tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post9210400115916192244..comments2023-06-21T00:39:34.443-07:00Comments on Dosbat: June Status: Part 1Chris Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-64827354269353950612014-07-07T00:56:25.840-07:002014-07-07T00:56:25.840-07:00No, I don't think so, but maybe it was...
I&...No, I don't think so, but maybe it was... <br /><br />I'm unsure because I can't remember. It was around that time that I was in the process of ditching my scepticism about AGW, and even when I was a sceptic Monckton's transparent, idiotic, crap always irritated me. <br /><br />So it's possible, it reads like my style, but I don't remember it. It was nearly 8 years ago!Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-7487769235048269622014-07-06T06:23:32.753-07:002014-07-06T06:23:32.753-07:00Chris - off topic question: Were you the 'Chri...Chris - off topic question: Were you the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/comment-page-1/#comment-21125" rel="nofollow">'Chris'</a> that delved into Monckton's various scientific references on RealClimate and found they never supported the point he was making? This was back in 2006 after his two-part essay ran in the Sunday Telegraph. Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-61491432130981331852014-07-04T08:24:17.588-07:002014-07-04T08:24:17.588-07:00Hi Anon,
A lot depends on the thinning over June,...Hi Anon,<br /><br />A lot depends on the thinning over June, I expect June volume loss over the Arctic Ocean to be greater than 2013 (about 3.06k km^3) but nowhere near as big as 2012 (4.17k km^3).<br /><br />I read recently a quote from a scientist about how despite weather that wasn't notably good for melt 2012 crashed out. I put that down to the low winter thickness (volume) for recent years, combined with the aggressive thinning seen in Spring 2012. A lot of the outcome of this year depends on how aggressive the spring melt has been, but I think that determines whether we're in the 2011 ballpark or the 2012 ballpark. However if the current high pressure dominance continues through June we could be looking at a 2014 minimum of around 2012, likely a bit higher, but feasibly a bit lower.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-80986443113605034342014-07-04T04:23:01.782-07:002014-07-04T04:23:01.782-07:00Impressively thorough working of the numbers as us...Impressively thorough working of the numbers as usual, Chris. It sounds as though the main opposing forces for the remainder of the melt season will be early thinning - continuing the longer-term trend you have observed in other posts - vs. the high compactness (relative to recent years) of ice in the Arctic Ocean. The latter seems to be related to low melt pond formation. Weighing that factor fairly heavily, my guess is that the extent anomaly trace will trend up (again, relative to recent years) within a week or so if the current warm spell abates.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09130839750549708780noreply@blogger.com