Climate change 'tipping points' imminent

Dec 04, 2013 by Robert Sanders
Climate change 'tipping points' imminent
National Research Council report issued Dec. 3, 2013

(Phys.org) —UC Berkeley's Tony Barnosky joined climate scientists this morning at a press conference at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., to summarize a new report issued today focusing on the short-term effects of climate change and the need to monitor them closely.

"Our report focuses on abrupt change, that is, things that happen within a few years to decades: basically, over short enough time scales that young people living today would see the societal impacts brought on by faster-than-normal planetary changes," said Barnosky in an email. Barnosky is professor of integrative biology and a member of the Berkeley Initiative in Global Change Biology (BIGCB).

The report, "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises," is available from the National Research Council, part of the National Academies.

Abrupt changes are already apparent, the authors noted: the number of serious wildfires has increased dramatically over the past decade, farmers are noticing hotter average temperatures that affect their crop yields, animals and plants are moving up mountainsides to reach cooler temperatures, and the Artic sea ice is melting back more and more each summer.

"A key charge to the committee was to try to identify the parts of the climate system where we would expect to see tipping points – major changes in ocean currents or atmospheric circulation – but also trying to determine how even gradual might trigger tipping points in systems that are affected by climate change," he wrote.

Changes in and acidity, for example, could reach a threshold that would precipitate a crash in coral reef ecosystems, he said. But global change could also lead to economic and social impacts, much of this centered around food and water resources and the likelihood of international conflict to secure them.

The report emphasizes the need to monitor Earth's ecosystems for early signs of serious change so that we can act to avoid them. For example, scientists don't fully understand how Antarctica's glaciers will react to warming temperatures: slow melting might take centuries, yet calving of icebergs could lead to their disappearance much sooner, causing sea level rise beyond the already predicted 3 feet by 2200. Ocean temperatures should be monitored closely near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the report urges.

"We hope to limit the number of blindsides," said report coauthor Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University during the briefing.

Tipping points

Barnosky was the lead author of a 2012 paper that warned of a global tipping point at which Earth's systems would irreversibly change as a result of changing climate.

"We probably have been underestimating the potential effects of ongoing climate change in exacerbating the extinction crisis we already find ourselves in, so far due to non-climatic causes like human-caused habitat loss, overexploitation of economically valuable species, and pollution," he wrote. "Even on its own, the committee found climate change to pose a very real extinction threat. Added to all the other stressors, it really could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back."

The good news is that some will stretch out over a century or more, allowing more time to adapt. Most show that big changes in the North Atlantic that would affect ocean currents are unlikely in the short term, while the release of methane from the sea floor is unlikely to happen in huge belches that would alter the climate overnight, according to the report. Yet these are going to happen eventually if greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are not reduced. Currently, the world needs to reduce these emissions about 5 percent each year for the next 38 years to limit the average global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

"Luckily, there is still time to slow climate change if we start dramatic cutbacks to greenhouse gas emissions now," Barnosky wrote. "That will allow us to avoid the worst-case tipping point scenarios, but that window of opportunity will only be open for another few years, if we continue to change climate at the rate we have been."

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, U.S. intelligence community and the National Academies.

Explore further: New report calls for attention to abrupt impacts from climate change

More information: Read the report online: nas-sites.org/americasclimatec… s-of-climate-change/

Related Stories

US study warns of sudden climate change woes

Dec 03, 2013

Hard-to-predict sudden changes to Earth's environment are more worrisome than climate change's bigger but more gradual impacts, a panel of scientists advising the U.S. government concluded Tuesday.

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

10 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ThomasQuinn
3.2 / 5 (36) Dec 04, 2013
No matter how much scientific evidence is provided, no matter how many thousands of credible scientists speak out, the mob of climate negationists, backed up by a number of wasteful industries, will keep denying and fabricating debunkings. The painful truth is that, as has always been the case, the vast majority of people are ignorant and hostile towards all change. They prefer to pretend that everything is alright the way it is to making necessary improvements, even if they will eventually pay with their lives for their deliberate blindness to the facts.
__________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Matthewwa25
2.5 / 5 (28) Dec 04, 2013
The right wing thinks it knows better then educated scientist. LOL
ThomasQuinn
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 04, 2013
More spam from a deranged negationist who has received repeated bans for spamming, flaming and posting links to pornography. Are you to throw 25 posts with no substance but plenty of abuse and links to strange photographs of random people here too, Nik?
__________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ThomasQuinn
2.8 / 5 (24) Dec 04, 2013
Nik: you are very quick to dismiss any scientific study supporting AGW, yet you also seem to believe that any study to the contrary is to be taken at face-value. In fact, you even fail to provide studies to the contrary. You come up with a slideshow, an article from a negationist site and a NASA-link that doesn't support your views in any but the most tenuous way. How is that proper science?
__________
Dec 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VENDItardE
1.3 / 5 (24) Dec 04, 2013
clearly Mr. Quinn, or should I say Herr Professor, is a paid shill for the liberal media.
Tetsugaku
1.8 / 5 (18) Dec 04, 2013
FTA:

Our report focuses on abrupt change, that is, things that happen within a few years to decades: basically, over short enough time scales that young people living today would see the societal impacts brought on by faster-than-normal planetary changes


IOW they're focusing on weather as opposed to climate?
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2013
As usual, Nik pretends to be a scientist, then confuses "debunk" with "denial". The denialist site he linked to is NOT an example of "peer reviewed science".

I think sock puppetry suits you Nik. More denialist tactics from an avowed denialist promoting an agenda.
mememine69
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 04, 2013
"FORMER" climate blame believers are better planet lovers.
Prove me wrong but science never agreed on anything beyond "could be" a crisis and have NEVER said or agreed it WILL be a crisis or is; "inevitable".
If 30 years of science NEVER agreeing on anything past "could be" a crisis is good enough for you to condemn your own children to a climate crisis that only YOU say WILL happen, then we deniers and you remaining believers can agree to disagree. It's as if you wanted this misery to have been real.

What century are you news editors living in?
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 04, 2013
The tipping point has been just a few years away for a awful long time.

BTW, if we are so close to the tipping point, and the tipping point will include a significant quick rise in sea levels, then why is lord master Al Gore buying energy inefficient ocean side mansions. You'd think if he believed half of what he says, that he would 1) sell his ocean side mansions, 2) sell his private fleet of planes 3) sell his fleet of monster sized cars 4) sell his other mansions and live in a small energy efficient home.

OR, is it that AGW spouting Progressives are lying just like Obama lied about people being able to keep their health insurance.
3432682
2 / 5 (25) Dec 04, 2013
Science makes predictions, which are used to judge the veracity of the theory. The IPCC etc. make predictions which, when they fail, are ignored.

Fires are normal to down; temperatures are flat; Arctic ice is back up, far beyond the 2007 low levels. Global hurricanes are down, droughts are normal, floods are normal; sea level rise is about 7" per century, less than normal. What else is supposedly a problem?
eric_in_chicago
2.3 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2013
here is Chicago we have had basically, NO SNOW (big snow being a big fact of life in my early childhood) for three years past.

i am betting we will have next to none again this year. no coat for me again today.

where are the variety of species of insects from my childhood? barely a firefly seen... stag beetles- EXTINCT here; monarch butterflies- haven't seen those in decades, nor any caterpillars; i don't remember the last time i saw a grasshopper around here.

lots and lots and lots of SKUNKS! we never saw those in the city when i was a kid.

a couple decades ago alewives died by the ton and washed up on the shores of lake michigan and nwo they are gone, too.

from my childhoood to adulthood is NOT a geologic times scale. only a narcissist would believe that because eye see something that makes it "natural".

this is not normal, it is disaster, plain and simple, regardless of what you oil-whores try to say!

DonGateley
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 05, 2013
@eric_in_chicago: From the weather I'm experiencing to the west of you (left coast) and the forecasts for what's between us I wouldn't put my warm clothes in mothballs quite yet. It may be too cold and clear to snow though.

There's only two questions that need answering to know the potentiality of what's referenced here. a) Is the weather a non-linear feedback chaotic system? b) Do chaotic systems exhibit sudden moves to new equilibrium points far from where they started?

Problem is, whether or not that can or will really happen from the current state is an unanswerable question from the basics of dynamical systems. We've just got to wait and see. Ain't no other way to know. :-)
Sinister1811
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2013
As usual, Nik pretends to be a scientist, then confuses "debunk" with "denial". The denialist site he linked to is NOT an example of "peer reviewed science".


Good thing he's banned now. He's a professor in crapology. His PhD makes him an expert on crap and ranting.
WattsUpDoc
Dec 05, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WattsUpDoc
Dec 05, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eric_in_chicago
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 05, 2013
DonGateley

wait and see what the result of pumping 10 billion metric tons of co2 into the air yearly will be?

riiight...

and, while we are at it, let's commit burn all the oil in the planet before ever considering a transition plan to sustainability. that sounds like a reasonable plan

riiight...

while we are at it, right-wing-nut survivalist freaks have a good idea, let's buy more guns. we will need them to use on our neighbors when the oil-based system collapses.
ThomasQuinn
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 05, 2013
clearly Mr. Quinn, or should I say Herr Professor, is a paid shill for the liberal media.


Ok, that's just seriously funny. If you want, you can call me professor as much as you like. Still waiting for those cheques from the 'liberal media' to arrive, though...
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2013
What else is supposedly a problem?


Your ability to understand science? Your failure to read beyond a grade 3 level? Your misunderstanding of climate? Etcetera in aeternum.
3432682
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 07, 2013
Name calling and ignoring actual climate and weather history: essential elements of warmunism.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2013
Name calling and ignoring actual climate and weather history: essential elements of warmunism.


I suspect that wasn't a spelling mistake. Thanks for the clue to ideologically driven denialism, which indeed does "Name calling and ignoring actual climate and weather history".

Ironic indeed that those down the rabbit-hole are blind to the real world above.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (25) Dec 07, 2013
Virtually nothing that the AGW crowd has predicted has come true in the past 20 years. Yet every new prediction is greeted by it's followers with the utmost enthusiasm. This is a religious scam not a science!!!!!
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (22) Dec 08, 2013
Climate change 'tipping points' imminent
Sure ...perhaps tipping toward cooling...

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

Moebius
1.2 / 5 (13) Dec 08, 2013
Tipping point my azz, tell it like you mean it. The point of no return is coming sooner than we think. If it exists. And if it exists we have 0.0000% chance of avoiding it. That's our nature said the scorpion to the donkey.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (23) Dec 08, 2013
" If it exists. And if it exists"

The earth has gone through such CO2 and temperature extremes in the past that we would not be here today if there were such a thing as a tipping point. Like any successful religion, AGW uses threats of massive harm if their principles are not followed.

Our climate is self regulating and has plenty of negative feedback loops that keep thing from running away.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 08, 2013
Why do the AGWites fear change?
If the AGWites were around 12,000 years ago would they fear the glaciers covering much of the Northern Hemisphere were melting or would they welcome the new opportunities of a warming climate?
Everything the AGWites fear will happen can be mitigated and adapted to.
Maybe the AGWites hate how insignificant nature makes them feel and they must 'do something' to make them feel important.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (19) Dec 08, 2013
RYG as governments and the educational establishment struggle to take the power and wealth from traditional religions they are trying to substitute Gaia as the new god.

Hyperbole has become the new sacrament and carbon regulations have replaced the collection plate as a method to support the "High Priests".
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (16) Dec 08, 2013
" If it exists. And if it exists"

The earth has gone through such CO2 and temperature extremes in the past that we would not be here today if there were such a thing as a tipping point. Like any successful religion, AGW uses threats of massive harm if their principles are not followed.

Our climate is self regulating and has plenty of negative feedback loops that keep thing from running away.


Like Venus had? And it didn't even have people!
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2013
Sure ...perhaps tipping toward cooling...

http://www.woodfo....8/trend


Playing whack-a-mole. Rule 1 in the denialist's handbook: If it has been shown to be untrue, keep stating it over and over again anyway.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 08, 2013
"Like Venus had? And it didn't even have people!"

Let me get this straight for it seems to highlight the meaning of the AGW religion.

Man, pray to the AGW god and we can overcome even natural cycles and save Gaia!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2013
The earth has gone through such CO2 and temperature extremes in the past that we would not be here today if there were such a thing as a tipping point


Such misunderstandings of the science are sadly prevalent in the young and gullible. It's that gullibility that Watt and others prey on to spread their misinformation, misrepresentation and half-truths.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (22) Dec 08, 2013
"Playing whack-a-mole." Maggnus I agree. It is exactly like playing whack-a-mole.

EVERY time the AGW crowd uses adjectives like "Unprecedented or Record" it has proven to be false. Yet a week later yet another "Unprecedented" finding will be published. I'll tell you what is unprecedented, it's the debasement of science for political purposes.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 08, 2013
Such misunderstandings of the science are sadly prevalent in the young and gullible.

Which is how the AGWites have been indoctrinating k-12 and why US students do so poorly on science tests.
Climate 'science' really has two parts. Part one is collecting current data and analyzing past data on climate.
The other part, which causes the real problem are the tools used to predict the future. A sub-set of this is the over specialization required today. An over specialization that results in climate specialists to misunderstand the limits of the computer models they depend upon.
There is no way a real climate scientist who practices traditional science can know whether the theory is correct until he waits 30+ years for the data to input into the model.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Dec 08, 2013
Like Venus had? And it didn't even have people!
So this relates to ANTHROPOGENIC warming how, exactly?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
So this relates to ANTHROPOGENIC warming how, exactly?


Exactly the same way your constantly posted, misrepresented graph relates to ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2013
EVERY time the AGW crowd uses adjectives like "Unprecedented or Record"
Oh, you mean the journalists who are trying to get their pieces read? Ya I agree.
Yet a week later yet another "Unprecedented" finding will be published.
Clearly, you don't understand what "unprecedented" means.
I'll tell you what is unprecedented, it's the debasement of science for political purposes.
Climate Denialists use the same tactics as Flat Earth proponents, and Young Earth proponents, and anti-evolutionists, and the tobacco lobby, and moon hoaxers, and others, so it's really not unprecedented. Again, it appears you are having trouble understanding what "unprecedented" means.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (20) Dec 08, 2013
I am glad that you brought up the tobacco companies for they to, like the UN and the world governments, hired the best "Scientists" that money could buy to validate their position.
goracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2013
Virtually nothing that the AGW crowd has predicted has come true in the past 20 years. Yet every new prediction is greeted by it's followers with the utmost enthusiasm. This is a religious scam not a science!!!!!

Yet your ancient pole flip as the cause of practically everything somehow is?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2013
"And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?"

That is the key to their scam, absolutely nothing could happen that is capable of disproving their theory. 20 years of cooling........well it would have been a lot cooler except for the warming.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:
Whack -a-mole.
Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:
Whack-a-mole.
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:
Sensationalist denialism. That's a new low, even for UbaMoron. That is so spectacularly not true I can't believe your pants didn't burst into flame. Hahaha you'll go to any length, and you look so stupid doing it, that it's almost hard to watch.
And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?
Well, a start would be for you to learn word comprehension.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2013
This is from UbaMoron's own link:
Arctic sea ice continued to expand during November, gaining 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 million square miles) of ice since the beginning of the month. Sea ice extent for November averaged 10.24 million square kilometers (3.95 million square miles). This is 750,000 square kilometers (290,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent and is the 6th lowest November extent in the 35-year satellite data record. As was the case for October 2013, sea ice extent for November 2013 remained within two standard deviations of the long-term 1981 to 2010 average.
Talk about misrepresentation! You should be ashamed! And more:
At the same time, part of the interior has seen record warm winter events, with several daily temperature records set at the South Pole
Yea Uba, that's some worry of global cooling all right! Seriously, I'm laughing at how ridiculous you are. From your own link! Please, keep posting, the comedy makes my day!
DonGateley
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2013
@Maggnus: You offer absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem. You are wasting the time of anyone following this.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2013

Our climate is self regulating and has plenty of negative feedback loops that keep thing from running away.


I would be grateful if you could provide examples of such - and their measured or even estimated magnitudes.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2013
"I would be grateful if you could provide examples of such - and their measured or even estimated magnitudes."


The very fact that you are trying gibberish on this board is proof enough that the climate is self stabilizing. Prove that any temperature changes that we see today have NEVER occurred in the past!!!!
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2013
"I would be grateful if you could provide examples of such - and their measured or even estimated magnitudes."


The very fact that you are trying gibberish on this board is proof enough that the climate is self stabilizing. Prove that any temperature changes that we see today have NEVER occurred in the past!!!!


Oh do try harder please!
For the nth to the nth time ... of course they've happened in the past - just for different reasons that we know are NOT happening now.
Vis Solar and albedo and orbital eccentricity.
freethinking
1 / 5 (12) Dec 09, 2013
Millions of people have lost their healthcare insurance because of Obama, yet nothing on PHYSORG, yet when this law was proposed, PHYSORG had article upon article promoting and praising it.

I have two questions for everyone.
1. If this idiotic law was proposed by a Republican would PHYSORG be silent as it is now?
2. Is Physorg staff scared of the IRS/DOJ if they say anything negative or are they being paid to keep silent?
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2013
The TIPPING POINT IS IMMINENT! Buy your Soylent Green(tm) Stock now!

Wouldn't that be a way to predict future events? Just look at how the stocks of companies that could make a fortune from climate change. Right now, that seems to be the major oil and gas industries. (Coal not so much). China this past week got a nice lesson on how nasty coal can be.

Of course @freestink doesn't have anything to add except his intelligent discussions that remind one of the rants of wilder-beast in heat! Good call on that Obama thing, bet your mama loves it.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2013
Millions of people have lost their healthcare insurance because of Obama, yet nothing on PHYSORG, yet when this law was proposed, PHYSORG had article upon article promoting and praising it.

I have two questions for everyone.
1. If this idiotic law was proposed by a Republican would PHYSORG be silent as it is now?
2. Is Physorg staff scared of the IRS/DOJ if they say anything negative or are they being paid to keep silent?


I don't really care as I'm English.
And WHAT has it got to do with science - specifically in regard climate - pray tell?
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2013
I realize that many/most of the AGW supporters on this board are genuinely concerned about the survival of the planet. But I must ask you this one question.......have you ever considered the fact that people like Warren Buffet, George Sorros and companies like GE control the media and out political system? Is a corrupt political system really telling you the truth about climate change?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2013
@Maggnus: You offer absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem. You are wasting the time of anyone following this.


Why thank you DonGateley! And you've added what exactly? Oh yes, there's this gem:

Complete and total nonsense. Balderdash, in other words. I can't believe this was printed anywhere much less here.
and this:
Franklins just enjoys abuse and trolls for it endlessly and prolifically.
. How about you get your own house in order before criticizing others?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
I realize that many/most of the AGW supporters on this board are genuinely concerned about the survival of the planet. But I must ask you this one question.......have you ever considered the fact that people like Warren Buffet, George Sorros and companies like GE control the media and out political system? Is a corrupt political system really telling you the truth about climate change?
So there you have it! He doesn't believe the scientific evidence put forward around the world by scientists from across a giant range of disciplines because Warren Buffet et al control the media and our political system. WHo'da thunk?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2013
I realize that many/most of the AGW supporters on this board are genuinely concerned about the survival of the planet. But I must ask you this one question.......have you ever considered the fact that people like Warren Buffet, George Sorros and companies like GE control the media and out political system? Is a corrupt political system really telling you the truth about climate change?


Now then, that's a bit like "True or False: The answer to this question is false".

But in my own case I bring personal knowledge to the subject.
Correlation and causation physics are overwhelming in my mind.
+ Common sense and probability rule out the rest.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2013
Whack-a-mole.
Not science, just a childish retort.

Whack-a-mole.
Another childish retort.

Sensationalist denialism. That's a new low, even for UbaMoron. That is so spectacularly not true I can't believe your pants didn't burst into flame. Hahaha you'll go to any length, and you look so stupid doing it, that it's almost hard to watch.
More childish stupidity ...devoid of science.

Well, a start would be for you to learn word comprehension. And more childish nonsense.

DonGateley is correct. Maggnus offers absolutely nothing of substance, just nonsense and ad hominem.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2013
Yea Uba, that's some worry of global cooling all right! Seriously, I'm laughing at how ridiculous you are. From your own link! Please, keep posting, the comedy makes my day!
You offered only childish retorts, and cherry picked and out of context quotes from the reference.

The phenomenal growth over last year is here:
420,000 million square kilometers (162,000 square miles) above the same time last year.
The growth rate is higher than average:
74,800 square kilometers (28,900 square miles) per day compared to the 1981 to 2010 average of 70,500 square kilometers (27,200 square miles) per day. This was despite a period of slow ice growth during the first part of the month.
And that it's still low compared to the long term average is generally a localized effect:
The below average ice extent in the Arctic was largely due to a lack of ice in the Barents Sea,
So yeah, the ice has significantly recovered.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
here is Chicago we have had basically, NO SNOW (big snow being a big fact of life in my early childhood) for three years past.
Why do AGWites constantly lie about the weather?

Sure, snowfall was relatively (but not unusually) low in Chicago the last two years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013), but but the winter of 2010-2011 was in the top 10 for snowafall records in Chicago!

http://www.crh.no...ter_snow

And it looks pretty darn cold and snowy in Chicago right now...

http://galleries....-photos/

Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2013
Why do AGWites constantly lie about the weather?


Why does UbaMoron constantly confuse weather with climate?
DonGateley
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2013
I've never understood spoilers. Would you juvenile graffiti "artists" take your "work" somewhere else? You're turning this place into a river of shit.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2013
Why do AGWites constantly lie about the weather?


Why does UbaMoron constantly confuse weather with climate?
Why can't Maggnus discern content?

Chatbot chat...bot chatt..b...b...bot...