Forums

Arctic Temperature Data

Arctic Temperature Data

To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!

MitchP85D | 4 november 2019

Hey Redshift, it"s 80F in Freemont? Well, guess what? It is -17F in Eureka, Canada.

CWEU 050000Z 00000KT 15SM IC FEW038 FEW130 M27/M30 A3002 RMK SC1AC1 SC TR AC TR SLP169

Watch out everybody. The Arctic ice is melting away to oblivion!

By the way, in the METAR code, M27 is -27C, which is -17F.

MitchP85D | 4 november 2019

Spencer and Christy blow their critics out of the water!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-d...

Those two are still standing strong. All RedShift can do is stand and stare at their scientific expertise.

MitchP85D | 4 november 2019

Hey RedShift, I've asked you this several times. You never answer because you don't have an answer!

If Spencer and Christy are discredited like you claim, then why does NOAA still use their data?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

See the UAH and RSS plots RedShift? UAH is Spencer and Christy's data. Pretty close to RSS is it not? Yet, goofus doofus Redshift says Spencer and Christy's data is crap! Well, NOAA doesn't think so. So, what is your answer? I know. You can't answer. So, you will just stand and stare.

I'll trust NOAA over RedShift anytime, anyplace!

teslu3 | 4 november 2019

Ah yes, the irrepressible Roy Spencer. He is notable for gathering satellite data but
notorious for not understanding climate science.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/02/california-wildfire-denial/
The impact of climate change is evident in the last two graphs, considering increased high and low
temperatures (via increased vapor pressure deficit) and the preceding-year’s precipitation.

RedShift | 4 november 2019

Mitch,

Own up to the fact first.

Christy and Spencer purposefully faked their research, to show that the climate was cooling, and were forced to admit to their fudging, revised the data which showed a warming trend.

BTW,

It’s not a great big thing that they might employed at X or Y agency now. They have some skill sets, and as long as they don’t fake their research again, they will get paid.

But people are watching them very carefully, all the time!

RedShift | 4 november 2019

@mitch

Next time, when someone points out the truth and hits your nerve, don’t start calling them names.
it is not ME who thinks their data is crap. I posted a link from ‘The Guardian’.

See,when you get all worked up, and start your verbal diarrhea, you make a fool of yourself. :-)

RedShift | 4 november 2019

Lastly,

The explanation is well covered here, for the errors your two fake researchers made:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20...

Read up, and stop tying your wrinkly panties in a bunch.

NKYTA | 4 november 2019

I guess Christy and Spencer are the Top Gear’s and VW’s version of climate.

Fake it until you don’t have a leg to stand on. “not make it”

What critical thinker believes such BS?!?

RedShift | 4 november 2019

No one. Mitch isn’t included, because he isn’t a very critical thinker. Guaranteed.

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

One cannot understand climate while they believe weather is climate.

jimglas | 5 november 2019

I am thankful mitch has his own thread to post his nonsense

Tesla-David | 5 november 2019

I am curious why anyone who believes in science/facts would continue to waste their energy debating this clueless idiot, who is incapable of connecting the facts that confirm the reality of Climate CRISIS. He is beyond hope and I do not waste my time reading or responding to his inane posts. Just leave him alone in his echo chamber to post his nonsense.

RedShift | 5 november 2019

@TD

Yes, I’m wondering myself why I do engage him sometimes.

Boredom?

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

I come here because theres red text with new comments and my OCD likes to keep a clean General section.

SCCRENDO | 5 november 2019

Most of us have given up debating him long ago. He just repeats the same drivel. “No collusion”. “No quid quo pro”. Unfortunately our weathermoron is encouraged by our criminal president, Let’s start discussing more major threats to climate change than trying to engage our local weathermoron. How about us pulling out of the Paris climate accords
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50297029

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

Politics aside, what is the US doing to stop deforestation? Promoting meat consumption?

Very good job.

SCCRENDO | 5 november 2019

Unfortunately we cannot put politics aside when we discuss meat consumption and deforestation

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

i can

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

Hey teslu3, Dr. Spencer understands climate science way beyond what you can, or will ever know.

As a matter of fact, NASA awarded Spencer and Christy for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. Has NASA given you an award teslu? How about your favorite global warming worshipping scientists. Any of them awarded by NASA for Scientific Achievement?

https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-science/faculty-staf...

Your hatred of Spencer and Christy is rooted in the fact that they haven't jumped on board the human-caused global warming bandwagon combined with your jealousy. The same goes for the rest of you global warming zealots.

jimglas | 5 november 2019

they faked their data, it really IS that simple

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

If the demand for meat increases, the demand for cattle increases. If we need more cattle, we need more land to raise them. Part of the issue with the rainforest right there. Not that hard to look at a problem and find the source.

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

Hey jimmy, if you think they faked their data, go ahead and tell Dr. Spencer that. All you have to do is provide your name and email address and spout away!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I've commented several times on his site. I don't think any of you global warming zealots have the guts to confront Dr. Spencer on his blog site. And the reason is simple. You will all be exposed for how scientifically weak and feeble you are.

teslu3, you can give Spencer a piece of your mind about the California wildfires. Go for it!

andy.connor.e | 5 november 2019

Why should we care about Spencer

TeslaTap.com | 5 november 2019

I was curious about Excon on Climate.

The ExxonMobil climate change controversy concerns ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change, especially their views on climate change skepticism. Since the 1970s, ExxonMobil engaged in climate research and later began lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.

For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

Not a surprise though.

SCCRENDO | 5 november 2019

I guess this includes a few more people than Christie, Spencer and Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/world/climate-emergency-scientists-warnin...

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

Because Andy, some of your global warming zealot friends are slandering Spencer by falsely accusing him of faking data. If any of you think he faked data, you can confront him on his own site!

RedShift | 5 november 2019

It’s not that we think he faked his data. We KNOW. The whole world knows.

Go ask your heroes yourself, since you are so fond of stinking up the comments page on their websites.

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

You don't know Jack Schidt RedShift!

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

Got some US Forest Burn Area data from 1926.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/DMXc8c1WAAIvwPb.jpg

This alone should blow away dumbass claims of "climate change" causing more California wildfires!

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

US Forest area has stabilized in the past century.

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034

MitchP85D | 5 november 2019

Here is the data in tabular format.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

Look how much higher the burn acreage was in the 1920s and 1930s!

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019
MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Good job researching Andy!

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Arctic temperatures north of 80 deg. N latitude are normally cold.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

jimglas | 6 november 2019

I have proof the data is faked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

"N latitude are normally cold."

Temps along the equator are normally warm.

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

And motor control circuits are normally open.

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Jimmy, here is my counter to you so-called "proof."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikMAH7k3pz4

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Andy, your fellow global warming zealots have been preaching that the Arctic is abnormally warm!

And during the past few decades, it has been. However, there are some indications we are at the end of this multi-decadal warming cycle.

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

Ya well you post about arctic ice extent as the season is moving towards winter, and you talk about how the ice extent is increasing. Who do you think is going to take you seriously?

TeslaTap.com | 6 november 2019

@Mitch - good research on forest fires, but the issue is a bit more complex. There were very few high-voltage power lines in California in 1930. Now there are many such lines. Climate change causing hurricane-force winds now causes downed power lines causing fires. There are other reasons (old equipment for one) too, so not all climate change. As the climate heats up over prior averages, forests are drier in some areas like California. This can contribute to the massive fires we see today in our state. Other areas could be less dry than average and have fewer fires. So looking at stats for the country doesn't tell much of the real story.

I don't have stats for fires in California, but as you go back 100 years, few cared about forest fires in huge areas where there were no people. Now there are many people in rural areas (and not so rural anymore) that are in fire zones. It's a hot topic here (pun intended) :)

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Here is the human-caused global warming induced wildfire story you won't see in the mainstream news media.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-140318...

The alarmists only want to show the data from the 1960s forward to make it look like human-caused climate change is causing the excess heat and wildfires.

Here is an example of what the global warming zealots want you to see.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-150631...

But they don't want you to see this!

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-150646...

The New York Times also reported what was going on in the 1930s.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2015-10-29-08-...

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

"Here is the human-caused global warming induced wildfire story you won't see in the mainstream news media.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-140318..."

A graph is not a story.

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

And here is data on California since the 1930s.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DkBmI1uVsAAGHl...

When you expand the time frame, then you get a better perspective on what is going on. The global warming alarmists do not want the extra data included because it does not fit their narrative!

MitchP85D | 6 november 2019

Andy, the global warming alarmists want to paint a picture that American wildfires are now the worst ever due to human-caused climate change. But when you actually look at the available data, that picture (or story) is false!

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

All that graph does is show the quantity of acres burned each year. Which is inconclusive data because there is no info about how many fires there were each year, nor information about how the fires were started.

Again, i dont understand how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

dmm1240 | 6 november 2019

Yet another example of cherry picking while failing to take into account mitigating and inciting factors.

Here are some mitigating factors:
1. It's true that more wildfires burned more acres in the early part of the table. However, firefighting technology, coordination and resources were poor back then compared to now. For example, smoke jumpers, our first line of defense, did not get off the ground until 1939 when the first smoke jumpers were deployed in the Pacific Northwest.
2. The use of planes and other aircraft to fight forest fires did not really happen until the 1970s.
3. Fire retardants used to suppress active fires are far more advanced than was true decades ago.
4. The population was 1/3 what it is now back in the 1920s. More people means more houses, more encroachment on nature than was true way back when.
5. Here's a little one that's big -- people don't smoke like they used to do. The cigarette butt carelessly tossed out a window that ignites a blaze is down. Only 14% of Americans smoke now compared to 2/3 back in the 1940s.

This is what the National Forest Service has to say about wildland fires, on the same website as your link, btw, Mitch.

"Wildland fire can be a friend and a foe. In the right place at the right time, wildland fire can create many environmental benefits, such as reducing grass, brush, and trees that can fuel large and severe wildfires and improving wildlife habitat. In the wrong place at the wrong time, wildfires can wreak havoc, threatening lives, homes, communities, and natural and cultural resources.
The Forest Service has been managing wildland fire on National Forests and Grasslands for more than 100 years. But the Forest Service doesn’t – and can’t – do it alone. Instead, the agency works closely with other federal, tribal, state, and local partners.
This is more important than ever because over the last few decades, the wildland fire management environment has profoundly changed. Longer fire seasons; bigger fires and more acres burned on average each year; more extreme fire behavior; and wildfire suppression operations in the wildland urban interface (WUI) have become the norm. 
To address these challenges, the Forest Service and its other federal, tribal, state, and local partners have developed and are implementing a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy that has three key components: Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Safe and Effective Wildfire Response."

The statistics Mitch cites compiled by the National Interagency Fire Center uses a 10-year average for 2009-2018 to make some points. I copied over the statistics and compiled the averages going all the way back to 1926, the start of the table Mitch cherry picked. I also went to EPA and added the national precipitation record for the same years. Here is what I found:

2009-2018
Average Number of Wildland Fires 66,903
Avg. # Acres Burned 6,972,599
Avg. # Acres Burned Per Fire 104.7
Average Deviation from Lower 48 States Precipitation +1.54"

1999-2008
Avg # Fires 79,818
Avg. # Acres Burned 6,972,599
Avg # Acres Burned Per Fire 87.6
Deviation from Precipitation Norm -0.06"

1989-1998
Avg # Fires Annually 74,233
Avg. # Acres Burned 2,943,681
Avg. # Acres Burned Per Fire 39.6
Deviation from Precipitation Norm +2.09"

1979-1988
Avg # Fires Annually 117,343
Avg # Acres Burned 3,099,086
Avg # Acres Burned Per Fire 37.2
Deviation from Precipitation Norm +0,79"

1969-1978
Avg # Fires 150,127
Ag # Acres Burned 3,564,646
Avg. # Acres Per Fire 25.3
Deviation from Precipitation Norm +0.85"

1959-1968
Avg. # Fires 118,903
Avg # Acres Burned 4,318,446
Avg Acres Burned Per Fire 36.0
Deviation from Precipitation Norm -0.7"

1949-1958
Avg # of Fires 155,556
Avg # Acres Burned 9,605,800
Avg # Acres Burned Per Fire 58.6
Deviation from Precipitation Norm -0.9"

1939-1948
Avg # Fires 182,256
Avg # Acres Burned 24,159,300
Avg # Acres Per Fire 131.8
Deviation from Precipitation Norm +0.31"

1929-1938
Avg. # Fires 176,689
Avg # Acres Burned 40,721,500
Avg # Acres Per Fire 238.5
Deviation from Precipitation Norm -1.54"

1926-1928
Avg # Fires 142,055
Avg # Acres Burned 35,463,000
Avg # Acres Per Fire 251.9
Deviation from Precipitation Norm +0.89

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as firefighting resources and technology advanced that fires tended to fall in severity. The only decade where rainfall/snow probably played a role was 1929-1938 when rainfall nationally was down -1.54". However, one does have to take account local conditions. While national rainfall is pretty standard, actually up in recent decades, it's also true that the West is drying out with less rainfall. Rainfall in Los Angeles has declined 3" annually over the past century, with the rate of decline increasing at a faster pace in recent decades. That's why the brush that provides most of the fuel for the fires we see now is 50% drier than it was in the early 1980s.

IOW, running off to find a single table to PROVE I'M RIGHT! is useless. It's never as simple as Mitch likes to think it is.

dmm1240 | 6 november 2019

One other thing to note. Notice how the acres burned per fire decreased as we devoted more resources to fighting wild fires. Now look at the last couple of decades. It's increasing again despite all the smoke jumpers and firefighting technology advances. Why? Well, that's easy to figure -- dry timber out west and fires that are hell on earth instead of what used to be the norm.

andy.connor.e | 6 november 2019

The graphs Mitch posts are inconclusive data because there is no info about how many fires there were each year, nor information about how the fires were started.

There is no need to dispute inconclusive data.

Pages