Global warming strikes again...

There are areas in Norway that hardly get's snow of consequence. But in my neck of the woods snow is indeed guaranteed. Though the snow amount and length of ski season will vary. And lengthy stretches with rain will ruins the top layer of the snow until fresh snow has fallen.
 
Ah yes, but the North Pole is just there!
 
Hey, speaking of the North Pole...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.e13449a426d4
imrs.php
 
That was on a particular day, so it could be argued to be cherry picking in the other direction. But yeah, things are much warmer (if not quite 20 C warmer) at the North Pole on average, as well. For the season, we ended up back in record low territory in Arctic sea ice cover for the time of year, starting in mid-October and continuing through the present.
 
In much of the US its way below normal atm. I do have until the end of next spring however, to see a marked change.
 
Why do you? Why do you keep going on about the significance of next spring?
 
That's my prediction. Basically the La Nina is taking its time and might not get full on for a bit yet, though its starting.

Lex, they changed the colors of the temp map to look hotter. Been doing that for a while now.
 
In much of the US its way below normal atm. I do have until the end of next spring however, to see a marked change.
Well yes, some parts of the world are always going to be colder than average at some given time. It's the global average that we're looking at, not specific locations at specific times, which is why I nitpicked Lexicus's post too. There will always be specific places that are colder than average for the time of year. But if you look at his post, you'll see that there was a big, severely cold blob over central Asia on November 17, but that it was more than balanced out by all of the hot blobs on the map, so that on average the temperature is somewhat higher than average. Right now it's the US's turn to get a cold blob. Hot blobs are more common and on average hotter, while cold blobs are less common and on average less cold. That's what global warming looks like in real time.
 
Fair nuf, but keep in mind the color coding has been changed to make things look hotter. Average temps now look hot.

Also, those temps shown on his map are all wrong. In the eastern and central US its c o l d. The west is slightly warm.

Its only December...

 
It's the global average that we're looking at, not specific locations at specific times, which is why I nitpicked Lexicus's post too.

Well, I don't think that's entirely true. Because in some contexts focusing on global averages can obscure the real effects of climate change in a particular locality.
In this case we're seeing really extreme random variation in the Arctic's temperature. While this ultimately may not affect the average temperatures for that region over a long period of time very much, it represents an absolutely staggering physical change if for example it were to get above freezing for a period. The Arctic generally is changing a lot faster than the rest of the planet.

Lex, they changed the colors of the temp map to look hotter. Been doing that for a while now.

What does this even mean?
 
Fair nuf, but keep in mind the color coding has been changed to make things look hotter. Average temps now look hot.

I feel like the numbers do that, not the colours, but who am I to be looking at the figures instead of the pretty colours...
 
Also, those temps shown on his map are all wrong. In the eastern and central US its c o l d. The west is slightly warm.

Its only December...

That map literally says the date the temperatures are from on the top. It's not today's date; it's from last month in fact. :hammer:
 
Well I saw it some time back, how the colors were being changed to more reds and yellows. :dunno: Just googled to find that but its buried in the AGW chaff. Swamped if you will. Take me a month to dig through. Look ay your north pole map, appears like the ice caught fire and now the coles are that really hot red color.

Okay Lex, old map. I personally don't put up maps from the previous glaciation period to prove a point today, so I assumed it was recent. ;)
 
Fair nuf, but keep in mind the color coding has been changed to make things look hotter. Average temps now look hot.

Also, those temps shown on his map are all wrong. In the eastern and central US its c o l d. The west is slightly warm.

Its only December...
His image is a temperature anomaly map of November 17, 2016, which was a bizarrely warm day at the North Pole. It doesn't update, it's just a snapshot of that day. (already covered)

The color coding was not changed. They use warm colors to represent high temperatures and cold colors to represent cold temperatures, which is standard practice. The bright purple cold patch over Siberia is very obvious, and the color goes light-dark-light on both the positive and negative sides of the scale. There's no trickery going on, although it is presented at an angle so you do have to mentally correct for that.

Well, I don't think that's entirely true. Because in some contexts focusing on global averages can obscure the real effects of climate change in a particular locality.
In this case we're seeing really extreme random variation in the Arctic's temperature. While this ultimately may not affect the average temperatures for that region over a long period of time very much, it represents an absolutely staggering physical change if for example it were to get above freezing for a period. The Arctic generally is changing a lot faster than the rest of the planet.
That is true; while of course it's impossible to say when an event was caused by global warming and in what proportion, temperature anomalies far above average are much more common than they were.

It is probably a fair question to ask how much variation we expect to see normally at the time of year. High latitudes are normally really variable during fall, although the area around the pole itself is usually less variable than slightly lower latitudes. I'd have to know about Arctic meteorology to know exactly how extreme this event is relative to the past, but no doubt this sort of thing is much more common now.
 
It is probably a fair question to ask how much variation we expect to see normally at the time of year. High latitudes are normally really variable during fall, although the area around the pole itself is usually less variable than slightly lower latitudes. I'd have to know about Arctic meteorology to know exactly how extreme this event is relative to the past, but no doubt this sort of thing is much more common now.

Fairly large variations are common. But the baseline, so to speak, from which those variations....vary...is getting hotter very fast.
 
What does this even mean?

He's implying they changed the colors for hot and cold on meteorological maps as part of a global warming conspiracy.

See: my comments about the absurdity of conspiracy theories, in that the conspiracy is comprehensive and omnipotent enough to force every weather station in the world to change their color coding for temperature maps (so that even though weather stations are still reporting actual temperatures, it looks a lot warmer), but not so powerful that they could compel those same weather stations to report "falsified warming data".
 
that map shows a large "warm" air mass over the N pole and a large cold air mass over Siberia

and?

I've heard many times weather is not climate
 
Summer snow in Victoria, Australia. :dunno:
 
Well I saw it some time back, how the colors were being changed to more reds and yellows. :dunno: Just googled to find that but its buried in the AGW chaff. Swamped if you will. Take me a month to dig through. Look ay your north pole map, appears like the ice caught fire and now the coles are that really hot red color.

Okay Lex, old map. I personally don't put up maps from the previous glaciation period to prove a point today, so I assumed it was recent. ;)

Do you actually understand what that map shows ?
 
Back
Top Bottom