Climate-gate

[sculptor]

... Don't you think that by 2060 most of the world's population will be killed by exposure to 35 C wet bulb temperatures for an hour?

If I might but in here:

No. I do not believe that "business as usual" will survive that long. Energy costs, use, and supply seem to be changing quite rapidly.
The buildout of windfarms in Iowa continues at a rapid pace. A couple years ago, the electrician who once worked for me started a company installing solar arrays and is booked through the end of this year and on into February.
Fusion seems perennially a decade or 2 out. Do you see that as a likely possibility by 2060?

I ain't drunk the McPherson coolaide, and likely never will.
..............
4K rise in temp is still below that of mis11
During mis11, there seem to have been robust western European populations of heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, and Denisovans. That was also when the tallest race of heidelbergensis thrived in South Africa most likely indicating a world climate of plenty.

 

[Billy T]

... Fusion seems perennially a decade or 2 out. Do you see that as a likely possibility by 2060? ...

Probably as a technical achievement but not as an economically competitive energy source. Large high vacuum chambers, super conducting very strong magnetic fields and still need the steam boilers to use the energy released are much more expensive than a furnace and chimney for burning coal. The Chinese have no choice but to continue to get most of their growing needs of electric power that way and modernizing Africa can only afford that.

 

[sculptor]

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors under construction in 13 countries.

Mainland China has 21 nuclear power reactors in operation, 27 under construction, and more about to start construction.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.

 

[Billy T]

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors under construction in 13 countries.

Mainland China has 21 nuclear power reactors in operation, 27 under construction, and more about to start construction.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.

Fine, but long way to go and fossil uses are increasing the fastest.
The increase in fossil energy since 2010 to end of graph is ~ 10 times greater than all non-hydro renewable - hard to catch fossils, if only running 10% as fast.

 

[sculptor]

Fine, but long way to go and fossil uses are incresing the fastest:

True that.
However, if we ain't yet at peak oil, we're darned close to it, and the cost(both in money and environment) is getting prohibitive.
Drilling a 7 mile well ain't cheap, and fracking should deplete the reserves for which it is used within a decade or 2.
A town north of us voted down building a new coal fired plant, opting for more expensive wind power. (They were to vote on a gas fired plant this year-- I don't know if that happened yet)

Primary producers are thriving and making for a greener world(for them, CO2 is a feast) , and have lowered the percentage of CO2 emissions increases remaining in the atmosphere to 46%. As we slow our increases(china is a good example here too), and if the primary producers are allowed to flourish that gap should continue to close. China had been increasing it's CO2 emissions by over 10% per year(up to 13% if memory serves) until the last few years, and they are now down to 3% increase.

Be of good cheer.
I see much improvement already, and expect much more in the near future.
............
on a sour note:
The draining of the ogallala aquifer concerns me, as if we go into drought mode, we may lose the food production from the high plains. I would encourage my government to invest in pumping water down into the aquifer from the rivers that flow over it, and have said as much to my congressman. I also am not a fan of pesticides nor herbicides.

 

[Billy T]

... However, if we ain't yet at peak oil, we're darned close to it, and the cost(both in money and environment) is getting prohibitive.

That is not good news for GW, as you seem to think. It is terrible news for GW as there is plenty of Shale or "tight" oil. Canada has a lot but just the huge deposit in Venezuelan can run the world for many decades. Yes it is more expensive than the easy liquid oil we are running out of so there will be some switching to electric cars with nuclear or solar (wind is a form) recharge, and less driving via telecommuting use and/or use of public transport but that will only slow not reverse the current 10 times faster than solar use of fossil fuels than solar. Worse the ERE of shale is terrible - they burn more than a gallon for ever two gallons they produce - just this is making more CO2 than even large expansion of solar can save.

Fracking is better than shale oil but the production rate falls rapidly after first year so much more drilling to just keep production rate constant is required. I have no hard numbers on the ERE but think when the expansion steadies (smaller fraction of well in their first year) it will take at least a gallon to get 5 gallons.

SUMMARY: Unfortunately fracking is affordable. The fraction of fossil is increasing relative to solar, whose percentage growth rate is higher ONLY due the the base used in the calculation being so small. Here is what civilization is doing vs what it needs to do (assuming we can survive 2C increase in temperature by man and the associated ocean acidfication, which I doubt as there are so many strong and uncontrollable natural feed back already set into unstoppable motion.)

BTW, in addition to the 4 or 5 different mechanism of positive feed back heating the Arctic, I just learned of still one one more: The oceans expand as they warm, but there is little expansion in the Arctic Ocean as melting ice keeps its water cold. That expanded lower latitude water must go some where - the "down hill" slope is into the Polar oceans as surface tries to conform to an equal gravitational potential. I think that is No. 6 of the GW feed backs heating the Arctic Ocean which man can not control.

 

[billvon]

Don't you think that by 2060 most of the world's population will be killed by exposure to 35 C wet bulb temperatures for an hour?

Nope. Any more than in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people starved to death (Erlich proved that would happen.) Or any more than nowadays we are all freezing to death (Newsweek predicted this in the 1970's as well.) Those estimates were based on work even more based in science than yours are. (Their basic assumptions, of course, were wrong.)

 

[rpenner]

Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb (1968) -- one person writing creatively and dramatically about the Malthusian catastrophe which is possible if people live in ignorance of economics.
Peter Gwynne -- "The Cooling World," Newsweek, April 28, 1975 -- one person creatively and dramatically about extrapolations made in ignorance of physics and data and even the scientific press of the time. See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists. One involves the simple misquoting of the literature. In a 2003 Washington Post op-ed piece, former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as saying, “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age” (Schlesinger 2003). The quote repeatedly appeared other places in the political debate over climate change, including the floor of the U.S. Senate where Inhofe (2003) followed up that quote by stating, “That was the same timeframe that the global-warming alarmists are concerned about global warming.” The actual report, however, shows that the original context, rather than supporting the global cooling myth, discusses the full state of the sci- ence at the time, as described earlier. ... In this case, the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong...

Interestingly, Ehrlich wrote on page 52: "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."

Well starting in the 1960's there was a growing trend to codify "don't excrete where you eat" as a new class of environmental law, which has had some international milestones, largely targeting the aerosol pollution of smokestacks and increasingly focusing on less visible but still important ways humans alter the chemistry of the air.

• Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1979.
• Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions Annex 16, vol. 2 to the 1944 Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981.
• Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985
• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal 1987.
• Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1992
• Kyoto Protocol, 1997.
• Georgia Basin-Puget Sound International Airshed Strategy, Vancouver, Statement of Intent, 2002.

Last year showed a peak 41°C degree temperates in Japan. Tokyo had a day where the low was 30.4°C. India's state of Uttar Pradesh hit 45°C.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=185
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ths-electric-grid-meltdown-and-spoiled-fruit/

Australia has been flirting with 50°C (120.7°F vs 122°F ). -- A temperature still considered extreme in a place like California's Death Valley.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/australia-2014-heat-wave-picks-up-where-2013-left-off-16938

While I don't have the tools to predict a city being hit by 35°C wet-bulb temperatures, such an extreme, localized event's probability rises dramatically with a global temperature increase of just a few degrees. It would be nice to take mitigation action sooner rather than later. But I'm not optimistic about humans addressing the problem until after catastrophe outweighs the deference we afford the rich in setting global priorities. I think we generally need a situation to become bad before we start asking if there are changes we need to make.

 

[brucep]

Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb (1968) -- one person writing creatively and dramatically about the Malthusian catastrophe which is possible if people live in ignorance of economics.
Peter Gwynne -- "The Cooling World," Newsweek, April 28, 1975 -- one person creatively and dramatically about extrapolations made in ignorance of physics and data and even the scientific press of the time. See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1




Interestingly, Ehrlich wrote on page 52: "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."

Well starting in the 1960's there was a growing trend to codify "don't excrete where you eat" as a new class of environmental law, which has had some international milestones, largely targeting the aerosol pollution of smokestacks and increasingly focusing on less visible but still important ways humans alter the chemistry of the air.

• Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1979.
• Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions Annex 16, vol. 2 to the 1944 Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981.
• Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985
• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal 1987.
• Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1992
• Kyoto Protocol, 1997.
• Georgia Basin-Puget Sound International Airshed Strategy, Vancouver, Statement of Intent, 2002.

Last year showed a peak 41°C degree temperates in Japan. Tokyo had a day where the low was 30.4°C. India's state of Uttar Pradesh hit 45°C.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=185
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ths-electric-grid-meltdown-and-spoiled-fruit/

Australia has been flirting with 50°C (120.7°F vs 122°F ). -- A temperature still considered extreme in a place like California's Death Valley.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/australia-2014-heat-wave-picks-up-where-2013-left-off-16938

While I don't have the tools to predict a city being hit by 35°C wet-bulb temperatures, such an extreme, localized event's probability rises dramatically with a global temperature increase of just a few degrees. It would be nice to take mitigation action sooner rather than later. But I'm not optimistic about humans addressing the problem until after catastrophe outweighs the deference we afford the rich in setting global priorities. I think we generally need a situation to become bad before we start asking if there are changes we need to make.

Say it isn't so. Doesn't look good for the home team.

 

[Billy T]

... here's a paper from 2010 asking the same question you're now asking: Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications; Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010). ... I differe from Scafetta's interpretation.

I again thank you for this link. I have been made aware of several Planetary effects on GW others have suggested, including the tidal modualtion of the sun being reflected in the rate of nuclear fusion (1st quote below) and two more recent, pier - reviewed, papers by Scafetta; with the result than I am beginning to accept that man's contrubution to GW, may not be dominate as I thought, but if it is not already it will be in the next few years (as we are addicted to growth in fossil fuel use.) and is the only component of GW man can do anything about, and must if does not want to see very large (>50%) fraction of humanity die before ~1960.

... the theoretical luminosity oscillations that planetary tides may potentially stimulate inside the solar core by making its nuclear fusion rate oscillate. By converting the power related to this energy into solar irradiance units at 1 AU we find that the tidal oscillations may be able to theoretically induce an oscillating luminosity increase from 0.05–0.65 W/m2 to 0.25–1.63 W/m2, which is a range compatible with the ACRIM satellite observed total solar irradiance fluctuations. In conclusion, the Sun, by means of its nuclear active core, may be working as a great amplifier of the small planetary tidal energy dissipated in it.

Some details of the mechanism are given before this section - and they seem quite plausible to me. Basically the fusion rate depends very strongly on the sun's temperature but also essentially quadratic on the proton density that tidal compression can change, as any pressure gauge set on the coastal sea floor will show. I'm not sure - perhaps the effect is partly in that the compression both releases gravitational energy (which will be recovered at low tide, with slight solar cooling - other half of the modulation) or heat the ions like compressing an ideal gas does. (Conservation of energy: High quality energy made irreversibly into thermal energy.)

... The giant solar flare of 7 January 2014 coincided with a strict rare triple inferior alignment of Venus, Earth and Jupiter with respect to the Sun ... In fact, at least twenty-five of a list of thirty-eight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (less than 10◦ longitude) or at the opposing side* of the Sun (Hung, 2007). Hung (2007) also estimated that the probability for this to happen at random is 0.039% ...

"Figure 1" showed the "the planetary tidal index peaked during the same period" & their positions about the sun, which the PDF will not let me copy. Trying again with different source, but it copies the full page:

*Anyone who knows why there are two moon driven tides each day will probably know why "opposite sides" makes tidal stress well too. I. e. that the tides are driven not by gravity but by its gradient; They may not realize that the gradient difference between sides INCREASES with the diameter of tidal object (and the sun is huge).

 

[Billy T]

This other (1st in post 1410) Scafetta article shows that his model makes more accurate forecasts than the IPCC, including predicting events they can't (or don't try to).

Abstract
We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn.

We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10–10.5, 20–21 and 60–62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century.

By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700–2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3–1.2 °C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0–3.6 °C projected warming.

The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.

Highlights
► The IPCC (CMIP3) climate models fail in reproducing observed decadal and multidecadal limate cycles.
► Equivalent cycles are found among the major oscillations of the solar system.
► A correction for the projected anthropogenic warming for the 21st century is proposed.
► A full empirical model is developed for forecasting climate change for a few decades since 2000.
► The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2 °C by 2100.

You can read all (free ?) at ScienceDirect, an Elsevier owned article or book chapter, if:
..if you are:
visitor or subscriber to the website
student or faculty member
healthcare practitioner
interested in pay-per-view article purchase
researcher or librarian

 

[billvon]

Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb (1968) -- one person writing creatively and dramatically about the Malthusian catastrophe which is possible if people live in ignorance of economics.

Oh, he wasn't writing in ignorance of economics. He was writing in ignorance of the largest causes of hunger at the time (political instability) and in ignorance of what modern farming methods could do to improve food supplies. Disregard those two factors and his predictions were a lot more defensible.

It is worthwhile to note how he has reacted to his predictions not coming to pass. He maintains that his book was accurate, and that the only thing he was wrong about was rainforest decline. As a result he is no longer taken seriously by any scientific organization.

Peter Gwynne -- "The Cooling World," Newsweek, April 28, 1975 -- one person creatively and dramatically about extrapolations made in ignorance of physics and data and even the scientific press of the time. See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Well, he was certainly not ignorant of physics or the scientific press, since he was basing it on a paper that, within its narrow scope, quite accurate. High altitude aerosols WERE reducing insolation worldwide. However, he then makes some incorrect assumptions (i.e. that concentrations of aerosols will continue to increase, and thus temperatures will continue to decline) and used sensationalistic journalism to try to "sex it up."

Interestingly, Ehrlich wrote on page 52: "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."

Which is unfortunate; now climate change deniers can point to that part of his book and say "he was monumentally wrong about everything including that."

While I don't have the tools to predict a city being hit by 35°C wet-bulb temperatures, such an extreme, localized event's probability rises dramatically with a global temperature increase of just a few degrees. It would be nice to take mitigation action sooner rather than later. But I'm not optimistic about humans addressing the problem until after catastrophe outweighs the deference we afford the rich in setting global priorities. I think we generally need a situation to become bad before we start asking if there are changes we need to make.

Agreed. We are already seeing death rates in the thousands during heat waves; these will likely slowly increase as average temperatures slowly increase. We, unfortunately, have a tendency to not take such things seriously until we are personally affected.

 

[Billy T]

The worst thing about the IPCC's being wrong (as show in post 1411) and for reasons I have often discussed, is that climate change deniers can point to the currently beginning hiatus in temperature rise, if it continues about a decade, as the more accurate empirical models* predicted even before it started, until growing GHGs do over come the MDV decline period that has started and very likely is responsible for this hiatus and say:

"See - we told you so. - The global warming has stopped and CO2 continues to increase! - GW was all a left wing hoax!" - just like we said.
"Let's get America growing again as it did before - DRILL, baby DRILL !"

Then man loses what ever slim chance he had to not go extinct.

* Empirical models are better because they automatically include ALL the feed backs - even the unknown ones, as they are constructed on historically known facts, say prior to 1900 and then tested to see if they fit the observed facts say between 1900 and 1975. I. e. they are scientific (with theory tested) not political compromises the oil companies find OK as the IPCC reports are. The IPCC revises its projections about every five years.

For example their first projection was Arctic would be ice fee after 2100, now it is "after 2050" but when it is before 2020, they will have lot of egg on their face to wipe off.

 

[billvon]

"See - we told you so. - The global warming has stopped and CO2 continues to increase! - GW was all a left wing hoax!" - just like we said.

This is quite ironic, since your posts give them even more ammunition to do so. "See? It's 2020 and not much has changed! Sure, it's a little warmer. But those alarmists told us there was a good chance we'd all be extinct, and that the Arctic would be ice free. Like I told you, they're always wrong."

 

[Billy T]

This is quite ironic, since your posts give them even more ammunition to do so. "See? It's 2020 and not much has changed! Sure, it's a little warmer. But those alarmists told us there was a good chance we'd all be extinct, and that the Arctic would be ice free. Like I told you, they're always wrong."

I did not know you had a crystal ball showing after 2020 there would be ice cover in the Arctic. I don't have or use one - I use trend of observation like:

An ice dam in 2012 blocked the out flow of Canada's largest river (Mackenie) storing up largest ever volume of water at > 12C - when it broke that mass of warm water did melt a lot of ice. Why one point is not used for trend line curve fit. More details, including temperature color coded map of the surge of warm water about week or two after dam broke at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3223149&viewfull=1#post3223149 I.e. the cold (dark blue) arctic water pre dam collapse becomes bright red in second photo.

 

[billvon]

I did not know you had a crystal ball showing after 2020 there would be ice cover in the Arctic.

Nor do you have one showing that it will be ice free by 2016, that we might all be extinct by 2020, or that we will certainly be extinct by 2060.

 

[sculptor]

I did not know you had a crystal ball showing after 2020 there would be ice cover in the Arctic. I don't have or use one - I use trend of observation like:

An ice dam in 2012 blocked the out flow of Canada's largest river (Mackenie) storing up largest ever volume of water at > 12C - when it broke that mass of warm water did melt a lot of ice. Why one point is not used for trend line curve fit. More details, including temperature color coded map of the surge of warm water about week or two after dam broke at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?97892-Climate-gate&p=3223149&viewfull=1#post3223149 I.e. the cold (dark blue) arctic water pre dam collapse becomes bright red in second photo.

We have a little problem here
Either that chart is wrong
or
the esa cryosat data is/are wrong

choose one

Being as cryosat was specifically designed to give us an accurate volume measurement
my bias is toward accepting the cryosat data, and declaring the piomas estimates (and this chart) wrong.
as/re cryosat data, 2012 should be 6k, and 2113 9k

and, here is the kicker, if the piomas "data" is wrong by 50% in 2012, what can we assume for the rest of their estimates("data")?

 

[rpenner]

We have a little problem here
Either that chart is wrong
or
the sea cryosat data is/are wrong

They seem in good agreement. The PIOMAS charted data says the low point of 2012 was just under 6000 km³, the cryosat page says the October 2012 sea ice volume was 6000 km³. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Sea_ice

Details, the actual PIOMAS monthly-averaged October/November ice volume in km³:
2012: 5,001/8,217
2013: 6,953/10,076

which is in good agreement with ESAs 6000 and 9000, with no clear methodology described. Monthly statistics on changing things can be tricky. Defining exactly what is measured is tricky. Both sources show are constant with a 40-50% rebound in volume.

Data Source: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/

 

[sculptor]

They seem in good agreement. The PIOMAS charted data says the low point of 2012 was just under 6000 km³, the cryosat page says the October 2012 sea ice volume was 6000 km³. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Sea_ice

We are looking at the same chart?
The chart that shows 4k for 2012?

4=6?

wow
amazing

Satellite records show a constant downward trend in the area covered by Arctic sea ice during all seasons, in particular in summer, with the minimum recorded occurring in the autumn of 2012.

In October 2013, however, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.

50% 0f 4 =2
4 + 50% = 6
ergo chart shows a 50% disparity to cryosat data.

officer: "do you know how fast you were going?"
You: "40 miles per hour"
officer: "the radar showed 60 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone".
You: "my 40 and your 60 seem in good agreement."

 

[rpenner]

The red dot is early August 2012 (look at the date of the chart -- August 3, 2012). The last black dot corresponds to some specific day in September 18, 2011 with a minimum volume of 4408 km³. September 2012 was lower still at 3673 km³. September 17, 2013 bounced back at 5406 km³.

Due to a data processing error corrected in 2013, the then-reported figures would be about 400 km³ smaller.