It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Council report: More than 150 weather records broken last summer

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


For the last 20 years UN climate models have been wildy wrong in their projected climate data. It has simply not happened. Garbage in...garbage out.
Wildly? Are you sure?



Global warming advocates or Climate Change Theory supporters....whatever you've branded yourselves now...... keep on saying it's just around the corner
What's just around the corner? The science says that we will see an overall increase in the rate of warming, not that something will suddenly happen.

Guess what? We're seeing fewer all time low temperature records and more all time high temperature records. Like what the science tells us to expect.




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 




Wonderful graph, with no reference points.....so what is the "Mean" in temperature? What factor in real temperature is the "0" point?

That depends upon the particular temperature anomaly model being used. You can learn something about it here but if you're denying it's happening I would have expected that you would already know how it's done. Or was it a rhetorical question? You already know the answer? www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


All of the calculations show an overall rise in global temperatures.
edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   


All of the calculations show an overall rise in global temperatures.
reply to post by Phage
 


Are you refering to this...




Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF).


Although you are technically correct...the climate's overall temperature has increased....I think we can both agree that this incredibly small increase hardly supports the collective angst being driven by those with vested interest in this "immediate threat that global warming poses"....no?

I suggest that you take a look at this Phage...

1990 IPCC predictions confront the data

Source

I'm gonna skip ahead a bit and drop a (SPOILER ALERT) for those with short attention spans, so if you like the suspense, read the link and then continue from here when you're done...

The gist of it....




Conclusions

Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise over the last 10 years (see overlay to temperature comparison below in Figure 3) but temperatures have not risen since 2000. This implies that CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures on these time periods and that other natural mechanisms are at least as important. No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found.


Take your time and review the charts provided....any thoughts?

That would sort of point to this whole human driven, carbon dioxide nightmare, global warming scare as being rather....overstated....wouldn't it?



edit on 10-3-2014 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
The problem with the "Warming" protagonist is that they are using "Science" and statistics that only show their point of view.

In Fact, they are exhibiting Bad Science.

It is all very well to look at that 100 year bar graph and suddenly exclaim that it obviously means temperature are increasing, and will increase ad infinitum.

What they are seeing, is just the red part of the bar, what they are not seeing is the blue part of the graph.

Why arent they questioning the cold periods that have occurred?.

That is proper science. You dont just say, see the red means its hot...Well what about the blue?....What Blue? THe blue, were it is colder, ...What blue? I only see the red....etc etc.

This 100 odd year bar graph, could just as easily show that there is a 50 + years of cooling, then a 50+ years of mild warming, and then it may well possible, as per the 100 year graph, return to a 50+ year of cooling...the statistics dont go far back enough to show a trend...and 100 years is not a sufficient time period.

Considering the 1800s to early 1900s burned a huge amount of wood, coal etc and caused a great amount of pollution.
At least possibly as much as now.

Bad science Im afraid.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Take your time and review the charts provided....any thoughts?

Yes. Which "predictions" are being used? Oh, predictions through 2030. Is it 2030 yet? Was it 2030 in 2011 when that blog was written? My how time flies.



That would sort of point to this whole human driven, carbon dioxide nightmare, global warming scare as being rather....overstated....wouldn't it?
No.

BTW, who is Clive Best?



edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 




Considering the 1800s to early 1900s burned a huge amount of wood, coal etc and caused a great amount of pollution. At least possibly as much as now.

Really? Just as much CO2 was produced in the 19th century as now. Cars, power plants, increasing industry...
Interesting. I'm sure you have some data to support that statement.

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   


Yes. Which "predictions" are being used?
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm confused....I thought that was clear, the IPCC.




Oh, predictions through 2030. Is it 2030 yet? My how time flies.


Although I appreciate sarcasm as much as any guy....the IPCC is recognized as having access to some of the most sophisticated, advanced and accurate weather models/data worldwide. They are influential drivers of political climate policy all over the world. They are often cited by Al Gore and his followers to support their claims of impending doom vis a vis "global warming" and that we should all be taxed immediately for our carbon emissions so that we may pay to help heal the earth....Amen.




The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.





No.

BTW, who is Clive Best?


To that I counter with why not?

Ad hominem attacks are sloppy as I have heard you say elsewhere on other threads...deal with the data he presented in the charts and the conclusions he came to based on them. If you have supporting evidence to back up that rather decisive....and I quote "No"?.....Then by all means present it.

I think the important point here is that, we do not have enough data to conclusively say that humans are responsible for global warming or that the data provided by the IPCC even supports that it exists. That is the argument that Mr. Clive Best has made. That is what is important in this case. Not casting aspersions on Mr.Best.

I happen to agree with his conclusions based on the data provided by the IPCC.
edit on 10-3-2014 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 


I know this seems like a grabbing of straws, but it says "the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years" That's awfully recent. It's like saying "I haven't showered in two days", sure, you feel a bit grubby, but hopefully you'll take to your regular routine and keep clean... till next weekend


I dunno, it seems I see this quite often in the 'great global warming swindle' arguments. A side debating with some study or other, but it usually, in my mind, just goes to prove the natural cycle of things.. Don't get me wrong, we must learn from the studies being done and right the wrongs we've acted out on this planet, but you can't deny the greater cycle which we have near NO control over... the ice-age cometh


At the end of the day, if it really is a one degree tipping point that breaks the proverbial camels back and sends us skyrocketing into inferno, the onus will be on those with power and resources who did nothing, not with the general population who want change but are powerless or hindered in their efforts to clean the planet.

I dunno, I'm an armchair-everything, but I just look at these graphs and based on their history (we trust that science) I am uncertain, to say the least, about the prevailing forecasts.






posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimjolnir
 


The cyclic argument may yet prove to be correct, the sun might be causing it also. I personally remain open minded as to what the cause of climate change may be because I think science is still working on that one. The planet is a very large and complicated system to try and diagnose after all.

The facts we do know so far are;

a)The global climate is changing

and

b) In none of the other peaks and troughs of climate has the earth had humanity at the level of population and manipulation of the natural environment it does today. (That we know of anyway - I'm aware of the many inexplicable archeological finds that are starting to surface)

Fact b is the worrying one. Because while we bicker over whether what's causing it, or if anything is happening at all the clock ticks and we have one less day to get on to doing something about it. It may turn out that human activity has nothing to do with it, I'm ready to accept that. But what I want to see is action on things like better infrastructure to deal with the extremes in weather.

For example, during our latest Adelaide heatwave we were lucky that we didn't lose the power grid. One day we might not be so lucky and people will die. We need to ensure that the system doesn't fail when we need it the most.

edit on 10-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
NVM that during the ice age there was over 2x more co2 in the atmosphere.

The global warming alarmists just want their carbon tax credits and tap into the billion dollar industry scam. I understand that money makes the world go round.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Despite my ready stance on the matter, I, too, remain open minded. I suppose I don't doubt the facts, just the projected forecast.

Our policy makers are so quick to enact carbon taxes, etc. but where are the real solutions as you alluded to? Why does every house in the civilized world not have solar geysers and the like? All these technologies, stymied by the status quo. Governments should be pushing this stuff onto us, making it easy to acquire and within affordability... it's amazing how quickly a health-care reform can commence, or a mansion be built (a la Jacob Zuma's Nkandla House), or a war started, bill footed by (or, stolen from) the tax payer, of course. And yet something world changing, like AGW, is treated like a bible-basher at the door...

I'm not a climate denier, per se, I believe in the climate
I believe it fluctuates, I see the changes in my lifetime and in recorded history, both 'his-storicaly' and 'geo-storicaly'... one thing I don't get is why 'climate deniers' are seen as ignorant polluters. Anyone who doesn't see the wrong we've done to this planet and doesn't want to bring it back to some state of normalcy can get off at the next stop.

Like theism and atheism, the argument may be /fun/ but at the end of the day we're all on this rock together; no matter what you believe, we've got to do right by each other and be right with nature.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



See, what's happening is that we are seeing fewer all time low records and more all time high records. Doesn't that sort of cause a raising of eyebrows? Fewer lows, more highs...hint, hint.


Hold that thought....supply the plain, easily seen and easily understood compare and contrast of real world figures to show it...or simply accept that, not everyone accepts that explanation as being valid or having the same basis in science as it's claimed to have. I hear the claim often...I never see the supporting material or even a clear place to find supporting material

The trick seems to be, usually, to link or direct off to a report long enough to give an academic pause, and "in there! Proof!..and you're just dense if you can't appreciate it". Now I know you don't have that hard an edge (on display anyway) but enough do...and the topic seems to suggest it with responses to remove doubt..that it's more than just getting old. I'm actually coming to simply lose respect for individuals who continue slogans without supporting data.

While you're holding that thought tho...I'll carry on the research I am doing in both school and personal time to learn the truth of what may well kill us all here. Hot? Cold....patterning is missing and trending is assumed. Weather vs. Climate is ignoring THIS season for statistical reasons to question the last 10 years of pause in the "warming trends" even NASA comfirms as a real question.......while the extremes experiences locally on BOTH cold and hot scales have carried right on to torment people around the world.

The only people I question knowledge of consistently are the people who consistently claim to have it for an area of truly breaking and evolving science across the board.

North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record
Cold Dis-comfort: Antarctica Set Record Of -135.8
It's COLD out there! Nearly 1000 Record Low Temperatures Set!

Trending is a LONG WAY from settled or clear on a global...not regional or seasonal...basis, in my humble opinion.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   


Because while we bicker over whether what's causing it, or if anything is happening at all the clock ticks and we have one less day to get on to doing something about it.
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Ahh yes...the ticking clock of doom. So what are you suggesting we should do?




or if anything is happening at all


I think this question should be answered definitively, before we go tampering with a complex system we don't yet fully understand.....we could potentially end up making things much, much worse.

As astronauts love to say...."there is no situation so bad, that you can't make it worse".




open minded as to what the cause of climate change may be because I think science is still working on that one.


Science IS still working on it....however if you listen to the climate change rhetoric...you could be fooled into thinking that all of their assumptions are now foregone conclusions....which they are not....and that the ticking clock you mentioned is ticking...so therefore something MUST be done now!




The global climate is changing


Yes it is....and it always will change....it will never remain static. Humans will either adapt to those changes or we die.




We need to ensure that the system doesn't fail when we need it the most.


A sensible approach certainly.








edit on 10-3-2014 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hold that thought....supply the plain, easily seen and easily understood compare and contrast of real world figures to show it...or simply accept that, not everyone accepts that explanation as being valid or having the same basis in science as it's claimed to have. I hear the claim often...I never see the supporting material or even a clear place to find supporting material



There have been more all time high records set since 1960 (73) than all time low temperature records (41).
There have been 48 high temperature records set in the past 10 years compared to 5 low temperature records.
en.wikipedia.org...



North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record
Guess what, that is a predicted result of warming.


Cold Dis-comfort: Antarctica Set Record Of -135.8
Warming does not mean there will not be low temperature records set. It means there will be fewer low temperature records and more high temperature records.


It's COLD out there! Nearly 1000 Record Low Temperatures Set!
Tell me, how many of those were all time low records as opposed to daily lows? It doesn't really mean much if a particular day was colder one year than another. What means something is the coldest temperature ever recorded. On a global basis we are seen fewer of those and more all time highs.

Of course, there is also this:



edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Two years ago the U.S. had a very hot summer. Several days in the 100's for me. Last summer was very mild. Kids rarely got to go swimming. This winter has broken hundreds of records for cold. You know what all this proves? Nothing. Plus isn't like half of Australia a desert? Where it's supposed to be hot?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

deadcalm


Ha! The global warming crowd have covered just about every kind of weather!
"Its hot so proof of global warming"
"Its cold so proof of global warming"
"Its.... insert ANYTHING here...so proof of global warming"
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would only add that in 2006 Al Gore gave a speech in which he said that Arctic Ice would be gone by 2013.

Just to give you a laugh here is an honest to god article title from Al Gore and his wing nuts....

More ice than last year is still bad news for the Arctic...

Source


You can't make this stuff up....LOL
Nicely played.



edit on 9-3-2014 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



From your link


Scientists say the weather is the main reason more ice has stuck around this summer.

LOL



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


I'm confused....I thought that was clear, the IPCC.
The IPCC uses a number of models. I was wondering which one(s) he was using. I don't know of any which show a linear increase in global temperatures.


Ad hominem attacks are sloppy as I have heard you say elsewhere on other threads
Asking who someone is an ad hominem attack?
edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



There have been more all time high records set since 1960 (73) than all time low temperature records (41).
There have been 48 high temperature records set in the past 10 years compared to 5 low temperature records.
I wonder if we might use sources a bit more detailed than Wikipedia? It would help a whole lot...... This chart at NASA's Earth Observatory section is interesting for example, and shows a historic line of temp too.

Image Source: (NASA/Earth Observatory)

That is the Arctic temp chart and shows how it really runs up and down to large swings back through the century, at least.

If we want to get away from bumper sticker level info though, lets, and get to a serious level of looking at this. I'll add a bit of emphasis to be easy on the eyes. Academic and Published material tends to be less than friendly, as I'm sure you're familiar with.


The linear change in temperature between 1920 and 1984 is calculated for 961 stations in the conterminous United States. Annual, winter, and summer maps of these temperature changes reveal pronounced geographical patterns, with widespread cooling in the major south-central portion of the United States and general warming in the northeast and west. Stepwise multiple regression analysis identifies a statistically significant impact of population change on these temperature trends, even though the stations utilized in this study had a median population of only 5832 in 1980. Both the observed mean annual cooling of the country and the warming bias provided by these small urban centers suggest that we may not yet have a proper perspective on global climatic change.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)

May not have the proper perspective? Hmm... Perhaps... Sea levels?


[1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Source: On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

Now that is downright odd. The early part of the Century...Sea level change...that doesn't jive well with the suggested causes and what we know as science for the time delay issues which come with them, does it?


The village of Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost settlement in the USA and the largest native community in the Arctic. The population has grown from about 300 residents in 1900 to more than 4600 in 2000. In recent decades, a general increase of mean annual and mean winter air temperature has been recorded near the centre of the village, and a concurrent trend of progressively earlier snowmelt in the village has been documented. Satellite observations and data from a nearby climate observatory indicate a corresponding but much weaker snow melt trend in the surrounding regions of relatively undisturbed tundra.
Source: International Journal of Climatology

Interesting...how that pattern of warming near concrete and asphalt jungles holds consistent enough, but not so much over all. However, sensors have historically been and still are near, if not in, populated areas.

If we want to think local, my regional weather for this past month set both record highs and lows for weather (as opposed to climate...considering that important difference) in the same month. Some from early in the past century and some from later. All over the map, is how I generally describe the weather right now for warm vs. cold. I was freezing my tail off a few days ago and tomorrow is set to be 77. We'll be cold again by the end of the week. The weather 'regulator' is in neutral at the moment, too....which is interesting to note.


Neither El Niño nor La Niña conditions were present across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during January. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, neutral conditions are expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014.
Source: Global Summary Information - January 2014

Almost as important to note in relation to what we're seeing and not seeing.......


The globally combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent during January was 7.89 million square miles, 290,000 square miles (3.8 percent) above the 1981–2010 average of 7.60 million square miles. The global sea ice extent during January was the seventh largest since records began in 1979 and was the largest since 2008.
Source: Global Summary Information - January 2014

That last page there indicates a mixed bag and this is all far from perfectly clear as to what our planet and it's envelope of atmosphere is doing right now...or exactly why....in my opinion.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added NASA Source Link



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimjolnir
 


I appreciate the graphs. There have been gasses and pollutants found in recent ice samples - which are melting during warm seasons at faster rates - go into atmosphere - wilder weather - leads back to greater amounts of melting (trend over time). And article about the ozone (although not a big threat like decades ago due to cutting back it demonstrates how they are finding this stuff in the ice again).

www.reuters.com...

I linked in this thread an article that says it all in simple terms (to me). It tells us that it is a trend - we cannot look at more sea ice this year and less the next but rather melt. Of course there will be more sea ice for example - more precipitation. What it was speaking of was: it does not matter if we see highs and lows - the trend that we are seeing is that melts are increasing.

Would you bet on your children's future that nothing we are doing is having an impact? I won't. Too much science says it is impacting it and while science is not perfect (this is all quite new to us), I will go with the lesser risk. We can argue about it until the cows come home but too much evidence tells us that what we do is taking a toll. How big it is - we don't know for sure, for all things (the ozone we did, ice melts controversial). To me - finding Co2 in our ice is sort of a direct link. To look at those maps - they are guesses and based on less reliable science than we are directly observing. While they show it happens - do we really need to help it along?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Yeah, I figured you'd complain about that source, though it does provide references.
Here's another one I just found: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
Globally, in the past 365 days there have been 199 all time high maximums as compared to 49 all time low maxiumum. 169 high minumums as compared to 21 low minimums. Add them together and you get 368 all time highs vs. 70 all time lows. That's more than 5 times as many all time highs as lows...in the past year alone.

The difference between these numbers and those on wikipedia is that the wikipedia statistics are by country while these are based on stations.
 

Regarding the artic temperature chart. It seems you are falling into the common fallacy of thinking that global warming means that every place on the planet should be warming at the same rate and that localized temperature variability reflects global variability.
 


May not have the proper perspective?
Yes. The "heat island" topic is interesting and work has been done on the problem over the past 20+ years since that paper was published.

Because homogenization is largely successful in removing urban bias in the USHCN temperature data, it appears that only about 5% of the period]of]record USHCN version 2 minimum temperature trends across the CONUS can be attributed to local urban influences and, further, that most of this contribution is coming from data for years prior to 1930. This residual urban bias for the earlier years in the record may be a consequence of the reduced station density of the Coop network in the early part of the twentieth century, which limits the number of pairs available for detecting inhomogenities some of which may be related to urbanization.
ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...
 

Sea level change is a complex topic. The rate of change is quite variable and using tide stations can be problematic in determining global rates of change.

that doesn't jive well with the suggested causes and what we know as science for the time delay issues which come with them, does it?
Sea levels began rising around the turn of the 20th century for the first time in more than 1000 years. Interestingly, around the same time temperatures started rising. One of the causes of rising sea levels is thermal expansion. As oceans warm up, sea level rises.
 

Barrow Alaska:
And yet, the snow melt trend occurs away from the village. We know about heat islands. We know their effects. We know that warming is occuring beyond heat islands.
 


If we want to think local, my regional weather for this past month set both record highs and lows for weather (as opposed to climate...considering that important difference) in the same month.
Your link is for February 2011 and I only see daily records there, not monthly. But I see you understand the distinction between all time records and period specific records.
Let's have a look at all time temperature records:
113º in 1954, second half of the 20th century, 60 years ago. -29º in 1899, end of the 19th century, 115 years ago. Not a trend but I wonder how much longer it will be before you see another record low. On the other hand it got pretty hot there a couple of years ago, didn't it? When was the last time it got to -20º?
www.weather.com...
 


Almost as important to note in relation to what we're seeing and not seeing.......
Yes. ENSO is important (and somewhat mysterious as far as when it occurs). Not sure what your point is though. Are you thinking it has something to do with warming or the lack thereof?
 

Sea ice extent:
Arctic sea ice extent was below the 1981-2010 average, the fifth lowest extent since 1979.
Antarctic sea ice extent was up but there is more than sea ice in the Antarctic:

Our regional GIA and GRACE mass balance estimates clearly show that more than half of current Antarctic sealevel contribution (positive or negative) arises from 6% of the area of the ice sheet; mass loss along the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the in Amundsen Sea sector amount to -151±7 Gt yr-1. East Antarctica, in contrast, has a slightly positive mass balance (26±12 Gt yr-1), exhibiting a bipolar signature of accelerating mass increase in Dronning Maud Land and Enderby Land (basins 5, 6 and 7: 12±4 Gt yr-2) and accelerating mass loss in Wilkes Land and George V Land (basin 13 and 14: -4±2 Gt yr-2).

www.the-cryosphere.net...
Looks to me like a net loss of 117 Gt of ice each year for 2003 to 2012. I don't know, maybe that reversed itself last year but I sort of doubt it. 117 billion tons. Seems like kind of a lot of ice going away. Both in the Arctic and Antarctic.


edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join