The extraordinary warmth across the Arctic basin in October prompted me to take a closer look at historical temperature data to get a sense for the magnitude of the recent anomalies. I first did a search for stations with reasonably complete monthly data since 1971, and then I selected 19 sites that lie on or near the coast and also fall within 2000km of the Arctic Ocean's pole of inaccessibility (marked with an X below). The spatial distribution of the 19 sites is reasonably even around the Arctic Ocean.
The chart below shows the mean temperature anomaly for these 19 stations in each October since 1971. Remarkably, the 19-station mean temperature in October 2016 was 5.6°C above the 1981-2010 normal and more than 2°C above the 2012 record. October 2016 was the second most anomalous calendar month in the data since 1971 - only January 2016 was warmer relative to normal, at +6.5°C.
Looking at recent daily temperature anomalies for the same 19 stations, it is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October; the 19-station mean anomaly reached +9.6°C last Thursday (November 3), and on Friday the coolest of the stations was 5.4°C warmer than normal. In terms of standard deviations, Thursday's mean anomaly was the
highest of any day from 1971-present.
Here's the 19-station daily mean temperature for 2016 on an absolute scale rather than an anomaly scale. Only 7 out of 311 days have been cooler than the 1981-2010 normal, and then only by a fraction of a degree.
Thanks for your analysis, it's sobering and deeply concerning.
ReplyDeleteYes thanks for your work- don't see much about the current warmth in Alaska in the regular news. Clued in through the climate reanalyzer site. Also sea ice is at a record minimum extent. Business Investor mag had an article recommending not blocking Arctic oil/gas drilling on the Alaska Arctic offshore seas - disaster as opportunity.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, arctic shows a cyclic pattern. Currently we have the same as in the early 20th century. Ice increased and temperatures decreased rapidly in the 1950's. In the 1970's the reverse part of the cycle kicked in with temperatures rising and ice decreasing. We should be near the peak of the cycle now. Perfectly natural event.
ReplyDeleteNot according to this study: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850
DeletePlease site your source.
@Tim Jenvey ; you're a Troll!!!!
DeletePerfectly natural event? What is the downside for postulating that (maybe 99% of climate scientists are right and climate change is caused my humans) climate change is happening and we can take actions to reduce it? What's the downside to taking action? Isn't the potential downside a lot worse if we don't take action?????
DeleteTo make assumptions on regional and/or global temperatures based on several decades of observations is dangerous and likely erroneous. Though a period of 50 or even 100 years may seem like a long time to us (humans), it’s just a blink of an eye to the earth. This planet has seen some dramatic changes in its 4.5 BILLION years of existence. But, I am absolutely confident that a fifty year study puts all of those changes into context.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to happen to make any of these arguments about "climate change" believable, is to definitively isolate those things that are above and beyond the normal variations that occur in the earth's temperatures. In other words, not due to the common variation we would see without any impact caused by man. A very difficult thing to do. The fact that we are still debating the point validates this as true.
The fact is, we do not know how much of the “climate change” we are causing or if any of the commonly called for "actions" will make any difference at all to the earth’s normal temperature variations. Because of this, we have emotional based arguments and calls to make changes that may not make any real difference at all.
One question that must be honestly asked here is, "How many of these claims are being put forth to pursue political and economic agendas?"
sharone...though I do not agree with your 99% claim (please cite your resource), I do agree that there are things that we need to address from a common-sense point of view. We shouldn't need to fabricate, slant or embellish temperature stories to agree that we need to reduce/eliminate air born pollutants or toxic waste in our environment. While I share the urge to "take action", I want to take action on the things that are quite obviously bad for human health and the environment (air born pollutants, toxic discharge into water ways, net de-forestation, etc.). Also, I am unclear from your post as to what specific actions you feel are necessary and what specific impact they will have.
Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 18, 1049-1058.
Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Citing the source ; "99% of scientists agree..." Google it yourself because obviously I'm not convincing.
DeleteCiting the source ; "99% of scientists agree..." Google it yourself because obviously I'm not convincing.
DeleteDear Anonymous, your thinking is retarded by 20-25 yrs. Your ignorance is profound. The data collection, the science, the facts are in, the science is settled. I worked for many years as a competitor and sometimes partner with Shell Global, and I respect their scientists greatly. Read what Shell has to say about anthropogenic climate change at http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
ReplyDeleteNice blog thanks for pposting
ReplyDelete