
It’s about 50°F warmer than normal near the North Pole again - ramonvillasante
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/10/its-about-50-degrees-warmer-than-normal-near-the-north-pole/?utm_term=.65377b890ed3
======
acqq
There are no graphs in the article to give you the whole context, that is, the
longer-term measured climate changes. For that it helps looking at the yearly
averages:

[https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-
temperature-t...](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-temperature-
the-big-3/)

These are averages over the whole year. The graph to consider specifically for
Arctic is this one:

[https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/arctic.jpg](https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/arctic.jpg)

------
kingkawn
if the right wing is correct and these climate shifts are not due to our
present efforts then the problem is far worse than if it were the result of
pollution, and the effort to counter-balance the environmental shift will
require much more social and economic adjustment.

------
coldcode
The real question is not just about debating what is causing a rise in average
temperature over the past half century, but whether there is anything we can
do to change it. Deniers say people are not to blame so do nothing; the rest
of us say people are the majority cause so change our behavior. The problem is
we only have one earth, either we do nothing and all die eventually, or we do
something and possibly we don't. In the long run the latter seems a far better
bet: at worst we have a cleaner environment and a slightly slower economy
versus a barren planet filled with roaches.

~~~
spodek
> _whether there is anything we can do to change it_

There is zero question if there is anything we _can_ do to change it.

The question on the social level is if we will, as a species, regulate the
behavior of individuals and institutions.

On the individual level the question is if you and I will choose to take
responsibility and choose our behavior as individuals and stop saying, if a
billion other people don't change it doesn't matter what I do so I won't
change. We can all take responsibility for our personal actions. If people in
previous generations had, we wouldn't face these issues. They didn't so we do,
but maybe we can for future generations.

~~~
knz
While I share your sense of personal responsibility being key to any hope of
mitigating the impact for future generations, a recent project I've been
involved with has left me feeling quite cynical about the chance of any
meaningful impact.

The project was related to measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the
transportation industry. Everyone is excited about the massive savings
(potentially the largest single saving in the State) but the numbers are
pathetic when you put them into an equivalency calculator
([https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-
calc...](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator)).

My takeaway from the project has been that without dramatic and systematic
change at a societal level nothing else really matters. At best we can
mitigate and try to slow the impacts of climate change. The Sustainability
Manager at my work has told me that the industry/literature/academics are also
shifting towards talk of mitigation and resiliency now instead of prevention.

I hope I'm wrong but global GHG emissions are massive compared to the
solutions we currently have.

------
ChuckMcM
I always dislike comments like this from the article: _“Something is very,
very wrong with the Arctic climate.”_

The climate can't be "wrong" it has no agency. The impact of human CO2
production on climate can be "unprecedented" or "destabilizing" or "ill
advised" but the word 'wrong' implies that there is a 'right' climate. We know
that the climate changes on the planet, we emerged as the more annoying form
of hominid during an ice age after all. "Something" caused that ice age, and
"something" caused it to end, and that something could not possibly have been
us. So who is responsible becomes less important in my mind as responding
while we can with effective ways to live and prosper under different climates.

~~~
themgt
If a tree falls on your head it can't be "wrong", the tree has no agency. If a
human cuts down the tree, knowing it is likely to fall on your head ... is who
is responsible really important? Trees fall on heads all the time.

What about important questions, like effective ways for others to prosper
while some are crushed by the massive industry of human-felled / human-
crushing trees? Whether we could or should stop felling trees onto people is a
question beyond science or human judgement on which to opine.

This sort of "climate trolley problem" is the final stage of pseudo-rational
climate change denial, before it was "it isn't happening", now we're in a
postmodernist semantic argument in the face of human destruction of our
biosphere. How intellectual.

------
StClaire
Hit 70 today in Denver.

~~~
avenoir
Correction, it was actually 82. Absolutely insane.

~~~
rdudek
You know, the last few Februaries were like that. Warm up around 60'ish and
then it will trigger the trees and plants to start blooming, followed by
winter hell in March. Remember last year we had that 2 ft snow in one day?
Interesting times.

------
gaspoweredcat
the whole global warming thing seems to be a very contended issue but i think
theres one thing we can all agree on, people need to stop using Fahrenheit

------
pmontra
That's 50 F, 28 C.

------
Daishiman
So what's the excuse from the denialists today about why we shouldn't worry?

~~~
slededit
Just as cold weather in the winter doesn't disprove global warming. A warm day
at the North pole doesn't prove it either. Weather != Climate.

~~~
freehunter
A single cold day doesn't disprove global warming. An entire winter worth of
cold days kind of does.

Likewise, a single day of warmth doesn't prove global warming. An entire
winter of warm days does.

>"Extreme temperature spikes such as this one have occurred multiple times in
the past two winters, whereas they only previously occurred once or twice per
decade in historical records"

It sounds like this is becoming a trend, which is what is worrisome.

~~~
slededit
There are known weather patterns that have cycles of many years. El Nino is
one such example.

------
helthanatos
I'm loving this winter. It's only snowed 3 times and has been below freezing
for only a few weeks. In love with this winter, though I've been sick more
times this year than quite a while.

~~~
satori99
Meanwhile in Sydney, I'm sweating it out @ 45c (113F) in the middle of a
heatwave like never before.

~~~
ehnto
In Adelaode we tapped 38c, then had 3 days of record breaking rain which
plonked it down to below 20c, which we followed up with four days at about
40c.

It's hard to dress correctly.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I used to live in Adelaide. Seriously f that place.

I recall one summer, maybe 5 years ago, ten days straight above 35 with day
time temps in the 40s. Trees were dying from heat stress after a ten year
draught.

Ah, this is it, from 2009:

Adelaide, South Australia Edit Average daily maximum 27 January – 7 February:
40.5 °C (104.9 °F) – (11.1 °C (20.0 °F) above average)[9] 13 Consecutive days
over 33 °C (91 °F) 6 Consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F) 4 Consecutive days
over 43 °C (109 °F)

That's right, 13! consecutive days above 33!

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Aust...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave)

------
aaron695
> While this week’s sharp temperature spike resulted from the arrangement of
> these intense weather systems, scientists say such spikes are probably
> becoming more frequent and intense. Rising greenhouse-gas concentrations are
> increasing average temperatures and shrinking Arctic sea ice. Earlier this
> week, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported January Arctic sea
> levels were the lowest on record.

This entire paragraph is why people deny global warming.

They admit we don't know if this is unusual. In fact we know it's a normal
occurance, just it's 'probably' happening more often yet.... jump to Global
Warming.

This is not science, this is politics and it's why people go hard the other
way.

~~~
mablap
If you think this is not science, your conception of what science _is_ is
flawed. People deny anthropogenic global warming because they don't want to
look at the details, take the time to really understand the issues.

Most people have no clue about anything going on around them except for what
pays the bills (and even then). I was listening to some random radio host
telling how "stupid" doctors and healthcare administrators are, that we should
be concentrating our efforts on "prevention" rather than fitting a brand new
hip onto a 96 year old person. He then went on to cite cancer patients in
particular: we should not _cure_ cancer, we should _prevent_ it. His
recommendation? "Preventative" MRI and SCANs for everybody over 30, because
these would help "detect cancer" earlier.

I don't have to explain to you how clueless that man is/was. But there you
have it. The general population is clueless about everything and people speak
out of their asses all the time. So in a sense, you were right, but it's the
other way around: the problem is politics and human nature, not science.

~~~
mynegation
Honest question about MRIs and scans: why is it clueless? I understand that
implication is they are not effective (?)

~~~
mablap
Here's some food for thought:

What type of cancers are you talking about? What subtype? What population are
we talking about? What subpopulation? What is the difference between an early
diagnostic and prevention? Are CTs and MRIs the right tool for the job? Who is
most at risk? How often do you screen your target population? How do you make
sure they actually come and do the exams? How do you measure success? Are you
ready to deal with the outcomes of the diagnosis?

These are just basic questions really. Some people devote their entire life to
these hard topics. The radio host sounded like an "expert" with "great ideas"
to an equally clueless audience when really he just has no idea.

