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  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  807  Next

Comments 39951 to 40000:

  1. Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously

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

  2. 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.  

  3. 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"

  4. 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.

  5. More misleading Congressional climate testimony

    Yeah, what Kevin said :-)

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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?!).

  12. 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.

  13. 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.)

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #51

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

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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)?
     

  24. 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. 

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.')

  29. 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.
  30. 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...

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.)

  34. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

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

  35. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    It appears that Andy Lee Robinson composed the music to go with the video. The youtube link is as follows: Ice Dream by Andy Lee Robinson

  36. One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 27 December 2013
    Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather

    I follow the climate change issue because it is one of the issues that relates directly to the many unacceptable economic developments that have occurred in the global economy because of the success of people with unacceptable attitudes, people who greedily pursue more benefit for themselves any way they can get away with.

    Economic models could be more reliable if they included more rational evaluations, including the potential influence of unethical uncaring people pursuing short-term personal benefit through unsustainable activities like the burning of fossil fuels and deliberately discounting or ignoring or not caring about the harm their pursuits will create or the risk of harm of their pursuits. The economic evaluations could also be more accurate if ‘value’ was not ascribed to activities that are fundamentally of no future worth, activities that cannot be benefited from in the future. They could also be more accurate if the evaluations did not discount future risk or challenges.

    Many current economic evaluations and modeling are fundamentally flawed. Some evaluations actually try to justify the more fortunate in a current generation gaining benefit from activities that cannot be benefited from by the entire population, cannot be continue to be benefited from by people in the future, and which create added challenges for others (particularly for those in the future). The evaluations compare what their creators believe is the lost opportunity for benefit by a current generation (meaning themselves), to what they believe the costs others will face will be. That is fundamentally irrational and extremely callous, basically saying it is OK to benefit in a way that others can't and that creates problems for others as long as the trouble the evaluator believes their actions create are less than the benefit they believe they get. The more irrational evaluations go one step further and ‘discount the costs others in the future face' by applying the economic principle of 'net-present-value'.

    So, the real problem with economic models and evaluations is the way the 'value' of things is measured. Evaluations that excuse damage or the risk of damage and assign value to unsustainable activity are bound to be ‘inaccurate’. These evaluations have led to the development of unsustainable and damaging activity that is a ‘constant struggle to sustain, let alone grow’ with battles and tragedy inflicted by those pursuing more of the limited unsustainable benefit they want to get the most of for themselves.

    The desire to ‘sustain or grow the benefit obtained from unsustainable and damaging activities’ is almost certainly behind ‘popular’ attempts to claim the climate science and its models are flawed or inaccurate or can be ignored.

    Admitting the unacceptability of unsustainable or damaging activity is the first step to more rationally evaluating the economy. Admitting the unacceptability of development that has led to the current global economy is the first step in recognizing what activities need to be ‘valued’ and what activities need to become ’worthless’. Only then can there be any expectation of reliable economic model predictions and evaluations, and the development of truly sustainable economic growth.

  37. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #51

    Very interesting paper linked to by DennisMyers there, thanks! You can see how the overt funding from the likes of Exxon and Koch industries has shifted to covert, with the slack being taken up by the Donor's Trust. Hey, what billionaire with ties to fossil fuels *wouldn't* toss a few million at the think tanks?


    And... for all of theose CCCM origanisations, a million goes a *far, far* longer way than it does for actual climate change researchers. They don't have to collect any data in the field or do any original research. All they have to do is cherry pick, and dream up creative lies, half-thruths, and distortions.

  38. One Planet Only Forever at 05:30 AM on 27 December 2013
    South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage

    Reply to Tom Curtis @15,

    Thank you for clarifying. I suggest for you to be clearer by referring to CO2 amounts as GtCO2. GtC is a term for Gt's of Carbon, not Gt's of CO2. Admittedly, I should have recognized the terminology you used since 3% reductions of emissions is a pretty rapid rate of reduction, more consistent with RCP2.5.

    As for the 'economics of this issue', the current way that things are valued is significantly flawed. Therefore, any measure of what is going on economically using the flawed ways of measuring things is fundamentally flawed. Probably the most serious economic flaws are the way that value is ascribed to activities that are fundamentally of no future worth, cannot be benefited from in the future, and actually cause future challenges. The most irrational application of that fundamentally flawed evaluation is the way some people try to justify the acceptability of gaining benefit from activities that cannot continue to be benefited from by people in the future and which creates added challenges for those in the future. Some will compare what they believe is the lost opportunity for benefit by a current generation (meaning themselves), to what they believe the future costs others will face will be. That is fundamentally irrational, basically saying it is OK for me to benefit in a way that others can't and that creates problems for others as long as the trouble I believe my actions create are less than the benefit I believe I get. The most extremely irrational examples of those evaluations actually go one step further and ‘discount the costs others in the future face' by applying the economic principle of 'net-present-value'.

    So, the real problem is the way the 'value' of the economy gets measured. Damage to the future is excused and unsustainable activity is allowed to 'have value'. Admitting that growing any unsustainable or damaging activity is unacceptable is the first step to more rationally evaluating the economic of this matter. Admitting the unacceptability of development that has occurred in the current global economy is the first step in recognizing what activities need to be valued and what activities need to become ’worthless’.

  39. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    There is more screed on ESA Cryosat2 published by NASA dated from March this year which might be of interest to some. The video (which is unavailable at the NASA link) is available here. Cryosat2 shows higher volumes than PIOMAS but the two otherwise are strikingly similar.

    I assume, come March the freezy season data from Cryosat2 will again be compared with PIOMAS. With the Cryosat2 data report we've heard this Autumn, it will certainly be interesting to see that comparison.

  40. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    It's recovering I tell you!  Just you wait.  Its turned the corner at the bottom and is heading back to the good old days.  Just don't ask me to put any money on it...

  41. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    william, daily ice volume data can be obtained from PIOMAS

    The Robinson video above takes the lowest daily value from each year in the PIOMAS record. The Cryosat values you cited were averages for the month, and as you noted not even the month during which the minimum occurs. I don't know if more detailed Cryosat data is available somewhere, but agree it would be very nice to get more than a couple of updates per year.

    Poster, there isn't so much a discrepancy in reporting on ice volume as there is inaccurate 'spin'. It is entirely true that 2013 had "about 50% higher" ice volume at the minimum than 2012... but that 'huge increase' was still lower ice volume than every year prior to 2010. Basically, when you start to get near a zero value any minor upswing can be a large percentage increase.

    Nine of the last twelve years (all except 2008, 2009, and 2013) set a new record low Arctic sea ice volume. Put another way, in 2002 the lowest ice volume ever was set at 10,792 km^3... but by 2012 the new lowest ice volume ever was only 3,261 km^3. That 2013 'surged' to 4,946 km^3 doesn't change the fact that is still less than half the 2002 minimum.

  42. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Regression to the mean....

  43. February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update

    weekly areal data over the years in graphical: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,194.msg5554.html#msg5554 I don't have the volume numbers.

  44. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    To follow briefly on Michael's point, Arctic sea ice area at summer minimum has exceeded the previous year's summer minimum fifteen (15) times out of the past 34 years, yet the overall trend is strongly negative.

  45. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Poster,

    I think you are confused because you expect a new record to be set every year.  This year was the sixth lowest recorded sea ice extent in the record.  It is well known that in the past 200 years there was never a time where sea ice was anywhere near the lows of the past decade see 110 year record here.  Do you consider sixth lowest in a long, noisy record to be "recovering"?  I do not.  The nature of noisy records is that sometimes the area goes up, even though the longer trend is down.  We will have to wait a few more years to determine if the prognosis is for continued collapse or if the sea ice will stabilize at some level near where it has been the last few years.  In the first case there will be little ice left in summer in 5 years or so and in the second the ice will remain at a low level for a few decades before melting out.  If next summer is like 2013 the ice may "recover" a little bit more. Frequently years repeat the previous year. If it is like 2007 a lot of ice will melt.  In 2008 the NSIDC suggested years like 2007 occur about every decade. Are we due for another 2007 or 2013?  What does your crystal ball say?   

    Since the ice is above 2012 but much below the amounts present 20 years ago, I would say it was a recovery for the ice but it is still in very bad shape from the melt in previous years.

  46. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science

    Merry Christmas to all and congrats to SKS! (Congrats for being the only pro-AGW site of the many that I visit to wish readers a "merry xmas".  ;)

  47. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science

    And a Merry Christmas and a happy new year from over the ditch.  Meanwhile at the South Pole we have http://www.smh.com.au/national/antarctic-tourist-ship-trapped-by-sea-ice-20131225-2zwjr.html

  48. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Like William@1 above, I am somewhat confused by conflicting claims on arctic sea ice.  Ads William states the cryosat is proclaiming "Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this autumn.  The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. and "About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.This year’s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year."

    I find it difficult to reconcile the opposing claims rgarding sea ice although it is necessary to note that the cryosat does state "While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend."“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study. LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link.

  49. Global warming will intensify drought, says new study

    It is anything but clear that we aren't going to reduce CO2 from fossil fuel.  When the Dallas Morning News is advocating for a carbon tax whild noting major industries, including energy companies, that have changed their positions you know there is opportunity for change.  I personally believe in a significant revenue-neutral tax with 100% equitable distribution of the revenues to American citizens.  The plan promoted by James Hansen would do a great deal to reduce and ultimately get us off of fossil fuels in the relatively near future.  For oh so many reasons, we need to go there.

  50. Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering

    Lovely music. Is it commercially available? It complements the terrible potential of the graphic, but sweetly. I feel like a lovelorn lover drinking him/her-self under the table.

    Happy holidays everybody.

Prev  792  793  794  795  796  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  807  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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