Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Windy?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ScandiHigh

Warming Arctic

Recommended Posts

I have followed the temperature at the Svalbard island the last couple of years and there seems to be a remarkable warming going on. The last six months has seen a temperature at Svalbard airport of -4,8 C, which is a stunninng 8,1 above normal (61-90) (source; www.met.no). The most remarkable months are january with a

-2,7 C (+12,6) and april 0,0 C (+12,2). The april montly mean of 0,0 C was 4,3 C above the previos record, which, not supringsly was set last april. April 05 was 1,8 C above the record set before that. Until 2001 no higher april mean than -6,6 had been recorded at Svalbard airport (1912-). The record this year is a stunning 6,6 above that.

There has been a (permanently it seems) shift in the temperature at the island. And it is not only synoptics creating these high temperatures. March, which had a norhterly coming straight off the pole for most of the month, saw a mean temperature of -13,2 , still 2,5 above the normal. The same thing happend during the middle part of may when we had a "cold" setup with a greenland High. In this period (10-20) daily means could not get down to average temperatures.

http://met.no/observasjoner/svalbard/Svalb.../mai/index.html

I am afraid the global warming is kicking in. At this rate a 10 C warming at Svalbard-Spitzbergen seems a realistic prediction?

Any thoughts ?

On a personal note I can say that I am living in Oslo, Norway and I am fearing for the future of snowy, cold winters like we were used to in Norway until 1988. I share the preference for cold winters and lots of snow like many users of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NOAA data seems to agree with the above observations for the Svalbard region:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfc...r_180b.fnl.html

It is indeed concerning. Synoptics are playing a significant part, but I have a suspicion that increasing amounts of ice-melt around the area are causing a runaway loop of warming. Ice cover helps to keep temperatures down and protect the area from the warming effects of the North Atlantic Drift; remove that ice cover and temperatures are likely to shoot upwards. What's more, it seems to be warming in all layers of the atmosphere, with the 1000-500mb thickness charts often showing anomalies of +10-15 in the Arctic.

It's also worth noting that the pole is, on average, only about 10C colder than Svalbard in winter, and 5C colder in summer, so if the pole is anomalously warm by about 5C, a northerly will not bring below average temperatures to Svalbard. Indeed on 13 February 2005, a northerly straight from the pole failed to bring significantly below-average temperatures to Britain, with the pole being so anomalously warm.

Terminal Moraine referred to an article which suggested that the main cold air sources had not warmed significantly up until 2002, and at the time that was probably correct- unfortunately they seem to have warmed at a remarkable rate since then. That said, northern Asia and Siberia, after a few years of similar record warmth to the Arctic interior, have been experiencing temperatures much closer to the long-term normals recently, hence the easterlies that penetrated to eastern Europe during January 2006 being the coldest locally since 1987.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have followed the temperature at the Svalbard island the last couple of years and there seems to be a remarkable warming going on. The last six months has seen a temperature at Svalbard airport of -4,8 C, which is a stunninng 8,1 above normal (61-90) (source; www.met.no). The most remarkable months are january with a

-2,7 C (+12,6) and april 0,0 C (+12,2). The april montly mean of 0,0 C was 4,3 C above the previos record, which, not supringsly was set last april. April 05 was 1,8 C above the record set before that. Until 2001 no higher april mean than -6,6 had been recorded at Svalbard airport (1912-). The record this year is a stunning 6,6 above that.

There has been a (permanently it seems) shift in the temperature at the island. And it is not only synoptics creating these high temperatures. March, which had a norhterly coming straight off the pole for most of the month, saw a mean temperature of -13,2 , still 2,5 above the normal. The same thing happend during the middle part of may when we had a "cold" setup with a greenland High. In this period (10-20) daily means could not get down to average temperatures.

http://met.no/observasjoner/svalbard/Svalb.../mai/index.html

I am afraid the global warming is kicking in. At this rate a 10 C warming at Svalbard-Spitzbergen seems a realistic prediction?

Any thoughts ?

On a personal note I can say that I am living in Oslo, Norway and I am fearing for the future of snowy, cold winters like we were used to in Norway until 1988. I share the preference for cold winters and lots of snow like many users of this forum.

Been following them too, Scandi. As I have the record lack of ice in the Barents Sea and the lack of ice in the Greenland Sea this winter. Arctic Ice is being attacked on two fronts; from warmer seas and from warmer air temperatures. Every now and then, there will be a cooler winter than average in one location. That is bound to happen with a chaotic, slowly warming, system, but the dire warnings about the Arctic being ice-free in the summer by 2050, may well not be wide of the mark.

It bodes badly for the polar bears and the writers of high Arctic science fantasy. I just don't get how that fella in the balloon got it back to where he wanted it! Maybe the angels helped!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have followed the temperature at the Svalbard island the last couple of years and there seems to be a remarkable warming going on. The last six months has seen a temperature at Svalbard airport of -4,8 C, which is a stunninng 8,1 above normal (61-90) (source; www.met.no). The most remarkable months are january with a

-2,7 C (+12,6) and april 0,0 C (+12,2). The april montly mean of 0,0 C was 4,3 C above the previos record, which, not supringsly was set last april. April 05 was 1,8 C above the record set before that. Until 2001 no higher april mean than -6,6 had been recorded at Svalbard airport (1912-). The record this year is a stunning 6,6 above that.

There has been a (permanently it seems) shift in the temperature at the island. And it is not only synoptics creating these high temperatures. March, which had a norhterly coming straight off the pole for most of the month, saw a mean temperature of -13,2 , still 2,5 above the normal. The same thing happend during the middle part of may when we had a "cold" setup with a greenland High. In this period (10-20) daily means could not get down to average temperatures.

http://met.no/observasjoner/svalbard/Svalb.../mai/index.html

I am afraid the global warming is kicking in. At this rate a 10 C warming at Svalbard-Spitzbergen seems a realistic prediction?

Any thoughts ?

On a personal note I can say that I am living in Oslo, Norway and I am fearing for the future of snowy, cold winters like we were used to in Norway until 1988. I share the preference for cold winters and lots of snow like many users of this forum.

Yes.Such a sudden change suggests that it is nothing to do with CO2 levels, which are rising gradually.There is probably some other area in the N Hemisphere which has cooled down to compensate.

Don't let the current media hype get to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.Such a sudden change suggests that it is nothing to do with CO2 levels, which are rising gradually.There is probably some other area in the N Hemisphere which has cooled down to compensate.

Don't let the current media hype get to you.

Why, Mr. Sleet? Do you expect temperatures in all locations on Earth to rise at a similar, gradual, rate to the rise in CO2 levels, then?

Such a sudden change is perfectly possible, as would be a sudden slowdown in the rise in Arctic temperatures.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent scientific papers have also emphasised the impact that warmer air masses (as opposed to ocean currents) play in Arctic warming so our 'cool ' back half of May would suggest that our normal 'warmth' went elsewhere.

I don't think that the true extent of our Artic problems (Esp. Greenland) are fully understood yet and over the next few years the massive, unexpected collapses within the ice sheet on Greenland will herald the final 'meltdown' (over summer months) of the ice pack. The global impact of this may not appear to be great but the regional variations that this collapse could generate are huge and irreversable.

EDIT; and where's my manners? a big hi to Scandihigh!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.Such a sudden change suggests that it is nothing to do with CO2 levels, which are rising gradually.There is probably some other area in the N Hemisphere which has cooled down to compensate.

Don't let the current media hype get to you.

Sorry Mr Sleet. But I don't think it suggests anything of the sort...I think it suggests that TWS has it spot on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Mr Sleet. But I don't think it suggests anything of the sort...I think it suggests that TWS has it spot on?

The chaotic nature of the climate ( long term and short term) makes it impossible to pin down the cause which is of great help to AGW proponents.

However there is no causal link between global C02 levels and global temperatures in the past or now.Do the research-it's all out there.Lots of bandwagon jumping here methinks.

The Attenborough programme last night was shameful piece of sensationalism but then the debate on GW left the realms of science several years ago.

Sorry if you disagree.I have been a fence sitter for some time but I have come down firmly on the sceptic side after a trawl through the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The chaotic nature of the climate ( long term and short term) makes it impossible to pin down the cause which is of great help to AGW proponents.

However there is no causal link between global C02 levels and global temperatures in the past or now.Do the research-it's all out there.Lots of bandwagon jumping here methinks.

The Attenborough programme last night was shameful piece of sensationalism but then the debate on GW left the realms of science several years ago.

Sorry if you disagree.I have been a fence sitter for some time but I have come down firmly on the sceptic side after a trawl through the evidence.

It must be nice to be so certain. A link between Human output of C02 and Global Warming, in my opinion, is certainly not proven, I agree, but your "trawl through the evidence" could only have provided proof that it is not the cause, to the most closed of minds.

What is certain is that the world has been warming and all the evidence points to the world continuing to warm. Surely you don't dispute that? Having got that one clear, the remaining questions are: 1/ what is the cause of this warming and; 2/ what can we do about it?

If your answer to 1/ is "anything but CO2", which it appears to be, from your "trawl through the research", then your answer to 2/ would be, presumably, "nothing"?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It must be nice to be so certain. A link between Human output of C02 and Global Warming, in my opinion, is certainly not proven, I agree, but your "trawl through the evidence" could only have provided proof that it is not the cause, to the most closed of minds.

What is certain is that the world has been warming and all the evidence points to the world continuing to warm. Surely you don't dispute that? Having got that one clear, the remaining questions are: 1/ what is the cause of this warming and; 2/ what can we do about it?

If your answer to 1/ is "anything but CO2", which it appears to be, from your "trawl through the research", then your answer to 2/ would be, presumably, "nothing"?

Paul

I sense that you are gnashing your teeth in frustration because somebody doesn't share your view. I have a very good degree in Chemistry and have worked for twenty two years as an industrial chemist ( in the Carbon sequestration Industry funnily enough).A 10 year old can look at the CO2 vs temp graphs through time and conclude that rising CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases.

Facts, not feelings based on TV images of ice falling into the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sense that you are gnashing your teeth in frustration because somebody doesn't share your view. I have a very good degree in Chemistry and have worked for twenty two years as an industrial chemist ( in the Carbon sequestration Industry funnily enough).A 10 year old can look at the CO2 vs temp graphs through time and conclude that rising CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases.

Facts, not feelings based on TV images of ice falling into the sea.

Pity your "very good degree in chemistry" didn't include reading skills as a module. I don't think you actually took in a single word that I wrote. I hope your trawling of the research was done with better eyes!

*>))

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pity your "very good degree in chemistry" didn't include reading skills as a module. I don't think you actually took in a single word that I wrote. I hope your trawling of the research was done with better eyes!

*>))

Paul

Thanks for that somewhat immature assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lose the argument start slinging insults. It should be obvious that to get a degree in 1985 a basic grasp of reading would be essential. I'm sorry to say that your childish response undermines your credibility.

Heh, Heh. Only jesting Mr. Sleet. Keep your hair on! It's no good using a degree as a credibility rating. I've got several and I'm about as credible as a chemist! If I wished to insult you, I'm quite capable of doing much better than that.

What I tried (poorly) to illustrate was that you'd missed the point of my questions to you.

Do you really believe that GW is not happening? If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd see I was actually agreeing with you that AGW is not proven. It is something I believe too, though it is the best of the present possibilities, for me.

What I take issue with is your complete denial that GW could possibly be caused by Anthropomorphic means. There is such a wealth of evidence and research pointing to it as a possible, maybe a probable cause. Some, of course, would present it as the cause. As to that, I've yet to be fully convinced.

Regards, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be very wary of taking one year's exceptional temperatures as proof pf anything.

Was winter 1963 proof that a new ice age was beginning?

Did summer 1976 mark the start of a succession of very hot summers and ever more severe droughts?

We don't know what temperatures might have been in Svalbard 200, 2,000 or 10,000 years ago. Maybe every so often, due to synoptics and sea ice extent, such high temps as recorded this year do occur. Indeed, I'd say it's highly unlikely indeed that such temps haven't occurred at times in the past 12,000 years.

One of the biggest problems with AGW is that everything that isn't exactly 'normal' gets attributed to it, often without thought. Which in turn feeds the 'Contrarians' :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be very wary of taking one year's exceptional temperatures as proof pf anything.

Was winter 1963 proof that a new ice age was beginning?

Did summer 1976 mark the start of a succession of very hot summers and ever more severe droughts?

We don't know what temperatures might have been in Svalbard 200, 2,000 or 10,000 years ago. Maybe every so often, due to synoptics and sea ice extent, such high temps as recorded this year do occur. Indeed, I'd say it's highly unlikely indeed that such temps haven't occurred at times in the past 12,000 years.

One of the biggest problems with AGW is that everything that isn't exactly 'normal' gets attributed to it, often without thought. Which in turn feeds the 'Contrarians' :D

Hi Essan,

I think you mean GW, not AGW. And I don't think anyone is taking one year's exceptional temparatures as proof of anything. Arctic ice has been in decline for a while! Also, the difficulty for us is that, whether, or not, temperatures have been like this in Svarlbad (or anywhere else) in the last 12,000 years, there weren't 6 billion people around at any other time to suffer the consequences - which is why we must take GW seriously. (GW, not AGW, note!)

Regards, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sense that you are gnashing your teeth in frustration because somebody doesn't share your view. I have a very good degree in Chemistry and have worked for twenty two years as an industrial chemist ( in the Carbon sequestration Industry funnily enough).A 10 year old can look at the CO2 vs temp graphs through time and conclude that rising CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases.

Facts, not feelings based on TV images of ice falling into the sea.

As someone else with a good chemistry degree I ask you to take a look at the following chart and tell me that Greenhouse gas levels and temperature are not linked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_..._insolation.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c...-core-petit.png

As a matter of fact, the temperature and greenhouse gas levels match perfectly with little lag whatsoever. The warmup is hardly 'natural' either, as one can see from that chart that natural warming tends to take place over a longer time period. The warmup over the last century is unprecedented and cant be explained by obliquity or eccentricity in the Earths orbit either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milanko..._Variations.png

I cant for the life of me understand the argument from the anti-GW camp, its happening and the evidence is right there in front of us. I feel in many cases the denial is in the interests of money rather than the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an old ex senior meteorologist am I missing something?

I would have thought it obvious that the CO2 trace lags behind the temperature graph. Not directly true but one is more cause and the other is more effect.

Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions?

First let me say, at the time the Met O got the funding of no less a PM than Mrs T, to set up the Hadley Centre to research POSSIBLE connections in what APPEARED to be a warming earth, (money was always hard to get from that lady), and as a senior forecaster at the time I was and remain to this day, wary of rapid findings that put all the blame on 'man' for our warming earth.

One thing is without question though, that is for WHATEVER reason, and to the limit of our measuring ability, the earth as a whole has warmed up over the past 100-150 years.

Yes its done it before, just as it has cooled before, no doubt it will do both again. What is different this time that there are several billion people now on the surface of the earth, of who a considerable percentage, or at least their grandchildren and their grandchildren probably are going to be under water if they stay where they are.

The clever bit is to try and find out EXACTLY what contribution 'man' has made to this warming. Then an even more difficult bit, can 'man' do anything about it, even assuming that 'he' wants to. This last statement is full of difficulty as some nations, both east and west appear unwilling to make an effort to meet with the majority of nations that feel the population of the earth should at least TRY

.

Can we also keep the 'ya-boo' comments out of our postings please.

Whatever our theoretical knowledge is we ALL have a right to our opinion and to be able to express them without unkind comments.

Constructive posts please even when we are in disagreement with one another.

regards

John

Mods;

its possible that this thread may need merging with the other topic on GW or whatever anyone wants to call it, rather than the special case on this thread of Svalbard(prob spelt wrong!).

jh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mods;

its possible that this thread may need merging with the other topic on GW or whatever anyone wants to call it, rather than the special case on this thread of Svalbard(prob spelt wrong!).

jh

I'd agree completely. There is a GW thread and it would be so much easier to follow the discussion if all the GW related posts were posted on there!

Hi John - have a look at my comment on the other thread. I'm sure you already have! I wrote that without seeing yours!

Regards, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of 'good' science degrees: I have one too...But it doesn't make me right all the time??? :D

I find it very difficult to wish away the fact that the globe is warming; and that said, I find that the link to anthropogenic CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is also somewhat hard to refute!

I can also think of agood reason why the present episode of warming vs CO2 increase might not exactly coincide: there are also natural forces/cycles at work. If there were no such natural cycles/forces, would the two curves exactly coincide? Who knows? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if we're throwing degrees in -- i did an mphil in climate change (by research) while i was at liverpool school of architecture. the thesis set out on the premis that agw was a given and we needed to produce an architecture fit for the impending change. however, my tutor encouraged me to investigate how trustworthy that premis was. to cut a long story short my conclusion was: climate change is happening, whether that be a warming or an eventual cooling i'm not sure, but anthropogenic influence on the climate is almost certain. and my major concern is the belief that technology can save us. during the 70's when an impending ice age was assumed the US congress discussed funding for crushing the Rockies (the mountain range) into dust so that it could be burnt in ovens to release the CO2 to induce GW so that an iceage would be post-poned - thats a very scary use of technology.

I think we would all agree that we cannot arrogantly believe AGW can be resolved simply by inventing something or that we as a species have no detremental affect on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post RR...Like you, I find it hard to dismiss mankind's effect on it's environment. I too recall the IceAge Cometh rhetoric of the 1970s. Whilst I realize they got it wrong back then, I had no idea about the plans to crush the Rockies... :blink:

Now that mentality does trully scare me!! :wallbash::wallbash::wallbash: :wacko: :wacko: :unsure: :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Daniel
I have followed the temperature at the Svalbard island the last couple of years and there seems to be a remarkable warming going on. The last six months has seen a temperature at Svalbard airport of -4,8 C, which is a stunninng 8,1 above normal (61-90) (source; www.met.no). The most remarkable months are january with a

-2,7 C (+12,6) and april 0,0 C (+12,2). The april montly mean of 0,0 C was 4,3 C above the previos record, which, not supringsly was set last april. April 05 was 1,8 C above the record set before that. Until 2001 no higher april mean than -6,6 had been recorded at Svalbard airport (1912-). The record this year is a stunning 6,6 above that.

There has been a (permanently it seems) shift in the temperature at the island. And it is not only synoptics creating these high temperatures. March, which had a norhterly coming straight off the pole for most of the month, saw a mean temperature of -13,2 , still 2,5 above the normal. The same thing happend during the middle part of may when we had a "cold" setup with a greenland High. In this period (10-20) daily means could not get down to average temperatures.

http://met.no/observasjoner/svalbard/Svalb.../mai/index.html

I am afraid the global warming is kicking in. At this rate a 10 C warming at Svalbard-Spitzbergen seems a realistic prediction?

Any thoughts ?

On a personal note I can say that I am living in Oslo, Norway and I am fearing for the future of snowy, cold winters like we were used to in Norway until 1988. I share the preference for cold winters and lots of snow like many users of this forum.

The Arctic has always gone through warm and colds periods. the only differnce is that we humans are now observing the changes. A 1000 years ago Greenland and iceland were warm enough to be settled on and warm enough for food to grow. yet when the littl ice ice age came vast sheet of ice surrounded iceland and there was mass starvation. Now for what evere reason if and its a very big if the climate of the Arctic warms and the U.K warms as well then it can only be a good thing. Just think of growing crops in Iceland and parts of Greenlaan or Northern Europe again. that would bring huge beinfits. Also we would have pleasent warm sunny summmer over the U.K and vines can be grown as a major crop. In the Medeival warm Period a 1000 years agao average summer temps in central England were about 1 to 2 degress above current levels. Only our most recent hottiest summers like 73 and 2003 have come any were near to that level. Today the Average summer temp in Central England is around 17 Celsius. In the Medival warm period it would have been around 18 or 19 Celsius as an average about the same as our very hottist summers. Now if we warm in the Future a 2 Degree rise will bring our summer average up to about 18 or 19 and sometimes we get a mean of 20. So we would get nice long sunny hot days and we would be above to to grow vines on a large scale again. but as I said it a very big if that we would warm. I still belive that we would cool down in the Furture not warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Reef but the graphs shout at me..."we've been here before!" This warming isn't unprecedented, past warm ups look pretty much the same to me on that evidence...0.6C is in line with natural warming. All I will say is for folk to keep doing their 'bit' but don't be fooled by the alleged recycling set up it isn't as good as one would hope for...some will be surprised to see where bottles and cans etc end up :wallbash:

BFTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Medeival warm Period a 1000 years agao average summer temps in central England were about 1 to 2 degress above current levels. Only our most recent hottiest summers like 73 and 2003 have come any were near to that level. Today the Average summer temp in Central England is around 17 Celsius. In the Medival warm period it would have been around 18 or 19 Celsius as an average about the same as our very hottist summers.

Daniel,

Are you quoting some research here or is this just your impression?

I'd be very interested to know what the latest research on the question of whether recent years or the Medieval warm period was warmer. From what I can see there is a lot of uncertainty about this and so I doubt that it could have been as much warmer back then as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I will say is for folk to keep doing their 'bit' but don't be fooled by the alleged recycling set up it isn't as good as one would hope for...some will be surprised to see where bottles and cans etc end up :blink:

BFTP

OT, but anything's better than landfill.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×