The opponents of warming rushed a month ahead of time to announce the recovery of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, and claim that this is a contradiction to global warming; NASA explains the conditions that caused the recovery, but also the correct context of the shrinking of the ice cover that has not changed and that even after the recovery, there is still a lot of ice missing just to reach the multi-year average
Arctic Ocean ice cover, September 12, 2013, the day before this year's minimum is announced. The line depicts the average minimum ice cover in 30 years - in yellow. The data was provided by the Japanese Space Agency from the AMSR2 facility on the GCOM-W1 satellite. Photo: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr
After an unusually cold summer in the high northern latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum on September 13, 2013, according to a NASA-funded study by the National Snow and Ice Information Center (NDIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. A data analysis by the two organizations showed that the lowest Arctic ice cover measured was 5.1 million square kilometers.
This year's minimum is significantly greater than last year's measured on October 16, 2012. At that time, the ice cover reached an all-time negative record and covered an area of only 3.41 million square kilometers - about half of the average in 1981-2010.
The minimum this summer is still the sixth figure since the end of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean and is still about 1.12 million square kilometers lower than the average of the years 1981-2010. To illustrate - this is the same area as two large states in the USA together - Texas and California.
The summer minimum of 2013 is consistent with the long-term downward trend of about 12% per decade since the late 2007s, a contraction that accelerated after 2012. Despite claims in the media, the correction compared to XNUMX does not contradict the shrinking trend and did not surprise the scientists.
"I expected this year's minimum to be greater than last year's," said Wall Meyer, an ice researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "There is always a tendency to correct after a negative record. In our satellite data, it has never happened that the Arctic ice recorded two consecutive minimums.
The ice cap covering the Arctic Ocean shrinks and expands with the passing of the seasons. It melts in the summer and refreezes in the cold and long arctic winter. . This year the cool spring and summer weather led to a late start to the seasonal melt and therefore less ice melted.
This year, temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were 1-2.5 degrees Celsius lower than average. According to NASA's analysis. The cold temperatures were due to a series of summer cyclones. In August 2012, a large storm caused the breaking of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, but this year the cyclones caused an effect in the opposite direction - due to high cloud cover, the winds near the ground spread the ice over large areas.
The shrinking trend of the Arctic ice cover results from a high pressure area in the center of the Arctic Ocean, which compresses the ice blocks into smaller areas and is also a product of clear skies, which increase melting due to exposure to the sun." says Richard Coulter, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Maryland. "This year the pressure was low so the clouds and the accompanying wind combined with the cyclone and increased the ice area.
Animation of the diurnal and seasonal variation of the Arctic Ocean ice cover between May 16 and September 12, 2013, the day before the minimum ice cover was declared. The data was provided by the Japanese Space Agency from the AMSR2 facility on the GCOM-W1 satellite. Photo: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr
50 תגובות
Miracles,
Doubt, everything.
That's how science goes.
As I said, because the system is complex. Because there are positive and negative feedbacks. Because the CO4 is absorbed by vegetation and the sea. It is difficult to estimate the effect of this emission on the temperature. It is a fact that the IPCC models were initially between an increase of XNUMX degree and XNUMX degrees per century. And this range has not really changed the last time I checked.
In any case, there are many cases in the history of science where a minority opinion turned out to be more correct.
And as I have already mentioned before, science is not a democracy, the fact that many scientists repeat the same claim does not make it stronger.
Father, there are dictatorships in the world regardless of the amount of precipitation.
The civil war in Sudan was, if I remember correctly, political and religious.
And this conflict has been burning there since at least the middle of the last century.
The government in Eritrea is oppressive regardless of the availability of food there.
By and large, I don't think there is any connection between global warming
another one
And this is exactly where I think you are wrong. There is very strong confirmation of the effect of CO2 emitted by humans on the climate. You won't find a single serious research institute that says otherwise. Why exactly do you doubt this?
In the sentence "Why develop when the current technology is good enough to make money?" You came up exactly on the problem - that the oil giants make sure that the oil will be expensive but a little below the viability of finding a substitute.
There is usually a correlation between institutes that make the claims you make (no matter how contradictory they are) and the financing of oil giants.
What I have always said is that there is no strong confirmation of the link between the PADF emissions and catastrophic warming.
I didn't say that there is no warming, I didn't even say that it is not anthropogenic. I just said that there is no very good basis for it.
Regardless, in the last 15 years there has not been a trend of warming in many of the relevant indices. Which only shows how little those who designed the first models knew that they predicted catastrophic warming.
This means there is always room for a healthy doubt.
Regarding the damage from warming - anthropogenic or not, it should be remembered that it is not divided equally. There will be those who will even benefit from it - big cold countries - Russia for example can benefit from global warming - even practical warming.
Because they have a lot of cold areas that might be more habitable. Cold is their main problem.
You and them don't have much motivation to try to stop global warming if it is really sensitive to PADF emissions.
And there really is an increase in emissions that Russia produces in recent years.
Generally cold countries can gain, warm countries will lose and low countries will lose.
Regardless of this, there is also economic damage to all the "solutions" that are taken, some of the solutions do damage without actually doing anything useful - such as corn-based biofuel that turned out to be just an excuse to subsidize corn growers. And it didn't help anything except to increase corn prices.
Perhaps in the future the technologies of the sun and the wind will provide a good answer - but for now there are mainly commitments to technologies that do not provide. (Why develop when the current technology is good enough to make money?).
It also seems that people and governments have started to confuse renewable energy with clean energy.
Burning wood for example is a very renewable energy, but it is definitely not clean.
When there is less food, people go even crazier and start civil wars.
another one
You say there is no warming. Then, there is warming, but it is not harmful…..
You decide 🙂
First of all - all these things are not necessarily of interest to Russia.
Secondly, the refugees come because of the economic and political situation where they are.
In general, it is quite difficult to link the war in Sudan or the human rights situation in Eritrea to global warming
There were wars and repressive governments even before there was global warming.
And what about animals and plants that become extinct because they cannot move to a new niche? Why should we lose their genetic ideas?
And this is also our problem - where did all the refugees come from?
It should be remembered that not all the consequences of global warming are negative, warming can make cold areas more habitable or suitable for cultivation.
The problem, of course, is that it is not the same countries and people who will suffer or benefit from these phenomena.
The one who loses land to the sea or the desert is usually not the one to gain land from the cold.
By and large, it will be difficult to convince Russia that it might have a lot to gain from this to stop. Right?
Indeed, Russia is among the countries that have significantly increased their GHG emissions in the last decade, if I remember correctly.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
Go to the intermediate tab (meaning explanation for advanced students) and there you will find graphs and links to sources.
Again, any data on land ice melting?
Skeptic, we know enough to take action, what you are doing is trying to delay action until it is too late.
Nissim explained to you what the problem is with the ice in Antarctica which is caused by the melting of continental ice. Since Antarctica is a high continent it will take a long time for all its snow to melt, in terms of the area it will not change anything. In the meantime, the water that flows from the melting continental glaciers increases the sweetness of the sea water and causes the freezing temperature to drop and, indirectly, the sea ice area to increase.
But you prefer to say that it is an unclear, vague system and that it is worth waiting. Which messiah exactly do you recommend waiting for? The one who died twenty years ago and they continue to chabad him the dying Maran now?
The sea ice area in Antarctica continues to grow.
http://www.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html
Reaches the peak of the period of all measurements of sea ice area by satellite images.
The differences between the behavior of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice indicate that the reasons for the increase or decrease of sea ice at the poles are not understood. Because of this: the claim of the Hammists (that the increase in the Arctic sea ice area is only due to global warming) is a dubious claim.
There is a completely different claim regarding sea ice. This claim means that oceanic currents have a heavy weight in global heating and cooling processes. Ocean currents are heat carriers from one area to another. There are *path changes* of ocean currents (where the time scale of changes in ocean current paths is usually a scale of decades). For which reasons it is impossible to conclude anything meaningful about global warming from the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, on the one hand, and the accumulation of sea ice in Antarctica, on the other hand.
Climate scientist Judith Carey has long said that the dynamics of ocean currents must be thoroughly studied to better understand climate change. She complains that this direction is neglected by climate scientists.
Avi Blizovsky
I did not say that there are no explanations, I meant that explanations that were not available and known before the trend of the positioning was clear - are actually not part of the forecast. Science is supported by observation, model, and prediction, if the prediction doesn't hold - then any explanation you have after the prediction is weaker than if it was part of the model in the first place.
The graph you show that shows a straight graph is not necessarily better than the graph that approximates the stairs. The reality is that it is really unlikely to try to approximate the trend to a linear graph. Especially when the graph with the stairs is (almost) a better approximation. By and large, moving a straight line at the beginning of the warming until now is a form of demagoguery (this graph also does not seem to me to be a legitimate linearization considering that it is a line that has died from the average on one side to the measurement side on the other side).
And in any case, almost all the models presented 20 and 10 years ago - predicted much more warming.
Another one, yours has no explanation, it doesn't mean there is no such explanation. See for example the graph in the following article
http://www.the7eye.org.il/79258
Miracles
The warming trend did show signs of stopping - the years are still warmer now than 20-30 years ago - but the graph now has a straight graph or with a negligible increase. At least according to graphs that also appeared on this site.
If we started measuring the heat only in the last 15 years - then we probably wouldn't see any significant trend in most of the indices.
Many supporters of anthropogenic warming admit this and look for explanations for the phenomenon (such as those that also fit their theory - like the heat went to the depths of the ocean or something)
No one serious is saying that what is happening is proof that there is no warming or there is no anthropogenic warming - what it is, it means that our understanding of the climate system is more limited than they thought - and because most of the models that have been proposed have completely missed the predictions. This means perhaps to wait before trying to implement economically destructive actions. and wait for further developments in the field.
In any case, do you have a source of information available that shows that the land ice in Antarctica (all of Antarctica) is indeed melting and reducing?
I haven't really seen any information about it yet.
In any case, the satellite information about the poles has been available for a relatively short time - it is certainly possible that the melting process is consistent with the recent warming - but it may have started long before human industrialization. As part of the warming since the "Little Ice Age".
Joseph:
I don't have time for your bullshit.
The term Khammist is a derogatory term, so your pretending to be an objective person is only intended to mask this disdain.
Obviously?
You will probably say no but others will understand what I am talking about
Joseph
As soon as you write "warming stops for a few good years" - it is you who is spreading a lie - it is simply not true!!!
What you say is irrelevant when you deny the evidence. Just a waste of time.
Joseph
try to listen
1) The amount of arctic ice is smaller on average over several decades. The current fluctuations do not change this fact.
2) What happens in Antarctica is a bit more complex. The temperature there rises. There is the mass of land ice. The melting decreases the concentration of salt in the sea, therefore the freezing temperature increases. Therefore - there is an increase in the sea ice area.
Understand?
There is no denier who is ready to be called that, they are all "skeptics". That's why you need to go to their websites and check what they really are and not as they present themselves.
Michael - excellent, so can we summarize and say that you chose to ignore the scientific questions I raised?
I do not belong to the camp of the Khammists or the deniers but to the camp of the skeptics.
I'm interested in the facts.
But I understand your logic:
A: If it is a person who is from the 'denier' camp, we will not listen to any claim he makes, not changing the facts or the logic of the claim.
B: If a certain person makes claims that challenge or cast doubt on the evidence on which the 'global warming' theory is based (man-made, harmful, etc., etc., a list of titles like that of the Queen of England), then he belongs to the 'denier' camp.
From the combination of A and B it follows: any claim that casts some kind of doubt on one of the claims of the global warming theory, will not be answered, on the pretext that the person who wrote it is a 'denier' and in any case his words should not be given importance.
Listen, I think this is a really good method.
As far as I remember you are an atheist. The next time you try to convince me to stop being religious, I tell you that you are an atheist and anyway your goal is only to confuse the true believers and therefore your claims should not be listened to. Successfully.
"It's not fair"
Life is not fair, what is this whining? The burden of proof is on the claimants. There should not be any symmetry here between the claimant and the researcher. To Tommy, I thought that your articles on the website on the subject were to clarify the side which you believe to be correct. Probably not (this is not a criticism, maybe you're tired, maybe you don't have time, in any case, you're trying to contribute to the conversation in Israel beyond what I've done so far).
Two points and I'll try to keep quiet because I see that I'm not really contributing to an interesting conversation here.
1. I was not offended by my father's reaction, this is a fairly standard reaction for people who demand to prove a negative, the point is that I did not ask for it.
2. For the avoidance of doubt, I did not demand from my father not to fight straw men. I just didn't understand why to relate to puzzling claims. This is not an optimal use of his time, does not provide an explanation and causes repulsion in people who are looking for answers and see a straw man instead of the answers. But if my father you see Zoat as a useful addition to the science site, you have every right.
In any case, I realized that there is no escape from reading the following report myself. The discourse is so loaded that there is no way to get objective clarifications.
Weitz, that's a borrowed statement, no one was really interested in June's family. All I tried to explain is that on one side there are scientists who examine every data that comes from every thermometer, and on the other side there are bored people who want to continue wasting energy as if there is no tomorrow and come up with some 2-3 simple formulas in Excel and come up with delusional claims and forcefully demand that they respond to them and give them an equal ratio of the work The hard work of thousands of scientists. It's not fair
Joseph:
The truth is that I thought you were commenting on the article and I saw some expressions typical of you like "Khammists" who made it clear that you are not for a substantive discussion.
That's why I didn't bother to read your words in full.
And in this context you have to interpret my words.
to whom it May concern :
http://www.livescience.com/39870-ipcc-report-facts.html
Those who want to continue arguing should read the links,
I actually have a sister, and she may be a prostitute, but I don't know about that. do you have proof
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. But or
A. To recognize that there is an anomaly between the model and reality, and to want to get down to researching the truth (after all, this is what motivates us, the desire to know, isn't it?)
B. If you have additional data that supports your strong opinion. Beyond the hypothesis specified by Assaf, and it sounds intuitively correct (but who like us knows that intuition and reality are not the same animal), so please share.
third. There are no data yet because the IPCC publication has not been published yet. Ok, still no place to mock a straw man,
And enough of messing with a speaker's body, it is not relevant to a scientific discussion, unless you dispute the reliability of a certain fact because it comes from a body with vested interests. But you are not disputing a fact, but questions.
Play the ball not the player
Avi,
The last comment insults its writer and its readers.
June, why is your sister a prostitute?
Go prove you don't have a sister.
To remind you, it was not the scientists working in the field who asked this question, but all kinds of right-wing research institutes that employ scientists (otherwise these 3% wouldn't exist either) who oppose global warming are asking these questions.
Abby, nice, so in your opinion there are answers to the difficult question of "why the model did not match reality" and that is what the article should have been about. I personally would love to read the full data article confirming this. Abusing a straw man (cooling down) does not strengthen your position.
Miracles. Take a breath before you respond, would you take seriously a writer who would send you a response as yours?! There is no desire to quarrel here, but to get down to researching the truth. I also seriously doubt you have a basic science background, especially after you expressed astonishment
When accepted hypotheses can be incorrect or complete, I have provided you with one example, although most hypotheses find themselves in the dustbin of history. A model is also not a gut feeling that if A then B. But a formula or a set of formulas that values B according to the value of A (assuming, of course, that A is the only possible cause of B's change). Any deviation from the field emitted by the model is a place to ask questions. Asking questions is part of the scientific method, contrary to your approach that the questioners are liars.
In the coming days, the IPCC will release a compilation of findings from the last decade,
which shows the continuation of warming even if at a reduced rate
Probably because of the heat absorbed by the oceans that has not been measured or calculated to this day.
Warming causes larger amounts of water in circulation -
more evaporation and therefore more precipitation,
More precipitation in the South Pole combined with changes in winds
causing more ice to accumulate on the west side of Antarctica,
That means more ice that accumulates in the winter... the result of warming.
Miracles - it doesn't matter if the ability to predict is "surprisingly good, given that the subject is very complicated."
We all agree about the difficulties in climatology. The disagreement is about the ability to reach conclusive conclusions that can be relied upon. If I manage to run at a speed of 50 km/h, I will be a 'good surprise' in relation to a human being,
But it won't help me escape Cheetah.
Science is not self-promotion. Either he's good enough to rely on, or he's not. In the case of climate science - for now it seems not.
Reporter:
'The theory states that the world is warming, and the world is warming. This is a scientific fact, and to say otherwise is to lie.'
you are misleading The theory claims that the world is warming *as a result of CO2 emissions*, and that this warming *is abnormal* and will lead to *repeated* and irreversible feeding.
And if the theory claims that the world should warm at a rate of 3 degrees per 100 years but in practice the warming is 100 degree per XNUMX years or less than that, how can you know that the dangerous feedback is really happening?
And if suddenly the warming stops for a good few years, again, how can you know that the dangerous feedback is really happening?
It could be that the models are a serious science - for sure, a science that is not good enough.
Avi - you managed to completely avoid any relevant response. You may easily fall into the trap of anything you are fed. Maybe. I do not.
And you didn't even read the review of the hockey stick in an orderly manner, so of course you won't be able to judge whether it is factual or not and whether it has legs or not. I'm telling you that the correspondence in Climategate actually confirms it, and until you read the review yourself and see if the correspondence verifies it, you won't know.
I am not impressed either by the scaremongering of Hammists or by idiots on the other side, like Glenn Beck. The truth is that in my opinion associating him with the skeptic is a form of insult and even demagoguery, but so be it...
'One more thing, the ice is growing in the south because we ended the winter there and are now entering spring, in six months, in March-April we will be able to judge what is happening there, but this is just a small example of disinformation' - it is clear. I can't believe you think I'm referring to the amount of ice at the peak now versus the low in the southern summer. Do you really think this is the crap I eat?!
I'm talking about the *trend* of the ice in the south, in recent years, and the fact that it has been at a peak since the measurements began. You claimed that it is only the land ice that is less affected by climate change (doesn't accept it without proof but let's assume).
But according to Jacob - and I did not check this, I would be happy for other conflicting information - it is about both the amount of sea ice in the south and the amount of land ice in the south. He also brought some kind of link to the study (real, not written).
And again I repeat my question -
"Why treat only the ice in the north and not in the south? Why not make an overall measurement of all the ice on Earth, or for that matter of all the ice that is in the water (also some kind of measure)? "
Michael - I hope it is clear to you that when I wrote about the ice in Antarctica, I meant the ice in the South Pole, and that the Arctic ice is the ice in the North Pole.
Michael - except for bringing in 2 straw men (what do I care what insane Republicans who don't believe in evolution claim, even if they happen to be on my side in this debate), and try to firmly convince me that the amount of arctic ice has indeed been on a retreating trend in recent years (when have I claimed otherwise? You're actually trying to convince In things I didn't claim?),
Did you even consider what I wrote in the message?
IM coming back:
"Why treat only the ice in the north and not in the south? Why not make an overall measurement of all the ice on Earth, or for that matter of all the ice that is in the water (also some kind of measure)? "
You did not refer to even one word of everything written here... good luck with the next message.
Iran and Yoni
What you are doing is disgusting. You don't know your ass off about climate science, and you mock the subject as if it were unimportant. Everything you say is either false or stupid, or both.
June - The predictive ability of climate science is surprisingly good, given that the subject is very complicated. The theory states that the world is warming, and the world is warming. This is a scientific fact, and to say otherwise is to lie.
Iran - the only thing that is lacking in the CO2 concentration is your understanding of the subject. We know how to calculate, and confirm with experiments, how much energy is absorbed by each millionth part of CO2. And we raised the CO2 concentration by more than 40%. That's right, my smart Iran, it's really negligible.
And one more thing, the ice is growing in the south because we have finished winter there and are now entering spring, in six months, in March-April we will be able to judge what is happening there, but this is just a small example of disinformation
Joseph:
have you seen the This graph that in this article?
Have you read the sources for the above article, like this And like this ?
You can make many claims, but to cling to a one-year "recovery" that is not the first in a series of "recoveries" that fail to even come close to returning the situation to its original state does not make sense to me.
Yossi, after reading what's going on with the Koch brothers who are funding universities at a crazy rate to get them off the subject of global warming, I no longer believe any criticism of global warming, because you will know what is behind it.
Abi, I don't follow the predictions of Hammist scientists so I don't know if it fits the predictions or not. But after it became clear to me in the last few weeks that the ice in Antarctica is growing, both on land and in water, it seems that the subject of the ice is also a kind of such an epicycle.
Why treat only the ice in the north and not in the south? Why not make an overall measurement of all the ice on Earth, or for that matter of all the ice that is in the water (also some kind of measure)?
Bottom line, the Hammist argument according to which CO2 will cause re-feeding is one of the most important arguments in the chain of Hammist arguments.
If the CO2 does cause warming, but on the other hand there are strong factors that may cause the balance of the system and the prevention of nutrition, i.e. the maintenance of the constant state, then the 'slight' warming is not significant.
Therefore, any hypothesis about some other factor that disrupts the predictions, actually confirms the idea that there are balancing factors.
Like I said, I avoid and I'm skeptical. I do not believe that there is warming and that there is no warming, neither that it is related to man nor that it is not related and so on. So far I don't think there has been good enough evidence either way.
At the request of the editor of the Seventh Eye, following the news that appeared in the Matras media that I quoted on the website, I wrote a guest article for the Seventh Eye website. http://www.the7eye.org.il/79077
Iran, June
It is very ugly what you are doing. You have no clue about global warming, and you are spreading lies to hurt the scientific establishment.
There is no scientific debate on this issue. There are two groups of people who think differently. One group is of poor liars, like the "famous" Watts. The second group is a collection of idiots who follow every retarded story.
Which group do you belong to?
I have a feeling that global warming has much more evidence than Ptolemy's theory, what's more, we caught you in several lies, for example, that he decided to stop in August before all the ice that could have melted, and secondly - the downward trend is made clear in the picture on the left = http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png - In fact, every few years there is a cycle of decline and then increases of one or two years and again a sharper decline and again increases, so I don't understand what the problem is, why this year's increase is more important than those of the previous years, for example 2008 which is considered a geocentric argument for you.
It's okay, father, the Ptolemaic model of the celestial bodies was not immediately replaced by the Copernican model when the small errors that did not work out were discovered.
Stars went back instead of moving forward and such.
The supporters of the geocentric model added all kinds of assumptions - there are stars that make small rotations within their big rotation and so on. With these assumptions, the geocentric model has held up well…
Yoni, Iran did not invent the doubt that a gas whose concentration is so low has such a strong effect. This is the last word from the Madrasah house of the Admors from Beit Koch/Koch and it is distributed today by organizations financed by them such as the Kikian organization NIPCC which was invented to be a counterweight to the IPCC
Eran,
There are many things that we cannot yet explain in physics. A much more focused and simple area to investigate (in a relative sense). I did not ask for an explanation, if anything I only asked for an acknowledgment that there is a problem with the model. And so it is not out of place to deal with a straw man instead of the real problem. I declined to know if the problem is small or large, I am not a climate scientist. But it's hard for me to accept being ignored.
It's terribly simple, Yoni, they can't explain it.
The whole assumption is based on the fact that due to a 0.00X zero change in the CO2 level, which by the way we are blamed for it exclusively, there is warming.
There is no sun, no activity, no cycles, nothing.
4 billion years of the earth mean nothing. What is important is that we measure from 1880 until today and based on that we will announce what we will announce.
If it was another field and I would submit the doctoral thesis with such data to back me up, I would be thrown from all the stairs.
"The opponents of global warming..."
Thanks for improving the language and avoiding derogatory terms.
"Rush a month ahead of time to announce the recovery of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean..."
This is a straw man level.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have argued for the recovery of the ice. There will always be idiots who are willing to predict the future based on missing information. But every scientist should ignore this background noise without the proper proofs. And there were none.
My problem with the human warming hypothesis is not the hypothesis itself. It is arbitrary, it has the right to exist until the opposite is proven or until it is able to predict future events (at this point it will be promoted to theory). The problem for me is climate science, the multidisciplinarity and existence in the bloody razor of science currently place this science not in one piece with more solid fields (physics, chemistry, etc.). The predictive power of this science is poor at best. This is the problem that needs to be answered. The relevant opponents of accepting the man-made warming hypothesis are those who rightly claim that, contrary to what the hypothesis predicted, the exact opposite has happened. As in any field of science, it is impossible to move on to the agenda without being able to explain the deviation in the forecast.
The argument "the correction compared to 2012 does not contradict the shrinking trend and did not surprise the scientists." It may be true, it may not be. In any case, it requires testing. Adding a fudge factor to scientific models is not a new practice, and sometimes the fudge factor sticks as correct as certain constants. But any addition of fudge in order to draw a line between a model and reality requires a thorough examination and not some line in a scientist's article which he was not surprised by. And usually even a meticulous test is not enough and in order to add the fudge to the model, conclusive evidence is needed that the predictive ability of the model with the fudge is better than before.
point
No - nature is not a balance. CO2 => heat…..
Cloudiness absorbs radiation. The shadow only affects the ground and not the amount of energy in the atmosphere.
Nature balances.
Heat>cloudiness>shade>cold