Arctic Temperature Data

Arctic Temperature Data

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!

MitchP85D | 08. august 2019

Science is all about numbers SCCRENDODO. Look at the numbers, and you tell me what the alarm is.

andy.connor.e | 09. august 2019

There was also some evidence i watched at some point that the Mediterranean sea once was a small lake until the gap between Spain and Morocco opened up. Also that there were once mountains nearly as tall as Mt. Everest where the grand canyon is because of the extent that the rocks were compressed.

SCCRENDO | 09. august 2019

@andy. Nobody is questioning that the earth is changing. In fact billions of years ago it did not even exist. The devious OP is bringing up all these strawmen to try confuse people. What happened thousands of years ago is irrelevant. It does teach us a lot about our planet and it it does teach us that the earth goes through cycles naturally. But what we are seeing since the industrial revolution is superimposed on natural variation. We are pumping CO2 into the environment and this is increasing more recently because of our industrialization. CO2 heats up the planet and causes many things including sea level rise. It is only recently that we have had mega cities at or even below sea level. And even a minimal sea level rise is devastating. Sea levels have risen around 8 inches since 1880 and the rate is increasing. He blabs on about how can a few inches make a difference. And intuitively it does not seem like much. But I posted a National Geographic link that explains exactly how. 8 inches rise on average over all the oceans is an enormously high volume. But this is not a static 8 inches. So all the transient rises and falls are from a higher baseline. And we see the effects in many cities. Miami, Amsterdam and Venice would be prime examples. This is why you need to look at the science and understand the power of the ocean and not believe our climate change denier evangelist who spouts out his own beliefs that he thinks the gullible uninformed followers will believe,

andy.connor.e | 09. august 2019

Hey im not really part of this big argument on this 8 inch sea level rise. I was just adding more interesting things that i've learned. I find geology, weather patterns, stuff like that to be very interesting without it being a main part of my life and career, more of a hobby really.

SCCRENDO | 09. august 2019

I agree. Also love to understand interesting stuff. Glad you do understand the significance of an 8 inch sea level rise. I just wanted to make sure that he hadn’t conned you.

MitchP85D | 09. august 2019

Tide gauge data is linear SCCRENDODO. Have a look.

SCCRENDO | 09. august 2019

Again an irrelevant response which does not address the fact that an 8 inch sea level rise that will increase more rapidly in the future is already causing significant damage to coastal cities.

teslu3 | 09. august 2019

Sea level rise is non-linear in time and space. See
It includes some history of recent changes plus some projections for at least two scenarios.

SCCRENDO | 10. august 2019

Thanks @teslu3. Most of us have given up using more detailed explanations because he doesn’t even read it.

MitchP85D | 10. august 2019

Hey teslu3, SCCRENDODO, since the link is from the NSIDC, of course I read it!

Now, let's see if you two read the same thing I did.

See the High Emission Scenario (worst case scenario)? What do you see there?

I see 250 mm of sea level rise by 2100 A.D. What is that? 25 cm = about 10 inches!

Again SCCRENDODO, as Dr. John Christy says, "science is all about numbers."

Go ahead. Tell me the alarm!

SCCRENDO | 10. august 2019

Again he does not address the issue. An 8 inch sea level rise since 1880 is significant and a direct cause of some of the flooding issues being seen in coastal cities. His answer to an 8 inch sea level rise is to buy subsidized FEMA flood insurance. Maybe he should vote for Andrew Yang. Then he can get $1000 a month to help him move to higher ground.

MitchP85D | 10. august 2019

You've run out of scientific arguments SCCRENDOD (as if you had any). So now you are reduced to personal insults as a substitute for your lack of ability to make a sound, logical, rational point on how increasing the CO2 concentration of 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 will have a devastating effect on the climate!

SCCRENDO | 10. august 2019

Changing the topic again. 8 inches of sea level rise is significant. Topic over

MitchP85D | 10. august 2019

8 inches over 140 years? That's significant? Did you know the sea level used to be considerably higher than now during the previous Interglacial period? On the order of 20 meters higher!

There were no pickup trucks and SUVs back then either.

SCCRENDO | 11. august 2019
MitchP85D | 11. august 2019

Wrong SCCRENDODO! This is the kind of science that makes sense to me.

This abstract supports the Holocene was warmer thousands of years ago.

The Greenland ice sheet volume increased substantially during the past 2,000 years according to the page 5 graph of the supplement. The ice that is currently melting is the ice that most recently formed over Greenland.

Now tell me SCCRENDODO. Will this data by put on your book-burn list?

teslu3 | 11. august 2019

The last graphic in shows projected sea level rise for years 2050, 2100 and 2300 assuming RCP8.5 that roughly corresponds to the high emissions trend that following.
The sea rise along coasts are roughly 20, 100 and 1000 respectively - in cm not mm. These include the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets that were not included in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report projections.
If our emissions continue unabated, we have a significant chance of 1 meter sea level rise within a century, and 10 meters within 3 centuries.
Will the term "conservative" ever include sustainability or conserving our coastal investments?

SCCRENDO | 11. august 2019

@teslu3. Thanks. Good info to counter the BS

dmm1240 | 11. august 2019

I settled in to watch Chris Hayes' show the other night. He had Richard Engel — the last TV foreign correspondent — on to talk about a political issue. They chit chatted a bit wherein Chris asked Richard where he had been in his recent globetrotting. Richard replied he had been here, there and had just got back from Greenland. Hayes is interested in climate change and asked Richard what he had seen. Engel replied he had met with a bunch of scientists and they said this (paraphrasing on my part):

"They said the Greenland ice sheet is gone. There's no saving it, the tipping point has been passed. Ice was literally melting under my feet while I stood there talking with them."

Hayes' jaw dropped. So did mine.

Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets contain 99% of the world's fresh water. If the Greenland ice sheet goes, sea levels would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic ice sheet melts sea level would rise 60 meters (200 feet). Antarctica has so far shown far less degradation of its land glaciers than we're seeing in the Arctic. But even there, some of the ice sheets covering the ocean are deteriorating.

Engel didn't pass on a timetable or anything, but I find a 20' rise in sea levels somewhat concerning. Not buying any beachfront property in Florida any time soon, I'll add that.

But, carry on. Believe Roy Spencer who was forced to revise his paper on satellite temperature measurements yet again around a month ago bringing it even more in line with other models. That dude knows what he's talking about, though so everything is just dandy, right?

SCCRENDO | 11. august 2019

@dmm. I heard that same discussion.

MitchP85D | 12. august 2019

I find it amusing how you global warming zealots are skeptical of a short-term weather forecast, yet you buy hook, line, and sinker 50, 100, 150 years forecasts!

You do not care in the least if the predictions are accurate or not. Your only concern is if it is politically useful for you!

milesbb | 12. august 2019

Looking at the Arctic Ice Cap. Looks like the 2019 melt back is tracking the 2012 curve. 2012 was a very bad record year, dropping the record low from 4.2 to 3.4 million square kilometers.

Looks to me that the melt back average has trended down from 7 to 4.5 million square kilometers in the last 40 years with the majority coming in the last 20 years.

Even scarier is the age of the ice contained in the Arctic Ice Cap. In 1985 50% of the Ice was older than 2 years and 20% was older than 5 years (January). In 2016 only 20% of the Ice was older than 2 years essentially no ice is older than 5 years (January).

teslu3 | 12. august 2019

Projecting climate trends vs 10 day weather forecasts is similar to comparing
probable result of many rolls of dice vs predicting the next roll.
The latter in both cases is far less predictable.

MitchP85D | 12. august 2019

milesbb, explain what was "bad" about 2012?

MitchP85D | 12. august 2019

Are you trying to tell me the Arctic never has melted down this much before??!!!

andy.connor.e | 12. august 2019

plate tectonics, evolution, round earth and climate change are all theories.

El Mirio | 12. august 2019

We also only have theories what consciousness is. Absolute knowledge is a myth.

SCCRENDO | 12. august 2019

And the earth is flat but Mars is round

jimglas | 12. august 2019

gravity is a theory

MitchP85D | 13. august 2019

milesbb, MASIE data since 2006 will help put things into perspective about the 3.4 million km^2 sea ice extent minimum of 2012. Scroll down to the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice area. Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent - Northern Hemisphere

I worked in Alaska during 2012. I saw what happened in the Arctic Ocean. Summer storms broke up the ice and shattered it into myriads of pieces. There were bunches of chunks scattered across the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The sea ice analyst and me were quite busy that summer routing the tug boats around the broken up ice. Back in 2007, the ice was not shattered. Instead, it was compacted towards the north, and the aforementioned seas were largely ice free during the late summer. The reason why 2012 had such a low sea ice minimum number is because a lot of the chunk ice is not counted. Any areas of ice that is less that 15% ice is counted as zero. So a lot of ice was missed.

Basically, the only thing bad about 2012 is that it was a difficult year for summertime marine traffic going across the Barrow Passage.

MitchP85D | 13. august 2019

milesbb, I just told you why I thought 2012 was "bad." Why do you think it was bad, and what is so scary?

SCCRENDO | 13. august 2019

@jimglas. Science is a theory on par with biblical predictions and the whims of random trolls on forums.

milesbb | 13. august 2019

a bad year for summertime marine traffic going across the Barrow Passage was 1975. The ice never opened up, barges got turned around, barges got frozen in the ice. 40 years of global warming has guaranteed easy barge traffic past Barrow. Avoiding ice flows is a normal operation for the barge sealift. Everything got through in 2012.

2012 was a bad year because it shows the extent global warming is having in the Arctic. The Ice cap area was 19% less than the previous low value. Now it looks like this is the new normal. 2019 looks to be similar to 2012. The Ice cap reflects the suns energy so less heat is absorbed. With less Ice cap the Arctic region absorbs more energy. The ice cap coverage continues to decline. Onshore the warmer Arctic Ocean fails to support existing permafrost. As the permafrost melts frozen hydrocarbons are released and green house gas warming continues.

Loss of sea Ice is not good for polar bears. Loss of their habitat will put a lot of stress on them. This might be good for the Whales that spend their summers in the Arctic Ocean. And of course the possibility of Northwest passage ship traffic is getting lots of folks excited.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

But this has happened before milesbb, as early as the mid 20th Century. The Arctic ice had thinned so much by the 1950s, the USS Skate was able to punch through the ice at the North Pole.

Here is a 1958 New York Times article reporting the event. Scientists back then estimated the Arctic ice was 40% thinner then, than 50 years prior to that time.

But after the 1950s, it started to get cold again, and the Arctic ice expanded.

What is happening now is a repeat of the 1920s through the 1950s.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

Wrong war history link. Here is the right one. The tank story was right afterwards.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019
SCCRENDO | 14. august 2019
andy.connor.e | 14. august 2019

The argument that humans dont have an impact on the planets climate is lunacy. This is like 7 years ago when i was arguing religion, i am pretty much done with this topic.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

andy, science is all about numbers. The question is "how much" are humans affecting the climate. The only way to do that is to examine the weather events of today to the past. And when we do that, what is happening today is not the least bit extraordinary compared to the past.

But those with a political agenda are straining with all of their might to claim that today's climate is outside of natural climate variation, and they will bury climate history to make their case that humans are affecting the climate. Remember, the solution for the 1970's Ice Age scare was the same as today's global warming scare. Stop fossil fuel use!

andy.connor.e | 14. august 2019

Mitch all you do is post information that you use to try to say that there is no "human caused climate change". You always call everyone "global warming zealots" as if we are preaching some kind of religion. No one is saying climate change is exclusively human caused, and the two are not mutually exclusive. The argument is not and has never been that human action is the dependent variable for climate change. The fact of the matter is that humans are causing an acceleration of the warming, and the argument is to find out how significant we are accelerating it.

And i truly think we are wasting our time arguing about how significant it is. Because while we are wasting decades arguing, its still accelerating. And since everyone is wasting their time arguing, no one is actually figuring it out. Climate change becoming a political topic has only put another brick wall in front of actually doing anything about it. Theres so much lobbying and conflict of interest from billion dollar companies that the reality and truth is hidden by intentionally misleading arguments that are not actually focusing on whats important.

This is such a dumb thing to be arguing about because government is going to take too long to actually implement any kind of meaningful action because of all the lobbying. They will only implement legislation when its too late, as they always do here in America. And "we the people", need to stop being unmotivated, lazy, argumentative, stubborn humans and recognize that "we the consumers" have the most power over anything. And if you want change, start voting with your dollars. If you dont like plastic in the ocean, stop buying products that have plastic in them or at least try to reduce so. If you dont like oil companies drilling for oil, stop buying products that use oil and start converting your gas powered appliances to electric only.

Something to consider for electric power, is that if you plan on staying in your current house for at least 6 or 7 years, solar panels can pay themselves off in that amount of time and can help you limit your reliability on gas services or your utility company.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

andy, if you want to go solar and all electric, knock yourself out! I'm stopping any of you from doing that. The objection I have is that the likes of you want to force everybody else to conform to what you like. Does it matter to you that some geographical regions have more clouds than sunshine? Does it matter to you that some areas don't have a lot of wind? What are you going to do? Force people in the Arctic regions to go solar in the winter??!!

You global warming zealots need to think before you act!

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

Correction - I'm NOT stopping and of you from doing that.

SCCRENDO | 14. august 2019

The reason we have to force people is because we do need to make changes. And it is not just the people who want to make changes that have to. It's everyone. We know that driving drunk on the road harms people. So we don't just say only those who want be sober driving should. We punish everyone who drives drunk

andy.connor.e | 14. august 2019

"Does it matter to you that some geographical regions have more clouds than sunshine? Does it matter to you that some areas don't have a lot of wind? What are you going to do? Force people in the Arctic regions to go solar in the winter??!!"

No i would not force solar in areas where it doesnt make sense. Thats why we have alot of different forms like wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, solar. Some people dont know these forms of energy production exist, and today if you live in a sunny region, solar is actually a financial incentive. There are not only tax rebates for solar right now, bit it will in fact pay itself off eventually, and you can potentially eliminate your dependency on utilities, which would be getting rid of a bill you pay every month.

No one is walking around putting people in shackles for not adopting alternative energy production. You spend your money where you want to and no one will stop you. No one is forcing anything. But eventually, you will be forced. Because there will be a time where government will just pass legislation that will force you anyway, because thats when government steps in, when its too late and we have no choice. So heres your options right now. So stop this silliness in thinking that we are telling everyone what to do. Because alot of the discussion is about suggestions, and why they are superior to the status quo of the way things are today.

andy.connor.e | 14. august 2019

Also @Mitch

I think its cute how you did not disagree with anything i said about what you do. Thanks for being honest with yourself.

jimglas | 14. august 2019

just flag and move on …..

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

Well andy, you and SCCRENDODO are not on the same page according to your recent posts. SCCRENDODO says "we have to force people" while you say "No one is forcing anything."

In Texas, we have an abundance of plans to choose from. If you want green energy? We have it. Here is Green Mountain Energy for example.

Most other electric plans have a mixture of green energy and fossil fuel energy. There is a wide variety of electric plans that we have in Texas. The important point here is consumer choice. Elitist liberal democrat snobs like SCCRENDODO think they are superior to everybody else, and that they should decide for everybody else what their electric power plan should be. And these snobs will use scare tactics to achieve their ends.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

andy, I don't know what the hell you are yakin' about concerning about what I do.

MitchP85D | 14. august 2019

SCCRENDODO, what is happening now is just a repeated cycle of what happened between the 1920s and the 1950s.

andy.connor.e | 14. august 2019

SCC is definitely being successful in his "forcing". Dont get yourself tied up in nonsense.