Huge Storm May Raise North Pole Temps 50 Degrees Above Normal

Huge Storm May Raise North Pole Temps 50 Degrees

Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole

The second link above is much more thorough in it's information, but also much more dire in it's prediction; in either case, the North Pole is expected to hit temperatures at least 50 degrees (F) above normal




Detailed analysis at this link.

How are you Icelanders holding up?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

I know that doesn't add much to the discussion, but it is what it is. We can all run for the hills screaming, or realize that the climate is warming a bit, and especially during an El Nino year, we're going to have some possible crazy weather on the warm end.

The polar bears will be okay...especially if they can come as far south as the United States mainland to give Prius owners hugs.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Interesting OP!

Thanks for the link!

From said link:

THIRD UPDATE 12:36 AM EST, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30:

As of early Wednesday morning temperatures at the North Pole had risen to 1.1 C or 34 degrees F representing the highest temperatures ever recorded at the North Pole for this time of year and the first time this region of the high Arctic has experienced temperatures substantially above freezing during Winter.

So, if I am understanding correctly...the winter temp is about two degrees or so (so far) higher than the average highest summer temp?

Don't hit me, just trying to understand!

Winter (January) temperatures at the North Pole can range from about −47 to −13 °C (−53 to 9 °F), averaging around −31 °C (−24 °F). Summer temperatures (June, July and August) average around the freezing point (0 °C (32 °F)). The highest temperature yet recorded is 13 °C (55 °F),[55] much warmer than the South Pole's record high of only −12.3 °C (9.9 °F).[56

WIKIPEDIA

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hum, the only news I got today from the weather channel is that two active fronts forming in the northern pacific will be arriving after the new year to bring needed water to southern California and snow to the mountains and the rest of the nation as the temperatures are set to cool down in the coming weeks, so is going to be more winter storms forming here.

What a contrast to the warming in the north pole.

And as soon as the storm is gone it'll all be back to normal, so....everything is just fine!

originally posted by: VoidHawk
And as soon as the storm is gone it'll all be back to normal, so....everything is just fine!

Well thank god for that! What a relief! Won't worry about things melting then.

Cool, this is like the opposite of that movie, Two Days from Now or whatever it was called.

Is this article referring to the North Pole

or North Pole AK

So are we all dead yet.

originally posted by: Psychoparrot

originally posted by: VoidHawk
And as soon as the storm is gone it'll all be back to normal, so....everything is just fine!

Well thank god for that! What a relief! Won't worry about things melting then.

Absolutely nothing to worry about

What we should worry about is the hugely increasing number of threads with alarmist titles, just take a look up ^^^ there^^^

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Looks like it's going to be a doozy. I hope the UK doesn't get slammed with more rain.

@ Other posters... you guys are being reactionary to a non-reactionary thread. It's a storm thread, not a doomy thread. This is the Fragile Earth forum where among other things, weather is discussed.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Santa is now thinking, "It figures, I leave for my annual Hawaii vacation and the temp back home skyrockets to a balmy 34 $#!&% degrees!"

I don't think that it's "things melting" that is necessarily at issue.

Such a high, even if for a short duration, could impact the formation of winter sea ice, at a time when sea ice levels in spring, summer and fall are already at historic lows as a result of climate change.

It doesn't sound as if anyone "in authority" on these matters is panicking.

Large temperature fluctuations in the Arctic are relatively common, notes Freedman, but such an anomaly is “extreme.” Indeed, according to meteorologist Bob Henson at The Weather Underground, there have been only three instances since 1948 when North Pole temperatures have hit or exceeded the freezing mark in December, and none in January through March

NOAA released information stating that:

10 years ago “Arctic sea ice set a new record unlike anything previously observed. The 2015 low is 350,000 square miles below that. In fact, the nine lowest Arctic sea ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last nine years.” This year’s sea ice minimum was the fourth smallest on record.

Sea Ice is becoming thinner...records prove this...

Sea ice during the winter maximum is becoming younger and thinner, whereas, in 1985, what is known as “very old ice” — ice that has survived several summer melt cycles — constituted 25 percent of the Arctic icepack. In 2015 that figure was a mere 3 percent.

Because it’s thinner, younger sea ice is less resistant to melting, and a high proportion of first-year ice means that the ice pack effectively must rebuild itself completely each winter.

Experts in these matters are stating that disappearing sea ice could cause all of those still here at that time a significant amount of challenges. NOT talking about a significant rise in sea levels here!

Altering global weather and moisture patterns.
Ocean Circulation
Ecosystems
Coastal Erosion

Models suggest sea ice will disappear by 2100, but most Arctic sea ice experts are calling for an summertime ice-free Arctic by 2030

I agree that it isn't something to get "reactionary" about or certainly panic over, it is something worth discussing and hopefully those much wiser than us can find a remedy or at least a way to slow things down a bit until a permanent solution can (if ever) be found.

Discovery News
Weasther Underground

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Absolutely nothing to worry about

What we should worry about is the hugely increasing number of threads with alarmist titles, just take a look up ^^^ there^^^

Careful. Your bias is showing.

Hey, if you want to turn weather into climate... here's some math for you:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink. An increase in CO2 concentrations has been observed in real life conditions to reradiate thermal energy back to the surface:

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

This was a decade-long outdoor study. They controlled for a number of known other influences. The increase in CO2 over that decade increased thermal radiation (0.18, which increases temperature.

So, let's look at historical data
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2000 mean: 368.80 ppm = h
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2010 mean: 388.58 ppm = i
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2000 (a * (c / b) * h): 2884.2134 Gt = j
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2010 (a * (c / b) * i): 3038.9036 Gt = k
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (k - j): 154.6902 Gt
An increase of 15.46902 Gt/yr (2000-2010). Compare that with the 22.6842 Gt/yr increase from 2014-2015.

By the formula ΔF = K * ln(g / h) W/m^2, forcing should be...
K = 5.35: 0.2795 W/m^2
But, at 'about 0.2 W/m^2', let's go with actually observed in real life conditions: 3.83
K = 3.83: 0.2001 W/m^2.

Of course, that's apparently only 1/10th of the actual thermal radiation increase... keep in mind that an increase of 1ºC is estimated to require an increase of 3.7 W/m^2; 0.2001 W/m^2 would be 0.054ºC - from CO2 alone.

What about 2000-2015 (ΔF = K * ln(e / i) W/m^2): 0.3126 W/m^2. Looks like the average for the last 15 years is a bit higher than the average from 2000-2010.
If we suppose that also is about 10% of the actual increase, well...

However, this thread is about the weather; not climate change:

It is indeed an exceptional event. Some might attribute it to climate change, but it's very difficult to prove such causality.

a reply to: Greven

Thanks, very informative post. I believe this is more related to El Nino, for the second year in a row pushing extreme weather. Right now the North Pole is warmer than parts of Texas.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Finally the weather channel is talking about the storm in the north pole, it said that is warmer than in California right now.

a reply to: TNMockingbird

So, if I am understanding correctly...the winter temp is about two degrees or so (so far) higher than the average highest summer temp? Don't hit me, just trying to understand!

yes you understand correctly. just two degrees above freezing point of water. ever notice how long ice will last at 34°, it will last a pretty long time. there no way that for the short period of time that the temp will be at 34°/ and the storm passes through that the ground nor the water will thaw enough to make a major deference.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Absolutely nothing to worry about

What we should worry about is the hugely increasing number of threads with alarmist titles, just take a look up ^^^ there^^^

Careful. Your bias is showing.

Hey, if you want to turn weather into climate... here's some math for you:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink. An increase in CO2 concentrations has been observed in real life conditions to reradiate thermal energy back to the surface:

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

This was a decade-long outdoor study. They controlled for a number of known other influences. The increase in CO2 over that decade increased thermal radiation (0.18, which increases temperature.

So, let's look at historical data
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2000 mean: 368.80 ppm = h
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2010 mean: 388.58 ppm = i
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2000 (a * (c / b) * h): 2884.2134 Gt = j
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2010 (a * (c / b) * i): 3038.9036 Gt = k
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (k - j): 154.6902 Gt
An increase of 15.46902 Gt/yr (2000-2010). Compare that with the 22.6842 Gt/yr increase from 2014-2015.

By the formula ΔF = K * ln(g / h) W/m^2, forcing should be...
K = 5.35: 0.2795 W/m^2
But, at 'about 0.2 W/m^2', let's go with actually observed in real life conditions: 3.83
K = 3.83: 0.2001 W/m^2.

Of course, that's apparently only 1/10th of the actual thermal radiation increase... keep in mind that an increase of 1ºC is estimated to require an increase of 3.7 W/m^2; 0.2001 W/m^2 would be 0.054ºC - from CO2 alone.

What about 2000-2015 (ΔF = K * ln(e / i) W/m^2): 0.3126 W/m^2. Looks like the average for the last 15 years is a bit higher than the average from 2000-2010.
If we suppose that also is about 10% of the actual increase, well...

However, this thread is about the weather; not climate change:

It is indeed an exceptional event. Some might attribute it to climate change, but it's very difficult to prove such causality.

Why focus on CO2 when methane is a far more responsible for GW?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Finally the weather channel is talking about the storm in the north pole, it said that is warmer than in California right now.

Well, they are lying to ya. Unless it's colder than -40C in California right now.

Google: CFS Alert, Nunavut Weather. It's a Canadian military/ research station at the most northern part of Canada. Last temp reading was -42C, with wind chill.

a reply to: Greven

I was watching a documentary a few days ago about how the earth was created. In said docu, it said that before ice formed on the planet, rocks would soak up the co2. I haven't got time to find the documentary right now but surely if the ice melts, co2 levels will lower due to the more exposed rock and fauna? Just a thought...