Arctic amplification is really kicking in hard now.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- spren on “filled with racist remarks”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Bob G on “falsely labeling”
- Bill on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- William on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Mac on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- arn on Protesting Too Much Snow
“North Pole Temperatures Below Normal…”
>>>>
Should be “below average”. Yeah, I know, pedantic, but I do the same thing and get corrected when I do. It’s called “peer review”.
What’s the difference between “normal” and “average”, here?
No one knows what “normal” is supposed to be. Think sea levels, for example. “Average” is the results of measurements over time, if un-corrupted….
“Normal” usually implies a range as well, whereas “average” is a single value.
The normal temperature of a human is 98.6 degrees. The normal number of arms is 2. Something is medically amiss with a person if he or she does not meet these numbers. However, there is no normal height for a person — just averages. And there is no normal temperature on the earth; there is no temperature that the earth ought to be — just averages.
That’s not strictly true, that is of the 98.6F/37C. Core temps are 0.5C higher. Every person has a different set point, so their ‘normal’ temperature can be up to 1C either side of 37C. Good doctors compare a person’s current temperature to their previous ones, not to the population average. Good doctors also calibrate their equipment and even did so before CLIA ‘mandated’ it. They certainly don’t infill a temperature if they didn’t measure it. However, I do recall seeing issues at VA hospitals where dead vets had normal vital signs that didn’t change.
I guess no amount of
in-fillingdata tampering is going to convince the ice to melt this summer. Where’s Reggie with his blow torch?Looking like a carbon copy of last summer and look how much extra multi-year ice we have now because of it.
I personally don’t like the fact that Arctic and Antarctic ice is gaining.
Normal cycle. Ice alarmists are not much different to warmists. Often it is the same bunch. In a few months Antarctic sea ice will melt and the whales, seals and penguins will head back there for summer. Then the big freeze again. I doubt whales think of climate change
Andy when you say the penguins will head back to Antarctica for the summer are you speaking of the ones that fly north for the winter 😉
Has anyone ever tried to start a penguin colony in the Arctic, say in Northern Greenland? Totally aside from the questionable wisdom of introducing “invasive species” are there any other obvious reasons why such an attempt could not succeed? What about polar bears? Could some survive on the Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica? Lots of seals there…
I am not saying “we humans should try this!” I am only wondering whether it would work. Might be nice to have a plan B for 2013 when all the Arctic ice cap melts… 🙂
Here’s an over lay of last year and this year so far. After March they are quite similar.
http://imgur.com/89NQFjw
I do.
I would like to see at least the beginnings of a nice big ice sheet sitting on top of Chicago. (I am old and have no children.) Given the pervasive Progressive ideology, I figure it is about time for a speciation level event to boot H. sapiens sapiens intelligence up to the next level.
As William McClenney said ” It doesn’t really matter how H2O or CO2 feedbacks work. What actually matters is how we can keep the Holocene going…. I have no offspring in the offing… It isn’t so much that I think CO2 could prevent the next glacial inception, it’s the entertainment value in watching the most progressive of us either do the wrong thing (if you are right) or, at best, an intellectually impotent thing (if you are wrong)….. How well adapted are we, are you, for such a long speciation level freeze? H. neanderthalensis, a particularly well-adapted cold species hominid, didn’t make it to this interglacial. Will H. sapiens sapiens make it genetically intact to the next one? “
Meanwhile I am rooting for Ma Nature to commence The Cleansing of the Gene Pool.
Only if we can send Al to the Pole…and maybe the IPCC, and half of congress
Wasn’t it Cowtan and Way who tried to juggle some warming into GISS by saying that Arctic temps were climbing 8 times faster than anywhere else ??
How’s that working out for them !
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
‘The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean — water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,’ Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2680519/Global-warming-creating-MORE-glaciers-Antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-climate-change-scientists-claim.html
Exchange ‘Southern’ for ‘Northern’ in this instance, to understand that man made global warming is the direct cause of Arctic temperatures below normal everyday this summer.
Shirley, you’re joking, right? (and don’t call me Shirley, right?)
Seriously, since when is water heated in high latitudes and carried equatorward?
“water heated in high southern latitude”
One assumes that the water is being heated by all that extra ice down south.. !
But Dr Trenberth told me the deep (upwelling) oceans are hiding the “missing heat”.
Do not use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the Arctic
The plus 80 north mean temperature graphs can be used to compare one year to another
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf
It is gridded by regular 0.5 degrees, it highly biases temperatures that are modeled closest to the north pole.
What is the temperature of the water up there?
… as cold as or below 2006 temps?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/arctic-sea-ice-extent-identical-to-2006/
Very cold. SST’s are below 3 C across the Arctic Basin.
Steven, you often have great insights, but you occasionally are lax in your headlines. The graph is not for the north pole, but rather the mean temperature for locations north of the 80th latitude measured by the Danes.
In other words, regions within a 600 nautical mile radius of the North Pole, hardly lax, just a more punchy headline.
“Lax in your headlines”? I think not. Steven realized that the phrase “mean temperature for locations north of the 80th latitude measured by the Danes.” was an obvious linguistic outlier, so he excised the data, adjusted it to a common point withing 600 miles of 80N and then simply rephrased the result as “North Pole”. No laxness involved. In fact, the algorithms are all working as designed.
🙂
Speaking of headlines, an enterprising warmista would use this graph and headline it with..
“Average Temperature Above Average This Year in the Arctic”
I want to know why the word “normal” is being substituted for “average” as well – because that’s what the weather guys have been using for a few years, and nobody has an answer for it.
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I sense we may have the warmists back on their heels a bit lately. Anybody else getting that impression in the last few weeks. They seem more defensive by the day when faced with the facts and figures that refute their treasured models and flimsy hypothesis. Keep up the good fight!
It looks to me as if most of the ice that is easy to melt has melted. (Hudson Bay, for example.) From here on in it should be much harder to melt the thicker, remaining ice up at the Pole. I expect the “extent” graphs will stop their normal, yearly dive and instead flat-line. If this occurs, it will be such a disproof of Alarmist predictions of an ice-free Pole that I intend to raise the roof with the ruckus I make.
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/arctic-sea-ice-melt-crunch-time/