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

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: alphabetaone

I understand very well, and the science on anthropogenic climate change has been clear for a long time.

Climate change denial runs deep here, especially apg climate change. Look at the nonsensical theories pushed as evidence, and try to understand the real science.

ATS has become a place where a lot of members now openly embrace click bait garbage that fits their own worldview and ignores (or fights) anything that does not.

A lot of my own views have changed in the time since I've been here, and not necessarily in a way I would have liked or expected, but facts trump fantasy.

What a fitting username. OOh its NASA so its automatically right and not biased at all!!(EXTREME SARC) Nasa is looking for more funding dollars and as long as that is their motive i dont believe em.

Science that is "settled" isnt science at all. Its opinion.

Once again I NEVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGE. Its a NATURAL OCCURRANCE,and it IS arrogance to say HUmans are the sole cause.

No matter how many times you repeat that climate change (the type being discussed here) is a natural occurance, it doesn't make you right. All caps, ad-homs, and insults give you even less credibility if that's possible and further outline the wholesale embracing of ignorance that goes on around here.

I give a lot more credence to NASA's findings than some random on an internet forum.

And yes, the science of APG is a lot more settled than any other nonsensical theory I've seen you or other users come up with.

I think you don't have a grasp on all of it nearly as well as you would have others believe if youre refusing to at least entertain the notion that there are elements of climate change that are out of our control.

While a year over year attribution and case can be made for the human element, there are still fundamentally flawed concepts of accounting for them. For instance a big one is the misapplication of radiation laws via downwelling, governmental climate scientists also continuously make an exception to the perpetual motion machine heating up the atmosphere...this leads to a one-way conversation with those scientists in the (erred) belief that - with quantum physics as a reference - there is no net flow of photons from a cold body to a warm body, and that statistics only show a net flow of photons from a warm body to a cold body.

Long and short of that is, that Prevost's law based upon igneous fluid is what is used to cite downwelling, but when it was formulated, Prevost had no idea about thermodynamics...today's scientists should know better, yet they still apply Prevost's postulation into their models. Today we should know better and apply the laws of thermodynamics, yet we don't.

Unless someone has accurate temperature data collected in that area for the last 100,000 years, it's nuts to draw any conclusions as to the cause.

We being a species that can and do exist in pretty much any climate on Earth, adjust to the changes unless we are stupid. Even if temperatures do change as I suspect they have since the Earth was formed, the sky is not falling and trying to panic people to get research grants is just wrong and I think that has more to do with this than anything.

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: alphabetaone

I understand very well, and the science on anthropogenic climate change has been clear for a long time.

Climate change denial runs deep here, especially apg climate change. Look at the nonsensical theories pushed as evidence, and try to understand the real science.

ATS has become a place where a lot of members now openly embrace click bait garbage that fits their own worldview and ignores (or fights) anything that does not.

A lot of my own views have changed in the time since I've been here, and not necessarily in a way I would have liked or expected, but facts trump fantasy.

What a fitting username. OOh its NASA so its automatically right and not biased at all!!(EXTREME SARC) Nasa is looking for more funding dollars and as long as that is their motive i dont believe em.

Science that is "settled" isnt science at all. Its opinion.

Once again I NEVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGE. Its a NATURAL OCCURRANCE,and it IS arrogance to say HUmans are the sole cause.

No matter how many times you repeat that climate change (the type being discussed here) is a natural occurance, it doesn't make you right. All caps, ad-homs, and insults give you even less credibility if that's possible and further outline the wholesale embracing of ignorance that goes on around here.

I give a lot more credence to NASA's findings than some random on an internet forum.

And yes, the science of APG is a lot more settled than any other nonsensical theory I've seen you or other users come up with.

My theory is Scientist are liars when i t comes to funding. Can you disprove it 100 percent?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Unless someone has accurate temperature data collected in that area for the last 100,000 years, it's nuts to draw any conclusions as to the cause.

We being a species that can and do exist in pretty much any climate on Earth, adjust to the changes unless we are stupid. Even if temperatures do change as I suspect they have since the Earth was formed, the sky is not falling and trying to panic people to get research grants is just wrong and I think that has more to do with this than anything.

True Blaine. its mostly a big money making scheme with just enough sciencey bits to convince the stupid and cucks.

a reply to: 191stMIDET

but as it turns out Polar shifts are more gradual maybe as long as a decade for the change to happen.

Um no . Try one degree every million years or so .

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Any meteorologists out there that can tell us if this is a temporary aberration or if it will remain much warmer than normal in the arctic this winter?

Yes, I can.

Weather is atmospheric conditions, including temperature, precipitation, general conditions at any given moment.

Climate is the same components, over time.

Saying that this is indicative of climate change is the same as my moron brother in law, who posts, from Minnesota, when it is 40 below zero on one day, "What ever happened to global warming, lol."

Five or six years of significantly out of order weather conditions, okay, you have something. One week? No.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Frankly, I believe that any discussion on climate change should always be scientific and the only time the political sphere should be approached is to simply guide ill-informed politicians about the findings of the scientific community.

Politicians remind me of my sister (whom I haven't seen in about 30 years), who to me was the scariest person on the planet...why? Because she is one of those people who get a hold of one or two keywords du jour and run with them simply because they are vogue all the while trying to assure people she is an authority on the subject matter referenced by those keywords.

It seems that both anthropogenic pushing scientists and politicians have painted themselves into a corner. If they came out and admitted they were wrong after all the hysteria it would end a lot of their careers. It would end funding as well. It would be political suicide for politicians that have been pushing regulations and treaties over the issue. I am not going to get into all the countervailing evidence in this thread as it would be ignored to push the agenda.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

Well more than ever we need to stop ignoring these people and confront them. We are about to enter the next four years with deniers FIRMLY in control of the government and the world's problems due to CC are only going to get worse over those next four years. Even China is calling out Trump for trying to leave the Paris CC agreement.
China warns Trump against abandoning climate change deal
Commentary: China resolved to fight climate change, pursue sustainable development
China Is Now Embarrassing the U.S. on Climate Change. How Did We Get Here?

China will soon trump America: The country is now the global leader in climate change reform

Bwhahahaha! The same China that has been putting new coal fired electric plants online every week? But we should stop producing coal. Yes, it is in China's best interest to keep the US economy depressed and chasing its tail with regulation after regulation stifling our own industry. You do know they are trying to kill the dollar as reserve currency while making the renminbi a new reserve currency which the IMF just gave SDR in the reserve currencies.

At least give a better reason to support your theory.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Riffrafter

Can't keep saying that Climate Change is a hoax. Reality is starting to catch up with the deniers.

Deniers or realists ?

Climate change scenarios are based on computer models or programs like every other program it needs data input so it is very easy to manipulate the final result to suit a specific agenda.

But to all those who call those who do not believe in climate change climate deniers. That's then move away from the realm of computer models and look at one fact before there was any industrialisation on this planet 1 motor vehicle one fire lit for the purpose of heating do you agree that there were ice ages if you agreed that there were ice ages in this planet past then ask yourself this question what made the ice melt because if the ice didnt melt theoretically we would still be in an ice age.
So a reasonable person could assume that heat melts ice therefore climate change has been around since Time Began unfortunately the fact that Al Gore is involved in this movement and in fact stated that by now we would not have any polar caps left so that unfortunately there is a definite agenda behind climate change the other small thing I would like to add have you ever noticed that when we are in times of drought they call it global warming once we move out of drought they call it climate change I've tried to keep the facts as simple as possible simple as they seem they are Undeniable thoughts

Let me point out WHY there is so much blowback to the AGW THEORY.

The IPCC used temperature data going back to the 1800's. They normal biased the data to CORRECT for TEMPERATURE RISE. However, when scientists, mathematicians, etc. wanted to see the data and check the models for accuracy the IPCC came out and said they no longer had the data. It had been deleted or trashed anyway.

Then there is the source temperature data problem...

Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meteorologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.

Watts has for years searched for weather stations that have flaws. And he points to a still-open station at Yosemite park as an example of one with “heat sinks” – objects that store heat, and then release it at night. Heat sinks can cause stations located in or near them to give off useless data -- generally in the form of inflated temperatures not representative of the broader area. “The heat sinks are a road, a building, and stacked metal pipe and beams surrounding the station,” he said.

Source

But...But...97% of scientists agree it is AGW.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible.

The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

Source

And the problem is that scientists funded by the government and after yelling the alarming news that the sky is falling, along with politicians like AL Gore seeing billions of dollars is that once they see dollars it is next to impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Scientists involved can no longer come out and say, "We were wrong" because that would be the end of their careers.

But...But...we should trust them. We have a lot of people here that think they are the authority on anything science. Make of that what you will.

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly. "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). "I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.
He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

The 2010 InterAcademy Council review was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

So urce

There is a very real problem with the faith given the IPCC by AGW proponents. The faith is like any religion and they will argue to the death like other religious extremists.

Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.

The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a 'mini ice age' by 2030.

He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical - and therefore temperature - predictions.

Source

There is evidence cited by both sides. The biggest problem I have and many others have is that unless you can verify the data and what was done to it you can't have full faith in what the very people claiming it (IPCC) when it supports their theory and no one can check the data. So much for the premise of letting other scientists see the data.

On top of that, it has been proven the models have at least two mathematical errors. Hence why their predictions are so far out in left field and have not come to pass. But I guess just like the prophesied messiah hasn't materialized in various religions, the AGW proponents will have the same type of faith even though their messiah hasn't appeared as the prophecy by the IPCC hasn't materialized either.

Shady scientists at the IPCC just want you to accept they did everything right and no one else can look at the data but them because they are....wait for it....God.

originally posted by: Unity_99
We're also having a pole shift, not sure how far along that is currently. But that does make temporary pockets of cold appear in various areas as if the magnetic pole doesnt know where to go.

But the article mentioned the jetstream.

Could there be a correlation in that the actual North Pole is warmer because where the north pole currently is, is the right temp?

Maybe an alert for an imminent pole-shift?

originally posted by: adjensen

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Any meteorologists out there that can tell us if this is a temporary aberration or if it will remain much warmer than normal in the arctic this winter?

Yes, I can.

Weather is atmospheric conditions, including temperature, precipitation, general conditions at any given moment.

Climate is the same components, over time.

Saying that this is indicative of climate change is the same as my moron brother in law, who posts, from Minnesota, when it is 40 below zero on one day, "What ever happened to global warming, lol."

Five or six years of significantly out of order weather conditions, okay, you have something. One week? No.

Thanks for your informative response.

I didn't post this from a climate change perspective although I can certainly see why it could be viewed in that context. But the fact that it is so warm and there is so little sea ice will most likely impact our weather in the short-term, no?

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Riffrafter

This headline and the way it is being reported make this seem sensational. The truth is though that localised arctic storms can mean that temperatures are 30-40 degrees hotter in parts of the arctic than in others.

Where that becomes a worry is if it continues long term rather than just temporary............

I hope you're right and it is a temporary aberration.

My brother-in-law is a research meteorologist and I've forwarded the article to him to ask his opinion. He recently went on a trip to Greenland to study things like this on behalf of NASA, so I'm hoping he will be able to give me his take on this.

I'll let everyone know what he says or better yet, I'll see if I can get him to join ATS and let him tell us himself. He's a really smart guy and has been doing this kind of work for 20+ years.

I heard back from my brother-in-law. Again he is a research meteorologist who's been doing it for over 20 years for folks like NASA, the military, etc. Here's his initial response - more later after I speak with him today.

" Definitely a panic and climate change alarmist view to that article..but they are right about the record warmth and minimum sea ice extent over the Arctic in October..More likely a temporary feature caused by both a persistent weather/jet circulation and warmer seas surface temperatures, but indeed over the last 20 -30 years (and especially the last few years) the sea ice has extended out far less..Here's a more unbiased take, if a bit more technical:"

National Snow and Ice Data Center

originally posted by: belkide
Maybe an alert for an imminent pole-shift?

What type of pole shift? An axial pole shift or a geo-magnetic pole shift?

A geo-magnetic pole shift will provide somewhat of a warning (as it has been for ages...anyone who has had to calibrate a manual compass for declination knows this full well), whereas an axial pole shift will likely provide no warning.

In fact, the December 2004 Earthquake and resulting tsunami provided a clue (warning?) as to what even a small degree of an axial pole shift would be like. I wont get into the mathematics that are detailed with having a working knowledge of tensors and the calculations necessary for a sphere that is not perfectly round and the axis it revolves around. Suffice it to say that over the course of a year, the vertical axis of the Earth "wobbles" (Chandlers Wobble) around an approximate 10 meter circle. However, the Earthquake of '04 which saw an approxmiate 10-20 meter lurching of landmass and subsequent subduction of that landmass into the mantle causing a .82 milliarcsecond amplitude.

It is commonly accept that 1 arcsecond is approximately equal to 30 meters or 3000 centimeters so .8 milliseconds equates to about 2.5 centimeters or 1 inch. Think about that, a 1 inch change in wobble and Earths circumference caused all that devestation, imagine an axial shift on the order of whole degrees, even just 1 degree. Trust me on this one, you wouldn't want to be alive to witness that.

If, however, you meant geo-magnetic pole shift, well in my honest opinion, if North became South and East became West (at least on a compass) it would be severe, yes (stay inside until a flip completes as there would be zero protection from solar radiation) the likely largest impact would be the unprotected from solar radiation and the societal impact from all equipment being, for lack of a desire to be more wordy, upside-down.


TLDR; probably not on either one, and if so you simply do NOT want it to happen.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Riffrafter

This headline and the way it is being reported make this seem sensational. The truth is though that localised arctic storms can mean that temperatures are 30-40 degrees hotter in parts of the arctic than in others.

Where that becomes a worry is if it continues long term rather than just temporary............

I hope you're right and it is a temporary aberration.

My brother-in-law is a research meteorologist and I've forwarded the article to him to ask his opinion. He recently went on a trip to Greenland to study things like this on behalf of NASA, so I'm hoping he will be able to give me his take on this.

I'll let everyone know what he says or better yet, I'll see if I can get him to join ATS and let him tell us himself. He's a really smart guy and has been doing this kind of work for 20+ years.

I heard back from my brother-in-law. Again he is a research meteorologist who's been doing it for over 20 years for folks like NASA, the military, etc. Here's his initial response - more later after I speak with him today.

" Definitely a panic and climate change alarmist view to that article..but they are right about the record warmth and minimum sea ice extent over the Arctic in October..More likely a temporary feature caused by both a persistent weather/jet circulation and warmer seas surface temperatures, but indeed over the last 20 -30 years (and especially the last few years) the sea ice has extended out far less..Here's a more unbiased take, if a bit more technical:"

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Great info!

I assume he is referring to the Title of the Article the "Insane" part as being panicky.

If only he knew the scope of a hefty segment of ATS'ers ability to panic on an almost constant basis, he would have endless entertainment for himself (of course until it started to irritate him)

In Alaska our winters have been getting progressively warmer over the past few years.

This winter Is no exception. I grew up here and as long as I can remember it has been freezing cold and snowy by mid October.

This year we haven't had any snow until literally last night, and I don't think the temperature has dropped below freezing yet, which is also rare.

Other then the lack of winter recreation like snowboarding, I think this is pretty cool. I hope Alaska is gradually becoming tropical again.

Climate is certainly changing. To what degree or why, I have no idea.

It cannot be denied that things are abnormal though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Riffrafter

Can't keep saying that Climate Change is a hoax. Reality is starting to catch up with the deniers.

Your idea of what it is, is a hoax.

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Frankly, I believe that any discussion on climate change should always be scientific and the only time the political sphere should be approached is to simply guide ill-informed politicians about the findings of the scientific community.

Politicians remind me of my sister (whom I haven't seen in about 30 years), who to me was the scariest person on the planet...why? Because she is one of those people who get a hold of one or two keywords du jour and run with them simply because they are vogue all the while trying to assure people she is an authority on the subject matter referenced by those keywords.

It seems that both anthropogenic pushing scientists and politicians have painted themselves into a corner. If they came out and admitted they were wrong after all the hysteria it would end a lot of their careers. It would end funding as well. It would be political suicide for politicians that have been pushing regulations and treaties over the issue. I am not going to get into all the countervailing evidence in this thread as it would be ignored to push the agenda.

Honestly, I think it boils down to people, in general, do not like to think there is anything beyond our control. While that may be great for some far future fantasy, right now being limited by the technology of our time, there is FAR more out of our control than there is within our grasp.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

See. You can try and try to paint China as the bad guys, and sure they probably are hiding hypocrisies in their own country, but at least they are willing to come to the table. The US is about to pull away from the table. Nothing you say here will change that fact.

Who cares, the table is biased and stupid, and has clearly basically nothing to stop the biggest polluters.

Your idea of what morality is , is skewed badly......sounds like politically correct corporate speak....