Record-Shattering February Warmth Bakes Alaska, Arctic 18°F Above Normal

[skookerasbil]

lol......."denier cult". Ummm............that implies fringe!!

But Oooooooooops!!!!!!!!!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities.jpg.html][/URL]



Who's not winning?

 

[skookerasbil]

God I love this forum!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

An opinion piece = ghey

The poll that I posted above makes every AGW k00k look stoopid, which of course is backed up by the fact that America has seen zero climate change legislation in over 8 years and renewable energy remains beyond laughable!!! In this years election.........about 117 people are casting their vote based upon global warming science!!

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record) « Roy Spencer, PhD

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS…FOR NOW
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.

So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.

Dr. Spencer is getting ready to quietly admit the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

What is weird is most Americans appear to want to vote for people that don't believe in global warming. Strange.

 

[RollingThunder]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

What is weird is most Americans appear to want to vote for people that don't believe in global warming. Strange.

That's bullshit! You're "strange", if you believe that.

Most Americans (all the sane ones) want to vote for a Democrat......and both SecState Clinton and Senator Sanders absolutely do indeed accept the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes....like pretty near all of the normal, intelligent, sane people do!

 

[Crick]

You ever been in Houston, St. Louis, Chicago? Holy crap, that is a really stupid statement to make High humidity cities still get temperatures above 100F fool. Maybe only a week's worth, but Houston would be the outlier there.

Weatherman was making shit up, and you're now making stupid shit up too.

If you disagree, it will be easy to prove you're not being a moron. The temperature records in the USA are well-documented and online. Just go into them and show us these days of 104F and 75% humidity.

Such days don't happen, ever. And while we're on the topic, 90F days with 90% humidity don't ever happen either in the USA. What we would consider an unbearably hot and humid day would have 50% humidity, not 90%.

I hate to have to do this because you ARE my favorite poster, but you should spend some time in south Florida. It is common to have days above 90% humidity here and, thought relatively rare, we do break 100F now and then. I have to get to work and on a quick search could not find historical humidity data, but I don't think his claims (regarding temp and RH) are beyond the pale.

 

[mamooth]

It's all about the vapor pressure of water, which determines how much water vapor can evaporate. It's an exponential function, so at the high end, small temperature changes make for large vapor pressure changes.

Vapour pressure of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Say a day starts out at 25C/77F, and 100% relative humidity. The vapor pressure of water at that temperature is 3.2kPa.

At a temperature of 35C/95F, the vapor pressure of water increases to 5.6kPa. The atmosphere becomes capable of holding 75% more moisture. The means the 100% humidity in the morning will become 60% humidity in the heat of the afternoon.

Can moisture evaporating from the land add to that? No, not really. A little. If it could build up over days, it might matter, but it can't build up. Every night, the cool temperatures squeeze out any excess moisture as fog or condensation.

So, night time temperatures would have to rise considerably in order to get peak day relative humidity near 90%. Unfortunately, that's what happens with global warming, night temperatures rising faster than day temperatures.

 

[mamooth]

But the bottom line in Alaska -- the REAL STORY in terms of CLIMATE --- is something that NOAA is NOT telling you.. And that is -- that those sigma bars on variance are GOING DOWN over the past couple decades on both temperature excursions and precipt. It's barely noticeable in those graphs, but I've seen the evidence.

Even if that conspiracy theory was correct, it wouldn't change the results at all. There would still be more red sticking outside of the 1-sigma lines than blue, so it would still show a warming bias.

Now why would the weather in Alaska be getting MORE predictable in a place where where blooming GW is supposed to be making it more UNpredictable and hostile??

Your conspiracy makes no sense, being the warming would be apparent no matter where the line was moved.

 

[jc456]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

What is weird is most Americans appear to want to vote for people that don't believe in global warming. Strange.

and that tells you what?

 

[jc456]

Im laughing.............

......"because I am a clueless retard", says the Kook.

The public has been hearing these alarmist screams for 30 years now. And....

.....and, now....

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015

What is weird is most Americans appear to want to vote for people that don't believe in global warming. Strange.

That's bullshit! You're "strange", if you believe that.

Most Americans (all the sane ones) want to vote for a Democrat......and both SecState Clinton and Senator Sanders absolutely do indeed accept the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes....like pretty near all of the normal, intelligent, sane people do!

and then there's Trump and even democrats are voting for trump. So, a logical fallacy is all you got.

 

[depotoo]

Let's see the last major ice age on that chart.

Does this really look like "as it always has" to you?

 

[PredFan]

Record-Shattering February Warmth Bakes Alaska, Arctic 18°F Above Normal
Record-Shattering February Warmth Bakes Alaska, Arctic 18°F Above Normal

by Joe Romm Mar 13, 2016 1:05 pm

CREDIT: NASA

Share 830
Tweet
How hot was it last month globally? It was so hot that the famed Iditarod sled race in Alaska brought in extra snow from hundreds of miles away by train.

It was so hot that NASA now reports that last month beat the all-time global record for hottest February by a stunning 0.85°F, when such records are usually measured in hundredths of a degree.

Global mean surface temperature (anomaly from 1951-1980 mean). NASA data (h/t Tamino). Red dot is February.

It was so hot last month that large parts of the Arctic averaged more than 18°F (10°C) above normal. Not only did last month easily set the record for lowest February Arctic sea ice extent, as the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported, but Arctic sea ice growth has been almost flat for over a month during a time when it normally soars to its annual maximum.

It was so hot that February had the single biggest recorded monthly temperature anomaly (deviation from the 1951-1980 average temperature) — a whopping 2.4°F (1.35°C) above the average temperature for the month. The previous record deviation from the average — 2.0°F (1.13°C) — you may recall, was set in January.
----

It is becoming clear that global warming + the nino is doing some extreme stuff. We need to all agree as it is obvious.

Meh. So what?

 

[flacaltenn]

But the bottom line in Alaska -- the REAL STORY in terms of CLIMATE --- is something that NOAA is NOT telling you.. And that is -- that those sigma bars on variance are GOING DOWN over the past couple decades on both temperature excursions and precipt. It's barely noticeable in those graphs, but I've seen the evidence.

Even if that conspiracy theory was correct, it wouldn't change the results at all. There would still be more red sticking outside of the 1-sigma lines than blue, so it would still show a warming bias.

Now why would the weather in Alaska be getting MORE predictable in a place where where blooming GW is supposed to be making it more UNpredictable and hostile??

Your conspiracy makes no sense, being the warming would be apparent no matter where the line was moved.

You miss the vital points of your own weak ass GW theory.. The THEORY states that GW is ALREADY causing more violent and unpredictable swings in weather. Because of the failed assertion that more heat = more volatility = faster chaos in "climate". But in the area of the globe where it's SUPPOSEDLY blooming like mad --- the ACTUAL variance in "weather" is VERY NOTICEABLY reducing. Aint a theory. Not a conspiracy. It's an empirical data set.

BOTH the winter precipt AND the winter temps are DRASTICALLY narrowing their error bars. The stuff that NOAA doesn't tell you is more important than this "record"...

 

[RollingThunder]

But the bottom line in Alaska -- the REAL STORY in terms of CLIMATE --- is something that NOAA is NOT telling you.. And that is -- that those sigma bars on variance are GOING DOWN over the past couple decades on both temperature excursions and precipt. It's barely noticeable in those graphs, but I've seen the evidence.

Even if that conspiracy theory was correct, it wouldn't change the results at all. There would still be more red sticking outside of the 1-sigma lines than blue, so it would still show a warming bias.

Now why would the weather in Alaska be getting MORE predictable in a place where where blooming GW is supposed to be making it more UNpredictable and hostile??

Your conspiracy makes no sense, being the warming would be apparent no matter where the line was moved.

You miss the vital points of your own weak ass GW theory..

You miss having a brain, fecalhead! Or you would, if you had anything to compare your brainless state to, but unfortunately, that state is obviously all you've ever known.

The THEORY states that GW is ALREADY causing more violent and unpredictable swings in weather.

And the theory is correct....(in the real world, that is, not your hallucinatory denier cult BizarroWorld)

Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds
Researchers say heatwaves that previously occurred once every three years are now happening every 200 days thanks to global warming
The Guardian
Karl Mathiesen
27 April 2015
(excerpts)
Extreme heatwaves and heavy rain storms are already happening with increasing regularity worldwide because of manmade climate change, according to new research.

Global warming over the last century means heat extremes that previously only occurred once every 1,000 days are happening four to five times more often, the study published in Nature Climate Change said.

It found that one in five extreme rain events experienced globally are a result of the 0.85C global rise in temperatre since the Industrial Revolution, as power plants, factories and cars continue to pump out greenhouse gas emissions.

“A lot of us and our colleagues were surprised by how high these numbers are already now in the present day climate,” said Dr Erich Markus Fischer from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

What represents an extreme day varies depending on the background climate. In the south-east of England, for example, temperatures used to reach 33.2C once every 1,000 days, but are now happening as much as once every 200 days.

Future warming will bring a more volatile, dangerous world, even if the world manages to keep temperature rises within a 2C limit to which governments have committed, Fischer’s research found. On average, any given place on Earth will experience 60% more extreme rain events and 27 extremely hot days.

The study also found that the effects of warming will vary around the world. Weather events at the equator will become more extreme with 2C of warming, meaning tropical countries already dealing with frail infrastructure and poverty will experience more than 50 times as many extremely hot days and 2.5 times as many rainy ones.

 

[flacaltenn]

But the bottom line in Alaska -- the REAL STORY in terms of CLIMATE --- is something that NOAA is NOT telling you.. And that is -- that those sigma bars on variance are GOING DOWN over the past couple decades on both temperature excursions and precipt. It's barely noticeable in those graphs, but I've seen the evidence.

Even if that conspiracy theory was correct, it wouldn't change the results at all. There would still be more red sticking outside of the 1-sigma lines than blue, so it would still show a warming bias.

Now why would the weather in Alaska be getting MORE predictable in a place where where blooming GW is supposed to be making it more UNpredictable and hostile??

Your conspiracy makes no sense, being the warming would be apparent no matter where the line was moved.

You miss the vital points of your own weak ass GW theory..

You miss having a brain, fecalhead! Or you would, if you had anything to compare your brainless state to, but unfortunately, that state is obviously all you've ever known.

The THEORY states that GW is ALREADY causing more violent and unpredictable swings in weather.

And the theory is correct....(in the real world, that is, not your hallucinatory denier cult BizarroWorld)

Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds
Researchers say heatwaves that previously occurred once every three years are now happening every 200 days thanks to global warming
The Guardian
Karl Mathiesen
27 April 2015
(excerpts)
Extreme heatwaves and heavy rain storms are already happening with increasing regularity worldwide because of manmade climate change, according to new research.

Global warming over the last century means heat extremes that previously only occurred once every 1,000 days are happening four to five times more often, the study published in Nature Climate Change said.

It found that one in five extreme rain events experienced globally are a result of the 0.85C global rise in temperatre since the Industrial Revolution, as power plants, factories and cars continue to pump out greenhouse gas emissions.

“A lot of us and our colleagues were surprised by how high these numbers are already now in the present day climate,” said Dr Erich Markus Fischer from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

What represents an extreme day varies depending on the background climate. In the south-east of England, for example, temperatures used to reach 33.2C once every 1,000 days, but are now happening as much as once every 200 days.

Future warming will bring a more volatile, dangerous world, even if the world manages to keep temperature rises within a 2C limit to which governments have committed, Fischer’s research found. On average, any given place on Earth will experience 60% more extreme rain events and 27 extremely hot days.

The study also found that the effects of warming will vary around the world. Weather events at the equator will become more extreme with 2C of warming, meaning tropical countries already dealing with frail infrastructure and poverty will experience more than 50 times as many extremely hot days and 2.5 times as many rainy ones.

Didn't understand a word I wrote -- Didya? DECREASE in weather volatility in Alaska.. It's a fact jack..
You can assert your "little feelwings" all ya want.. OPPOSITE is happening where GW is the most profound..

Future warming will bring a more volatile, dangerous world

 

[mamooth]

Didn't understand a word I wrote -- Didya? DECREASE in weather volatility in Alaska.. It's a fact jack..

I understood it. I just don't understand why you think it was related to the topic under discussion. The topic is warming in Alaska. Hence, one should show average temperature in Alaska, right? Like this.

You can assert your "little feelwings" all ya want.. OPPOSITE is happening where GW is the most profound..

So even though the temperature is rising fast in Alaska, you say that doesn't count because you imagine the variance has decreased.

That's a very creative excuse. Makes no sense at all, of course, but I guess beggars can't be choosers when all the data disagrees with them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Didn't understand a word I wrote -- Didya? DECREASE in weather volatility in Alaska.. It's a fact jack..

I understood it. I just don't understand why you think it was related to the topic under discussion. The topic is warming in Alaska. Hence, one should show average temperature in Alaska, right? Like this.

You can assert your "little feelwings" all ya want.. OPPOSITE is happening where GW is the most profound..

So even though the temperature is rising fast in Alaska, you say that doesn't count because you imagine the variance has decreased.

That's a very creative excuse. Makes no sense at all, of course, but I guess beggars can't be choosers when all the data disagrees with them.

So you're saying your crappy theories are only 1/2 right? And the more dire predictions that are NOT being observed don;'t matter? OK Squiddly...

BTW --- Why does YOUR chart cut off at 1949?? Conveniently just AFTER the LAST warm period up in that region?

Showing MORE of data both historically and without the scary yearly averages it looks to me to more bimodal than a trend related to the atmos CO2 concentrations..

 

[Crick]

You think those data look bimodal? Please explain where you see that. 1940 and 2003? You realize that if you cut any dataset to the proper size, you can see any number of modes you want. Don't you think that's what you're seeing here?

FCT, will you vote Trump over Hillary?