Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean are more than 5°C above normal so far this December, with some areas more than 15°C above normal . This is partly in response to record low sea ice cover
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0sSKvVWIAAoBew.jpg
Printable View
Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean are more than 5°C above normal so far this December, with some areas more than 15°C above normal . This is partly in response to record low sea ice cover
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0sSKvVWIAAoBew.jpg
3. The Arctic is getting really hot. Alaska saw its hottest year ever, with temperatures an average of 6
degrees F above normal . Arctic sea ice cover took a nosedive to a new low this fall, as temperatures at the North Pole reached an insane seasonal high nearly 50 degrees above average. Reminder: There is no sun in the Arctic in December.
http://www.businessinsider.com/5-dis...n-2016-2016-12
The sky is falling screams chicken little
Global Warming 2016: Arctic Spin
It’s also much more informative to look, not at just the annual minimum values, but at the annual average values:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2...pg?w=500&h=332
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12...6-arctic-spin/
Well now, whatta "we" gonna do 'bout this?
What can "we" do 'bout this here TonyM, in which there'll be any noticeable, appreciable change in the next ... century?
What can "we" do to bring back the dinosaurs Tony?
O.W.
I would start with what Secretary of State designate Tillerson recently said in support of a carbon tax --
In doing so, we must continue to lower emissions. At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action. Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world. Importantly, as a result of the Paris agreement, both developed and developing countries are now working together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, while recognizing differing national responsibilities, capacities and circumstances. In our industry, the best hope for the future is to enable and encourage long-term investments in both proven and new technologies, while supporting effective policies.
Which is what we are doing. We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions. It would maximize transparency, reduce administrative complexity, promote global participation and easily adjust to future developments in our understanding of climate science as well as the policy consequences of these actions.
source: prepared remarks for Tillerson's 2016 speech at an annual Oil & Money conference, which you can find at http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/c...gy-environment
Others might have additional proposals.
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller
Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.
The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.
They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.
The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century
The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.
The adjustments being correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)
The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.
When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.
- They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
- They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.
Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.
Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.
This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.
NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.
Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.
You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.
One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.
NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.
All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/1...ata-tampering/
Update -- Global Sea Ice is still plummeting, as of Dec 2016
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0x1NiGWIAAd6wA.jpg
http://edmdigest.com/preparedness/po...urrent-update/
Arctic sea ice coverage in the central #Arctic basin is tanking. It is now below the lowest point since mid October.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0x3f0XWEAA0o-6.jpg
Any "calculations" when NYC goes under water???
Is NASA going back on its analysis here?
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#1606a3e632da
The article to which you refer cites one source, which is http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
If you look at that source, you will see that it has been updated, and conditions that existed prior to 2012 have changed significantly. That source shows 2016 had less polar ice than any earlier year in the satellite record.
Yes, the data has been updated each year --
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
Revised, to meet the global warming agenda, you mean.
Babbling bull$h!t ... I see a theme but no specific problem identified accompanied by no solution(s) provided. Gotta have one to have the other ....
Now I would offer that if there is to be any effort expended in any meaningful manner in regards to our environment, the concern be directed to the quality of our air, our water, our soil. As to temperatures, "science" has shown the earth to have experienced extremes that are cyclical and critters have either adapted or not and those that have, we run over with our vehicles or shoot for fun.
Future development of understanding? Seriously?
Climate science has been a "study" since man experienced the first raindrop, the first gust of wind. It's how "we've" come to dedicating 30 minutes or better of animated bobblehead babbling to describe an environmental condition in which anyone with any sense can determine for themselves in about 30 seconds or less.
Climate science? Using natural phenomena to spook the sheep by exploiting their apathy and ignorance.
O.W.
The webcam located in Barrow, Alaska shows some open water today (Dec 28 )
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0ylzZAXcAA7z7o.jpg:large
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Maine looks north, hoping to become a gateway to the Arctic
For government and indigenous officials from around the world,
the Arctic Council meeting here in October was a week-long
opportunity to discuss shared Arctic issues like sustainable
development and protecting ecosystems.
For the people of Maine, it was a week-long opportunity to
reconnect with their rich Arctic history, and to imagine a future
where Maine is not a remote and limited corner of a powerful
country, but a gateway to, and steward of, the rapidly changing
and increasingly active Arctic region.
The increased activity is, of course, in large part a result of
climate change.
http://www.businessinsider.com/maine...arctic-2016-12
I'm saving empty milk jugs at our house. My plan is to fill them with water, freeze them, and then ship them addressed to Santa Clause at the North Pole.
Yeah, I know, it's awful good of me; but I think we all can do our part. :lol:
And after all, we all know global warming is as real as Santa.
Ice coverage during November of each year
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0y5oX4UoAA2VSc.jpg
I'm going out to buy more milk right now--can't have too many jugs for freezing, you know.
Also, now might be a good time to invest in sun tan lotion. I hear the Eskimos burn easily.
The horror! What will our furry friends do?
http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/a...tid=7795&stc=1
They will cease to exist......:roll:
With all that dramatic melt going on, shouldn't the residents of NYC be doing the backstroke by now?
WWAD?
Jan 1st - 2016's sea ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record.
We'll see if 2017 starts off lower than the previous year.
Do ya 'spose there are core samples that might provide details of environmental conditions of the year ... oh, say 5016 bce on 01, 01?
How 'bout 10,016 bce? Or have we always enjoyed moderate, accommodating, near perfect environmental conditions?
Ever seen "Logan's Run"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/ Possibilities abound. Even though the "biosphere" was an abject failure, it makes for a pretty cool live in green house.
Could just be "our" time is up ... and it's time for a reset.
O.W.
In the area around Svalbard, sea ice remains the lowest on record for the date. In fact, as you can see, the absolute sea ice area (in this region) has remained steady or fallen below the value back in September
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1Au8AXWgAAcZuk.jpg
As expected the Arctic sea ice extent ended the year at a record low for the date
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Map showing Alaska stations that recorded their warmest year on record in 2016. The warmth was widespread
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1IWJwOUcAQbeUK.jpg
Dogwit the troll