Well, just when Gore promised you the hottest year of record, in comes the Arctic that seems to have no summer. Greenland is rapidly massing with ice. What the heck, false alarm again by Gore and his followers. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/2017-the-year-without-an-arctic-summer/
Wildfires In Greenland Just Became A Very Real Thing Eric Mack - AUG 10, 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2017/08/10/greenland-wildfire-ice-sheet-climate/#5428b28f64a5 Landsat 8 captured this picture of a wildfire near Greenland's second largest village. Over three quarters of Greenland is covered by a massive sheet of ice up to 2 miles thick and larger than any other hunk of frozen stuff outside of Antarctica. Yet for the past two weeks, an unusual amount of wildfires have been springing up in the normally damp bogs of peat and other vegetation along the western edge of the ice sheet. While no one has been able to locate Greenland's historical wildfire records, if such things exist, satellite data from recent years show a dramatic increase in fire activity starting in 2015, and this year's wildfire season has already more than doubled what was observed two years ago: To wrap up: wildfires have occurred in the past over Greenland but 2017 is exceptional in number of active fire detections by MODIS pic.twitter.com/2HGaVieTEe It's not clear how the wildfires started, but portions of Greenland have received less moisture than usual this year, according to John Cappelen, a climatologist in Denmark. While it's not really possible to draw a straight line between the fires and climate change, the unusual sight of blazes in a land of ice is just the latest in a rapid succession of weather extremes and other oddities seen in the Arctic. "In Greenland, everything got warmer at the same time: the air, the ocean surface, the depths of the ocean,” said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at University of Washington. According to a report by Eric Holthaus in Grist, it's possible that warming has allowed for the growth of new, woody shrubs along the edge of Greenland that fuel fires started perhaps by the very rare lightning strike or by local hunters and fishermen and encouraged by drought conditions. Holthaus concludes with the disturbing possibility that soot and ash from the wildfires could be blown onto the ice sheet, darkening its surface, speeding up the melting process and creating a scary new feedback loop. But in the short term, the wildfires are leading local police in Greenland to issue some very unusual warnings of their own. The fire was imaged by a multispectral camera on the Copernicus Sentinel-2A satellite on August 8. "Due to large wildfires in Middle Greenland, Greenlandic Police discourages all traffic – including hiking and hunting – in two areas around Nassuttooq and Amitsorsuaq," reads a post from law enforcement on Facebook. "The fire releases smoke up to 2 kilometers height. The smoke spreads several hundred kilometers in all directions... The smoke can result in people losing orientation in the areas." While there is a chance of rain in the forecast for the area, police say the fires are expected to burn on, at least for a few more days. After the last ember is extinguished, it still will remain to be seen if summer blazes become a recurring new feature in a land of increasing fire and receding ice.+
Extreme heat warnings issued in Europe as temperatures pass 40C Authorities in 11 countries warn residents and tourists to take precautions amid region’s most intense heatwave – nicknamed Lucifer – since 2003 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-warnings-issued-europe-temperatures-pass-40c
These things will become the norm and eventually seem quaint going forward. Most of us will fortunately not be here to see the impending future result. Yeah....go ahead with the Chicken Little stuff and I'll say dont cry wolf too often,
Science says 2016 was the hottest year in recorded history. And, so far 2017 is headed for being the second hottest year in recorded history. The article you cite contains NO references concerning what agency did the research, nor what THEIR analysis might reveal. For example, who drew those diagrams, and what do actual scientists say about what they show (or whether they are even real)? Also, Greenland is one location on earth, only one contributor to an actual measure of earth's temperature. This is just another in a long line of really stupid screeds being posted in opposition to Gore, but with nothing behind the nonsense it presents.
Meanwhile July 2017 clocked in as the warmest ever over the entire globe. Also, the picture on the left is the ice budget for a single day (namely 8/4/2017) which happens to show net melting...not net freezing. And it's only a single day and not the whole summer. Based on past experience it's probably safe to assume that I'm the only one on here who bothered to track those images to the original research. The same source claims Greenland is losing 200Gt/year of ice. And what does magnetic north have to do with any of this? What does it even mean to "recalibrate GPS signals" so that planes can land? Did the runway itself move on its own? I think what's happened here is you have a blogger that didn't understand what they were looking at and just decided that Greenland has more ice than ever before when nothing of sort was claimed in the research. In fact, the research was the exact opposite. Greenland is losing ice mass over the long run.
Your reference states: "While Europe’s record high is 48C, set in Athens in 1977" Yet none of the predicted temps come anywhere near this record. Was 1977 hotter than 2017?
Science doesn't actually know if 2016 was the hottest year on record. The difference between 2016 and other years is less than the margin of error in the measuring devices! NASA had to admit in 2014 that, when they announced *it* was the hottest year ever, that there was only a 38% chance of that actually being true because the difference was less than the margin of error of the measuring devicies. And 2017 is *NOT* headed for being the second hottest year in recorded history. In fact the University of Alabama-Huntsville shows the following for the satellite based data. Read the data and weep!
UAH Satellite based temps of the global lower atmosphere version 6! Obviously, you're smarter and more knowledgeable than NASA, NOAA, and the rest. At least you're pointing at data!
Then science is retarded, because the temp data from > 95% of recorded history is so sparse as to be worthless.
All you did was to find a graph you liked and then you published that! https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa-nasa_global_analysis-2016.pdf Again your author added no info concerning surface temps (land or sea, by any of the measurement techniques) in the graph you cited.
You didn't provide me *anything* concerning the margin of error in the NASA data. NASA had to be *forced* to admit that there *is* a margin of error back in 2014. They are *still* trying to avoid having to admit it again. When you find something from NASA about the confidence level of the data they are posting then come back and let me know. Till then I'll remain skeptical of their claims!
You cannot in good faith include sea temps because the sample size of actual measurements is so small and really cover a few years of readings other than random surface measurements. The rest of teh data is created by what scientists think they would be in other places based on their models.
You are the one pretending to be an expert who can suggest that one particular data set showing one particular region of our ATMOSPHERE is the deciding factor in earth's SURFACE temperature direction.
Of course oceanographers, those who make it their life's work as scientists studying oceans, disagree with you. I'm not sure what your problem with "models" is. ALL serious study involving more than trivial amounts of data uses modeling. It's not some sort of option.
Too early to give the alarmists, the bought and paid for climatologists a serious ear. As with other fields of science too many of these climatologists are ignorant of their ignorance, and when you throw in human nature, and all of these people are human, you get the arrogance of the new priestly class. The fact of the matter is this. Climatologists lack the knowledge to make the alarmists claims that they have made. Hell, these guys know so little of what drove past climate change, know so little about its causes, with their knowledge being so vastly limited, that only an ignorant fool would listen to them, at least for now. Humanity has been so fortunate to have lived in the last 10,000 years, which provided a stable climate that allowed for an explosion in population due to farm land, uncovered of the ice age ice, being exposed along with suitable temps to allow an expansion in agriculture. Fact is, our most astute climatologists are so limited in knowledge as to be in no position to make the claims that they are making. The evidence of their ignorance of their own ignorance reveals itself in the climate models which have been completely useless, in predictions and in science, honest science, this of course means their theory, their model, is filled with flaws, originating from a vastly incomplete understanding of climate change. Instead of reaccessing,they just change some numbers to fudge, which seems not to bother those alarmists who have been sold a bill of goods, which looks to be bad science at best. Have these men of science been able to arrive, backed by evidence, how much of the warming is co2 induced and how much is natural warming? I have heard them say, along with their followers, that the rise in temp is unprecedented, and it has to be co2 causing this, and yet the Greenland ice cores show wild, and huge fluctuations in temps, in the distant past, which happened so quickly. Yet these climatologists are clueless as to the cause. Our temps have been in the past unstable from the current view, before we even used fossil fuels, and yet these experts are clueless as to the cause. But we are to believe them today, after they were given billions to exclude all causes but co2? Perhaps since these men of science have replaced the priests, just like those priest of yore, they have been corrupted by the money and the big bucks given to them to arrive at the conclusion the IPCC had already decided? One thing I have learned in my long life. Human beings are so easily corrupted by money, and men in science are no exception. Climatologists remind me more of the priests of old who were the authority on what our reality is. And their theories, exhibited as models remind me of the preachers who told their followers that the end is nigh, with those people believing it so deeply that they did not plant their crops in a time when this could mean starvation, to gather on a hill to await the end, which of course never came.
I'm not the one pretending to be an expert, *you* are. And yet you can't even seem to read a graph. The title of the graph says "GLOBAL LOWER ATMOSPHERE". The lower atmosphere is considered to be an adequate substitute for the land/sea record based on the Laws of Thermodynamics. Entropy increases. As the earth warms it heats the lower atmosphere. As the earth cools the lower atmosphere cools. All you are doing is repeating AGW religious dogma. My guess is that you don't even understand that what is being shows is the differential of the mean from a baseline. The mean can go up by having more warm days. It doesn't have to be driven up by higher temperatures!
Modeling *has* to match reality or it is worthless. The models are deviating further and further from reality every year. A prime example is the models predicting 2017 to be warmer than 2016 when the reality is far different. Those scientists you speak of started out in 1998 telling us to wait five years and their models would be shown to be correct. Then it was ten years. Then it was twenty years. Now that we are approaching twenty years with no global warming we are being told that the models will turn out to be correct in another fifty years. Now we are finding out that there are "global warming holes" in the eastern US, the southeast US, the central US and even in Siberia. Go google that term "global warming hole". When you have huge areas of "global warming holes" then just how "global" is the warming?
Yes, understanding of climate change is reaching toward local affects. NASA, NOAA and others have been showing local affects including in predictions for years. Climate change is not the same in all regions, and understanding that regionality is important when determining earth's average surface temperature. Yes, predictive models are showing greater accuracy and convergence as behavior of oceans and atmosphere improve. Btw, every point on every chart showing earth's temperature comes from models. Modeling is the only rational approach to dealing with a problem such as earth's current temperature. Surely you do not think earth's temp is calculated by adding all the temp readings and dividing by the number of readings. And, of course there is interaction between land, seas and atmosphere at various altitudes, but that does NOT mean that any one of these is an accurate surrogate for earth's surface temperature. That is why we need readings from all in order to have anadequate understanding of climate change.
