To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
Can you explain why you think 1979 was a normal year for Arctic sea ice?
Watch out everybody. Got one of them global warmin' fronts heading your way!
What a lack of sea ice can do.
I disagree with the Weather Channel weatherman/woman Andy. The Chukchi Sea (area northwest of Alaska and east of the East Siberian Sea) by itself is not enough to affect the jet stream. The Chukchi is too small of a scale. Right now, the Chukchi is just a relatively warm pocket in a normally cold Arctic.
The lack of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea is not what is bringing the Arctic air down. This better explains the Arctic air. Check out the Arctic temperature north of 80 degrees North latitude. The mean temperature in the entire area is now running at 250 K or -23 deg. C. This is right with the 1958-2002 mean.
A meandering jet stream will eventually transport this mass of cold air southward. If there is anything a warm Chukchi Sea can do, it may slightly enhance an upper level ridge over Alaska, thus making the upper level trough downstream a little sharper. But the warm Chukchi by no means is the primary ingredient.
Why are you talking about temps north of 80 deg when the video is talking about how the Chukchi Sea is affecting the united states? Which is lower in latitude than 80 deg N.
Because the Danish Meteorological Institute has it right. The core of the Arctic is north of 80 deg. As the core of the Arctic goes, so goes the rest of the Arctic. This core has been abnormally warm during the past few decades, thus the multi-decadal warming period in the Northern Hemisphere. If the Arctic core cools back down to the 1958-2002 mean, then we will head back to a period of winters much like we had in the 1960s and the 1970s.
By the way Andy, the Canadian Archipelago covers a larger area than the Chukchi Sea, and more directly affects the weather of North America.
Here is a good link to northern Canada weather. Click on the weather stations and look at the temperatures. This will explain the cold weather coming down into the lower 48.
Are you purposely just making this about what you want it to be about?
I am taking a larger scale view of Northern Hemispheric weather. It is a lot more than the Chukchi Sea as TWC meteorologists were discussing. TWC is a global warming alarmist organization, although they have toned it down in recent years. I'll never forget several years back how TWC was trying to make a correlation of global temperatures to which political party was in power. They aren't doing anything that blatant anymore.
I see. Its just a political nonsensual game for you then.
Minus the clickbait crap they do, TWC has been pretty good about telling you the facts. Its not like they're pulling things out of their [RUMP] and blasting you with a political agenda. They watch weather patters constantly and are just telling you this is what is happening. Its like, not even a matter of opinion if what they are saying is true, you just have to literally watch the weather patterns.
You just basically dismiss everything on the predication of "TWC is a global warming alarmist organization", ya well what are you? They're not targeting anyone as part of their "agenda" for comparison. And when i show something you just talk about something completely irrelevant.
"This area being warmer will change regular weather patterns"
(response) "The Arctic temperatures 80 deg N have been warm but will drop soon"
You're ignoring everything, and you know that you're doing that.
"That is called cherry picking. I chose ALL MONTHS from the NOAA link. Now tell me dim1240, what gives a more complete picture of what is going on in the Arctic - September or all months?"
The link to the page defaults to the latest month available, which is September at the moment, genius. It's easy to look at all months using the dropdown tab -- which I did and anyone else can. it all says the same thing: You're FOS.
The trend line is measured against the 1980-2010 average, Mitwit, 1979 is not even included.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone so determined to fool themselves and everyone they encounter like you are. You're world class in that regard.
He knows exactly what hes doing. Not only is it obvious, but its been pointed out to him many many times now what he does, and that we are fully aware thats what hes doing, and that we know that he is fully aware thats what hes doing.
Andy, you completely ignored the Canadian Archipelago. I just showed you that region is larger and more significant than the Chukchi Sea. I even gave you a nice easy link to look at so you can check out the weather in the Canadian Archipelago. But that doesn't fit your narrative of human-caused global warming. So you dismissed it.
By the way, didn't you mean to say, "political nonsensical" game to me?
Hey dim1240, this is where 1979 comes from. It is the first year of satellite data the NSIDC uses.
Look at the column on the right. See the bottom year? Which one is that DIM1240?!!
Geeeyyyaaawwwwdd, you liberals are dumb!
Hey weathermoron. Thanks for your link. Looks like 2019 is as bad as if not worse as 2012 except for a few days in Sept. Sadly the sea is minimum and maximums each year are trending down. Guess you still post graphs that disprove your narrativehttps://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And to give some more perspective to the bobba meisers of our weathermoronhttps://apple.news/AMR5Pl2alR-m5piQTzXl19A
And now that we have the anti scientists running the show it becomes more difficult to even get simple folk to understand realityhttps://apple.news/AKT8ih1JETtWHXJBBRqUisg
Two question for you SCCRENDODO. Same for Andy and Dim1240. What is bad about 2012 and 2019? And what makes you think 1979 was a normal year?
mitch: do you ever read anything, or just post your nonsense?
Not much. Except for the fact that every year for the past 10 years the Arctic Ice extent is more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for the years 1980-2010. I guess that means that the Arctic Ice is melting. Could it be that the earth is warming?? Could it be that CO2 and methane emissions are heating up the planet?? I guess the weathermoron will come up with his own conclusions. But then again there is no cure for “stupid”
And more bad news for those who live in hurricane land waiting for FEMA to provide welfare cheese when the next floods occurhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50380431
Hey SCCRENDODO, the Arctic ice melt is slowing down. Look at the last 13 years. The NSIDC has taken notice. Will you?
So somewhere around 2013 had the lowest dip ever, but they drew a flat line across all of that variance and literally are calling it the "flattest 13-year trend". This is why statistical analysis alone is not a conclusion.
Hey SCCRENDODO, you always make a big-ass friggin' deal about standard deviations. Are you going to make a big-ass friggin' deal about this standard deviation?
The current snow mass for the Northern Hemisphere is running ABOVE standard deviation. What does that tell you SCCRENDODO? And the same goes for you Andy and Jimmy. You think the snow and ice of the world is melting away to oblivion? Is that what the Finnish Meteorological Institute is telling you?
weather is not climate mitch
Drag your cursor across the EC/GCW NH Snow Extent Tracker
What do you see there about Northern Hemispheric snow cover extent and standard deviation SCCRENDODO? Are you going to make a big-ass friggin' deal about that one. Or, will you just sweep that one under the rug because it does not fit your human-caused global warming narrative.
Keeping track of the world's snow and ice is how climate scientists keep track of climate Jimmy.
there is this fact:https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/earth-and-climate/shrinking-glaciers...
You can keep track of the worlds snow an ice. But when you draw straight lines across huge levels of variance and call it a flat 13-year trend, its no longer science.
Andy, are you trying to say that the NSIDC is not a scientific organization? They are pro-AGW by the way. But they do have honest scientists who work there.
I dont care. Drawing a straight line across significant and apparent variance and calling it a flat 13-year trend is not an act of science. Thats an act of data manipulation or statistic analysis. Which anyone can do. NSIDC may have created the graph, but the interpretation is the politics.
Glaciers and Ice Caps are a very small part of the Sea Level Equivalent Jimmy.
See it? 0.41 meter.
Thats half the problem with everything you post. It is yes a graph containing data, but they always have an opinion with them along with the political agenda that aligns with that opinion.
Conveniently, also your opinion.
Dead wrong Andy. The NSIDC is noticing the Arctic Ice Melt is slowing down. And they are quietly letting this information out without blasting bells and whistles about it. After all, their funding is based on showing how humans are causing polar ice melt. Their honest geo-scientists are quietly trying to get the message out not to be so hysterical about climate.
sea level rise facts:https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
See you are incapable of separating the science from the opinion and politics. There are only good things to say about everything that aligns with your opinion, and the opposite for everything that does not align with your opinion. Nuff said people.
That's a forecast Jimmy, not facts.
Apparently forecasts are not based on facts.
Andy, the political part comes from those who want to alter the way people live via political force. I am not the one trying to tell others what kind of motor vehicle to buy, or what electricity plan they should buy. YOU are the ones trying to do that. Which makes YOU the political ones.
Who are "YOU" and what am i doing to force people to do anything?
The politics come from the opinion dude. You cant be that detached from reality. What would happen if that graph used a 14 year dataset instead of the 13 year line the drew? The line would be all the way up on top of that peak at 5.8 instead of down at 4.7. But when you choose to only use a certain dataset within the whole collection of data, and then use statistical analysis to relay an opinion that happens to follow a political agenda, thats the politics.
If you cant literally understand that, then theres nothing left here to talk about.
Using only a specific selection of the data available from a study that when analyzed properly forms an opinion that aligns with a political agenda. This is the most obvious stuff ever to me. But its possible that some literally cannot see it. Mitch has demonstrated he can not differentiate politics/opinion and science.
Wrong again Andy. 26 years ago, the Arctic ice trend was clearly downward. The ice was melting at an obviously fast rate from 1993-2006. But from 2007 to 2019, that ice melt trend is obviously slowing down. The NSIDC is quietly pointing this out. Apparently, this irks people who are trying to promote the idea that humans are melting the polar ice away to oblivion!
Andy, YOU are the ones are trying to tell everybody what kind of car to drive and what kind of electricity plan to buy. That is political. That is authoritarian.
Hey, any of you Californians pushing for a state government takeover of PG&E? This will be a good experiment to see how well a government-run power company will work out.
total BS mitch
Draw a flat line across that entire graph and call that the "flat 40-year trend"
"Andy, YOU are the ones are trying to tell everybody what kind of car to drive and what kind of electricity plan to buy. That is political. That is authoritarian."
Thats wrong and you can go back to all the comments i made and you wont find any from me. I've proposed solar systems and EVs from an economical standpoint, that its actually more economical for you to invest in these things. Im sorry that you have yourself believing that everyone is out to get you.
I think our weathermoron is trying to audition for the Trump impeachment jury. "No collusion". "No quid pro quo". Who needs facts when you can make up stuff and just use slogans. There is unfortunately no cure for stupid.