North Pole temperatures spike above freezing

[Still Waters]

Temperatures at the North Pole are estimated to have spiked above freezing in a rare December 'heatwave' caused by Storm Frank.

The mercury was forecast to rise above 1C on Wednesday, in a dramatic and possibly unprecedented rise from the usual deep freeze conditions of close to -30C at this time of year.

http://www.telegraph...-air-north.html

[Grandpa Greenman]

This is what the Post said, with radar pictures. This is not good, not good at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/30/freak-storm-has-pushed-north-pole-to-freezing-point-50-degrees-above-normal/

[Redefining Success]

Misleading title.

Its a prediction.

There is no temperature monitoring devices at the north pole, they are only ASSUMING temperatures have peaked.

I read that ice displaces the same amount of water it is made of, so the sea level will not rise.

[ChrLzs]

Misleading title.

Its a prediction.

There is no temperature monitoring devices at the north pole, they are only ASSUMING temperatures have peaked.

I read that ice displaces the same amount of water it is made of, so the sea level will not rise.

Hmm. There are not only quite a few monitoring stations in/around the arctic, it can also be measured quite accurately from orbit..

And the fact that ice displaces roughly the same amount of water is almost (but not quite - research salinity and temperature effects..) true., but you sorta need to think this through properly - that fact ONLY applies to floating sea ice... A *lot* of the ice/snow is supported well above the sea level by the land formations beneath (moreso at the South pole). Then there's glaciers and all the normal non-polar land-borne snow and ice - think Greenland etc.....So it's a ratio of about 40 or 50 to 1 (non-floating to floating..) I believe - the floating ice is a very small part of the equation.

That's why you should really listen to scientists... Do you really think that those who study this stuff don't factor in *everything*?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

With news like this and the fact that 195 out of 195 members of the UN have accepted climate change as a real problem, maybe there is something to it ?

[ChrLzs]

To get some idea of just some of the monitoring that goes on in the Arctic by numerous countries, you can start here:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/data.html

[Redefining Success]

Hmm. There are not only quite a few monitoring stations in/around the arctic, it can also be measured quite accurately from orbit..

And the fact that ice displaces roughly the same amount of water is almost (but not quite - research salinity and temperature effects..) true., but you sorta need to think this through properly - that fact ONLY applies to floating sea ice... A *lot* of the ice/snow is supported well above the sea level by the land formations beneath (moreso at the South pole). Then there's glaciers and all the normal non-polar land-borne snow and ice - think Greenland etc.....So it's a ratio of about 40 or 50 to 1 (non-floating to floating..) I believe - the floating ice is a very small part of the equation.

That's why you should really listen to scientists... Do you really think that those who study this stuff don't factor in *everything*?

The article actually says its only a prediction but forgive me if I don't rush out and buy a boat just yet.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

How do the deniers stay alive with so little food to feed their habit

Faith I suppose.

Br Cornelius

[Dark_Grey]

Not surprising - the Earth is a volatile place. Constantly changing, albeit over long periods of time. I'm more worried about a suitcase dirty bomb than I am about melting ice at this point

Edited December 31, 2015 by Dark_Grey

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Thats because climate change will take centuries to really play out. However the global chaotic weather playing out this year is difficult for many people to ignore:

Br Cornelius

Edited December 31, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[GlitterRose]

Thats because climate change will take centuries to really play out. However the global chaotic weather playing out this year is difficult for many people to ignore:

Br Cornelius

I was gonna mention that quip about buying the boat...it seems particularly snide right now because there are many people who might actually need one.

[GlitterRose]

Misleading title.

Its a prediction.

There is no temperature monitoring devices at the north pole, they are only ASSUMING temperatures have peaked.

I read that ice displaces the same amount of water it is made of, so the sea level will not rise.

This story has been updated to include buoy measurements that confirm the North Pole temperature climbed above 32 degrees on Wednesday.

[GlitterRose]

Not surprising - the Earth is a volatile place. Constantly changing, albeit over long periods of time. I'm more worried about a suitcase dirty bomb than I am about melting ice at this point

You might be more concerned if you lived in a coastal area.

[docyabut2]

So want happen at the end of the last ice age melting , water gradually rose to 200 ft on the coast lines. nothing to really worry about as in a great rushing flood .

[Thorvir]

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Its called climate when there is a clear trend over at least 30years. The trend is now over 100years so its definitely climate change and not just weather.

Basic science Thor, which shows your basic ignorance of science.

maybe you should try bringing your education up beyond that little 5 year olds

Br Cornelius

Edited January 2, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Farmer77]

Im curious what the historical data on events like this is. Having grown up just south of the arctic circle , this is nothing new. The weather up there is volatile, hell I played golf in February when I got married, the next year there was 6ft of snow on the ground at that same time.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Im curious what the historical data on events like this is. Having grown up just south of the arctic circle , this is nothing new. The weather up there is volatile, hell I played golf in February when I got married, the next year there was 6ft of snow on the ground at that same time.

thats why you collect a lot of data and graph it. Only then can the obscure variations be accounted for. If when you graph the data and take a averaged trend line for the same day or week or month over at least 30 years and a clear trend is measurable can you decide that it is climate change rather than simple weather variations.

When you do that this is what you get for the Arctic, which shows a clear trend which is larger than the global average trend.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic.htm

Br Cornelius

Edited January 2, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[GlitterRose]

Flooding and severe storms and mudslides have increased drastically in coastal areas, and insurance companies are dropping a lot of policies because they can't afford the huge number of payouts. Even what's called a "nuisance flood" can wash out major highways (that means a section of the road is just gone...not that there is just water on it) and cause incredibly costly damage to homes and businesses, cars, etc. If people don't have flood insurance, they can lose everything, and many people have had no reason in the past to expect that their areas would flood to the extent that they have. Not only that, but people sometimes get stranded in their homes and literally need emergency services to come by in boats to bring them food. This is very serious.

Just on the economic implications of it...how likely do you think it is that all of those homes and businesses that we are seeing in the news currently under water have flood insurance coverage?

https://www.google.c...L33cSGHloJKAznQ

Edited January 2, 2016 by ChaosRose

[Farmer77]

thats why you collect a lot of data and graph it. Only then can the obscure variations be accounted for. If when you graph the data and take a averaged trend line for the same day or week or month over at least 30 years and a clear trend is measurable can you decide that it is climate change rather than simple weather variations.

When you do that this is what you get for the Arctic, which shows a clear trend which is larger than the global average trend.

https://www.skeptica...ling-Arctic.htm

Br Cornelius

Hey thanks. I consider myself an environmentalist and despise the global warming debate. My personal feelings are nature is cyclical and we are still readjusting from the last little ice age but im no scientist. The part about the warming global fiasco i despise is it damages the environmental movement in general by taking the focus off the damage we are doing to the earth and instead placing it on a debate about whether the earth is warming or not and whether its our fault of not.

Can't we all just agree that we humans are doing some ****ed up things to this planet and find ways to stop without the jingoism and party politics?

[GlitterRose]

taking the focus off the damage we are doing to the earth and instead placing it on a debate about whether the earth is warming or not and whether its our fault of not.

The problem is that if people can't accept that we're doing damage to the Earth...then nothing will be done to avoid that.

[Farmer77]

taking the focus off the damage we are doing to the earth and instead placing it on a debate about whether the earth is warming or not and whether its our fault of not.

The problem is that if people can't accept that we're doing damage to the Earth...then nothing will be done to avoid that.

That is why the global warming debate is so insidious. Ive never once heard someone actually claim we arent damaging the earth. Never once. Noone makes that claim, the argument comes in the form of what that long term consequences of the damage will be and how to deal with it. Thats where partisanship and nationalism block rational exploration of solutions to the problems we are having in real time.

We need to drop the global warming conversation altogether and focus on the here and now.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

That is why the global warming debate is so insidious. Ive never once heard someone actually claim we arent damaging the earth. Never once. Noone makes that claim, the argument comes in the form of what that long term consequences of the damage will be and how to deal with it. Thats where partisanship and nationalism block rational exploration of solutions to the problems we are having in real time.

We need to drop the global warming conversation altogether and focus on the here and now.

Unless people can accept such an overwhelming body of evidence about one of the greatest threats we currently face, there is little hope of addressing the vast range of smaller threats we have to deal with as well. It is an endemic attitude of denial of mans ability to damage the environment which is a block to progress on all fronts.

What we are really dealing with here is that people have an ideological attachment to a particular approach to life and anything which threatens that ideology has to be denied and attacked.

Br Cornelius

[Farmer77]

Unless people can accept such an overwhelming body of evidence about one of the greatest threats we currently face, there is little hope of addressing the vast range of smaller threats we have to deal with as well. It is an endemic attitude of denial of mans ability to damage the environment which is a block to progress on all fronts.

What we are really dealing with here is that people have an ideological attachment to a particular approach to life and anything which threatens that ideology has to be denied and attacked.

Br Cornelius

I agree with your last sentence but it seems to describe your sentiments in the first sentence. Because no we don't have to agree with the overwhelming "evidence" to agree that oil on our shores and pollution in our air is bad.

As for the evidence events such as this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html regardless of how you feel about them place the whole discussion into doubt. Which is why I just wish people would stop talking about "global warming" and start talking about something everyone agrees on: we need to stop ******* up the planet.

[GlitterRose]

That is why the global warming debate is so insidious. Ive never once heard someone actually claim we arent damaging the earth. Never once. Noone makes that claim, the argument comes in the form of what that long term consequences of the damage will be and how to deal with it. Thats where partisanship and nationalism block rational exploration of solutions to the problems we are having in real time.

We need to drop the global warming conversation altogether and focus on the here and now.

If you've never heard anyone claim that we aren't damaging the Earth, then you're not listening. The whole point of the arguments is to claim that we don't have to change anything we're doing.

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

• Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.
  
• Simply deny global warming is happening^[21] — and maintain that no action is necessary — an increasingly uncommon position.
  
• Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
  
• Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to change anything.
  
• Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to change anything, Ehrlich!^[22]
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.^[23]
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to change anything.
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority — so we don't have to change anything.
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.^[24]
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to change anything.
  
• Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.
  
• Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now!
  

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWgPnn3ovKAhVV52MKHRCnDy4QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frationalwiki.org%2Fwiki%2FGlobal_warming&usg=AFQjCNHPb5Mzv9nbO5KtpCtaowQk5ys0Fg