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

a reply to: reldra

Never mind. Not worth the fight.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ShadowLink
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't earths average global temperature reached points much higher in the past than it is today?

Yes, the last being approximately 56 million years ago.

source

56 million years ago?? Please re-read your source!
I guess i have missed today's news about palm trees and crocodiles living in the arctic

During the last interglacial the temperatures were higher than today, that's about 120.000 years ago.

I found this video on CNN and thought it was interesting. We have had members make threads about people in Alaska having to leave there Home lands.
But this article is about the Quinault Indian Nation that live on the coast of Wahington State. According to there history, they have been living in this area for thousands of years.

They are moving to higher ground because of sea level rise.

www.greatbigstory.com...

And the low intellect crowd will be here in droves soon to shout "It's not really getting any warmer...it's all a lie!" LOL

Then you'll get the really dense people saying "Enjoy the warm weather!" Even dumber. Ever tried living in the desert in the middle of summer? It's not enjoyable. I've got one, maybe two more summers here before I head north. These rising temps are killing me. Literally.

And then the want to be Climate experts without degrees in any related scientific fields will be in producing charts and graphs and blathering on about pauses in global warming trends.

It is getting hotter and hotter ain't good. It's not good for civilization either. With only a few exceptions the countries with cooler climates have the better economies and higher standards of living.

a reply to: Elementalist

Where is the billions made? Because there is trillions made in the current system, not theoretical if this happens these guys make this money. Just look at the top of the Forbes list.
You are right about the other stuff too, but don't see how that translates to climate change just being about the cash.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

So since it is better, for the sake of argument, for plants than it must me ok for us? The cold isn't going to help, but the heat isn't going to help either. It is about a balance, it isn't as simple as more co2 equals better plant growth either, it is about environment too. Plants in the tropics can't grow in the plains. And yes I know the food thing is messed up, but that was just a comparison since you want to say since it is cold one place than this is all bs.

originally posted by: Hellhound604
Pretty soon the deniers will come in droves and say it is all lies and a global conspiracy against oil...

As somebody that lives in the arctic, it is scary to see how much things are changing. If the world thinks we have a problem with the war-refugees from the mid-east now, just wait until we climate-refugee crisis starts.

WHY is it that you guys always make this a war between global warmningniststst and oil lovers....?

If you ask the question the right way instead of the "i want this answer" kind of way, then you will see that more people will agree that: YES, the globe is warming... there is actually NO doubt about it.

Now before you get all cheered up, here's the problem:

- Global warming has been here before, LOTS of times, even before we were counting humans in the billions.

So my issue with global warming is not wether it's coming or not. That #ty discussion is closed.
Also I don't want to spend one ioata of time on debating wether we are to blame or not. IT DOESN*T MATTER!

Why doesn't it matter? Because wether you like it or not, this Earth is going to continue to go up and down in temperature again and again and again and again and.... and we wont have a say in it. Heck even the medieval warming periode was warmer than it is today!

Here... enjoy this little graphic. If you don't like the source, I'm sure we can find the same results several other places.

Graphic showing Earths temperatures the last 10.000 years.

it's like the cure for cancer...it'll never happen, due to profits being so high for maintenance drugs...they same for global warming, don't do anything to stop it or slow it down, just make sure you can profit off of people having to adapt to higher temps and what comes with it....that's why business is buying up fresh water supplies

originally posted by: mikell
But El Nino doesn't count in this right? They found a way around that I guess. Yawn

El Nino certainly does count. But where does the warmth that El Nino puts out come from? Follow the heat.

It comes from elevated energy flux during the supposed 'pause' as warmth was going into ocean water and being buried somewhat beneath the surface, and now in an El Nino year, the ocean currents release that heat.

So during the time of slow growth in surface temperatures, ocean heat was increasing steadily and rapidly, as detected by observational evidence. And now with El Nino, that comes out in surface temperatures. And because there has been a secular increase in heat from man-made increases in global warming, more record breaking temperatures.

a reply to: reldra

56 million?!


Archaology of receeding glaciers

Stone age thawing

Stuff from the stone age and Iron ages that was sealed in glaciers in the arctic circle are being released as they melt.

So it was a hell of a lot warmer some time in the last 10,000 years to have mammals crawling over and around them, just to have them creep south for a few thousand years before continuing the natural cycles of warming and cooling.

a reply to: lostbook

I think I'm going to save a .txt notepad document with my basic GW stance. It seems we all have to make our declarations in any discussion on the topic lol. Anyhow, my repeated stance on Global Warming / Climate Change is:

1. I believe there are probably multiple causes, natural and anthropogenic.
   
2. I don't really care what the cause(s) is/are unless and until we know FOR SURE, and even then, I don't care unless we can reverse it (if we even should.)
   
3. I believe we should be focused on figuring out what changes we're truly facing, and how we're going to deal with them.
   

In other words, let's assume there's nothing we can do to stop it (whatever exactly "it" ultimately is), and focus on modeling/theorizing what the results are going to be, what the domino effects may be, and what the ultimate outcomes will be. From there, we can start deciding when and how we will need to adjust accordingly. If that means we need to build levees in some places, abandon others, develop more efficient food production, find responsible and feasible ways to reflect more sunlight away from Earth...Whatever - if we're at the point where progressively more serious consequences for humanity are coming, it's time to figure out how to deal with it.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions through cleaner energy is better for us all anyhow, simply because of air, water, and soil pollution, and should be a continual goal, but it should be secondary. On a ship sinking because of holes in the hull, you don't get everybody hard at work figuring out how to build ships less prone to holes, you get all the people you need on the task of plugging the holes. If there's more than enough people to complete that work, then you set some people at the task of figuring out what to build the replacement ship out of when you get back to port.

My other thoughts on it are, when things are warmer than normal locally, I always wonder where the world's biggest idiots are. When there is extra-cold weather locally (anywhere), they tend to see it (and loudly declare it) as proof that "Global Warming is a Hoax!" - Why aren't these same logic and common-sense disabled individuals screaming from the rooftops that "Global Warming is not only real, it's going out of control!" when there's a couple of days 20 degrees above average?

I'm not advocating such stupidity, I'm just wondering why they only believe colder-than-normal, short-term, hyper-local weather is proof of long-term, planet-wide cooling, but not the opposite. Maybe when one's brain is as addled as theirs are, the hypocrisy simply doesn't compute.

Maybe it's all just cyclical. Maybe 75%, 50%, 5%, 0.01% of it is. Maybe it's just the natural precursor to exiting the interglacial period and the next Ice Age is nearly upon us. We don't know, and I don't care. I'm just a guy who knows the changes are obvious, and growing in extremity, and that we should be preparing to cope, rather than dreaming of reversing it.

originally posted by: lostbook
This is starting to get a little scary, ATS. Global temperature records for the month of February have been broken AGAIN! This is really becoming a broken record for me as global temperatures are soaring year after year.

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.
In fact, as The Weather Channel noted, “The five largest monthly global warm anomalies in NASA’s database have all occurred within the past five months”:
By all indications, March will be near the top of that last too. And that means that it’s increasingly likely that 2016 will be even hotter than 2015, which itself was the hottest year on record since … 2014.

I've said what I have to say about this issue in countless other threads on this same subject, so What Says ATS?

thinkprogress.org...

Probably due to the extra Arctic cruise liners that are up there these days. I was in Trondheim, Norway a few years back and four or five days before a cruise liner arrived (belching sulphur smoke) the skies would have incredible orange, red and purple sunsets. Even the clouds seem to take on rainbow hues.

We actually had a three week heatwave where everyone was out in T-shirts and shorts. Any time I took a long cold shower, there would be a thunderstorm Once the cruise ships left, the weather returned to normal.

a reply to: dogstar23

Good post mate!

First step is just agreeing that it's getting warmer and quickly. I don't even see why that's an issue that we need to discuss? That warming data is easy to see locally and globally. We also know that when it's cold some place on earth that doesn't mean it's cold everywhere on earth and visa versa.

Discussions on global warming should include: Modeling-predictions, sea level rise, renewable energy, pollution and greenhouse gasses, immigration and wars due to drought and heat and plans to deal with it and so much more.

It's getting too hot for comfort...meaning quite a few personal problems. I can barely afford my air conditioning bill now, what will I do when I have to have it running year round? How will the blackouts and brownouts affect me and my business? Are those immigrants from the drought and heat areas going to move near me? Will the people living in New Orleans move near me and take my jobs? Will food prices go through the roof as well?

a reply to: Sremmos80

I didn't say this is all bs. I didn't invent the name 'global warming' i thought global meant the whole globe. This is not what we see. Never in history has there been a balance or has the climate been stable, it is always fluctuating. On a large scale and small scale. Comparing historical data is a delicate business and not just on the subject of accuracy.
Combining the obtained data from ice cores, plant stomata or ocean drills that go back thousands of years with the data of today we get from ground stations and satellites is like apples and oranges.

The environment is a serious business indeed, pollution isn't going to do anyone good.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Why is this scary? This is positive news for my garden!
And history has told us civilizations advance more in warmer climate, yes, you could call that scary indeed.

What about southern hemisphere and Antarctica? No warming going on there. Global warming theory demands that warming is faster at the poles so why don't we see this happening?
Yes climate is changing and yes some places get warmer but some places also get colder, what's the deal?

The big deal for me is the speed at which this warming is happening. A process like this would happen "naturally" over a period of thousands of years, I'm guessing. The way things are going with heat records being set in consecutive years point(s) to man as the cause. My opinion.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

No you didn't invent the strawman of since not everywhere on earth is getting warmer that it cast doubt on the subject, you are just using it. There has been balance, the rate we are seeing CO2 rise today is unprecedented. You can ignore the testing and results if you want, but then I have to ask what testing and results you want to use. Since you told me to looking to past and see how civilizations thrived, why can't we look into the past to show how what he have today is much different then that same past?
Did you look at the links I gave you about the poles btw? It isn't as simple as more sea ice = no warming. By all means show something that says that if you want.

a reply to: Sremmos80

yes i looked into them, but none of them really explain anything. Further examination and data collecting could get a better understanding. Time will tell.
I'm not ignoring data, that is what mainstream is doing. Too much obsessed and focused on AGW while they forget to see the bigger picture. Are we really the main driver behind global warming?
I try to get the raw data and plot it myself, not always easy to find these sources.

a reply to: lostbook
I don't see anything too dramatically with the time of change.
Let's compare today's change with that of the YD, in a matter of weeks or months climate has shifted drastically.
There have been a few of those in the past.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
For the last 10.000 years climate has been relative stable
files.abovetopsecret.com...

www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk...


a reply to: amazing

It is getting hotter and hotter ain't good. It's not good for civilization either. With only a few exceptions the countries with cooler climates have the better economies and higher standards of living.

Roman warm period: civilization is thriving, after that we get a sudden cooling when crops failed and there is hunger, starvation and disease.
Medieval warm period associated with the Renaissance another period when civilization is at a high.
After that we enter the Little Ice Age where we see the Black Plague and the Great Famine in Europe.
Warm is good, cold is bad.

Funny how no reports come when you have an average minus 2 degrees a month wich happens every second month. You take statistics out of its context and present them as facts.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Sremmos80

I didn't say this is all bs. I didn't invent the name 'global warming' i thought global meant the whole globe. This is not what we see.

The scientific understanding is "climate change as a consequence of global warming". The global warming is the input, the change, the addition of heat flux from increased greenhouse gases, which means that the atmosphere is shining brighter than before in the infrared. Don't argue this, it is an observational fact, not just a theory or hypothesis. Greenhouse gases are well mixed and the influence now solidly understood and "global warming" is an accurate summarization of the physics. The response, i.e. "climate change", is quite complicated of course, and the physics of the various timescales, most importantly ocean currents (which flow and store and release heat on decades to milllenial time scales) and the interaction that these cause with shorter term weather is very important.

Never in history has there been a balance or has the climate been stable, it is always fluctuating. On a large scale and small scale. Comparing historical data is a delicate business and not just on the subject of accuracy.
Combining the obtained data from ice cores, plant stomata or ocean drills that go back thousands of years with the data of today we get from ground stations and satellites is like apples and oranges.

Correct. Fortunately, in modern times we have direct observational records with reasonably well calibrated instruments which get better every year, and our understanding of contemporary climate is much better, less noisy, and more physically secure than interpolations of past climate through proxies.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Sremmos80

yes i looked into them, but none of them really explain anything. Further examination and data collecting could get a better understanding. Time will tell.
I'm not ignoring data, that is what mainstream is doing. Too much obsessed and focused on AGW while they forget to see the bigger picture. Are we really the main driver behind global warming?

At the moment, as in since 1960 or so, unquestionably yes. This very question has been examined very heavily by many scientific groups and the observational evidence and physical understanding leads to the same conclusion.