Freak heatwave pushes temperatures at North Pole above freezing

December 31, 2015 by Clément Sabourin
A polar bear walks across the ice in the Arctic near the North Pole
A polar bear walks across the ice in the Arctic near the North Pole

Temperatures at the North Pole rose above freezing point Wednesday, 20 degrees Celsius above the mid-winter norm and the latest abnormality in a season of extreme weather events.

Canadian authorities blamed the spike on the freak depression which has already brought record Christmas temperatures to North America and lashed Britain with winds and floods.

The deep low pressure area is currently looming over Iceland and churning up hurricane force 75-knot winds and 30-foot waves in the north Atlantic while dragging warm air northwards.

"It's a very violent and extremely powerful depression, so it's not surprising that hot temperatures have been pushed so far north," said Canadian government meteorologist Nathalie Hasell.

"This deep depression has pushed hot air as far as the North Pole, where temperatures are at least 20 degrees above normal, at around freezing point, between zero and two degrees," she said.

US scientists from the North Pole Environmental Observatory told AFP that the temperatures had climbed suddenly.

An Arctic monitoring point 180 miles (300 kilometers) from the Pole that had been recording minus 37 degrees on Monday had shot up to minus eight by Wednesday, said senior researcher James Morison.

Average temperatures in the Arctic are three degrees Celsius higher than in the pre-industrial era, snowfall is heavier, winds a
Average temperatures in the Arctic are three degrees Celsius higher than in the pre-industrial era, snowfall is heavier, winds are stronger and the ice sheet has been shrinking for 30 years

The polar region is the area of the world that has seen the most profound effects of climate change in recent decades.

Average year-round temperatures in the Arctic are three degrees Celsius higher than they were in the pre-industrial era, snowfall is heavier, winds are stronger and the ice sheet has been shrinking for 30 years.

El Nino

It would be too hasty, however, to pin this week's extreme weather directly on the man-made climate change phenomenon, rather than on a discreet anomaly.

Hasell said that Canada has not kept complete records of North Pole weather but that it was nonetheless "bizarre" to see such high temperatures on the ice pack in the middle of its long night.

After tormenting the North Atlantic, the depression is expected to head towards Russia's Siberia, where the inhabitants can expect a heatwave of sorts.

In Canada, the capital of the Nunavut territory of the native Inuit, Iqaluit, celebrated a relatively balmy Christmas when temperatures rose to minus 4.6 degrees—up from an average of minus 21.

Baffin Island, better known for its snow and ice, experienced unheard of rainfall in December, said David Phillips of Canada's Environment Ministry.

"It's doubtless the El Nino effect, venturing further north," he told AFP, referring to a tropical Pacific weather phenomenon that reoccurs every four to seven years in more southerly climes.

The 2015 El Nino is regarded as perhaps the most powerful in a century and, combined with the effects of , it has generated storms, flood and droughts in Central America and beyond.

Dozens of Americans were killed in rare, late season tornados in the southern United States before Christmas, and then the hot El Nino air was dragged north along the Atlantic coast bringing T-shirt weather to normally frigid cities.

Explore further: Another heat record means 2015 likely to be hottest ever (Update)

Related Stories

Climate change: the Grinch that stole Europe's Christmas?

December 21, 2015

In a season traditionally associated with ice-skating, snowball fights and mulled wine in wintry Europe, birds are chirping, flowers blooming and fake snow covering Alpine ski slopes in one of the warmest Decembers on record.

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

128 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

furkangozukara
3 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2015
well it seems like winters will disappear in the near future
PNoel
1.7 / 5 (24) Dec 31, 2015
It is very important to observe that this heat wave is now within the parameters of a typical weather model. It should be investigated as something other than a "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" event. This event is stellar in cause and should get more than a casual look at.
leetennant
4 / 5 (25) Dec 31, 2015
Thanks, PNoel for a comment showing why deniers make little to no sense. Because, FYI, if something unprecedented and "freak" becomes part of a "typical weather model", that IS climate change. By definition. What do you need? A frigging sign saying "climate change is HERE" with a whacky arrow? Sheesh.
never_mind
2 / 5 (25) Dec 31, 2015
Guys, you gotta more informed than this. First, you're working on the premise what you read online is accurate. I've read up on this story today and yesterday and have witnessed a broad disparity in the facts.

Some news outlets were reporting 40 degrees at the North Pole - when the 40 degree mark was only reached at North Pole, Alaska - a suburb of Fairbanks, Alaska; the reports were vague making it sound like it was THE North Pole. Epic fail!

Keep in mind there is an agenda out there. Here's something to think about:

The temperature at the earth's North Pole briefly topped the freezing point this past week, but not for long. Later in the afternoon that day it was back down to -25°F

This event is not unprecedented. Time.com's report stated "There have reportedly only been three other times since 1948 that temperatures in the North Pole have hit or risen above freezing in December."

This ain't the first time folks. The sky ain't falling!
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (28) Dec 31, 2015
Keep in mind there is an agenda out there.


Which agenda are you talking about never_mind? Maybe Lord Monkton's?
This event is not unprecedented.
I don't think this article made that assertion. What it did say is -
Average year-round temperatures in the Arctic are three degrees Celsius higher than they were in the pre-industrial era
Which would certainly support the science - that says are climate is warming.
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 31, 2015
FYI, if something unprecedented and "freak" becomes part of a "typical weather model", that IS climate change. By definition.


That's absolute nonsense.

Any weather model, and indeed the real weather, has outliers and freak events that occur with some probability. Taking every unprecedented event as a sign for climate change is exactly the type of chicken little behaviour that "deniers" are arguing against.

If an acorn drops on your head by chance, it doesn't mean the sky is falling.

Point being that if we whip ourself into panic by exaggerating climate change, then we're prone to making costly errors by essentially "fixing what ain't broken", or instituting such drastic measures against the imagined future threat that we end up hurting ourselves more than the actual climate change would have.
greenonions
4.8 / 5 (22) Dec 31, 2015
Point being that if we whip ourself into panic by exaggerating climate change


Agreed - so let's not do that. I don't see this article as doing that. What we should do is pay attention to the facts. This article is giving us some more facts. We should build our understanding of the climate - just as we should build our understanding of cancer, quantum physics - and everything else. Being that we can't travel into the future - and know for sure what will happen in 100 years - my vote is that we listen very carefully to the scientists studying the problem - and act prudently. Prudently is a tough path to define - but it certainly does not involve the denier path - of screw it - do nothing - learn nothing - and let our grand kids deal with what ever happens.
Eikka
2.4 / 5 (26) Dec 31, 2015
Or, the third option is that we run around in hysteria and panic, try every sort of gimmick and trick, none of it really works and then we've got a climate change and a ruined economy to deal with.

You can't assume that once you've "enlightened" people about climate change and gotten everyone to believe in your version of what is really going on, that we'd actually manage to do something about it - especially if your version is based on ghost stories that aren't actually true.

That's the problem. Even when everyone agrees that something must be done, nobody agrees on what should be done, and some are trying to abuse the situation to further their own social, financial and political agenda that has nothing to do with solving the situation.

For example, does throwing billions of dollars of tax money into solar power subsidies actually solve anything when the technology they're building is not cost-effective? Nope, but it makes a few large corporations a lot of money.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 31, 2015
Prudently is a tough path to define - but it certainly does not involve the denier path - of screw it - do nothing - learn nothing - and let our grand kids deal with what ever happens.


Seeing that nobody is perfect - there's no one person or even a group of people with all the right answers - we need all the deniers just as much as we need all the chicken littles to have an aggregate of viewpoints.

Rejecting one leads to over-emphasis of the other, and the resulting answers will tend to be more in the wrong.

Sometimes "do nothing" is the exact right answer - especially when you don't know what you should be doing. Otherwise the least you'll manage is waste your energy, and the worst...
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (24) Dec 31, 2015
This story reminds me of a picture that was circulating the internet, a couple years ago, and finally made it to physorg. It showed a pool of water surrounded by ice with the caption " North Pole melting". The Chicken Littles, of course, were all over it in alarm. A simple glance at the picture revealed drops of water on the camera lens from the rain that just fell and accumulated on the ice. When this truth was revealed to the Chicken Littles they all just retreated back into their ignorance waiting for the next bit of alarmist fodder.
Eddy Courant
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 31, 2015
Q: Who thinks man is in control? Of anything?
Q: Who thinks less than one quarter of one percent of the atmosphere is in control? Of anything?
A: Same people who fall for all the other chit.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (21) Dec 31, 2015
Hi Eikka, antigoracle et al. :)

These 'freak' events are part of larger global pattern of 'freak' extreme events. Hasn't it dawned on you something has changed drastically?

I recently pointed out climate-change 'transitional' reality was evolving towards 'new normal'; hence 'rolling disaster' of extreme/persistent/global 'freak' weather events with little or no 'recovery window' between one 'freak' event and next.

Remember my pointing to the persistence/confluence problem as in Northern England and elsewhere, which is becoming such a 'rolling disaster' of SERIAL 'freak' events, with continuing unprecedented rain/floods for months now? Add to that the rolling disaster in many other parts of the world right now, and you get the 'new global normal' is UN-precedented 'serial' freak events.

Increased CO2-forcing energy is destabilizing/exacerbating 'previous normal' patterns of El Nino etc, making them more deadly/costly/widespread/persistent.

'In denial' is so last year! :)
greenonions
5 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
Eikka
we need all the deniers just as much as we need all the chicken littles to have an aggregate of viewpoints.
I disagree - I think we need smart people - who know what they are talking about (like climate scientists for example). You want to ask the astrologers about future climate - that is your privilege - don't expect any respect on a science site.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
"As the Washington Post reported, temperatures on Tuesday and Wednesday breached 32 degrees at the North Pole -- 50 degrees higher than historical late-December averages"

"The temperature readings were made using satellites, and weather scientists acknowledged there is a range of uncertainty."

"As the North Pole is over the Arctic Ocean (which is frozen most of the year), NOAA does not have land-based temperature gauges there," an NOAA spokesman told The Telegraph."

http://www.upi.co...1576256/

Still waiting for NOAA to post this on their website.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (27) Dec 31, 2015
I disagree - I think we need smart people - who know what they are talking about (like climate scientists for example).

The truly smart people tell you to grow a brain and look at the data yourself, but then you are too ignorant to heed that advice.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2015
@never-mind

You were doing fine until your "agenda" comment. You added the oft repeated "3 times" that was based on a tweet, that's right a tweet. So much for accuracy.
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (24) Dec 31, 2015
Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years
http://www.cnsnew...rming-17
No Global Warming for 18 years 6 months..
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2015

Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years
http://www.cnsnew...rming-17
No Global Warming for 18 years 6 months..


Well, since neither of those things are true, they're hardly a "climate scientist' are they? I'm being facetious, Christy is one of the few who can claim to do research in climate science. But his arguments are still specious.

His actual point is "models didn't predict temps would be flat from 1996". And... temps weren't. So there's nothing wrong with the models then? Even during the so-called "hiatus" that wasn't, there was still a statistically-significant increase in surface temperatures. So Christy is either lying or is so divorced from the reality of observed climate data that his opinion is meaningless. I'll leave you to choose which is which.
julianpenrod
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2015
With respect to never_mind's insistences, there is no "afternoon" at the North Pole now, it's all night. That means that the temperature rose 50 degrees to get above zero in pitch black! And, yes, this may be the third time in the 67 years since 1948 that this happened, but it is the first time that it happened also in the middle of 15 years with the worst hurricane season, the worst el Nino, accelerated glacier disappearance, hundred degree heat waves from London to Siberia, the largest drop in Arctic sea ice coverage. One year 25 degrees warmer than usual is a fluke, twenty years all 10 degrees above normal is not so much of a fluke. Put it in the deniers' laps, what would they accept as proof of accelerated man made climate change?
greenonions
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
So the deniers are telling us stuff like
Point being that if we whip ourself into panic by exaggerating climate change
(That's from Eikka). And the real catastophists are telling us stuff like this - http://www.resili...too-late And we sit in the middle - just asking to get a little respect for the science. Re-read this article folks. No one is panicking here. Who are the chicken littles?
Tangent2
4.5 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2015
The frog begins to boil and is none the wiser as to what is happening.
AGreatWhopper
3.3 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2016
Dozens of Americans were killed in rare, late season tornados in the southern United States before Christmas


Unfortunately, none were the ones that regularly troll this site. Still, hope springs eternal.

Julian Penrod klaxon! St. Sebastian's sounds a nice venue.
tblakely1357
1.9 / 5 (23) Jan 01, 2016
Too hot; Global Warming
Too cold; Global Warming
Too wet; Global Warming
Too dry; Global Warming
Just right; Global Warming is in a 'temporary pause' and will kill us all if we don't 'do something'.

It's a 'snake oil' theory that can't be falsified. The purpose of said theory to accumulate more and more power to the state which is why it's so popular with so many politicians. If you think that most of the politicians that embrace Global Warming gives a rat's ass about the general welfare of people.... well you are either really stupid or like the idea of an all-controlling state. Remember most scientists are elitists and have a great disdain for the prols in general and capitalism in particular.
jljenkins
3.7 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2016
Too stupid to learn; Dismiss all accepted research
Too lame to have a social life; Tell everyone how to live
Too much a loser to ever accomplish anything; Give your vision for the futue
Too lazy to get out of your mother's basement; troll science blogs.

Fucking open your wrists already! There are too many people on this planet and you certainly add absolutely nothing.
humy
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2016
It is very important to observe that this heat wave is now within the parameters of a typical weather model. It should be investigated as something other than a "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" event. This event is stellar in cause and should get more than a casual look at.

PNoel

What are you on? How can this particular event of a massive ~20C rise in temperature in the north pole be "stellar in cause"? If that was true, we should be hearing of some kind of freak and deeply mysterious rise in the Sun's output in resent weeks that would be large enough to account for this massive heating event -and yet we don't because there isn't anything out of the ordinary with the current Sun's output or activity.
nystep
2.3 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2016
My humble opinion is that it is in fact a great news for the planet that such an amount of heat is trapped in the north pole at this time of the year. Please let me explain this a little bit. At this time of the year, the North Pole is pitch black : there is 0 incoming solar radiation from the sun and therefore 0 greenhouse gas effect. the energy balance is negative : earth's energy is radiated straight back into space with nothing to slow it down in the atmosphere. therefore that energy will quickly be dissipated and gone from planet earth.

My source for the science behind this is well explained here : http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php

As we can expect as a result, the latest one day average graphs are already plunging back to normal, with the temperature at the center of the bubble of heat already back to -10c for the one day average. I don't really expect to see an equal news in the media when things will be back to the normal however.
BartV
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2016
I think some of you don't realize that this peak in temperature lasted like 1 or 2 days, and temperatures in the Arctic circle are now back to normal colds. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehole.

greenonions
4.9 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2016
nystep
My humble opinion is
Thank you for sharing your humble opinion. Do you have any actual science to support your humble opinion? You should hook up with jeffensley - jeff has lots of opinions too. The fact is that the arctic is 3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels (reported in the article) - which is of course in line with the understanding that the climate is warming. Do you have a humble opinion on that one too.
greenonions
5 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2016
Bart
Please don't make a mountain out of a molehole.
Don't think any one is doing that Bart. This is a data point. The fact that on average the arctic is 3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels is pretty significant right? Odd how no matter how the science is reported - the denier community is peeing it's pants to tell us to calm down. (kind of like the tobacco lobby - as pointed out by Mike_massen). If it is reported that 2015 is the warmest year on record - they are fudging the numbers. If individual events are reported (like this article talking about temps at the north pole - well that is just natural variation - nothing to see here. You guys are the ones who are not willing to see what is happening right in front of you.
katesisco
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2016
I am rereading Under A Green Sky by Peter Ward; could this be the same cycle, always reducing, that the Earth has had perhaps since life began.
unrealone1
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2016
@julianpenrod Thanks for. Temperature rose 50 degrees to get above zero in pitch black!?
So how does man made CO2 cause this to happen when in pitch black winter?
CO2 is 0.0400%. man made CO2 is "3"% of 0.0400% Correct?
So how does man madeCO2 cause this temperature to rise above freezing in pitch black winter
greenonions
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2016
unrealone1 - are you really not aware of the complexity of the climate system? The oceans and the atmosphere are dynamic. Heat moves around the system. Do you know what an el nino, and an el nina are? You speak as if the system is totally static. I live in Oklhahoma. We can have temperature swings of 50 degrees F from one day to the next. Do you think that anyone is saying that the only factor in such a temperature swing is C02? Storms can bring large masses of warm air, or cold air.
greenonions
5 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
unrealone1 - you denial claptrap about C02 being such a small percentage of the atmosphere has been answered so many times - it makes you look really bad to need to keep repeating the same nonsense. http://www.scient...makes-u/
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (18) Jan 01, 2016
@julianpenrod Thanks for. Temperature rose 50 degrees to get above zero in pitch black!?
So how does man made CO2 cause this to happen when in pitch black winter?
CO2 is 0.0400%. man made CO2 is "3"% of 0.0400% Correct?
So how does man madeCO2 cause this temperature to rise above freezing in pitch black winter

pitch black winter is still very much warmer that the the night sky, so there is still a lot of infrared radiated into the universe. You are critical of climate physics but you did not know this ? Disqualified.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
Gravity is also an extremely weak force and yet...

I've never understood why people think the proportion of something in the atmosphere is supposed to mean anything in and of itself.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (21) Jan 01, 2016
Gravity is also an extremely weak force and yet...

I've never understood why.....

Know what else is weak? Your intelligence. So, what a surprise you don't understand. Try growing a brain.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2016
THE NORTH POLE IS MELTING
http://robertscri...melting/
leetennant
4 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
Gravity is also an extremely weak force and yet...

I've never understood why.....

Know what else is weak? Your intelligence. So, what a surprise you don't understand. Try growing a brain.


Playing the ball as usual, I see anti. Impressive.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
Gravity is also an extremely weak force and yet...

I've never understood why people think the proportion of something in the atmosphere is supposed to mean anything in and of itself.

You are the very definition of ignorant. If the proportion does not mean anything, then why are they trying to reduce it?
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
@leetenant
I learned in a diving course that the the proportion of oxygen in the air is important "in and of itself".
This is a counterexample of your statements. Not that I am proud, a baby could give multiple counterexamples.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2016
@julianpenrod Thanks for. Temperature rose 50 degrees to get above zero in pitch black!?
So how does man made CO2 cause this to happen when in pitch black winter?
CO2 is 0.0400%. man made CO2 is "3"% of 0.0400% Correct?
So how does man madeCO2 cause this temperature to rise above freezing in pitch black winter


This really is an absolute classic.

I'm tempted to print it out, frame it and hang it in the toilet.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2016
Posted on Hotwhopper....

"Kevin O'NeillDecember 30, 2015 at 2:56 PM
The forecasted temperatures are now evident in the onsite data. Buoy 300234062785480 located at 85.45N rose 25C in 9 hours (and is now above freezing). It was -24.3C at 0600 hours (day 363.25) and +1.0C at 1500 hours (day 363.626).

Table of buoys.
http://iabp.apl.w...ble.html

That's just 472km - or 293 miles - from the north pole."

BTW: I think the Arctic buoy program started in 1991.
A long fetch of WAA through the Greenland Sea is in my experience nothing too unusual.
The temperature rise may be however, given the warmth of the air and it's passage over generally warmer SST's until meeting the ice edge.

http://ocean.dmi....x.uk.php
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Jan 02, 2016
unrealone1 asked
@julianpenrod Thanks for. Temperature rose 50 degrees to get above zero in pitch black!?
So how does man made CO2 cause this to happen when in pitch black winter?
CO2 is 0.0400%. man made CO2 is "3"% of 0.0400% Correct?
So how does man madeCO2 cause this temperature to rise above freezing in pitch black winter
Very simple, its called radiative transfer, the essentials are known & proven for >100yrs, details
https://en.wikipe...transfer
leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
& graphically quantified
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Remember that heat travels from hot to cold per basic thermodynamics/entropy, its part of Statistical Mechanics, clarified here:-
https://en.wikipe...echanics

So now you get it unrealone1 (is that one one, eh?)
Heat moves from hot to cold to poles in general, less is released to space due to CO2's greenhouse effect, straightforward ?

Physics !
Eddy Courant
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2016
Children aren't going to know what polar ice caps are.
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
Eddy: The south pole is like -100. Children will know what polar ice caps are like.

Temperatures are rising. However, the amount is much less than predicted. The advocates of the science seem to feel that simply that temperatures are rising is proof enough however, as NeverMind said. This has happened before. In fact as recently as the 1940s people traveled the artic without needing to cut ice. The article says "freak" weather and abnormal weather. Every year is freak weather and abnormal weather. We have always gotten freak weather. I ask people please, (like NeverMind) that you should look and see what is true behind what you read. First, we have only been keeping temperature records in the arctic for less than 100 years. So, whatever record we could possibly be talking about is simply within the last 100 years. That may seem like amazing to you but 100 year events are staticstically likely to happen once every .... 100 years. So, their occurrence is not shocking
john_mathon
2.6 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
Climate does not move in one direction. Look at charts of temperature and you will see that they go up and down. Everywhere. If you really think they are going up and will never go down again because of CO2 then you are not scientific. CO2 has gone up and temperatures have gone up and sometimes they have even gone down but eventually even when they go up they eventually come down. We cannot produce ever greater amounts of CO2 so at some point even if CO2 is a major cause of temperature change the process will stop and reverse. However, we know that without CO2 and Ford 150s temperatures were higher than today in places hundreds of years ago and 5,000 years ago the earth was much hotter than today and there was no increase in co2. Such facts prove to me that CO2 is not the DOMINANT effect on evironment claimed. When CO2 has gone high in the past something caused the climate to cool again and even though there was all this co2 in the atmosphere temps went down.
john_mathon
2.6 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016
We know that possibly something as simple as the closing of the isthmus of panama (or something else we don't understand if that didn't do it.) cased the rate of ice ages to halve. In other words a small change in geography changed the climate of the earth by incredible amount causing the entire earth to cycle less frequently 8 degrees + or -. No computer model can simulate this or understand it. I have an article that talks about the climate fails. It's important that along with your understanding of how CO2 absorbs energy you have some understanding of what we don't know and how our predictions go wrong because they always do. https://logiclogi...entists/
baudrunner
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2016
It's getting better all the time..
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2016

In fact as recently as the 1940s people traveled the artic without needing to cut ice.

@Johnthedelusional

It's spelled arctic and you're full of crap.

http://www.skepti...hp?r=429
leetennant
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
Once again my2cts y'all are making my argument for me. Oxygen content is only 20% of air. By this argument, being 'only' 20% means a small change in the oxygen content shouldn't matter. Except it clearly does. As I said, the proportional content of a gas in the atmosphere *in and of itself* is irrelevant.
my2cts
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2016
@leetenant
What have you been breathing?
"As I said, the proportional content of a gas in the atmosphere *in and of itself* is irrelevant."
Confused nonsense is the best I can make of it.
leetennant
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 02, 2016
Good God, this is hardly rocket surgery. Nor is it deeply complicated jargon either.

When discussing the marginal impact of a change in the proportion of something on a SYSTEM, you need to take into account its impact on that SYSTEM. So the proportion of the gas (or whatever) has to be discussed with reference to the system. The proportion of it *in and of itself* is meaningless.

The fact that CO2 represents x proportion of the atmosphere means absolutely nothing. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is a demonstrable impact to the atmosphere by increasing that proportion is. Going from 200ppm to 400ppm means nothing if we're talking about human respiration. It means a great deal if you're talking about the global climate system. Just like halving the oxygen in the atmosphere would have little impact on global temperatures but it's going to mean a great deal to animals that breathe it.

Nothing in and of itself has any meaning.That comes from reference to the system.
sdrfz
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2016

When a cold spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event is not indicative of climate change.

When a warm spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event IS indicative of climate change.

You cannot have it both ways, climate alarmists.

Make up your mind. Can climate and weather be used interchangeably, or not?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (19) Jan 03, 2016
sdrfz says
When a cold spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event is not indicative of climate change.
When a warm spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event IS indicative of climate change
Be careful here, don't attach significance to media hype, thats to sell papers, watch tv adverts & get website links - not the study of climate/weather/heat flow etc, capisce ?

sdrfz claims
You cannot have it both ways, climate alarmists
Indeed but, instead of being pliable to uneducated, from any political persuasion, isnt it smarter get education in essential underlying aspect which is the key recent "delta" on climate change "heat"
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

sdrfz says
Make up your mind. Can climate and weather be used interchangeably, or not?
Obviously not, you should address your chagrin to the media outlets & the uneducated and improve science communication. I live in Australia & getting a LOT of hot spells !
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
@leetenant
What have you been breathing?
"As I said, the proportional content of a gas in the atmosphere *in and of itself* is irrelevant."
Confused nonsense is the best I can make of it.


~99% of the atmosphere is transparent to LWIR.
Any "Slayers" deny that?

Leaving ~1% that is the thermostat to the Earth.

CO2 is in reality 4%.of the atmospheric constituents that "warm".
Gone up from 2.8% due anthro emission.

That's what leetenant means my friend.

You need to take away ~99% before ending up with a meaningful percentage.
my2cts
1.7 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
@runrig
You see, that is what I mean with confusing nonsense.
The CO2 content is 0.04% not 4%. 99% being transparent is a meaningless statement. 99.96% of its constituents are transparent, but that still leaves the possibility that it is completely opaque. This is like saying that 99% of the weather is dry when it rains, namely in between the droplets. The 2.8% human contribution is actually 0.028%.
The meaning last statement "You need to take away ~99% before ending up with a meaningful percentage." is entirely unclear.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016

When a cold spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event is not indicative of climate change.

When a warm spell occurs, we are told that a single weather event IS indicative of climate change.

You cannot have it both ways, climate alarmists.

Make up your mind. Can climate and weather be used interchangeably, or not?


I hear that 8 times more up than down temperature weather records are broken. So the base line is going up. Does that answer your question?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 03, 2016
my2cts offered
The CO2 content is 0.04% not 4%. 99% being transparent is a meaningless statement. 99.96% of its constituents are transparent, but that still leaves the possibility that it is completely opaque
He did say LWIR, please consider runrig's commented here for a while & been a career UK meteorologist for decades, likely gets tired repeating more complete paras which deniers flake off irrationally, ie maybe runrig expects others find details ie % is of Δ warming

Good illustration GHG distribution/effect (not possible with current physics for it to be opaque)
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/
With quantification
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

my2cts noticed of runrig
You need to take away ~99% before ending up with a meaningful percentage." is entirely unclear
Best, I think put that down to style, more/less comparative opinion, time/space don't easily many here to go into lecture mode, deniers previously wasted much time :-(
antigoracle
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2016
I hear that 8 times more up than down temperature weather records are broken. So the base line is going up. Does that answer your question?

http://wattsupwit...weather/
my2cts
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
@MM
That is the third incomprehensible post on this. I give up.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
sdrfz
You cannot have it both ways, climate alarmists.


Probably you missed the sentence
Average year-round temperatures in the Arctic are three degrees Celsius higher than they were in the pre-industrial era, snowfall is heavier, winds are stronger and the ice sheet has been shrinking for 30 years.

So when do you think we cross over from something being simply a weather event, to actually noticing the signal of warming? Do you dispute that the climate is warming? Do you have a point?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 03, 2016
my2cts says
@MM
That is the third incomprehensible post on this. I give up.
Please don't give up maybe runrig's & my language makes many intrinsic assumptions, sorry which one btw, mine/runrig's ?

Granted you are offering commentary in the midst of all sorts of noise from the AGW denier camp, to clarify runrig & I come from different backgrounds & he is older than I. I'm from disparate electronic engineering in Western Australia & runrig as a career meteorologist in the UK.

There are comparative issues re absorbance of various GHGs & the delta effect of CO2 increasing & the direct relationship between CO2 (& the other GHGs) re Long Wave Infra Red absorbance/emission re my links

To put in a nutshell Sol provides immense amount of visible (& near visible) energy to Earth & most of this unaffected by atmosphere, when it hits the ground it heats it up which is radiated back up as Infra Red - this is where GHGs interfere by various proportions at altitudes etc.
my2cts
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2016
@MM
No problem. I am in command of all the physics needed except the meto part.
agres
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
"Global warming" means that there is more heat in the oceans, the atmosphere, and the lakes - that is more heat in the entire weather system. This has been going on for more than 50 years. Thus, heat from global warm has penetrated the entire system. Heat from global warming affects all the weather, all the time.

To say that any particular weather event is not affected by global warming/ climate change is to admit that one has not thought deeply about the physics of the situation.
adam_russell_9615
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2016
The weatherman noted that its colder in Utah than the North Pole. very strange weather.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
@runrig
You see, that is what I mean with confusing nonsense.
........ The 2.8% human contribution is actually 0.028%.
The meaning last statement "You need to take away ~99% before ending up with a meaningful percentage." is entirely unclear.

My2cts:
Sorry if I treated you as a "classic" denier ... I'm afraid I confused Julianpenrod's "CO2 and "darkness"" post as yours.

It is a common "denier" meme that because CO2 is such a tiny atmospheric constituent it cannot possibly be doing what it is doing.
Only ~1% of the atmosphere has the property of being translucent to LWIR. The 99% O2 and N2 lets it through whatever.
2.8% of the GHG CONTENT was CO2 before industrialisation. NOW it's 4%. The extra 1.2% is anthro.
It's like saying 0.04% of a water solution and cyanide wont to anything as it's 99.96% water.
Not to be facetious BTW.

This rise (very temp) was entirely due to advection. Heat transport. Nothing to do with local GHG effect.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 03, 2016
The extra 1.2% is anthro.

What complete and utter bullshit!
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016
It's "good" to see runrig is now more comfortable with the blatant lies.
Atlantic deep ocean, pacific deep ocean, low solar, increased aerosols .... are all contributing to a natural CLIMATE HIATUS (in the atmosphere).

http://phys.org/n...ean.html
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2016

Sorry if I treated you as a "classic" denier ... I'm afraid I confused Julianpenrod's "CO2 and "darkness"" post as yours.

It is a common "denier" meme that because CO2 is such a tiny atmospheric constituent it cannot possibly be doing what it is doing.
Only ~1% of the atmosphere has the property of being translucent to LWIR. The 99% O2 and N2 lets it through whatever.
2.8% of the GHG CONTENT was CO2 before industrialisation. NOW it's 4%. The extra 1.2% is anthro.
It's like saying 0.04% of a water solution and cyanide wont to anything as it's 99.96% water.
Not to be facetious BTW.

This rise (very temp) was entirely due to advection. Heat transport. Nothing to do with local GHG effect.

OK that clarifies it. Sorry that I treated you as a nut, too.
I would indeed not take the cyanide solution.
I agree with the advection statement.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 03, 2016
antigoracle claims
The extra 1.2% is anthro
What complete and utter bullshit!
Not "bullshit" by *any* means !
You either are being intentionally obtuse or you forget the many retorts which you were involved with which show, from radionucleotide evidence, much of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is from fossil fuel sources however, if in your ordinary inarticulate way you instead dispute the delta %, then show your calculation - observe please runrig made specific mention of GHG effect, be genuine for a change and refer the proper context:-
"2.8% of the GHG CONTENT was CO2 before industrialisation. NOW it's 4%. The extra 1.2% is anthro"

What is your calculation then please if not ~1.2% extra ?
Eddy Courant
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
Oh this is so scary! I played golf today. In January. We're all gonna die! HNY Everyone!
antigoracle
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
"2.8% of the GHG CONTENT was CO2 before industrialisation. NOW it's 4%. The extra 1.2% is anthro"

What is your calculation then please if not ~1.2% extra ?

Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers. Mutterin' Mike is ecstatic that he can't do subtraction. Mutterin Mike, the difference is not approximate, but exactly 1.2. Tell us Mutterin Mike, did all other sources of CO2 emission cease with industrialization?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
Oh this is so scary! I played golf today. In January. We're all gonna die! HNY Everyone!

Warm winters are bad. They increase the chance of harmful new virus or bacteria strains developing, and are bad for crops, among other things. Instead of being smugly ignorant, why not actually read up on it?

http://www.livesc...her.html
http://www.oregon...age.html

I don't like periodic freezing temperatures much, either, but, unfortunately, we need them, in order for nature to remain in equilibrium.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
[This news story is so "last week"...:-)
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2016
I am in command of all physics needed except the meto part.
The me too part is the only part of physics you are in command of.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016
antigoracle with his usual redneck rage
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers
What are you on ? animals show similar empathy to humans, taking a single link out of context betrays your IQ !

antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike is ecstatic that he can't do subtraction. Mutterin Mike, the difference is not approximate, but exactly 1.2
You fail to think the 4% is derived from is subject to change so its approximate, as such the 1.2% must be treated in same way

Inference, deduction & logic is clearly not your strong point incl patience :-(

ie. Instrumentation that gives us the figures of GHG's at any particular time & each device is subject to error bars, it is thus proper to ascribe it as approximation, its high school stuff, why don't you know that ?

antigoracle asks
Tell us Mutterin Mike, did all other sources of CO2 emission cease with industrialization?
Obviously very unlikely

Learn Physics !
my2cts
3 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
I am in command of all physics needed except the meto part.
The me too part is the only part of physics you are in command of.

So you found a typo.
You could find a job as a blog corrector
then you wouldn't have to push pseudoscience anymore to be interesting.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2016
The fact that CO2 represents x proportion of the atmosphere means absolutely nothing.

I don't follow you. "x" determines the absorptivity of the earth's atmosphere for LWIR. How can that "mean absolutely nothing"?
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
I can't believe I'm trying again. But here I go.

"Global warming can't be real because CO2 is only x percent of the atmosphere and therefore can't have any effect" is a completely meaningless statement because the proportional constituent parts of the atmosphere are less important than their impact.

So unless you think a glass with cyanide in it won't kill you because the cyanide is *only* x percent of the water and therefore "can't have any effect" then you can see this argument is completely meaningless.

What matters is not the proportional representation of something in a system *in and of itself* but the impact of that thing on the system studied,

I honestly don't know how many ways to make this point. If you don't get it now, I give up.
antigoracle
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016

antigoracle asks
Tell us Mutterin Mike, did all other sources of CO2 emission cease with industrialization?
Obviously very unlikely

Learn Physics !

Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, who cannot do subtraction, blabbers. So, Mutterin' Mike, if there are other sources of CO2, how could all of the additional CO2 be from humans?
Grow a brain !
my2cts
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016

antigoracle asks
Tell us Mutterin Mike, did all other sources of CO2 emission cease with industrialization?
Obviously very unlikely

Learn Physics !

Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, who cannot do subtraction, blabbers.

A well known logical fallacy is the "argumentum ad hominem". Because Mike is supposed be be enthusiastic about Bonobo's, he must be wrong on CO2, is what antigoracle tries to make us swallow.

So, Mutterin' Mike, if there are other sources of CO2, how could all of the additional CO2 be from humans?

This is another logical fallacy. For why should the mere existence of other CO2 sources exclude that possibility? Especially since the other sources do not, and human activities do correlate to the time dependence of the atmospheric CO2 content.
Grow a brain !

This war cry is without content and intended to impress. Elementary primate behavior.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (19) Jan 04, 2016
antigoracle yet again showing himself up as a redneck sniper
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, who cannot do subtraction, blabbers
Prove it ?
Wikipedia useful source as intro for many as starting point, their references more useful.
Charlatan, how so ?
Apes & Monkeys evidently show empathy, refresh yourself why I posted it elsewhere.
Source of data is an approximation & subject to change, why do you fail to see that ?

antigoracle asked with ambit claim
So, Mutterin' Mike, if there are other sources of CO2, how could all of the additional CO2 be from humans?
Never said 'all' - prove it please ?

antigoracle says
Grow a brain !
Evidence shows definitively you Fail at basic math, physics & comprehension of anything approaching combinatorial complexity.

Is that the best you can do & all the time cowardly insulting behind anonymity, so sad :-(

:P
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
Strong be the stupid, in this one Padawan.
The fact that Mutterin Mike can't do subtraction would not make his conclusion on CO2 suspect?
human activities do correlate to the time dependence of the atmospheric CO2 content.

What is that correlation?
antigoracle
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
Mutterin Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiasts, brays again.
2.8% of the GHG CONTENT was CO2 before industrialisation. NOW it's 4%. The extra 1.2% is anthro

Mutterin Mike, I know you can't do subtraction, but if that 1.2% does not mean ALL the additional CO2, then what does it?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
Anti G,
Bonobos are APES, not monkeys...
and -
"I, am an ape man..."
Thank you, Ray Davies and the Kinks
(and - "Lola" STILL rocks!)
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
@Whydening Gyre, indeed correct re Bonobo's
While ago I posted wikipedia link but, slipped writing monkeys yet it clearly showed Apes, antigoracle failed to notice, another pointed it out, I apologised np

antigoracle immensely immature just *has* to dig much as he can to provoke & find any minor flaw & even copies Uncle Ira's stalking claims
a. Ebay nick closed for theft
b. I stole from buyers
c. I failed in debate with antialias_physorg & Torb Larsen etc
d. I wear a pointy hat

Truth/details
a. no, Purple_Engine never closed
b. Ill for 18mnths, refunds offered but, crims make claims
c. Didnt debate
d. Old pic a baseball cap

Unfortunately, Uncle Ira is like antigoracle & few others, worse Uncle Ira defames.
Fact is both can't tell evidence from claim & paste links they didn't read !
Psycho antigoracle insults then asks me questions - lol !
Not worth the trouble unless they become genuine, is it likely ?

Can antigoracle be polite & will Uncle Ira ever apologise ?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Can antigoracle be polite & will Uncle Ira ever apologise ?


For somebody that wants to be the superior mental giant of the physorg you sure are slow on the uptake of life experiences. But your kind always think you are just to smart to look foolish.

Okayeei Skiippy. I apologize me.

I AM TRULY SORRY THE ONLY THING I CAN FIND ON THE INTERWEB ABOUT YOU IS,,,

http://www.calais...t=267448
,,,,,,, WHERE THEY SPEND FOUR WHOLE PAGES TALKING ABOUT YOU TAKING THEIR MONEY AND THEN FORGETTING THEM

AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THE GOOGLE-SKIPPY DID NOT HAVE ALL THE INTERWEB PLACES THAT SAID WHAT A WONDERFUL AND REALLY GENIUS SKIPPY THAT YOU ARE.

I APOLOGIZE THAT THE ONLY INTERWEB PLACES THAT ARE SAYING THE WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU ARE THE ONES YOU WROTE YOUR SELF.

Now leave me out your postums because I do not have time to goof around with ANOTHER couyon who thinks too much of his self.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 05, 2016
How do we get rid of goobers like Ira and otto who do nothing but make silly and abusive comments regarding others?

Ira made fun of where Mike lived, until he posted where he lives, and I found it. Mike is Middle-class, while Ira is squatting among White Trash.

Yeah, I apologize for stooping to his level, but we have to stop these gossips and trolls.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
Uncle Ira confirms stalking me whilst sarcastically disingenuous
I AM TRULY SORRY THE ONLY THING I CAN FIND ON THE INTERWEB ABOUT YOU IS,,,
http://www.calais...t=267448
,,,,,,, WHERE THEY SPEND FOUR WHOLE PAGES TALKING ABOUT YOU TAKING THEIR MONEY AND THEN FORGETTING THEM
Ugh, heard "like seeks & finds like" ?

Dumb claims of immature post-teen males feeding off each others prejudice when I was ill for 18 months FFS is that the Very Best you can do, ugh :-(

Fell again, confirming stalking, confirming inability to think/check, utter imbecile, ugh

ie
You didnt even *Think* to check re site administrators who'll *confirm* I publicly offered, affirmed full complete REFUND when I recovered, you didnt *think* immature mob are NOT credible at all, ugh ?

Uncle Ira didn't finish stalking the page on same forum link re Refunds yet, Uncle Ira implied he's an Investigator, ugh, learn & apologize Properly, Ok ?
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
Moron-Mike thinks he is the "professor" and genius fails again to notice that he is stamping and whining because somebody don't have the respect to see him like he wants to be seen.

Mike-The-Moron once more shows that he just one more couyon here who thinks the only purpose of the physorg is to provide the place for him to present to the world what a wonderfully smart genius he is and how good he is at doing battle with the little peoples.

Mike-The-Mental thinks the world really cares about anything he has to say here or anywhere else.

Mike-Moron fails again when he thinks that this is his stage and show and should be immune from having it shown that is really goofy and foolish.

But the thing that Mike-Who-Mumbles-To-Him-Self fails at the most is thinking that these comment places are anything more than the place where fools argue with fools. (Yeah, silly p'tit boug, I put my self in that group. We are just fooling around with each other and having big fun.)
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Ira threatened me with his wrath if I continued to make comments regarding my experiences. So I gave him my name and address and he could look up my phone number like Mike did, and call me.

I sent him proof of my experiences, but he could not handle it. He looked me up and found out I am real, unlike he and otto, who HIDE behind pseudonyms to dodge the consequences of their mouthing off.

What are you going to do to me, Ira? Call me a "couyon"?

Mike is real. You are a cowardly sniper hiding behind phony names.
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
A liar, a fraud and a thief walks into a bar.
Everyone goes - Hey Mutterin' Mike, where's my money?
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
" We are just fooling around with each other and having big fun"
-----------------------------------

Please take your silly games back to high school, where they will be appreciated. This is a science site, and many here have relevant education and experience, even if you and otto do not.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
What are you going to do to me, Ira? Call me a "couyon"?


You do a pretty good job of that your self. But yeah, actually you are that.

Mike is real.


Yeah, it shows in the way he talks to everybody here. But if I were him I would use a fake name because he looks like a little kid playing king of the hill.

You are a cowardly sniper hiding behind phony names.


I am using my real name. Ira. I even told you where I live, Port Fourchon, Louisiana. You can go there and ask anybody if they know some couyon named Ira-With-The-Skippy and anybody who have lived there more than ten years will smile and say "Ohyeei, yeah I know him too". And you then can ask about all the things I am afraid of, that will be a short conversation on their part.

What it is you think I got to be afraid of anyway?
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
How do we get rid of goobers like Ira and otto who do nothing but make silly and abusive comments regarding others?


What about your comments glam-Skippy? Should there be different rules because you are the "GLAM-SKIPPY-THE-WONDERFUL"? Cher it don't work that way. You do not get special rules because want to fling stones and your glass house's force shield is not working. Have you read any of Mike-Moron's comments to anybody? Should he get a special pass just because it interferes with his pretending to be the official physorg professor?

Ira made fun of where Mike lived, until he posted where he lives, and I found it.


You lie AGAIN Cher. I never did. But considering how charming and dignified he is with dozens of peoples here somebody probably did.

Mike is Middle-class, while Ira is squatting among White Trash.


Cher, you forget one thing. I have seen YOUR house. You have not seen mine (which at 3700 sq ft would make two of yours.)

gkam
1 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
This thread concerns the heatwave at the North Pole. Please take your personal comments elsewhere. We do not care who you are, if it has nothing to do with the issue here.

My comments were based on education and experience, but I keep having to stray from the topic to defend myself from trolls.

Please, Ira, go somewhere else if all you want to do is make silly remarks.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
We do not care who you are,


Grab that mule's halter and make up your mind. You are the one who keeps asking who I am and what I am and what I did and what I do.

My comments were based on education and experience,


Don't say much for your education Cher, considering how may things you fling out there that get checked and found wrong.

but I keep having to stray from the topic to defend myself from trolls.


But Cher, it is you that is the troll. You came here trolling. Trolling for a platform you seek fame and gravitas. And melt down when you don't get him.

Please, Ira, go somewhere else if all you want to do is make silly remarks.


So let's see if we are on the same page Cher. You get to write hundreds of silly remarks every week, week after week and after weeks more too. And I can not write silly remarks me. Why is that Cher? Why you get the special rules?
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
What it is you think I got to be afraid of anyway?


You should be afraid of people on the internet - who write comments in response to interesting (mostly anyways) articles. They may say bad things about you - and hurt your feelings! Antigoracle called me a name a while back - and I could not sleep for a week. My therapist sure made a lot of money out of that one.

Actually it seems to me that Uncle Ira has a great sense of humor - and for the most part likes to enjoy the info on the forum. Some seem to miss the humor part. I have seen some T.V. shows on the funny French people down in Louisiana - they seem like people with a lot of heart. Let's enjoy the info - and try to ignore the real problems like antigoracle, and Willieward etc. They often disappear after a while - although anti seems to have been around for a while now. We are in interesting times - seeing the temps go up in real time now.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
I looked into where you said you lived, and it is a set of nice houses. I would not like to live there, but we are all different.

Now, let's get back to clear one thing up. I recounted some experiences I had in several fields. You did not believe them, and said so, rudely. I provided the thesis for my Master of Science, my diploma, a copy of the Air Force Flight Test Center newspaper with my name and picture on the front page. I Showed you the NASA catalog of studies, including the report I wrote. I sent you to three military web sites with my name and/or picture on them.

You were sent to look up 7X24Exchange with my name, for reviews. Did you get to check my experience with GE Boiling Water Reactor Safety Systems? Shall I send you my certificates from EPRI, or the Power Quality Manual I sold to Sandia National Labs?

Yeah, I know, it is unusual to have those experiences, but "there you have it, Judge Poop". I turned out to be real. Who'd a thunk?

Not you.

Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
@ green-Skippy. Thank you for that Cher. You are right, I don't have any meanness or harm in my heart for any man. I don't come here to change the world or make peoples think I am the answer man. This ain't the place for that. There are better places for that.

@ glam-Skippy. Cher, one thing you keep over looking you. I was here doing what I do BEFORE you showed up. You could see what I am like if you bothered to pay any attention. I was writing about silly looking pointy caps way before you showed up. Ask anybody. But I was just Skippy-Skipping over all your silly slogans and remarks. YOU decided you would put me in my place first. YOU cast the first stone. It's on you Cher. I even told you it would make howl and whine if you kept on doing what you were doing with. You did not believe, but you were wrong, and I was right.

I've got to P.S. you because I am running short of letters on this one.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
" I have seen some T.V. shows on the funny French people down in Louisiana - they seem like people with a lot of heart."
--------------------------------

Well, that's real proof.

That is not the issue. This is a science site. Ira uses it for his games. Perhaps you will get his attack of "humor" next, but it does not matter, this is not the place for that kind of trolling.

He assailed my word and reputation, based only on his hunches and attitude. I proved him wrong, so he threatened me with his silly wrath.

Let's get back to science and end the silly games.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
P.S. for you glam-Skippy.

So you just knew your lame silly stuffs were smarter than anything some Skippy who talks funny like me and it back fire on you. No shame in that by the way, you would be surprised how much that happens to the Cajun.

You claimed you were seven or six different kind of professional engineers. But you never send no proof of THAT. You said you have the Master Diploma in Environmental Management . You never send on proof of that, non. It has nothing in it about Environment or Management. It was not even from the Environment Science dept.

I give out silly looking pointy caps to a lot peoples BEFORE you show up. If you had been paying attention you would not have to pretend you were being treated bad when you were foolish enough to post up you interweb page with you wearing the silly looking pointy cap (with the stars and moons on him.) What did you think that would get from somebody who fools around as much as I do?

I need another P.S. to finish.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Don't bother. You have nothing to say about heatwaves in the Arctic.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
Another P.S. for you glam-Skippy.

But you are your own worst enemy. You take your self too much serious. You care too much about what a bunch of couyons on the interweb think. (Yeah, I am in that group because that is what happens on the physorg comment places, couyons goofing around with a bunch more couyons.)

I ain't going to change my ways.It's what I do. I do it here, I do it at work and I do it around town when I am not at work. The only peoples who have trouble with it are peoples here on the interweb. And not so many of them, mostly the ones who got a chip on their shoulder and light mental conditions.

My papa was a really smart coonass and he taught me good when he taught me "Ain't nobody in this world going to takes you as serious as you take your self Ira, and if you think they are you going to have a really unhappy life."

I really suspect that interferes with your validating your worth to the world, but Cher, this is a really bad place for doing that.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Hi Forum. The new year's shaping up as 'critical' for political, scientific, social, environmental issues. It's a pity some humans still prefer to selfishly bicker destructively instead of generously co-operating constructively for their own/common good. It seems humanity will never be free of certain minimum of egotistical ignorant malignant actors who think it 'profitable/fun' to sabotage constructive scientific discourse for their own 'games' or 'interests/politics'. Some of these are still at it here. Antigoracle/Uncle Ira for instance; two 'perfectly' stupid, nasty, insensible drags on humanity/science if ever there were; with their continuing negative/disruptive trolling, insulting irrespective of science facts/human issues posted by others. Any innate intellect/integrity they had is betrayed/demeaned by 'denial', 'greed' and 'malicious intent'. Bot-voting/posting nitwits are the worse trolls; they think it 'fun' to 'bot-crap' all over a science discussion forum. Q.E.D.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are too Cher? Yeah, I am fine, thanks for asking. Sorry it took me a couple hours to get back to you, we had the REALLY BIG PROBLEM with the tow so I was busy for a while me. We almost made the news, and not in the good way non.

I am back now getting ready for the big Earthling Convention where you are going to show us your toes that you been working on. I could not wait until the end of 2015 to end so we could have him when you promised. The climatic paper you wrote for that conference too. How that that work out? Everybody was probably stunned by how you had the answers that nobody could deny. Just like you told Oz-Skippy and Captain-Skippy and me too.

I see by your comment up there that you are still finding life a tedious chore and making you grumpy all the time. Suck him up Cher, it could always be worse. At least the troll/mod/mafia/bot/gangs give you free rein here on the physorg, you should at least feel thankful for that
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

No-one hurt I hope?

Re my work in many areas, most nearing finalization as foreshadowed; but more slowly than I would have liked, due to life, family, health, funds issues. The bulk of it is done and only final experiments/patent-searching etc left before final compilation/publication complete.

[Humor]
Re your Application to become an "Honorary Earthling": I regret to inform that you comprehensively FAILED the test...again. In the interests of fair play it was decided to check if the test itself was at fault, since your test results were NEGATIVE (unprecedented). A suitable CONTROL SUBJECT to 'sit' the same test was needed. Your DOG was deemed the 'closest intellectual peer' we could find to your "Uncle Ira" persona. Want to know something 'funny'? Your DOG scored HIGHER than YOU did for intelligence, objectivity, good character and humanity! Not enough to pass; but at least it was NON-NEGATIVE score! So the test was OK.
[/Humor]

Cheers all. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2016
Wow.
Looks like RC is finally gettin' a sense of humour...
antigoracle
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2016
Poor reality, it's a new year and he's still locked in that basement. Hey reality, try stepping out into reality, where no one else can find that globull warming you're so afraid of and maybe you'll find a friend or even a dog that can teach you to read.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

No-one hurt I hope?


@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy this morning, thanks for asking.

Non, everybody is just fine and dandy like me too, the boat too and the tow too. We had some pretty bad flooding lately and some 500 gallon propane tanks somehow got loose from where they supposed to be. No idea where they come from. They was floating and bobbing in the river and four of them got tangled in the tow.

Hooyeei, the deckhands and the Skipper-Skippy need to launder some of their underpants, eh? If they were half full or more or less we could have make the really big kaboom with them banging around while trying to get stopped. We got them off the tow and the Coast Guard took them to find out who they used to belonged to and how they got in the river.

It cost us a few hours but non the big deal now.

I will P.S. you about the Earthling Club and my dog because I need more letters about that.

Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2016
Re your Application to become an "Honorary Earthling": I regret to inform that you comprehensively FAILED the test...again.


I supposed that means I will have to be the Dishonorable Earthling, eh? Well okayeei, I am used to that me.

In the interests of fair play it was decided to check if the test itself was at fault, since your test results were NEGATIVE (unprecedented). A suitable CONTROL SUBJECT to 'sit' the same test was needed.


Thanks anyhoo, I appreciate you take the time from your toes to do all that for me.

Your DOG was deemed the 'closest intellectual peer' we could find to your "Uncle Ira" persona. Want to know something 'funny'? Your DOG scored HIGHER than YOU did for intelligence, objectivity, good character and humanity! Not enough to pass; but at least it was NON-NEGATIVE score!


Between you and me, that don't surprise me, non Cher. Was it my Walker Hound? Or Mrs-Ira-Skippette's Basset Hound? They both are pretty smart.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2016
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 06, 2016
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)


I suppose you can't see the irony that YOU are the Skippy who postumed that one. You really love to show off your mental conditions every chance you get, eh?
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2016
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)

And the smallest mind; you, discusses himself.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
FYI: Anyone familiar with HISTORY of how many formal/expert disciplines came to BE, knows it was because of PIONEERS; INFORMAL PRACTITIONERS active in said fields BEFORE said fields became FORMALIZED 'expert disciplines' and TEACHING/PROMULGATION/CERTIFICATION of same was eventually established/administered by govt/professional bodies to set/maintain Safety/Proficiency standards. Ok? It was people like gkam who actually DID IT ALL, usually as SPECIFIC-PROJECT SUPPORT/CONSULTANTS or EXPERIENCED PRACTITIONERS, that CREATED/INITIATED the SKILL SETS/PROCEDURES which became those FORMAL STANDARDS which apply today. So, please stop disrespecting pioneers in fields that became better-informed/practised precisely BECAUSE such multi-talented/disciplinary PRACTITIONERS went from project to project when relevant fields/practices/knowledge/skill sets were in their INFANCY. Hence why many EARLY experts HAD 'no official qualifications' and 'many jobs'. Ok? So pls cool it, guys. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2016
RC is right. Look at the adolescents in this science site, turning it into a personal gossip tract, a middle-school bulletin board.

Can we get back to science, and have you folk with ego problems go back to twitter or whatever? Yeah, we know you have been here for years playing your silly games, but it is time you grew up.

The thread regards the increased Arctic temperatures.
ncdave4life
3 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2016
On another article (w/ now-closed comments) runrig wrote:
I do wonder....
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Don't see much sign of the US cooling there


It depends on the version, @runrig. The data's been massively revised since 1999.

It's not just extended 17 years, the OLD data was revised, to dramatically increase the apparent warming.

NASA apparently doesn't version-control their data files, but I archived all I could find, here:
http://www.sealev...SS_FigD/

Look at the earliest version of the graph, you can see what he's talking about:
http://sealevel.i...7pct.jpg

Notice how much COOLER 1998 (4th-warmest year) was, compared to 1934 (warmest year).

Now, look at the latest version:
http://data.giss....ig.D.gif

In that graph, 1998 is WARMER than 1934!

Here's a "blink comparator" (from Tony Heller?):
http://sealevel.i...2015.gif
ncdave4life
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2016
@gkam wrote:

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
Eleanor Roosevelt


That's a nice aphorism, but it predates Eleanor Roosevelt.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2016
Can ncdave4life possibly be Quantitative with his claim
.... The data's been massively revised since 1999
Any evidence for it being "massively" & a definition of that word please & over what period ie with or without discontinuities, smoothly or just arbitrary years, an instrumentation review process ?

ncdave4life also claims
It's not just extended 17 years, the OLD data was revised, to dramatically increase the apparent warming
Please do same as above for "dramatically" ?

ncdave4life claims
NASA apparently doesn't version-control their data files
Do you have clear evidence for this, I've personal experience of associate who moved to US & worked on their Scientific Technical Aerospace Reporting (STAR) & Very stringent on version control at many levels, in fact *anything* that affected progress must be time coded with *reason* for any change with references & with reviews according to defined schedules Eg HACCP etc ?

US next large cold regions

cont
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2016
"That's a nice aphorism, but it predates Eleanor Roosevelt."
-----------------------------------

Phrases are often attributed to the most famous who use them. Does it make it less valid?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2016
This thread concerns the heatwave at the North Pole. Please take your personal comments elsewhere. We do not care who you are, if it has nothing to do with the issue here...
My comments were based on education and experience...

Cant we get back to talking about science?
Well obviously for that to happen you would have to leave because you cant help but make up outrageous lies about your education and experience.

Which, after all, people DO need to address.
ncdave4life
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2016
Mike_Massen asked,
"Can ncdave4life possibly be Quantitative... Any evidence for it being "massively" & a definition of that word please..."


Mike, I gave you links to the data and graphs, and even a "blink comparator" comparing 1999 to 2015. How is it possible to be more "quantitative" than that?

Mike also asked,
"Do you have clear evidence for this [NASA apparently doesn't version-control their data files]...?"


Of course, and if you'd bothered to follow the links you'd have seen it. In particular, see the links at the bottom of this page:
http://www.sealev...SS_FigD/

I ended up having to digitize a graph from a 1999 Hansen paper, to reconstruct the earliest version I have of that Fig.D data file, because the original data is apparently lost.

If you think the data was actually properly version-controlled, then I would be grateful if you would find & send me the old versions of the data files! (Note that the CSRRT was unable to do so.)
ncdave4life
4 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2016
Mike, while you're at it, you can try to find NASA's lost sea ice measurements from Nimbus 5, Nimbus 6, and Seasat 1.

Nimbus 5 was the first satellite with a scanning microwave radiometer which could view ice through clouds. It collected data from December 11, 1972 through May 16, 1977 -- and, as far as I can determine, all that data has apparently been lost by NASA.
ncdave4life
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2016
@gkam wrote,
Phrases are often attributed to the most famous who use them. Does it make it less valid?


Conventionally, quotes are attributed to whoever originally said them, not to the most famous person who recycled them. But I agree that it's a good one.
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2016
Well that one was, apparently.

You seem to have a great amount of material. Is it your field?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2016
ncdave said:
Mike, while you're at it, you can try to find NASA's lost sea ice measurements from Nimbus 5, Nimbus 6, and Seasat 1.

Nimbus 5 was the first satellite with a scanning microwave radiometer which could view ice through clouds. It collected data from December 11, 1972 through May 16, 1977 -- and, as far as I can determine, all that data has apparently been lost by NASA.


Are these the data you are looking for?

http://disc.sci.g..._catalog

http://nssdc.gsfc...mbus%205

https://catalog.d...ons-v001

What data are you missing?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2016
ncdave4life says
..How is it possible to be more "quantitative" than that?
My comment in context re your qualitative "dramatic" & "massively" !
NB measurement methodology important, posts by thefurlong here
http://phys.org/n...ear.html

ncdave4life says
.. if you'd bothered to follow the links
Did, not Nasa

ncdave4life says
I ended up having to digitize a graph from a 1999 Hansen...
Why ?
What did Nasa first respond with ?

ncdave4life asked
If you think the data was actually properly version-controlled..
Version control isnt static procedure, subject to (asymptotic) improvement, instead of accelerating emotional investment please appreciate Provenance with detached & polite approach & especially when dealing with large organisations, in that respect best converge on specific department (if possible individual) most responsible & cultivate an ally

Thanks to thefurlong & Therodynamics' post here, both ahead of me :-)
ncdave4life
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2016
Thank you, @thermodynamics, for those links, and thank you for prompting me to look for this data again! It's been several years since I went looking for that data. It seems that things have improved.

This NASA page
http://nssdc.gsfc...AD-00218

says "This [Nimbus 5 sea ice] data set is available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, (NSIDC)"

So, going to the NCIDC site, we find the Nimbus Data Rescue Project, here
https://nsidc.org...ets.html

The Nimbus Data Rescue Project has apparently recovered some previously lost data from Nimbus 1, 2 & 3, some of it very recently. That's great news!

For Nimbus 5, they say here
https://nsidc.org...IDC-0009

that most of the sea-ice concentration data (all but the last 4.5 months) is available for download, here
ftp://sidads.colo..._seaice/

with documentation here
http://nsidc.org/....gd.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.