is doubled! http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/extreme-whether

  38. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    What else did you expect from a bunch of antidiluvian old fossils who prefer to wreck their own country rather than allow a black man who far exceeds them in intelligence, humanity and vision to succeed in pulling America out of the hole it has dug for itself.  They have zero concern for the good of their country of of their citizens and even less (minus) for the good of the world we share with them. 

    Moderator Response:

    [PS]. Please note the "No Politics" part of the Comments Policy. While this might be difficult on this topic, no more rants please.

  39. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

       Thanks for this. Just shows how little we know about the systems we are in the process of destroying.

       And this is in an area that you can walk across and get direct access to, yet we are still finding out things about its structure that are entirely unexpected and counter-intuitive.

       How certain, then, can we be that we know enough about the structure of the subsea permafrost and methane hydrate to say for certain that sudden off-gassing of significant quantities of methane could not happen? Just sayin'. ;-/

       Speaking of sudden release, is there any chance that these fresh (I assume) waters could relatively suddenly be released into the Northern Atlantic and therefore potentially shut down or greatly slow down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current? How much water over how much time would be needed. IIRC it was in the range of .1 to1 Sverdrup (=.1 to 1million meters ^3 per second)?
     

  40. Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round

    This is interesting science, but I don't see what the hubbub is with regard to sea level. The entire estimated annual melt of Greenland amounts to a fraction of a millimeter of sea level as does the entire content of the newly found aquifer. 

  41. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    The prescreening of experts to testify on issues that could have economic impact is the standard practice in a political system the runs on patronage. Actual facts and truth are not what are wanted nor expected, but ammunition for selected points of view that support those who give partonage to keep the polticals in their careers. This, among other reasons, is why the American poltical process is broke or effectively bogged down at best.

  42. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Unfortunately Republicans in Congress aren't interested in learning about or making any efforts to solve the climate problem.  Their goal is to maintain the status quo, and to find witnesses who will give them the testimony to justify doing so.  It's a huge problem that these people are in charge of one of the two major parties in the world's largest historical GHG emitting country.

  43. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

       In the second video, which was generally very excellent, the point should have been made at some point that sea ice has volume as well as surface area. Since nearly all Antarctic winter sea ice is and has been one year, its total volume has always been relatively small relative to Arctic sea ice volume.

       So if you had a plot of global sea ice volume, it would show the same exponential-looking loss rate as you see from the graph of Arctic sea ice volume loss in the first video.

  44. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    William @13.

    I don't think it is true to say "the ESA is so reluctant to publish ice volume measurements." Access to the data is given for folk who care to crunch the numbers & they do publish nice shiny videos of  ice thickness, although this year's video delivery from the ESA was lacking somewhat, the ESA providing in compensation only thumb nail seasonal ice thickness maps.

    Where there is a reluctance from ESA is perhaps to provide a blow-by-blow account of Arctic SIV (as does now PIOMAS) but given the calibration tasks Cryosat2 has had to perform, they will be very conscious that such results could still prove less than robust. (See perhaps Laxon et al 2013 'CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume.')

  45. More misleading Congressional climate testimony
    How depressing that the Republicans continue to invite the same two witnesses to give testimony. Why don't they find some new sources of information? Are they afraid of hearing something to confound their complacency? In the same vein, why does Tony Abbott (Australia's Prime Minister) want to shut down all sources of climate advice to government? Is he afraid that he can't dictate to CSIRO what he wants to hear from them? When Nature and Politics are in conflict, my money is on Nature, because Nature bats last.
  46. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    william@13,

    Sure enough.

    In mid-2011 in Australia, Monckton was preaching the arctic ice "recovery" showing its increasing minimum extents from 2007 in two consecutive yearts 2008 & 2009. Note that he deliberately omitted the 2010 data (showing decrease in extent and dramatic fall in volume), the data available at the time of his preaching. BTW, that episode was the biggest and most shameful cherry-picking show I've ever seen.

    I wonder where our famous "cherry-collector viscount" is right now when 2013 provided similar oppotunities? Maybe his line of preaching does not not fall into fertile ground anymore which would be good news.

    There is no doubt however, that Monckton would love to relive his fulfilment of misleading the audience and coming "infinite sea ice recovery" will be an opportunity too good to miss. So, because that event will likely come still in his time,  we may hear from him yet...

  47. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    John Brookes@8,

    When you make mocking statements like that you should indicate it more clearly, e.g. by blockquoting it and indicating as coming from a denialosphere. Otherwise, there are many nutters up there who will pickup your comment seriously and argue it as the SkS stance.

  48. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Whether the Sept. ice disappears in 5 years or 20 years, the year following should be amusing.  All things being equal there will be a recovery of some sort and no matter how large or small the recovery,  the climate change deniers can then claim an infinite increase in ice for that year.  By the by, does anyone know whay the ESA is so reluctant to publish ice volume measurements.  Satellite problems, software problems, bun fights amongst the scientists involved or what.

  49. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    I realize this is about ice volume, and not extent or area. But, still, both those metrics are currently showing less ice coverage than there was at the same time in 2011--that is, the year before 2012's big meltout. Given that, I fail to see how anyone can make the straight-faced claim that Arctic ice is somehow on any real rebound.

    Anway, I just added a trio of animated 3D PIOMAS graphs to my own climate graphics page to go along with the rest of the menagerie there. I admit that they're not as pretty as Andy Lee's musically-enhanced videos, but I think they work well enough to bolster this post's claim that sea ice volume is most definitely not recovering.:

    (Use your mouse/touchpad to move the graphs around in 3D space, or zoom in/out with your scroll wheel.)

  50. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Thanks for the helpful comments and a Happy New Year to all

Prev  790  791  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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