Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So where does the warmth come from in the Arctic since they don't see the sun? Please, I'm interested in how at a place with no sun can be warmer than a place with 10 hours of it? Please, you have my attention.Quite extensive it is
(CNN)The North Pole is getting a taste of the warm late-December temperatures that have caused such havoc in the United States.
Thanks to the same low-pressure system that produced blizzards in New Mexico, tornadoes in Texas and flooding in Missouri, the North Pole was about 40 degrees above the seasonal average high on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post's weather team.
Why the freakishly warm December?
The Post's Capital Weather Gang examined buoy data from near the North Pole and reported a record high temperature of 33 degrees Fahrenheit.
It wasn't close to the 40 degrees Fahrenheit forecast in some estimates, but it was substantially warmer than the usual late-December highs of -10 degrees F.
Above-freezing December temperatures at the North Pole have occurred only three times since 1948, Weather Underground blogger Bob Henson tweeted Monday.
CNN Senior Meteorologist Brandon Miller pointed out that two strong weather systems -- the low-pressure mass that's moved through the United States and northern Europe, and a high-pressure system over Siberia -- have helped pull warm air from southern Europe and northern Africa.
"Because of the strength of the two systems, it's allowing that air to travel farther north than it normally would," he said.
some of these bright scientist don't even know about the solstice I suppose. Since winter didn't begin until December 21st, why would they believe we wouldn't see some warm weather? I'm just a message board junky, how is it I know this and they can't figure that out?Montreal Record Busting Snow Sours the Mild Winter Climate Narrative
Massive winter storm buries Montreal and lowers temps 15 degrees below normal in just ONE DAY!
Holy crap, an entire city in 18 years. You think it got hotter?
Probably the most commmon expression on this board. And it's a little hard to tell someone that you believe their opinions are incorrect and that they are putting human culture at risk by thoughtless and ignorant behavior without at least an implication that you find them stupid. You, after all, just finished implying Frigid was stupid. If you'd like to end that sort of thing, I suggest you talk solely about the environment and not about people's beliefs, actions or choices.
Hah, Daily KOS.
You like it then?
It's actually a very good example.
No, fridge, that's ad hominem
No, it is not. An ad hominem would be an appeal to prejudice making use of alleged characteristics that are meaningless or irrelevant to the topic under discussion and often appeal to common prejudices or biases. An analogy such as this, illustrating the behavior of Republicans towards the AGW is about as completely on point as you could get.
and quite frankly below your level of intelligence.
Well, since he realized it was an appropriate gibe and you've demonstrated you don't understand "ad hominem", that might be a little hard to support.
Please, just tell me if you don't have anything substantive to argue, I'll understand. We'll stop right here.
I think he would like to argue the intelligence of the behavior of republicans towards global warming.
Rocks started calling me names earlier and he thinks he's Nostradamus;
That would be Old Rocks. Thiis FrigidWeirdo you're talking to. They are two different people.
but now you post a meme basically calling us stupid.
Probably the most commmon expression on this board. And it's a little hard to tell someone that you believe their opinions are incorrect and that they are putting human culture at risk by thoughtless and ignorant behavior without at least an implication that you find them stupid. You, after all, just finished implying Frigid was stupid. If you'd like to end that sort of thing, I suggest you talk solely about the environment and not about people's beliefs, actions or choices.
So far, the only argument I've heard is "consensus" this "you're stupid" that. I've yet to see anyone confront me with meaningful data on the topic.
Please read WG-I of AR5 which may be found at www.ipcc.ch
Oh cool, a bunch of "scientists" agree on something. That doesn't make them right.
Is that because you have some reason to believe they are all stupid? An actual consensus of opinion among actual experts on a given subject DOES increase the odds of that opinion being correct. That is the value of the consensus among scientists and it is all that has ever been claimed as its value.
There's observed reality, and their reality; the former being mutually exclusive to the latter.
I think I can guarantee that, as a group, the world's climate scientists have a wider, broader, deeper and exquisitely more detailed understanding of the reality of the Earth's climate than do you. You have no evidence to justify the statement you just made. So, why did you make it?
In other words, you can't substitute predictions for reality.
Though it is a very common accusation from deniers, no one that is making or running models or making predictions or projections believes or contends that they are reality. They are tools with which we can see where we're headed. They can and are used, as well, to explore alternatives: what might happens if we do this; if we do that; if we do nothing.
Those hockey stick models are garbage.
Perhaps you need to work on the basics before you get yourself in too deep here. Hockey sticks graphs in general, and MBH98/99 in particular, are not the product of models. They are instrument and proxy data. They have a hockey stick shape because temperatures have risen precipitously in the 20th century and beyond. The criticism one hears of them; the frequent claim that they've been debunked, is based on only two points. MBH 98 presented only weak warming if any during the (Medieval Warm Period (MWP AD950-1250), though the MWP varied significantly by region, and some folks didn't like that he blended proxy data with instrument data in his graphic, despite the fact that he said that he was doing so, that it was blatantly obvious from the graph and the methods he used for the transition had been widely and publicly discussed. The 'blade' of the graph - the precipitous rise in the 20th century and the characteristic that most concerns people whose primary interest isn't in debunking AGW whatever the evidence may say, has never been challenged.
The whole "humanity is destroying the planet" spiel is garbage. Earth will be here long after the human race goes extinct.
HAHAHAHAHAAaaaa.... I hope you actually meant that to be funny.
I find it hilarious that someone thinks that it's warm in the North Pole and 18 degrees in Chicago getting 10 hours of sun light. Please have them explain how that is at all possible. Please.Quite extensive it is
(CNN)The North Pole is getting a taste of the warm late-December temperatures that have caused such havoc in the United States.
Thanks to the same low-pressure system that produced blizzards in New Mexico, tornadoes in Texas and flooding in Missouri, the North Pole was about 40 degrees above the seasonal average high on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post's weather team.
Why the freakishly warm December?
The Post's Capital Weather Gang examined buoy data from near the North Pole and reported a record high temperature of 33 degrees Fahrenheit.
It wasn't close to the 40 degrees Fahrenheit forecast in some estimates, but it was substantially warmer than the usual late-December highs of -10 degrees F.
Above-freezing December temperatures at the North Pole have occurred only three times since 1948, Weather Underground blogger Bob Henson tweeted Monday.
CNN Senior Meteorologist Brandon Miller pointed out that two strong weather systems -- the low-pressure mass that's moved through the United States and northern Europe, and a high-pressure system over Siberia -- have helped pull warm air from southern Europe and northern Africa.
"Because of the strength of the two systems, it's allowing that air to travel farther north than it normally would," he said.
Bull Shit!
Its so funny to see morons who think they have a clue about the atmosphere pontificate about things they dont know. Get back to me when he takes a basic atmospheric physics class and thermal dynamics of our atmospheric systems. The man doesn't have a clue about pressure gradients and heat... Of Course CNN is known for its agenda driven morons..
more wash rinse repeat nonsense I see.Crick just posted up temps for Montreal and where is the warm? Where? how can there be a hockey stick and normal historical temps? Please explain.Mann's graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen studies by independent researchers using different methods. That you silly asses still try to deny the evidence provided by what are now hundreds of scientists just demonstrates that you will do anything to maintain your willfull ignorance.
no things with evidence are what are to be trusted, and to date, not too much factual info coming from the deck of the SS climategate.Nothing from the IPCC can be trusted. Not after the Himalayan Glaciers debacle. I can say plenty of things about their peer review process.Please read WG-I of AR5 which may be found at www.ipcc
Please reference the GISP2 model I posted earlier in this thread.
Yeah, only things that "prove" your point are to be trusted.
do they have to make a living as well? The governments aren't going to fund them now will they?No. People can be easily manipulated. Scientists included. Money is a factor in all of it.
And who you believe, where are they getting their money from? Oil companies?
The simple answer to this entire post is NOPE!! The long winded answer to this post is NOPE!!!!2015 Will Go Down as Warmest Year on Record
It'll be a few more days before it's official, but 2015 will go down in the record books as the warmest year since those books were first kept 135 years ago.
In parts of the U.S., this year will be remembered for unusually warm weather when the season typically brings snow and ice. On much of the East Coast, December has felt like spring, complete with early blooming flowers and sprouting daffodils.
But the warming trend also has brought more extreme weather in other parts of the country, with severe storms causing tornadoes across the Midwest and snowstorms in Texas and New Mexico.
Read more at CNBC.com: Scenes from the severe holiday storms
Last month brought the highest monthly temperature, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the average global surface temperature running 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 135-year average.
The difference was even greater in the northern hemisphere, where much of the developed world lives. Despite those who reject mainstream climate science, the majority of the world's climate scientists attribute the warming trend to increased man-made carbon dioxide.
"Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations," according to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment. "The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."
As we enter 2016, we will have seen two record years back to back, with a probable third in a row coming up. But that doesn't represent a warming according to our wingnuts.
well certainly post up what a grand solution to it all is. No one has to date, so what's the difference, we're all just going to keep disagreeing right? Unless of course you need money than they can take some wealth and re-appropriate it for us. what change the amount of CO2 or change temperatures, but it will make libturds look good I suppose to their base.Firstly, I didn't say you agreed with the majority, I was talking about those you believe, potentially not producing the "majority" of the research, yet you'd believe them over what the govt says.
Why should I?
It's up to you, you're free to believe who you like. However you're saying that we shouldn't trust this and that, but then we should trust those who say what you think is right. Why?
So we're stuck anyway, can we believe anyone? Well, then we go with what we've got.
then how do trees grow under glaciers?Silly kid. I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes. The decades long recession of glaciers in the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierra's. The ealier springs, and a later winters I have seen in the course of my lifetime.I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.
Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER
And this:
Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completely "melted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.
So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:
Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
The corruption I see is that the liars for the GOP will state whatever the energy corporations pay them to state. Regardless of how much it disagrees with reality. And, given the events we are seeing right now, and have seen for the past year, that is going to bite them in the ass in the coming elections.
It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.
and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.
Actually all you did was show how the shifting PDO is effecting local weather. You missed entirely that climate and weather are two different things.
While weather might be doing X if you average all that weather together, you get climate.
It certainly appears greener.Holy crap, an entire city in 18 years. You think it got hotter?
wow now that's interesting.
So where does the warmth come from in the Arctic since they don't see the sun? Please, I'm interested in how at a place with no sun can be warmer than a place with 10 hours of it? Please, you have my attention.
well ain't chicago between the south and the Arctic? oh the stupid. Canada and Europe and Russia, and any other land mass that isn't warming in the northern hemisphere.So where does the warmth come from in the Arctic since they don't see the sun? Please, I'm interested in how at a place with no sun can be warmer than a place with 10 hours of it? Please, you have my attention.
Like the article said, abnormally strong low and high pressure weather systems caused winds that drew warm air up from the south.
Is it the concept of "wind" that confuses you? Or are you declaring that the temperatures have been faked?
and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.
Actually all you did was show how the shifting PDO is effecting local weather. You missed entirely that climate and weather are two different things.
While weather might be doing X if you average all that weather together, you get climate.
