jjk-code-otter
commented
2 years ago -
[ ] Suggestion 1: the mean annual glacier mass balance could also be compared to the long-term mean (reference period, e.g., 1981-2010 or whatever you are using for the other variables), perhaps as a % anomaly
-
[ ] Suggestion 2: Gt of mass change for each ice sheet, in absolute terms (and as a sea-level equivalent) for the year or decade
-
[ ] Suggestion 3: Maybe also a % difference for the mass change compared with the reference period.
-
[ ] Suggestion 4: The 30-year mean mass balance can also be accompanied by a calculation of \sigma, so that for a given year one can report whether the mass change was X standard deviations above or below normal, as another indication of whether things were exceptional or not.
Key messages: your sea ice and glacier pieces are good. I think the mean annual glacier mass balance could also be compared to the long-term mean (reference period, e.g., 1981-2010 or whatever you are using for the other variables), perhaps as a % anomaly. It would not work if the mean was 0, but it is some negative number that can place into context 'last year's value, i.e. more or less ice loss than 'normal'.
For the ice sheets. Maybe Gt of mass change for each ice sheet, in absolute terms (and as a sea-level equivalent) for the year or decade in question. Then maybe also a % difference for the mass change compared with the reference period, same as above, to help indicate if it was a good year or a bad year.
For the mountain glaciers and also for each ice sheet, the 30-year mean mass balance can also be accompanied by a calculation of \sigma, so that for a given year one can report whether the mass change was X standard deviations above or below normal, as another indication of whether things were exceptional or not. Just my quick thoughts here!