The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is freezing. What does this mean?

[Ewan]

I got in touch with someone who works in Antarctica, he'd only recently returned and is off there again shortly. I asked him about warming trends and geo-thermal activity. He kindly replied.

As far as I know there is a small amount of warming of the Southern Ocean due to climate change but the surface water is not really 'unusually warm'. However there is something called the Circumpolar Deepwater (CDW) that is deeper and warmer. The retreat of glaciers into deeper basins is allowing this warm water to advance into the cavities beneath ice shelves and cause more melting and retreat.


A very small component of geothermal warming is normal but research has shown that there are 'geothermal hot spots' under the Greenland Ice Sheet that are providing a more significant source of warming.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5550/2338
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2689.html

Mount Erebus is active and has been for a long time. There is a lava lake and I've personally seen puffs coming from it. It's certainly heavily monitored with sensors.

I'm uncertain what his exact job is but, for example, were there a 'need to know' basis operating in Antarctica I'm pretty certain he would not be on the NEED TO list.

[Hervé]

The IPCC was designed to achieve a deceptive result

December 13, 2016 Robert

Guest opinion by climatologist Dr Tim Ball (Excerpts)

“The Trump administration is well aware of the political use and scientific abuse of climate for a political agenda. I learned how aware while attending the Heritage Foundation Climate Conference on Thursday December 8 in Washington D.C. The majority of the public sense there is something wrong as reflected in their lack of concern measured in all polls. They will be very angry when the extent of the deception is explained to them, as will happen as the new administration lays out the foundation for their policies.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “was designed to achieve a deceptive result by limiting the research to only human causes of climate change. They effectively made reform or change impossible because each set of Reports is cumulative. That is, each Report simply adds new information to a very limited number of variables. The reality is you can only determine the human impact by knowing and understanding all the variables and mechanisms of natural climate. Most of the public think the IPCC look at climate and climate change in total and IPCC participants and promoters did nothing to dissuade them of that error. This is part of the proof that IPCC creators had a singular political objective for which natural variability was a problem. ”

This graph says it all:

South Pole cooling even as CO2 levels shoot upward.

References:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/what-is-next-for-weather-and-climate/

[GrayWolfBG]

I think folk need to aquaint themselves with the impacts of the ozone hole , this past 30 years on both Strat and trop?

Sadly the time for this kind of nonsense was pre 2014 when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation was working hand in glove with Ozone hole impacts? Since then IPO has flipped positive and we have seen some reduction in the Ozone hole ( so limiting its impacts?). currently Antarctic Sea ice extent is around 4 standard Deviations from the climatic norm i.e. collapsing from and early low max in august.

This is all now immaterial as the QBO 'event' last Feb showed us. Mother Nature might be viewed as a kind of 'Hookes Law' of climate with self limiting and 'balancing impacts to smooth out natural variability. We have now pushed Her beyond her 'elastic limit' and something has gone TWANG!!!

With Arctic Sea ice still at its lowest across all measures the odds of a record year in 2017 must be increasing daily? We are 6 days away from solstice and the return of the sun to the Arctic.

For those keen on Wattsy madness, enjoy the next decade!

[Bill Ryan]

.
From http://sciencealert.com/the-north-po...d-be-right-now
(19 Nov 2016)

The North Pole is 36 degrees hotter than it should be right now
...Not good.

Temperatures near the North Pole are an unheard of 36°F (20°C) warmer than average right now, researchers have reported.

The Arctic is currently in the midst of polar night, where the Sun hardly ever rises. Usually, it’s the time when things get really cold and vast, thick ice sheets form for the winter.

But this year, temperatures are much warmer than usual – while the weather stations around the North Pole record the biggest difference, even in parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures are up to 12.6°F (7°C) warmer.



And even though sea ice is forming again after reaching its annual low in September, it’s doing so much slower than usual.

In fact, so far the amount of ice coverage is even lower than the record-breaking low of 2012.

Scientists have taken to Twitter to express their concern over just how bad the situation is getting.

"In parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures were 10.8 to 12.6°F [6°C to 7°C] above the long-term average," said Petteri Taalas, the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

"Many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska, and northwest Canada were at least 5.4°F [3°C] above average," he added.

"We are used to measuring temperature records in fractions of a degree, and so this is different."

This is the second year in a row that temperatures near the North Pole have been unusually high.

At the end of 2015, the Arctic temperature spiked almost to melting point because of a massive storm pumping warm air into the region.

So what’s causing all this unusual variation?

Arctic specialist at Rutgers University, Jennifer Francis, told The Washington Post that it’s related to climate change around the rest of the planet – the WMO last week declared that 2016 will most likely be the hottest year on record.

"The Arctic warmth is the result of a combination of record-low sea-ice extent for this time of year, probably very thin ice, and plenty of warm/moist air from lower latitudes being driven northward by a very wavy jet stream," Francis told The Washington Post.

Meteorologist Richard James, who writes a blog on Alaskan weather, has been tracking 19 weather stations around the Arctic Ocean over the past few months, and has shown that the area has been flooded with warm air since October.

"So far the lowest daily high temperature this season is 22°F [–5.6°C], which shows a remarkable absence of cold," he writes.

"The most similar year in the past was 1998, when the coldest day through mid-November had a high temperature of 15°F [–9.5°C]."

It’s not yet clear how this unprecedented weather pattern will affect local wildlife, such as polar bears, which descend on the Arctic around this time to hunt on the sea ice.

If it’s not thick enough to take their weight, it could be disastrous for the population.

It also remains to be seen whether or not this warm Arctic weather will affect the polar vortex that usually descends over the polar region during winter.

Researchers will continue to monitor the situation closely, so watch this space. And let’s all hope that the Arctic gets some cold days soon, otherwise we could be entering yet another record-breaking era of climate change, for all the wrong reasons.

[Desire]

ARE NOT ALL OF THE SOLAR PLANETS HEATING UP NOW. and is not that a consideratin

[Cidersomerset]

Arctic heatwave could break records

By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News
24 December 2016


Temperatures on Christmas Eve at the North Pole could reach close to freezing on Christmas Eve 2016

Temperatures at the North Pole could be up to 20 degrees higher than average this Christmas Eve, in
what scientists say is a record-breaking heatwave. Climate scientists say these unseasonably warm
weather patterns in the Arctic region are directly linked to man-made climate change.

Temperatures throughout November and December were 5C higher than average.

It follows a summer during which Arctic sea ice reached the second-lowest extent ever recorded by satellites.



Arctic sea ice extent is monitored and measured by satellite imaging

Dr Friederike Otto, a senior researcher at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute told BBC News that
in pre-industrial times "a heatwave like this would have been extremely rare - we would expect it to
occur about every 1,000 years".

Read More....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38417198

====================================================
====================================================

Antarctica shows troubling signs of climate change

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YzcFZLx0UHU

Published on 6 Dec 2016
2016 is on track to be the warmest year on record. Dr. Ari Friedlaender describes
his research from Antarctica, which has seen major change due to global warming.

===================================================
===================================================


Arctic Sea Ice and the Impact of Record Summer Heat

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FWOQmoG09S4

Published on 19 Aug 2016
NASA Program Scientist Dr. Tom Wagner explains how record-breaking
temperatures in July have affected sea ice cover in the Arctic. He joins Lunch Break
with Tanya Rivero to also explain how long-term changes in the region could affect
life in the U.S. Photo: NASA

[norman]

Does anyone else see a relationship between the red areas of heat in the Arctic and the Aurora Borealis ?

There have been a lot of Auroras in recent times. That could be a source of energy that's heating up the Arctic.

[Hervé]

New York Times 1989: no global warming trend

by Jon Rappoport Dec29, 2016

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read:

“US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”

“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:

“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”

That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.

Actually, later in the Times article:

“Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.

But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy—but look, people make mistakes. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.

THEY’RE NOT USING A BOGUS WARMING HYPOTHESIS TO TORPEDO AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, AS PART OF A GLOBALIST MACHINATION OF CONTROL. THEY DON’T WANT TO DECIMATE THE ECONOMY AND REDUCE US TO A HELPLESS STATE OF POVERTY.

They would never do that.

Jon Rappoport

=====================================================

“US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

What a perfect news-speak... since that time, NOAA got busy to ensure that the data were "successful" in showing a temperature increase... by fudging said data and their trends.

In the end, like with 911, Iraq, Libya, MH17, Syria, etc... laws, legislations, regulations have been passed along with arms deals struck so that it doesn't matter anymore whether the propagandized events were hoaxes or false flags since their expected yields in laws, legislations, regulations, economic sanctions, profits, etc., have been harvested...

... and the complaints, dissents and counter arguments will get buried with the generations which suffered them as well as under the "new" news; much like troll work on social media.

Remember, TPTW works generations in advance - much like Native American projecting current actions into the future 7 generations to evaluate whether or not it's a good thing - so that current events have been planned a few centuries back... and they usually are not so knuckle-headed as to send transport troupes prior to establishing a beach head... their actions are not event driven like ours... theirs are sequence driven.

[Cidersomerset]

EXPOSED: Govt Climate Change Data 100% Fabricated by NOAA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2Gq_FEVtLqI

Published on 29 Dec 2016


The Federal government’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us
there’s been a 1.5F increase in global temperatures since the 1800’s. Where was the data
collected? What kind of accuracy did they have when the data was collected? How did NOAA
“adjust” the data to get what they wanted?

[Flash]

I do not know what is happening with Earth, but within 60 years, climate has change up North. Ask the Inuits (i have a contract with them, and they are telling this to whomever wants to hear) -

Is it the planet tilting differently, is it global warming, is it a temporary spike in the natural warm \ cold cycles? Or is it an energy input from the universe (or a warm interstellar gaz cloud we are passing through - or the Sun reacting differently)? Or worst, CHEMTRAILS RESULTS?

Who knows, all I can say is that people living in the extremeties of the planet are the first to notice the change because they are more drastic at those levels, and changes there are. -

We even start having insects that lives in warmer climates - for this to happen, warmer weather has to be going on for a while, giving them the time to get to the north.

Those are direct observations. I bet anything that if I were to do a scientific research on warm climate insect migration, I would scientifically observe what I am empirically observing, and that many many in the alternative media would deny my findings.

the real problem is that we do not trust anybody anylonger. With reasons, since lots and lots have been bought with greed or with force, but we do not believe the scientists or our friends on forums to our global detriment at times.

I would very much like to know what is happening in terms of weather patterns in northern Finland, Siberia, northern Sweden and Iceland. Is there any noticeable and steady changes over there??

Posted by Hervé (here)
New York Times 1989: no global warming trend

by Jon Rappoport Dec29, 2016

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read:

“US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”

“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:

“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”

That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.

Actually, later in the Times article:

“Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.

But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy—but look, people make mistakes. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.

THEY’RE NOT USING A BOGUS WARMING HYPOTHESIS TO TORPEDO AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, AS PART OF A GLOBALIST MACHINATION OF CONTROL. THEY DON’T WANT TO DECIMATE THE ECONOMY AND REDUCE US TO A HELPLESS STATE OF POVERTY.

They would never do that.

Jon Rappoport

=====================================================

“US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

What a perfect news-speak... since that time, NOAA got busy to ensure that the data were "successful" in showing a temperature increase... by fudging said data and their trends.

In the end, like with 911, Iraq, Libya, MH17, Syria, etc... laws, legislations, regulations have been passed along with arms deals struck so that it doesn't matter anymore whether the propagandized events were hoaxes or false flags since their expected yields in laws, legislations, regulations, economic sanctions, profits, etc., have been harvested...

... and the complaints, dissents and counter arguments will get buried with the generations which suffered them as well as under the "new" news; much like troll work on social media.

Remember, TPTW works generations in advance - much like Native American projecting current actions into the future 7 generations to evaluate whether or not it's a good thing - so that current events have been planned a few centuries back... and they usually are not so knuckle-headed as to send transport troupes prior to establishing a beach head... their actions are not event driven like ours... theirs are sequence driven.

[norman]

The climate science I trust to be on the ball and genuine is the science of fiddling with it.

My own view is that they have been doing lots of things to the weather, mostly experimentally, and the cover story for it is the one we are told.

It's an old playbook. They tested over 2000 nuclear bombs, many in the open atmosphere. Just one particle from those atmospheric tests, if inhaled into a lung, will produce a lethal tumor. They have crafted a cover story. They blame such cancer data on a self inflicted cause, smoking. By choosing something self inflicted, they harness self guilt as a weapon. It never fails.

[TargeT]

Posted by Flash (here)
I do not know what is happening with Earth, but within 60 years, climate has change up North. Ask the Inuits (i have a contract with them, and they are telling this to whomever wants to hear) -

Some of my drinking buddies are Innuits or Yupik even knew some of the Aleut.

I lived in Alaska and worked all over the state until 2013... While I was there ocean canneries had to CLOSE DOWN due to the massive amounts of sea ice that blocked off access to them.

I've eaten traditional Yupik meals with their elders and been to their summer fish camps.. I've NEVER heard a THING like what you are saying.


Maybe it's a Canadian regional thing? The weather goes up and down, but that is not climate; we had bitter cold winters and warmer ones while I was there for the 13 years I stayed... this seems no different.

[Hervé]

The various modellings from which the IPCC derived its "Settled" Gospel in contradiction with actual measured values from balloons (circles) and satellites (squares):

[GrayWolfBG]

So Novembers PIOMAS is in and were number 1! That is lowest on the records. I'm beginning to think that we will see a very surprising sight come September and the amount of 'new heat' it will amass would put a nino to shame but then we've seen a bit of that since September this year haven't we? With the QBO still running rouge and the issues of even setting up the Arctic PV this year leaving us with a very warm Arctic in time for our new 'traditionally whacked out' day Zero to day 100 ( which last year kept the basin at least 7 c warmer up until day 100). This year looks like breaking that little record too so how much energy will we 'save' this year on raising the winter temps to those we see by day 100? Where will that energy be spent instead ? Oooh? maybe on ice melt? Maybe on opening the pack up like we saw last Jan/Feb?

2017 was always the earliest possible year for us to see a return of the 'perfect melt storm synoptic'........

This autumn/winter is a low solar affair and we have seen the impacts by the UK being spared the flooding misery that has become so common , post 07', by the Atlantic blocking that low solar appears to promote. So what happens to that blocking over summer? Does it just migrate North along with the jet? Does that mean more common 'high melt' synoptics over Barentsz/Kara/Greenland seas? and if they join up with the Beaufort High then what do we have? It's beginning to look a lot like 'perfect melt storm'........

if we suffered such the basin would be ice free by the end of august and the problems we've seen in our atmosphere this year would pale into insignificance. My times of warning folk about the dangers approaching ended in 2015. Since then I've found myself increasingly documenting the very dangers I had spent decades warning about.

[Hervé]

Wisconsin DNR Revises Position on Climate Change: Removes Caused by “Human Activities” from Great Lakes Webpage

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale December 29, 2016

Lee Bergquist opens his article DNR purges climate change from webpage at the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (my brackets):

The state Department of Natural Resources recently scrubbed language from an agency web page on the Great Lakes that said humans and greenhouse gases are the main cause of climate change. [See DNR webpage The Great Lakes and a changing world.]

The DNR now says the subject is a matter of scientific debate.

The department made the changes on Dec. 21, striking out whole sentences attributing global warming to human activities and rising levels of carbon dioxide.

Bergquist explains:

In the latest changes, the DNR says of climate change, “as it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Department of Natural Resources.”

Officials replaced this wording:

“Earth’s climate is changing. Human activities that increase heat-trapping (‘greenhouse’) gases are the main cause.”

Bergquist’s article continues with statements from a Wisconsin DNR spokesperson, then follows it with a typical reminder of the consensus (a.k.a. groupthink) from the United Nation’s agenda-supporting, report-writing entity called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-IPCC (a political body, not a scientific one).

I’m looking forward to more changes like this in the not-so-distant future.

[Hervé]

Brilliantly-colored polar stratospheric clouds appear over Arctic Circle

Space Weather Sun, 01 Jan 2017 14:15 UTC

Earth's stratosphere is normally free of clouds. Not this weekend, though. Observers around the Arctic Circle are reporting an outbreak of brilliantly-colored icy clouds in the typically dry and transparent layer of our planet's atmosphere. Eric Fokke photographed the display on New Years Eve from the Lofoten Islands of Norway:

© Eric Fokke

These icy clouds are a sign of very cold temperatures. For ice crystals to form in the arid stratosphere, temperatures must drop to around -85º C. High-altitude sunlight shining through tiny ice particles ~10µm across produce the characteristic bright iridescent colors.

Once thought to be mere curiosities, some polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) are now known to be associated with the destruction of ozone. Indeed, an ozone hole formed over the UK in Feb. 2016 following an outbreak of ozone-destroying Type 1 PSCs.

These clouds really are as amazing as they look in Fokke's photo. They have much more vivid colors than ordinary iridescent clouds, which form closer to Earth in the troposphere. Once seen, a stratospheric cloud is never forgotten.

© Eric Fokke

© Eric Fokke


© Eric Fokke

Browse the gallery for more sightings as polar winter unfolds:Realtime PSC Photo Gallery

[norman]

Rainbow clouds often appear before an earthquake and are allegedly HAARP related.

[Foxie Loxie]

Like....WOW!! What beautiful clouds! Thanks!

[Wind]

A really good interview of John L. Casey here about the coming cooling.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QIDoMPIikog

[Hervé]

Where most of the above posted graphs are comimg from:

Science, politics, morality and climate change - Professor John Christy

YouTube Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:54 UTC

Geoff Derrick writes:

The John Christie talk is one of the best I have seen for a long time, keeping things simple but very very effective in the message. It should be compulsory viewing while still in holiday mode to take 1 hour off and watch the main event. It is just simply excellent, logical observation at work here.

© The Huntsville Times John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the UAH, has also been criticized for his views on global warming.

Professor John Christy, Alabama state climatologist speaks on science, politics and morality as they relate to climate change "action".

Recorded December, 2015.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EvO7bBuTRno