North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

[flacaltenn]

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?

Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?

The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.

All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.

So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.

Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.

So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.

PM 2.5 or any other particulate is NOT Global Warming. In fact, they have a cooling in the atmosphere. And GW is NOT about pollution either. If you conflate pollution with CO2 and GW -- you've got a LOT of catching up to do on the science. And the misrepresentations. AND the reason why I believe we would not see over 2degC consistently til 2100 or beyond. IF things continued the same.

If you're confused about pollution and GW -- it would most likely be a waste of time to explain that "belief"..

No, I didn't say it was global warming.
It's pollution which impacts human beings and their lives. It causes cancer, it causes respiratory problems, it causes problems. The US has merely managed to ship the problem off to other countries.

However Greenhouse Gases are also being produced by such countries at the same time as pumping out fine particles.

I'm not confused at all. You seem to think that if someone deviates from your thin line that it's because they're confused.

It's because "they" ARE confused. And "they" are putting out stories and propaganda to connect CO2 with "carbon". To pretend that these things are one and the same. They are not. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. DESPITE what the EPA says.. Most any person schooled in science knows that.

A large part of man's "CO2" footprint is domestic cattle and land use. No particulates involved. And the shift to Nat Gas --- STILL produces CO2, but much lower particulates. And most Western Autos are now pretty free of particulates. You do NOT solve these problems the same way.

CO2 is the result of perfect hydrocarbon combustion. Which means the more the efficient the burning the more CO2 is produced and less pollution. When they slapped catalytic converters on cars, the particulate and pollution went down -- but the GH gas emissions went UP !!!!

I'd LOVE to see 100 new nuclear plants built this decade in the US. We need about 40 anyways to replace the aging ones. Then you could close coal plants, tear down the dams and free the salmon, AND you'd be fixing any GW emissions and cleaning the air at the same time. Want to sign on to THAT? Or are you MORE afraid of nuclear power plants than you are of GW and pollution put together??

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?

Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?

The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.

All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.

So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.

Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.

So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.

PM 2.5 or any other particulate is NOT Global Warming. In fact, they have a cooling in the atmosphere. And GW is NOT about pollution either. If you conflate pollution with CO2 and GW -- you've got a LOT of catching up to do on the science. And the misrepresentations. AND the reason why I believe we would not see over 2degC consistently til 2100 or beyond. IF things continued the same.

If you're confused about pollution and GW -- it would most likely be a waste of time to explain that "belief"..

No, I didn't say it was global warming.
It's pollution which impacts human beings and their lives. It causes cancer, it causes respiratory problems, it causes problems. The US has merely managed to ship the problem off to other countries.

However Greenhouse Gases are also being produced by such countries at the same time as pumping out fine particles.

I'm not confused at all. You seem to think that if someone deviates from your thin line that it's because they're confused.

It's because "they" ARE confused. And "they" are putting out stories and propaganda to connect CO2 with "carbon". To pretend that these things are one and the same. They are not. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. DESPITE what the EPA says.. Most any person schooled in science knows that.

A large part of man's "CO2" footprint is domestic cattle and land use. No particulates involved. And the shift to Nat Gas --- STILL produces CO2, but much lower particulates. And most Western Autos are now pretty free of particulates. You do NOT solve these problems the same way.

CO2 is the result of perfect hydrocarbon combustion. Which means the more the efficient the burning the more CO2 is produced and less pollution. When they slapped catalytic converters on cars, the particulate and pollution went down -- but the GH gas emissions went UP !!!!

I'd LOVE to see 100 new nuclear plants built this decade in the US. We need about 40 anyways to replace the aging ones. Then you could close coal plants, tear down the dams and free the salmon, AND you'd be fixing any GW emissions and cleaning the air at the same time. Want to sign on to THAT? Or are you MORE afraid of nuclear power plants than you are of GW and pollution put together??

Anything and everything can be a pollutant. I'm sure we've had this argument before, and you will disappear and then come back 2 months later repeating the same thing. It's always the same/ People with agendas who want to convince people their spiel is real, when it's not. Do we have to go through this again and again?

You can take anything you like, stick it in your water, and it's a pollutant because there's too much of it in your water. That's what to pollute is.

CO2 is in the atmosphere as normal. Put TOO MUCH CO2 in the atmosphere and it becomes pollution. It's simple. You can try and deny this fact, but you won't get far, especially when you're trying to claim that you're "schooled in science", I don't believe that for a minute.

Yes, parts of CO2 are from cattle and the like. But also from burning coal etc. You go to Chinese cities when Xi Jinping is in town, and they've made all the factories stop production, and the pollution rates drop massively. It's the cities where the most pollution is being produced and it's factories doing most of the pollution.

Nuclear power is an option too. However making things more energy efficient, using renewable energy etc and making them more efficient so the costs are reduced is a much better, and safer, way of dealing with this.

 

[Old Rocks]

See any "super-hot" areas on this map??

Arctic Weather Map

Now -- there is a little patch of Blue over a SMALL PART of Siberia.. And I PRESUME -- since it's 12AM UTC on that chart. Thats about mid-day in Siberia.

That little patch is probably why someone got you crapping your pants again.. It's weather.. NOT climate. Stop being a dupe and look at the window.

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Looks pretty damned warm, and looks like it has had an effect. 3 standard deviations below normal. Pretty impressive. Wonder what that is going to be like in September, 2017?

 

[Old Rocks]

They are not going to build 100 new nukes, now tomorrow, not ever. Just not economically feasible. Instead, they will build many more windmills and solar farms. Many of the solar will be on top of existing buildings. And the grid scale batteries will make them 24/7. Coal as a fuel for electrical generation is done. And natural gas and nukes will follow. Unless, of course, the holy grail of fusion is found.

And people like Mr. Flacaltenn will deny they ever were against the renewables.

 

[westwall]

OK, old Hoss, so you want to show how stupid you are. Well, that kind of temperature extreme is definately an indicator that something has changed radically. And we will see the effects in the lower 48 in the coming years.

You mean it's never going to stop getting warmer? I can predict that when the temperatures start going down for a few years the Leftheaded geniuses will continue to claim it's because of global warming. Has anyone ever considered that we've had the recent global warming because its actually from global cooling?

Well now, why don't you just talk to Mr. Westwall about that. After all, he has been predicting a cooling for over ten years now. And all it has done is get warmer. You dumbkopf 'Conservatives' are all the same. You believe that you vast willful ignorance is equivelant to the years that the scientists have spent mastering their discipline. What utter fools you are.

Ten years? I only joined SIX years ago dipshit. I see you can do simple math as well as you can read a scientific paper. Which means not at all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

Actually GMAST has dropped by -0.37 deg C in the last five years. Had we not had an El Niño it would have been closer to a 1 deg C drop. By this time next year that 1 deg C drop may be reality however..

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

Actually GMAST has dropped by -0.37 deg C in the last five years. Had we not had an El Niño it would have been closer to a 1 deg C drop. By this time next year that 1 deg C drop may be reality however..

Really not sure where that comes from pal. We haven't had five years of avg on the DOWN side of temperatures in the past couple decades. You could cherry-pick some Year to Year pairs out of the "pause" and maybe come up with that factoid. But there is no established down trend -------------------- YET..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

Are you accepting the models that the Arctic is now 35F warmer than normal and can you post current temperatures from the Arctic

 

[Billy_Bob]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

Actually GMAST has dropped by -0.37 deg C in the last five years. Had we not had an El Niño it would have been closer to a 1 deg C drop. By this time next year that 1 deg C drop may be reality however..

Really not sure where that comes from pal. We haven't had five years of avg on the DOWN side of temperatures in the past couple decades. You could cherry-pick some Year to Year pairs out of the "pause" and maybe come up with that factoid. But there is no established down trend -------------------- YET..

Its the difference between LAND based and LAND/SEA based... Land only is showing a drop while land/sea is not yet falling.. but it will soon..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

Are you accepting the models that the Arctic is now 35F warmer than normal and can you post current temperatures from the Arctic

Not particularly no. Facts are often used by people who don't always take in the larger picture.

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

Actually GMAST has dropped by -0.37 deg C in the last five years. Had we not had an El Niño it would have been closer to a 1 deg C drop. By this time next year that 1 deg C drop may be reality however..

Really not sure where that comes from pal. We haven't had five years of avg on the DOWN side of temperatures in the past couple decades. You could cherry-pick some Year to Year pairs out of the "pause" and maybe come up with that factoid. But there is no established down trend -------------------- YET..

Its the difference between LAND based and LAND/SEA based... Land only is showing a drop while land/sea is not yet falling.. but it will soon..

Sea-based NOAA data won't anymore. They've perfected that racket. Even USA Ref network doesn't show any sustained drop ----- YET...

 

[flacaltenn]

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

Are you accepting the models that the Arctic is now 35F warmer than normal and can you post current temperatures from the Arctic

Not particularly no. Facts are often used by people who don't always take in the larger picture.

That's the point of this thread. These jerks "SIMULATED" the temperature over Siberia to 'fill in the blanks" about general warming in the area. Because of the lack of stations AVAILABLE TO THEM, the computer spit out a HUGE warming spot. Which is MUCH LARGER and severe --- than anything that ACTUALLY happened in that one little "hot spot" that they "found".

And to start tweeting out that "we're all gonna die" and the "arctic is burning up" is pretty immoral and unprofessional. But THAT'S exactly why they GOT a govt grant -- isn't it???

You want "THE LARGER PICTURE"????? Stop reacting to these daily, monthly, yearly scare tactics..

 

[Asclepias]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

Still far not as high as they were in the days of the Viking conquests.

Link? Just flapping yap is hardly convincing

During the Viking conquest, Greennland had some trees even, which is how it got its name. Today, Greenland hasn't yet turned even its grassland back to green yet.

No thats not how it got its name. It was named Greenland to fool people so they wouldnt bother trying to get to Iceland.

 

[flacaltenn]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

Still far not as high as they were in the days of the Viking conquests.

Link? Just flapping yap is hardly convincing

During the Viking conquest, Greennland had some trees even, which is how it got its name. Today, Greenland hasn't yet turned even its grassland back to green yet.

No thats not how it got its name. It was named Greenland to fool people so they wouldnt bother trying to get to Iceland.

Yeah.. To a place with natural hot springs and lots of geothermal energy. It's a marketing thing when your country is an ice-locked freezer most of the year.

 

[peach174]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

And 10,000 years ago it was Ice free.
Mankind is still around, woolymamoth froze instanly while still chewing on buttercup flowers.
So what?
This is what a live planent does, gets hot, gets cold and has done changes instantly in some cases.
Man will still be here because he has technology to adapt and survive.

 

[anotherlife]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Jesus Christ

Still far not as high as they were in the days of the Viking conquests.

Link? Just flapping yap is hardly convincing

During the Viking conquest, Greennland had some trees even, which is how it got its name. Today, Greenland hasn't yet turned even its grassland back to green yet.

No thats not how it got its name. It was named Greenland to fool people so they wouldnt bother trying to get to Iceland.

Yeah.. To a place with natural hot springs and lots of geothermal energy. It's a marketing thing when your country is an ice-locked freezer most of the year.

Will it burry in sea ice when the golf current shuts down and the new ice age kicks in?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

Are you accepting the models that the Arctic is now 35F warmer than normal and can you post current temperatures from the Arctic

Not particularly no. Facts are often used by people who don't always take in the larger picture.

That's the point of this thread. These jerks "SIMULATED" the temperature over Siberia to 'fill in the blanks" about general warming in the area. Because of the lack of stations AVAILABLE TO THEM, the computer spit out a HUGE warming spot. Which is MUCH LARGER and severe --- than anything that ACTUALLY happened in that one little "hot spot" that they "found".

And to start tweeting out that "we're all gonna die" and the "arctic is burning up" is pretty immoral and unprofessional. But THAT'S exactly why they GOT a govt grant -- isn't it???

You want "THE LARGER PICTURE"????? Stop reacting to these daily, monthly, yearly scare tactics..

I'm not the sort of person who is easily taken in, you don't need to worry. However there are plenty of both sides of the "debate" who will be.

 

[Weatherman2020]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

Great news. Millions of lives will be saved since most weather related deaths are due to cold and this opens up millions of acres of land for farming.

 

[Spare_change]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

We're all gonna die!!!! Aaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!

The sky is falling !!! The sky is falling!!!

(Tried both of those on this girl in high school ----- thought, for sure, she'd give it up. She didn't buy it either.)

 

[Weatherman2020]

North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.
It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

Jesus Christ

Wow, North Pole weather data goes all the way back to 2002.
Arctic Zone: 2002 North Pole Weather Data from 2002 Deployment