Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - gerontocrat

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: Today at 01:44:51 PM »
From CCI-Reanalyzer:-
World Temp Anomaly     0.31 degrees Celsius,
World SST anomaly        0.39 degrees Celsius.

I first noticed this yesterday. Is it unusual for global temperature anomaly to be less than global SST anomaly?

Using HadCRUT and HadSST monthly values...

From Jan 1850 to Feb 2017 (inclusive), there were 862 occasions (out of 2006 pairs of values) in which the SST value was higher.

From Jan 2000 to Feb 2017, the ratio plummets to just 11 from 206.

The last such occurrence was October 2016, and the time before that was July 2014.

That difference between the anomalies is more or less the same today.

                         Observations of Anomalies         
                       sst > air   Total    Percent >air temp anomaly
Jan 1850 to Feb 2017    862          2006                43%
Jan 1850 to Jan 2000     851           1800        47%
Jan 2000 to Feb 2017   11            206                 5%

So it can be said the current observation is an anomaly. I ask simply because of an idle speculation on where the excess energy being trapped by excess CO2 is going. If the proportion swallowed into long-term storage in the oceans increases and into the atmosphere consequently decreases, one could end up with greater long-term AGW but in the shorter-term another idiotic climategate "hiatus" debate. But this change would have to persist for a good while, so perhaps flying this kite is a bit dumb.



2
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 23, 2017, 03:59:51 PM »
And, therefore, is it fair to say that a reduction in winter sea ice maximum volume increases the likelihood of a reduced sea ice volume minimum in the following summer and so on ...... ? (though natural variation, e.g. an unusually warm or unusually cool melting season can overwhelm the signal).

Yes, that is fair to say.

The 2017 maximum PIOMAS volume should be about 20.8 thousand km3.  For what it's worth, a simple regression analysis then suggests that this gives an 80 percent chance of a record low minimum volume for September 2017.

Thanks again, Steven.
The PIOMAS April analysis should be coming out in about a fortnight. Any chance of you running the correlation and indication for 2017 minimum again when it appears and shoving it onto the PIOMAS thread ?

3
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: April 23, 2017, 03:51:55 PM »
Perhaps there are some reasons for hope that the Trump / Pruitt et al assault on science perhaps, maybe, just possibly produce some good.

- the Environment is getting a hell-of-a-lot more media coverage,
-It has forced scientists to come out and shout,
- Some Republican states and cities have joined the coalition against the White House on the environment. (Republicans go on and on about States' rights - so a Republican Congress may have some difficulty in demanding that individual States bow down to demands from the Federal Government),
- Some Republicans in cities like Flint must wonder about a Federal Government saying it's OK for industry to pollute the water supply,
- Some foreign Governments and the EU have said Nie, Nein, Nao, No, Nej  to any messing about by the USA to any retreat on environmental policies. It's a bit like Brexit - our politicians are finding not having a seat at the EU table somewhat uncomfortable.

For once I am being almost an optimist.

4
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 23, 2017, 02:14:10 PM »
From CCI-Reanalyzer:-
World Temp Anomaly     0.31 degrees Celsius,
World SST anomaly        0.39 degrees Celsius.

I first noticed this yesterday. Is it unusual for global temperature anomaly to be less than global SST anomaly?

5
I suppose it is good to be reminded sometimes (but not too often) of the differences between discussion and debate, argument, and mere contradiction and gainsaying.

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil's Dictionary ( available as a free e-book on Gutenberg.org) defined conversation as " A monologue by more than one person". Fortunately, most of the people posting here are in the debate and discussion business. All those wasted years when I had not stumbled across ASIF - makes me want to weep.

6
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 22, 2017, 05:57:31 PM »
Looks like drift was about 4 km per day ? In 2014 about  8 km per day ?  Could they feel any wobbles, cracks and creaks ?

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 22, 2017, 02:49:04 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ?

Using data for 1979-2016,  the correlation between detrended maximum volume and detrended minimum volume is 0.648, which is highly statistically significant (p-value: p < 0.001).

However, this is only true for sea ice volume.  For sea ice extent (rather than volume), the correlation between detrended maxima and detrended minima is very weak.

Thankyou Steven - bloody marvellous.

And, therefore, is it fair to say that a reduction in winter sea ice maximum volume increases the likelihood of a reduced sea ice volume minimum in the following summer and so on ...... ? (though natural variation, e.g. an unusually warm or unusually cool melting season can overwhelm the signal).

If so, then the April sea ice volume maximum will at least indicate the direction of travel?
Or am I making a cause and effect where none really exists ?

To explain my thought processes, in the risk analyses I have done in many different fields from risk of war, economics, finance, water resources and others, absolute data was often rare. One attempts to identify influences, rank them in +ve and -ve directions and attempt to weight them. From that, take a deep breath and make a forecast and assign probabilities of various future events (and be proved wrong).


8
By one measure, time, the variation between the minima of 2012 and 2013 (based on the linear trend shown in NSIDC) is 20 years. There is no reason to suppose that such uncertainty in individual years is reduced. Statistical uncertainty is, in my lukewarm opinion, high.

9
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: April 22, 2017, 12:44:12 PM »
Robertscribbler.com has a new article on the drought in India. Already likely to have medium to long term effects on lives of several hundred million people.

10
Dear Andrewb,
I voted 2030-2040. I did not realise that this revealed my entire personal psychology and belief systems. I thought that I thought merely that the most likely year for a less than 1m km2 minimum was in about 3 to 5 years, and that natural variation allowed the possibility of a more than 1m km2 minimum for at least 10 years after that.

Obviously I was wrong to think that I thought that. I thank you for that insight into my soul.

Ps: I am retired. By 2030 I will probably no longer be extant.

11
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: April 21, 2017, 03:52:54 PM »
On the left the official Louisiana Coastline; on the right reality.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 21, 2017, 01:36:36 PM »
Hullo Juan,

I have highlighted a bit of your post which I think I disagree with. Yes, I am being picky.

It is interesting that the worst years are 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2016. Of course, these are for the whole year and in 2012 we didn't have too much days of breaking record, but they happened exactly when they count: at the end of the melting season!

The 2012 end of season melt could be regarded as least important in 2 ways:-
- early season melt (as in 2016) maximises positive feedback from insolation and from that ocean warming to inhibit winter sea ice growth,
- by late August  / September the sun is heading South and insolation is in rapid decline,
- some of us still think maybe it is only when winter sea ice reduces sufficiently will we see an ice-free summer (though the Jury is still out on that one - 2012 does NOT support that speculation).

I wonder what the graph if it included freezing months only would look like. Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).

13
Bathymetry, bathymetry, bathymetry, BATHYMETRY!!!
Inconvenient truth to ignore?

The floor is the limit (except from November 2012 Arctic Sea Ice News)

Research by our colleagues Jamie Morison at the University of Washington Seattle and NASA scientist Son Nghiem suggests that bathymetry (sea floor topography) plays an important role in Arctic sea ice formation and extent by controlling the distribution and mixing of warm and cold waters. At its seasonal minimum extent, the ice edge mainly corresponds to the deep-water/shallow-water boundary (approximately 500-meter depth), suggesting that the ocean floor exerts a dominant control on the ice edge position. However, in some cases, ice survives in the shallower continental shelf regions due to water circulation patterns. For example, the shelf area of the East Greenland Sea is almost always covered with sea ice because the southward-flowing cold Arctic surface water helps to limit melt.

In contrast, ice disappears in shallow areas like the Barents and Chukchi seas that are subject to warm ocean waters and river runoff. River runoff and ice melting have also contributed to changes in the amount and distribution of fresh water in the Arctic.


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/11/arctic-rapidly-gaining-winter-ice/


I wonder how much bathymetry data is still locked up in the Pentagon collected by all those nuclear subs wandering around under the Arctic during the cold war (and presumably still doing so, especially now Russia is showing its teeth).

14
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: April 21, 2017, 01:12:59 PM »
As of April 20th Jaxa measure of extent is 5,889,051, a large 167,000 km2 increase in a day. Average April per day increase is 112,000, also a bit higher than normal (?what normal?). Still 2nd lowest extent in satellite record (NSIDC Charctic), and still over 1 million km2 below 1980s average.

Jaxa also still showing strong sea ice drift away from Antarctica in Ross and Weddell seas.

15
Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: April 21, 2017, 12:47:13 PM »
On bad days I am oftimes reminded of Jevons Paradox.

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand. The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics. However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.

1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.

The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency also lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which increases the quantity demanded. This counteracts (to some extent) the reduction in use from improved efficiency. Additionally, improved efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, and better efficiency leads to more resources being used.

Fir a full exposition goto:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In other words, it is too often that the consequences of a solution to a problem create even greater problems. Changing the source of energy from fossil fuels to renewables may simply fuel further the current mix of economic growth that has such dire consequences for the planet.

16
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 20, 2017, 08:38:38 PM »
Merci beaucoup, M'sieur AbruptSLR.  How depressed will I get on reading these links?

17
Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans both go ski-ing in Aspen. I am reminded of a boozy conversation in Calcutta many years go with a businessman who explained why he bribed both Communist and Congress politicians.

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Biomass
« on: April 20, 2017, 07:53:11 PM »
Biomass is a tricky subject as it is a catchall for so many different things. In Denmark unwanted wheat stalks are, or were, a major source of fuel for elecricity generation. The major source of biomass fuel is palm oil - but from plantations replacing natural rainforest - and goodbye biodiversity. In  Brazil, vast areas of new sugar plantations were developed for ethanol, although originally it was existing plantations with sugar nobody wanted to buy. All Plantations are mono-culture, and immediately reduce diversity and destroy habitat.

Until proven otherwise biomass as a source of fuel is not good. The major cause of the mass extinction  currently underway is destruction and degradation of habitat ( though climate change is increasingly an additional stress). Biomass is part of the problem.

CO2 is not the whole story of man's destruction of his home.


19
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:45:10 PM »
I have looked and failed to find any easily digestible info on the current and future ability of the biosphere to absorb CO2. If the carbon sinks are becoming less effective then presumably part or all of reductions in CO2 emissions would have no effect on reducing and reversing inceases in CO2 ppm.

Anybody got any url links for a moderately intelligent non-scientist ?

20
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:34:04 PM »
When humans and other animals have an encounter, it is usually the other animal that loses.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:28:45 PM »
So much data saying Melt (DMI, Arctic anomaly, Fram export, destruction of  sea ice sheets integrity from multiple observations  etc. etc.). And yet jaxa sea ice decline remains at a glacial pace, and sea ice volume not declining yet.
And still at least 2 weeks before getting April PIOMAS  update. Am I the only one in confusion ?

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:15:49 PM »
This is not far from me. Beautiful, yes, but they keep the water and the air so cold and can ruin the summer. Ice also can play havoc with fishing gear. Tourists love it because they don't have to live here. Those of us who have grown up with ice are praying for a solid month of sou-westerlies to take the bergs and the pack well out to sea, and good riddance! :)

FYI

Latitude of Ferryland is 47° 2' N.

So, more southerly than Paris, France.
A good reminder of how the North Atlantic Drift keeps me warm in England at 52 N.
Just once in the extraordinary winter of  62-63 there were ice floes under Brighton pier on the South Coast of England. But not 46 m high.

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 19, 2017, 04:24:51 PM »
COAL. Not biomass and forests. So I will not reply on this thread. What self-discipline Sir Governor Neven ?

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 19, 2017, 04:13:11 PM »
every time we see a cold plunge we see the Arctic lose its cold. if this is to continue in toward May even the last chance of growth in the central basin will have been tempered.

I'm sure we can now expect snowballs in the senate as both Canada and Western Europe endure a late cold snap but by the end of that we will be entering the first phase of melt season proper and see our first run of major losses.

With both Beaufort and ESS looking really poor how much open water will we have by June?
And while Canada and W. Europe have a cold snap warmth invades the high Arctic for the nth time, where n is a surprisingly large number.
And weather-forecast.com predicts a windy time in a southerly direction down the Fram and Denmark straits for the next few days.
Ps: I think that maybe snowballs in the senate are not so effective anymore.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:19:29 PM »
You asked Google and came back with zilch, nada, zero ?  I thought that meant Google had to give you a prize. Of  note is that it is becoming more apparent every day that it is the oceans that matter most - and of which we know the least.

26
" There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide".     John Adams.
Methinks he was a fan of Plato's Republic.

Perhaps corporate control of politics is a modern equivalent of Plato's later stages of the progress of democracy to tyranny, and the best to hope for is to get over it quickly.

27
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: April 18, 2017, 07:07:39 PM »
According to Jaxa, what a lot of sea ice drift in Baffin bay and Davis Strait + very thin low concentration ice in the Nares Strait

28
I look at 2012 and think "circa 15 years ahead of schedule" and 2013 "circa 5 years behind schedule" (cf with nsidc linear fit). That is a 20 year difference possible between years. So if an ice-free september arrives within the next 5 years being a 15 year outlier, it is possible for a +1m km2 year for a goodly number of years after. OR maybe not as this assumes that the slow-motion train wreck continues very much as in recent years.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: What is a model?
« on: April 16, 2017, 03:15:21 PM »
It has to be said that increasing complexity and sophistication does not automatically produce a better result than, for example, Lovelock's "Daisyworld". Indeed, much of the questioning on ASIF is about the importance of parameters not included, or perhaps insufficiently included in the models.

You lot can dance on the head of a pin regarding a legalistic definition of a model. But what really matters is surely the validity of the  parameters in or not in the models that form the bedrock of the next IPCC negotiations. 2022 is surely the last chance saloon.

30
Ghandi kicked us Brits out of India through Civil Disobedience. Methinks this is where we are getting to.

31
The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: April 15, 2017, 07:10:03 PM »
Is it not a surprise that a thread on Human Stupidity has only got to Page 5 ?

32
I was :-
- attempting to reduce the heat generated in this thread,
- flying a kite about impact of reducing km3 in summer on autumn / winter refreezing.

You say exponential , I say Gompertz, they say linear ,
Let's call the whole thing off.

33
If one changes the y-axis from km3 to stored cold, then one can extrapolate below zero. Below zero being acquired energy and increasing in the future. From that then in 3d one can add the entire year to model how additional energy acquired in summer affects winter freezing.

Then Gompertz can go take a hike.

34
Is the phrase "natural variation" itself a cop-out for a blog such as ASIF ? As an over-curious kid I am sure I asked my parents "Why are summers warm and winters cold ?", and did not accept the answer - "Natural variation, my dear". To learn for the first time about the tilt in the axis of the earth, and from that so much else,  was amazing.

So the question I never asked this thread but hoped for the answer is "What is this natural variation of which Dr Ding speaks?". Or should I be posting this in Stupid Questions ?

Simple, natural variation is the internal variability of the Earth system ( mostly atmospheric and ocean dynamics ) absent anthropogenic and feedback greenhouse gas emissions....

It includes the Sun, the moon, volcanoes, orbital parameters, etc. which result into patterns and cycles and variability of the trajectory of the atmospheric, ocean and biosphere dynamics, and albedo.

Hullo Doc,

Thanks for the list. BUT (there is always a but)
that is like a climate sceptic/denier asking me "What causes AGW ?", and me answering "CO2". CO2 is what, but what is missing is - what changed - ,   and  - how  did that change the temperature of the biosphere -. I am a non-scientist but I do  basically get the story.

So I ask again, "What changed and how did it cause the Natural Variation of which Dr Ding speaks?"

Help

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 15, 2017, 10:42:52 AM »
Robertscribbler.com has an article on a "Brutish" anticyclone currently over the Beaufort sea causing havoc in the Bering strait , Laptev and Chukchi seas over the next few days, with consequent uptick in sea extent reduction / melting.

36
I vote 2030-2040 (even though that means my chances of being alive to collect the prize are not so good, having not yet found the elixir of life).

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 14, 2017, 03:09:12 PM »
Jaxa sea ice thickness image still shows a tiny bit of sea ice tucked into a corner of the Baltic. It has been there for some time. The less ice there is the less ice is melted. Hence my totally non-scientific preference for the Gompertz curve (the S curve to us non-scientist wallahs). (Also found in so many other places - building construction, extinction of species ......).






38
Is the phrase "natural variation" itself a cop-out for a blog such as ASIF ? As an over-curious kid I am sure I asked my parents "Why are summers warm and winters cold ?", and did not accept the answer - "Natural variation, my dear". To learn for the first time about the tilt in the axis of the earth, and from that so much else,  was amazing.

So the question I never asked this thread but hoped for the answer is "What is this natural variation of which Dr Ding speaks?". Or should I be posting this in Stupid Questions ?

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 14, 2017, 12:23:37 PM »
Meanwhile, the arctic volume graph from "arctischepinguin" shows a significant increase in volume from end March to early April of just about 2,000 km3, just nudging the 22,000 km3 mark.

But what will happen in the last 17 days of April, especially given temperatures in the Arctic generally and above 80N showing fairly strong positive anomalies at the moment.

Only the 14th April and I'm already in PIOMAS cold turkey.


40
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: April 13, 2017, 06:25:02 PM »
New Zealand currently enjoying the tail end of cyclones Debbie and Cook.

41
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: April 13, 2017, 02:56:55 PM »
NSIDC's greenland-today is back online for 2017. No action yet.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/


There has been a tiny bit of action. Look very carefully on Cumulative  Melt Days Jan 1 - Apr 11 at bottom SW corner and there are 2 light blue pixels !!!

42
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: April 13, 2017, 02:43:32 PM »
The 1980s was the decade with the lowest Antarctic Sea Ice. Despite losing its lowest ever place to 1980, Antarctic Sea Ice extent as measured by Jaxa is still more than 1.3 million km2 (20 %) below the 1980s average. ( 1980 itself was a real outlier). So my one brick out of three is still intact - maybe something is stirring in the Antarctic.

Will there be data on any impact of the record low sea ice in the Austral summer on the ice shelves ?

43
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 11, 2017, 03:24:57 PM »
MADNESS
MADNESS

Malcolm Turnbull tells Indian billionaire native title will not stop Adani coalmine
Prime minister also confirmed company would seek $1bn government loan to fund rail line for $16bn project, after meeting Gautam Adani in New Delhi

Note that this is while the reports on new coral bleaching of the great barrier reef continue to flood in,
and it seems that cyclone Debbie floods are sending vast amounts of sediment contaminated with coal dust towards the reef.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/11/malcolm-turnbull-tells-indian-billionaire-native-title-will-not-stop-adani-coalmine

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/great-barrier-reef-terminal-stage-australia-scientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/11/run-off-pollution-from-cyclone-debbie-flooding-sweeps-into-great-barrier-reef

44
If you want to get rid of someone then a good place to start is "know thine enemy as thyself".

I came across Ayn Rand years ago when Alan Greenspan was the acknowledged Master of the Universe. When considering Corporate America of any apparent political persuasion (from Tillerson to Musk) the writings of this weird lady are a must. Try the following link for starters:-

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand-conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley

And remember - multi-nationals and who run them are all just the same. We once upon a time thought Google might be different, we were wrong.

45
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: April 10, 2017, 10:06:33 AM »
It seems that any solution to coral reef bleaching may be too late for much of the great barrier reef. Goto theguardian.com and find climate change and despair.

46
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: April 09, 2017, 04:05:34 PM »
I think Greenland will melt in place, but not catastrophically. I think WAIS will go, catastrophically. The only question in my mind is timescale. Every indication is decades, not centuries. When global SLR hits 10mm/yr i think people might wake up. Especially since so many live so close to the ocean.

Sea level rise will most certainly cause people living along the SE coast of Florida to wake up but it will be to pack their suitcases, load their cars and drive away from their worthless homes for the last time. It will be left to the policy makers to decide what to do with all of these built structures.

There are many places where sea level rise is and has been at or above 10mm p.a., due to accompanying land subsidence. See below (but don't tell scott pruitt as this epa page talks about climate change).

https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2017, 03:41:23 PM »
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."     John Adams

"Publish and be damned".   Lord Wellington

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: 2017 PIOMAS Maximum Monthly Figure
« on: April 09, 2017, 03:17:06 PM »
Ok, so I have to admit that a guess of 20,173 km3 for April average volume is not entirely beyond evidence or logic,

BUT:-
I still believe that such a result is at the edge of reason because:-

- the evidence from previous years as shown on this thread suggests a reduction in April average volume from the March 31 figure is unlikely,
- as of today the melting season is still very hesitant,
- Arctic temperature anomalies, both overall from cci-reanalyzer and above 80N from DMI, are low and going down for at least a few days,
- in the first week in April there seems to have been a sharp increase in volume.

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/jaxa-amsr2-volume.png?attachauth=ANoY7corjsX1M1gyRc91L0-bHKLE2r35gV91vLWHswm8Z-kQy7yqvtIFZRao3LtGeEDkZ7d-OLfXjzz4auzq-8tzBPnCtMCBGo7B9gjrrkiRCshgWmIfDScZkg_hXwolubC0NouUHQLKBaykTqHPC8rYSW9yajFAZxrIaq0bltX41JPqiD8OKjetaNoW709rAEX1GXa3iYvUpskWBgtiO0lc_j7agQ0sA1Psvz44d8KLSPG5xaB2tlsqlu_DA-K84osg11vEZbY_3BkECDLkICRNPbcCX-nuqQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0

As in all such predictions - but what do I know?

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 07, 2017, 04:27:05 PM »
Dear Neven,
I have to inform you that due to the activities of persons including me this obscure blog is not as obscure as once it was (and nor is your typepad).
Sorry,
Gerontocrat.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: I'm updating the ASIG next week. Any tips?
« on: April 07, 2017, 02:45:14 PM »
US Drought Monitor maps:-

Remember when you look at these maps that in the US drought levels are defined by measurement of soil moisture. Hence much of California was stated to still be in drought when it was raining buckets.

In the UK we tend to use number of days without rainfall to define a drought.

Makes comparisons of little value.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4