Something about the ice ages probably stimulated the brain enlargement, but neither average temperature nor average
ice coverage seem likely to be the stimulus.
Something about the ice ages probably stimulated the brain enlargement, but neither average temperature nor average
ice coverage seem likely to be the stimulus.
Not exact matches
It
seems clear to me that that mountain glaciers and permafrost are: 1 sensitive indicators of changes in temperature; 2 uncontaminated by urban heat islands; 3 have short response times (no problem with lagged response to Little
Ice Age cooling); have wide geographical
coverage (especially in remote areas).
Predictions of earlier
ice - free dates so - far
seem to be confined to conference presentations, media -
coverage, the blogosphere, and testimony before to the UK parliament.
The «Perils of Extrapolation» of the title finally comes to rest on a discussion of «extrapolation» which explicitly names AMEG at its outset, and concludes that, «Predictions of earlier
ice - free dates (he means, before 2037) so far
seem to be confined to conference presentations, media -
coverage, the blogosphere, and testimony before to the UK parliament.»
Morison, 5.5 (+ / - 1.0), Heuristic Judging by the NSIDC
ice extent and microwave and visible imagery, the
ice extent
seems to be going in the - 1 sigma of recent climatology, and melt pond
coverage in the central Arctic anyway
seems about average for recent years.
If you'll recall from my previous post, polar bears
seem to have barely survived the extensive sea
ice coverage during the Last Glacial Maximum — in other words, too much
ice (even over the short term) is their biggest threat.
Some have claimed it was complete global
coverage of sea, though it
seems me more would claim there remained corridor of tropical ocean which remain
ice free.
It
seems to me the variables effecting the amount or
coverage of sea
ice, be it old vr.