Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Phaeton]

I first tasted beef in middle school, it had a funny mouth feel. About the same as going from chicken to duck, beef is greasy and softer.

I grew up in a family of seven. Each year we harvested two moose, some years they were large and major meat eating went on all winter, some years they were small and spring saw rationing going on.
But two moose a year, every year. Before snowmobiles, on foot and pulling a sled in our local area.

The last moose hunt I participated in was 1965, the previous year we were skunked, and the year before that was caribou, small.
So in 1965 my brother and I were flown 100 miles out of town to get our moose.
This is not any kind of subsistence at all compared to my upbringing to that point. I quit.

The current game policy is to try and keep the moose from going extinct, no thought or protections to keep them healthy and part of the circle of life.

I know this is supposed to be on global climate, but man affects more than just temperatures.

 

[St. Phatty]

I know this is supposed to be on global climate, but man affects more than just temperatures.

If you're talking about climate, you're sort of talking about everything.

It seems like animals and plants are perfectly designed - the chemistry - so that our excretions are their food, and vice versa.

Their seeds are our food. We breathe the air they don't want, the oxygen.

I don't know if I'll ever calculate the number, but I wonder how many times the water molecules in our bodies have passed from plant to animal to urine, back to plant. Over a period of a few hundred million years, maybe a few times.

So the water in our blood, some of it, was dinosaur piss, 100 million years ago. In between those water molecules were passed from plant to animal to pond to lake, to fish, to bear and then finally, to Australian Beer, which is also called, Piss.

If you showed all the chemicals involved in food and breathing, man that would be one big chart.

 

[trichrider]

Saturday, 10 August 2019
UN Report Urges People Eat Less Meat to Protect the Climate
Written by James Murphy

And then they came for my hamburgers ...


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new report that, among other things, urges humanity to eat far less meat. The report claims that a less meaty diet will free up valuable land — especially in Amazonia — to soak up more carbon from the air.
The report contends with “high confidence” that diets that are more plant and grain based will not only help mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and lessen global temperature increase — but will also be healthier for mankind. A switch away from meat-based diets will “present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.”

The report is concerned with land use and agricultural practices, which the authors claim is responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. “Agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 28% of human greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jim Skea, the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 3. “At the same time natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry.”
The report is full of information about how managing land resources in a more sustainable [there’s the UN’s favorite word again] way will be a big part of keeping the predicted rise in global temperature to 1.5C or less. And not only will the Earth remain cooler, the report contends that we can also wipe out global hunger.
“Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far reaching action across several areas is required,” said Hans-Otto Pӧrtner, the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 2.
So, we can feed everyone in the world using only the land now in use, but we need to do it fast and in exactly the way the IPCC lays out for us, huh?
Color me unconvinced.
Somehow, reports such as these always come back to livestock flatulence. The report states, again with “high confidence,” that “supply-side practices can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing crop and livestock emissions, sequestering carbon in soils and biomass, and by decreasing emissions intensity within sustainable production systems.”
The report heavily chastises first world countries like the United States about our lifestyle and diet choices. We are accused of wasting food and degrading the land. All through the report is an undercurrent of guilt-tripping rich nations about enjoying the fruits of our labor to the detriment of poorer nations.
“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” said Pӧrtner. “But it would be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries would consume less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”
So, you don’t want to tell us what to eat, but if we don’t eat how you want global warming is our fault. Also, you want government to create “incentives” in order to get us to eat the right way. Government doesn’t incentivize anything. What Pӧrtner and other climate hysterics want is for governments to tax meat consumption the same way that France tried to tax fuel. At least in that case, French citizens rose up against the onerous carbon tax and French President Emmanuel Macron was forced to back down.
Another key element of the report involves the Amazon rainforest, which they claim is being deforested at an alarming rate. Recently, Trump ally and new Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has been accused by leftists of allowing an “assault” on the rainforest by logging and agricultural interests.
From the report summary: “When land is degraded, it becomes less productive, restricting what can be grown and reducing the soil’s ability to absorb carbon. This exacerbates climate change, while climate change in turn exacerbates land degradation in many ways.”
It sounds as if much of this report is concerned with growing more vegetation, which will cause carbon dioxide to be absorbed at higher rates. If this is the case, why are climate change skeptics often dismissed as being fatuous when they suggest planting more trees to absorb CO2? Wouldn’t more trees be helpful?
With various incarnations of the word “sustainable” peppered throughout the document, this report has the UN’s Agenda 21 program written all over it. The climate change movement is not about environmentalism or saving the world from global warming. It’s all about reorganizing society into a globalist, socialist, communist utopia. Under the guise of “saving the planet,” the United Nations is looking to take our freedoms, including the right to ingest meat, away.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...s-people-eat-less-meat-to-protect-the-climate

 

[trichrider]

Russia's floating nuclear power plant alarms Alaska




The floating nuclear power plant, the ‘Akademik Lomonosov’, is towed out of the St. Petersburg shipyard where it was constructed in St.Petersburg, Russia, Saturday, April 28, 2018. The Akademik Lomonosov is to be loaded with nuclear fuel in Murmansk, then ...

Associated Press - Sunday, August 11, 2019


ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A Russia-designed floating nuclear power plant has begun its journey through the Arctic Ocean this month causing concerns in Alaska, a report said.
The 472-foot barge launched in St. Petersburg, Russia, and will continue along the coast to the Bering Strait separating Alaska, the Alaska Public Media reported Thursday.
The barge, named Akademik Lomonosov, is the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, Russian officials said.
Akademik Lomonosov has already journeyed to Murmansk to refuel while receiving a new Russian flag paint job and will continue to Pevek, Russia, where it will dock about 1,250 miles from Anchorage, Alaska, officials said.
There are concerns about potential radiation the barge could produce in the northwest region.
“Radiation effects. Environmental effects - we’ve been worried about for quite some time in this era of increased shipping, less sea ice,” said Austin Ahmasuk, a marine advocate for Kawarek, the Native non-profit serving the Bering Straits area.
The barge is mounted with two nuclear reactors capable of powering a city about the size of Fairbanks and will provide heat and power to the mining region, Russian officials said.
Akademik Lomonosov is expected to begin producing power in December, officials said.
Despite concerns, this new development could help increase communication between Russia and the United States.
“This would be a perfect opportunity to say, ‘Hey . we find what you are doing interesting. We would like to learn more,’ and try to make it sort of a positive avenue for information sharing,” said Rebecca Pincus, an Arctic security expert at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/11/akademik-lomonosov-russia-floating-nuclear-power-p/

 

[St. Phatty]

Just a few days ago

the Brazilian president urged people to Defecate less.

Literally.

"Every other day should be enough", he said.

Oh would like to see Trump Twitter about that.

 

[Phaeton]

The liberal press makes him sound stupid by leaving off half the story.

His people are supposed to eat every other day as well, otherwise there will be twice as much poop half as often, resulting in no change.

Feeding my cats half as much results in a whole lot less litter box cleaning, so we know this method works.

As for the Trump twitter comment...twitter is how Trump shits, therefore...

 

[Phaeton]

Saturday, 10 August 2019
UN Report Urges People Eat Less Meat to Protect the Climate
Written by James Murphy
[URL=https://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/ad9b6b96aea405c411bf779cd09eaba0_M.jpg]View Image [/URL]
And then they came for my hamburgers ...


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new report that, among other things, urges humanity to eat far less meat. The report claims that a less meaty diet will free up valuable land — especially in Amazonia — to soak up more carbon from the air.
The report contends with “high confidence” that diets that are more plant and grain based will not only help mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and lessen global temperature increase — but will also be healthier for mankind. A switch away from meat-based diets will “present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.”
View Image
The report is concerned with land use and agricultural practices, which the authors claim is responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. “Agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 28% of human greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jim Skea, the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 3. “At the same time natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry.”
The report is full of information about how managing land resources in a more sustainable [there’s the UN’s favorite word again] way will be a big part of keeping the predicted rise in global temperature to 1.5C or less. And not only will the Earth remain cooler, the report contends that we can also wipe out global hunger.
“Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far reaching action across several areas is required,” said Hans-Otto Pӧrtner, the co-chair of IPCC Working Group 2.

The report heavily chastises first world countries like the United States about our lifestyle and diet choices. We are accused of wasting food and degrading the land. All through the report is an undercurrent of guilt-tripping rich nations about enjoying the fruits of our labor to the detriment of poorer nations.
“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” said Pӧrtner. “But it would be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries would consume less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”

Another key element of the report involves the Amazon rainforest, which they claim is being deforested at an alarming rate. Recently, Trump ally and new Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has been accused by leftists of allowing an “assault” on the rainforest by logging and agricultural interests.
From the report summary: “When land is degraded, it becomes less productive, restricting what can be grown and reducing the soil’s ability to absorb carbon. This exacerbates climate change, while climate change in turn exacerbates land degradation in many ways.”

Under the guise of “saving the planet,” the United Nations is looking to take our freedoms, including the right to ingest meat, away.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...s-people-eat-less-meat-to-protect-the-climate

The report itself is just facts, calories available versus land use practices. Straightforward data.

How this gets twisted into a conspiracy against rich white people is a secret kept in the dark recesses of disturbed minds.

Three times as many vegetable calories can feed three times as many folks as a third the meat calories can.
Just a fact without an agenda. Simple enough for a child to understand.

Hate seems to be a hammer used to solve every single problem that plagues mankind.
What a miserable life it must be, fear and hate, fear and hate.
Fueled by ignorance, this will not change, the haters are most definitely taking us down with them.

 

[hayday]

This is wierd...furthest north lightning strike in recorded memory

https://www.godlikeproductions.com/...product.php?site=afg&product=PNS&issuedby=afg

 

[trichrider]

Against Censorship: The Climate Story Forbes Doesn’t Want You To Read

• Date: 09/08/19
• Doron Levin

This is the story journalist Doron Levin wrote for Forbes about the scientific research by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, two members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Forbes editor, however, doesn’t seem to like the piece and has therefore removed it from its website. We publish the censored story here for interested readers to make up their own minds about the research by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark.
​

Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.
California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.
However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.
In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided. Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”
​

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”
​

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medical science was 100% certain that stomach ulcers resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.
Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.
As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.
In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”
​

He explained:

“Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data. When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand. When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.
​

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”
​

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds. When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.
​

“All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees. A freshman physics student can see this.”
​

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC. “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often. In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned. In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”
Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.
​

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”
​

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.
In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating. The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”
​

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining. Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research — and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy — one day proves persuasive.

 

[trichrider]

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve

• Research sheds light on 500-year Chinese weather cycle and suggests a cool change could be on the way
• Findings leave no room for complacency or inaction

Stephen Chen
Published: 6:30am, 11 Aug, 2019
Updated: 6:30am, 11 Aug, 2019
11 Aug 2019


A team of Chinese researchers says a period of global cooling could be on the way, but the consequences will be serious. Photo: Xinhua


A new study has found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000BC – regardless of human activity – but the mainland scientists behind the research warn there is no room for complacency or inaction on climate change, with the prospect of a sudden global cooling also posing a danger.

The study found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. It appears to have little to do with the increase in greenhouse gases which began with the industrial revolution, according to the researchers.

Lead scientist Dr Wu Jing, from the Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the study had found no evidence of human influence on northern China’s warming winters.

“Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean,” Wu said. “We have detected no evidence of human influence. But that doesn't mean we can just relax and do nothing.”

Moon Lake, a small volcanic lake hidden in the deep forest of China’s Greater Khingan Mountain Range, where a team of scientists spent more than a decade studying the secrets hidden in its sediments. Photo: Baidu

Wu and her colleagues are concerned that, as societies grow more used to the concept of global warming, people will develop a misplaced confidence in our ability to control climate change. Nature, they warned, may trick us and might catch us totally unprepared – causing chaos, panic, famine and even wars as the global climate system is disrupted.

There are already alarming signs, according to their paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Wu and her colleagues spent more than a dozen years studying sediments under Moon Lake, a small volcanic lake hidden in the deep forests of the Greater Khingan Mountain Range in China’s Inner Mongolia autonomous region. They found that winter warming over the past 6,000 years had not been a smooth ride, with ups and downs occurring about every 500 years.

Their findings confirmed an earlier study by a separate team of Chinese scientists, published by online journal Scientific Reports in 2014, which first detected the 500-year cyclical pattern of China’s summer monsoons and linked it to solar activity.

The 2014 research, which drew on 5,000 years’ worth of data, suggested the current warm phase of the cycle could terminate over the next several decades, ushering in a 250-year cool phase, potentially leading to a partial slowdown in man-made global warming.

Wu said the latest study, with 10,000 years’ worth of new data, not only helped to draw a more complete picture of the 500-year cycle, but also revealed a previously unknown mechanism behind the phenomenon, which suggested the impact of the sun on the Earth’s climate may be greater than previously thought.

According to Wu, the variation in solar activity alone was usually not strong enough to induce the rapid changes in vegetation the research team recorded in the sediment cores of Moon Lake. Instead, the scientists found the warming impact was amplified by a massive, random interaction between surface seawater and the atmosphere in the Pacific Ocean known as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation.

As a result of the research findings, Wu said she was now more worried about cooling than warming.

“A sharp drop of temperature will benefit nobody. The biggest problem is, we know it will come, but we don’t know exactly when.”


https://www.scmp.com/news/china/sci...ists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve

 

[St. Phatty]

This is wierd...furthest north lightning strike in recorded memory

https://www.godlikeproductions.com/...product.php?site=afg&product=PNS&issuedby=afg

They wouldn't let me in. Found this article.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-08-11-unusual-lightning-detected-near-north-pole

 

[trichrider]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE



J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI



Abstract.
In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.

This is the reason why IPCC has to use avery large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.



1.Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific literature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2.

The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCCAR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1].

As a response to the comment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

 

[trichrider]

2018


2019
Plus 80N Temperatures - explanation.


The temperature graphs are made from numerical weather prediction (NWP)"analysis" data. Analyses are the model fields used to start NWP models. They represent the statistically most likely state of the atmosphere, given the information available to make the analysis. Since the data are gridded, it is straight forward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North. However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic. The 'plus 80 North mean temperature 'graphs can be used for comparing one year to an other. The process of making the analysis is called "data assimilation". In an NWP data assimilation system many, very different types of observations and other information are combined in a statistical manner. In practice the assimilation is done via adjusting a recent NWP forecast, a so-called first guess. Because the data assimilation system knows about interrelations of different model variables, assimilation of for example a pressure observation, will adjust not only the pressure, but also wind and temperature. Precisely how much weight to give different types of observations, and how far to distribute their effect in the first guess field, is deduced statistically. The analysis is the maximum likelihood estimate of the state of the atmosphere, provided the statistical information is correct.An NWP analysis is based on vastly more information than available from any single observing system. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites, radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing systems.In the plot, the red curve is based on the average 2 m temperatures north of 80degree North, from the twice daily ECWMF analyses. These are gradually becoming better and more detailed, as the NWP model system at ECMWF is improved with time. That is why the name shift with time (e.g. from T799 to T1279 in year2010. The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. ERA40 data are in fact analyses, made in the same way as above, but done as a hindcast,using a fixed version of the NWP model, and spending time on carefully validating and eventually correct or remove all observations found to be in error, before the data assimilation. These, so-called "re-analysis", data represent our best estimate of the properties of the atmosphere for the period they cover.


https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

 

[TychoMonolyth]

.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

They wouldn't let me in. Found this article.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-08-11-unusual-lightning-detected-near-north-pole

Lightning struck near the North Pole 48 times on Saturday, as rapid Arctic warming continues

Scientists are rattled after this stunning sign of climate breakdown near the North Pole: ‘This is crazy’

Meteorologists and climate scientists were startled Monday after the U.S. National Weather Service confirmed that an extremely rare occurrence of lightning had been observed at the North Pole.

Multiple lightning strikes were recorded by the NWS office in Fairbanks, Alaska between 4:00 and 6:00pm on Saturday, within 300 miles of the pole.

The NWS saw it necessary to release a public statement on the lightning event, which usually doesn’t take place at the North Pole due to icy temperatures.

“This is one of the furthest north lightning strikes in Alaska forecaster memory,” the NWS said.

xperts observed storm clouds in the region which, at lower latitudes, would have preceded thunderstorms. Lightning generally happens much further south because relatively higher temperatures and humidity levels are needed to cause the phenomenon.

The lightning at the North Pole was observed after climate experts have spent weeks recording higher-than-average temperatures in the Arctic. The warming globe is causing sea ice in the region to disappear at a higher rate than ever recorded, as Common Dreams reported last month. The melting ice in turn is contributing to a warmer Arctic.

As the Washington Post reported, the lighting denotes “that the atmosphere near the pole was unstable enough, with sufficient warm and moist air in the lower atmosphere, to give rise to thunderstorms.”

“The probability of this kind of event occurring would increase as the sea ice extent retreats farther and farther north in the summertime,” Alex Young, a meteorologist with the NWS in Fairbanks, told Wired.

Before the lightning was recorded, climate scientists were concerned about wildfires that have been burning in Greenland for more than a month.

“The lightning strikes near the North Pole come during one of the most extreme Arctic ice melt years on record,” the Washington Post‘s Capital Weather Gang tweeted, summarizing meteorologists’ alarm over recent weather in the planet’s far northern region. “There’s currently no sea ice in Alaskan waters, and Arctic-wide sea ice is plummeting to one of the five lowest levels on record.”

The lightning strikes near the North Pole come during one of the most extreme Arctic ice melt years on record. There’s currently no sea ice in Alaskan waters, and Arctic-wide sea ice is plummeting to one of the 5 lowest levels on record.

Other climatologists and weather experts were stunned to learn of the lightning event.

UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain warned that lightning strikes in the Arctic could be part of a new pattern of climate changes as the planet’s sea ice continue to melt.

“Scientists already knew the Arctic was going to change much more rapidly than the rest of the world, and yet we’ve still been surprised at the rate of change we’ve been observing,” Swain told Wired. “I think there’s potential for nasty surprises coming out of the Arctic.”

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/sc...-breakdown-near-the-north-pole-this-is-crazy/
.
.

 

[St. Phatty]

So is the lightning strike a big deal or just a sign that we have more people watching the weather in the Arctic ?

I would think the Eskimo's have a valid perspective


So earlier people were talking about the Big Melt going on in the Arctic.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/anchorage-ak/99501/august-weather/346835

Now they're talking about 60 degree weather the rest of August, that sounds pretty damn good.

 

[moose eater]

We've been cool and EXTREMELY WET in my general area for the last... (most of) 2 weeks or so? Flood warnings to the east and south of me, now for a couple days.

I'm on higher ground.... in all kinds of ways.. ;^>)

Friends in the bush have had their garden destroyed by wetness, molds, etc. They've had way more rain and storms than we have at my 'stead, and here, I hear ark-building supplies are on back-order. ;^>)

This is normally our quasi-monsoon season, though these last years, it's begun earlier than many, and seems to extend later into the season, too.

The sub-arctic and arctic have commonly had greater frequency of lightning strikes than many areas, which is one reason they study such phenomenon here, relative or in adjunct to the HAARP Project; as stated before, I suspect the military's interest in HAARP in days gone by, as well as the lightning studies, has had, at least in part, to do with conquering the debilitating effects of EMP where communications, etc., might be undone by a nuclear exchange.

(I just hope such electrical anomalies don't wipe out my toaster, as my plan all along, for over 35 years, has been to plan on being at Ground Zero in such an event, have some nice, warm, golden brown toast with either honey or maple cream on it, and a good shoot of tequila, several puffs of hashish, etc., before vaporizing. Of course, that went back to the early 80s, when we were all told that the then-USSR's newer ICBM's would have a lift-off to impact in Alaska time-frame of roughly 25". I'm sure it's gotten shorter since then, and I'll need to get a hotter toaster.. and a pour adapter for the bottle... if we're going to be timely).

Lightning AT the N. Pole? That's a whole 'nother phenomenon, in my understanding. I would guesstimate that it indicates further changing of the warm air, and perhaps some impact on electrical charges in the atmosphere there.

We know that air temp and weather have an effect on radio waves/signal, etc., so it would make sense it would have an effect on lightning as well..

 

[St. Phatty]

Dry lightning last year in Tasmania, a first time for them, is the report.

Sounds like climate change.

which parts of it are certifiably man-made, and which parts are "don't know yet" ?

Because dry lightning starts fires - that was the problem in Tasmania - it sort of turns the entire countryside into a Lego Set, environmental tweaking edition.

Permafrost is just un-composted leaves "and other organic matter" - 50,000 years worth.

When it warms up enough to decompose normally like compost, that generates a lot of CO2. Not because it's evil, because it's a whole bunch of carbon based organisms.

Then when it catches fire - more CO2.

One of the reasons it's a problem is that the accumulations are sort of geologic in size.

 

[igrowone]

most have heard this, warmest month on record
from NOAA

July Temperature The July 2019 global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average was the highest for July since global records began in 1880 at 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average. This value surpassed the previous record set in 2016 by 0.03°C (0.05°F). Nine of the 10 warmest Julys have occurred since 2005, with the last five years (2015–2019) ranking among the five warmest Julys on record. July 1998 is the only July from the 20th century to be among the 10 warmest Julys on record. July 2019 marked the 43rd consecutive July and the 415th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. Julys 2016, 2017, and 2019 are the only Julys that had a temperature departure from average at or above 0.90°C (1.62°F). Climatologically, July is the globe's warmest month of the year. With July 2019 the warmest July on record, at least nominally, this resulted in the warmest month on record for the globe.

 

[trichrider]

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record

August 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.



July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty].

We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.


One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).



But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.



The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:
(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.


(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)


(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
There’s a better way.


A more complete picture: Global Reanalysis datasets

(If you want to ignore my explanation of why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, skip to the next section.)


Various weather forecast centers around the world have experts who take a wide variety of data from many sources and figure out which ones have information about the weather and which ones don’t.



But, how can they know the difference? Because good data produce good weather forecasts; bad data don’t.

The data sources include surface thermometers, buoys, and ships (as do the “official” global temperature calculations), but they also add in weather balloons, commercial aircraft data, and a wide variety of satellite data sources.


Why would one use non-surface data to get better surface temperature measurements? Since surface weather affects weather conditions higher in the atmosphere (and vice versa), one can get a better estimate of global average surface temperature if you have satellite measurements of upper air temperatures on a global basis and in regions where no surface data exist. Knowing whether there is a warm or cold airmass there from satellite data is better than knowing nothing at all.


Furthermore, weather systems move. And this is the beauty of reanalysis datasets: Because all of the various data sources have been thoroughly researched to see what mixture of them provide the best weather forecasts (including adjustments for possible instrumental biases and drifts over time), we know that the physical consistency of the various data inputs was also optimized.


Part of this process is making forecasts to get “data” where no data exists. Because weather systems continuously move around the world, the equations of motion, thermodynamics, and moisture can be used to estimate temperatures where no data exists by doing a “physics extrapolation” using data observed on one day in one area, then watching how those atmospheric characteristics are carried into an area with no data on the next day. This is how we knew there were going to be some exceeding hot days in France recently: a hot Saharan air layer was forecast to move from the Sahara desert into western Europe.


This kind of physics-based extrapolation (which is what weather forecasting is) is much more realistic than (for example) using land surface temperatures in July around the Arctic Ocean to simply guess temperatures out over the cold ocean water and ice where summer temperatures seldom rise much above freezing.


This is actually one of the questionable techniques used (by NASA GISS) to get temperature estimates where no data exists.


If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.


The Reanalysis picture for July 2019

The only reanalysis data I am aware of that is available in near real time to the public is from WeatherBell.com, and comes from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2).


The plot of surface temperature departures from the 1981-2010 mean for July 2019 shows a global average warmth of just over 0.3 C (0.5 deg. F) above normal:






Note from that figure how distorted the news reporting was concerning the temporary hot spells in France, which the media reports said contributed to global-average warmth. Yes, it was unusually warm in France in July. But look at the cold in Eastern Europe and western Russia. Where was the reporting on that? How about the fact that the U.S. was, on average, below normal?


The CFSv2 reanalysis dataset goes back to only 1979, and from it we find that July 2019 was actually cooler than three other Julys: 2016, 2002, and 2017, and so was 4th warmest in 41 years. And being only 0.5 deg. F above average is not terribly alarming.


Our UAH lower tropospheric temperature measurements had July 2019 as the third warmest, behind 1998 and 2016, at +0.38 C above normal.


Why don’t the people who track global temperatures use the reanalysis datasets?

The main limitation with the reanalysis datasets is that most only go back to 1979, and I believe at least one goes back to the 1950s. Since people who monitor global temperature trends want data as far back as possible (at least 1900 or before) they can legitimately say they want to construct their own datasets from the longest record of data: from surface thermometers.
But most warming has (arguably) occurred in the last 50 years, and if one is trying to tie global temperature to greenhouse gas emissions, the period since 1979 (the last 40+ years) seems sufficient since that is the period with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions and so when the most warming should be observed.


So, I suggest that the global reanalysis datasets be used to give a more accurate estimate of changes in global temperature for the purposes of monitoring warming trends over the last 40 years, and going forward in time. They are clearly the most physically-based datasets, having been optimized to produce the best weather forecasts, and are less prone to ad hoc fiddling with adjustments to get what the dataset provider thinks should be the answer, rather than letting the physics of the atmosphere decide.


https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/