Overheating the Earth: High Temperatures Shortened Alaska’s Winter Weather

Unusually high March temperatures lopped weeks off Alaska’s long winter and reflect a warming climate trend, state climate experts say. March is normally reliable for dog mushing and cross-country skiing. According to AP agency,  n extreme warmth melted snow and made ice on waterways hazardous for travel in the state. Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, didn’t record a flake of measureable snow.“It was as if we didn’t have March this year,” said Martin Stuefer, state climatologist and an associate research professor with the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “We had April instead.” The March warmth was due to a high pressure ridge over Alaska and northwest Alaska that lasted two weeks. Low pressure over the Bering Sea produced southwest winds along Alaska’s west coast, pushing warm air from southern latitudes into the Arctic, according to Stuefer. “We see the last several years were way warm. There’s a clear climate-induced warming. There’s no doubt about it,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we all agreed it was called Climate Change?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Because yard of my frined is still frozen solid in southwestern Ontario. We talking about a pocket of cold.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure sure, like the growing glaciers in Greenland, climate change. Climates always change.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Alaska is breaking records this spring and climate change in the Arctic is happening twice as fast as other places. Climate disruption affects everything from infrastructure to health and safety.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In support of the topic:

 

"66 tons of frozen feces left by climbers on [Denali] is expected to start melting out of the glacier sometime in the coming decades and potentially as soon as this summer, a process that’s speeding up in part due to global warming." 🙄

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pavel said:

I thought we all agreed it was called Climate Change?

The climate alarmists use whatever lie works best. They tell us not to say a word about weather but blab blab blab about it all the time! If you think Alaska is going to be warm anytime soon you better invest in land there!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, pinto said:

Unusually high March temperatures lopped weeks off Alaska’s long winter and reflect a warming climate trend, state climate experts say. March is normally reliable for dog mushing and cross-country skiing. According to AP agency,  n extreme warmth melted snow and made ice on waterways hazardous for travel in the state. Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, didn’t record a flake of measureable snow.“It was as if we didn’t have March this year,” said Martin Stuefer, state climatologist and an associate research professor with the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “We had April instead.” The March warmth was due to a high pressure ridge over Alaska and northwest Alaska that lasted two weeks. Low pressure over the Bering Sea produced southwest winds along Alaska’s west coast, pushing warm air from southern latitudes into the Arctic, according to Stuefer. “We see the last several years were way warm. There’s a clear climate-induced warming. There’s no doubt about it,” he said.

Meanwhile, Southern Canada and the United States have had record cold. So what! You climate alarmists are continually telling us not to call weather climate. When Alaska starts growing in population due to more temperate weather I will be concerned. 

The only true indicator of global warming is ocean level rise, which is minimal. We have abundant proof of that in all the capitalists who are building as close as possible to the ocean shores. Watch them. They have to get loans from banks and buy insurance. 

Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pavel said:

In support of the topic:

 

"66 tons of frozen feces left by climbers on [Denali] is expected to start melting out of the glacier sometime in the coming decades and potentially as soon as this summer, a process that’s speeding up in part due to global warming." 🙄

You pack it in you pack it out is a key phrase for hikers. Feces are usually buried but it needs to be buried in soil, not snow or ice!  

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2019 at 7:15 PM, ronwagn said:

Meanwhile, Southern Canada and the United States have had record cold. So what! You climate alarmists are continually telling us not to call weather climate. When Alaska starts growing in population due to more temperate weather I will be concerned. 

The only true indicator of global warming is ocean level rise, which is minimal. We have abundant proof of that in all the capitalists who are building as close as possible to the ocean shores. Watch them. They have to get loans from banks and buy insurance. 

This is fundamentally incorrect.  sea levels are influenced by other factors including the amount of rainfall over Endorheic basins across the planet. 

Temperatures may rise but if this causes more rainfall over Endorheic basins then a corresponding fall in sea level could occur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NickW said:

This is fundamentally incorrect.  sea levels are influenced by other factors including the amount of rainfall over Endorheic basins across the planet. 

Temperatures may rise but if this causes more rainfall over Endorheic basins then a corresponding fall in sea level could occur. 

That is a very minor factor and is just common sense. Of course, there is evaporation and the water is used by mankind for irrigation, etc. Nature fills the aquifers also. My statement is at least 90% accurate. Trust sea level change. Anything else is a hypothesis.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

That is a very minor factor and is just common sense. Of course, there is evaporation and the water is used by mankind for irrigation, etc. Nature fills the aquifers also. My statement is at least 90% accurate. Trust sea level change. Anything else is a hypothesis.  

So that confirms then you accept global warming is happening. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at a very slow rate. That does not mean that it has much of an anthropogenic factor. As you know, the climate has always changed.  I think it is best to weigh the cost-benefit of any moves toward expensive energy plans. I am a strong proponent of using natural gas for all heavy transportation and replacing diesel. The cost is less over the lifespan of the vehicle. Natural gas can also replace all coal use. Wind and solar can be chosen based on cost and merit but they will not compete for baseload power. Neither can hydro.  Natural gas can. 

http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/natural-gas-a-real-alternative-to-traditional-fuels-concludes-belgian-study-0405

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yes, at a very slow rate. That does not mean that it has much of an anthropogenic factor. As you know, the climate has always changed.  I think it is best to weigh the cost-benefit of any moves toward expensive energy plans. I am a strong proponent of using natural gas for all heavy transportation and replacing diesel. The cost is less over the lifespan of the vehicle. Natural gas can also replace all coal use. Wind and solar can be chosen based on cost and merit but they will not compete for baseload power. Neither can hydro.  Natural gas can. 

http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/natural-gas-a-real-alternative-to-traditional-fuels-concludes-belgian-study-0405

The rate has been very stable for the last 6000 years - less than 1mm a year. In the last 20 it has increased to over 3mm a year so the rate is expanding rapidly. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were expanding rapidly you would see a sharp drop in the value of all real estate near the ocean's shores. I will trust my own observations over those of the global warming community. 

60 mm = 6 cm = 2.3622 inches  over 20 years.
conversion table at link below.
 
 
At that rate, people will be willing to tear down old buildings and build new buildings.at higher elevations. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have lots of people with confirmation bias quoting figures like your 3mm/yr sea-level rise.   We need peer-review processes, across scientific disciplines, to check these so-called "facts", because otherwise noone believes one-off snapshots of data like this, especially when there is evidence of bias and censorship of publications that run counter to AGW.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

 Trust sea level change. Anything else is a hypothesis.  

Track sea temperatures too. The ocean is the great buffer for weather, and a heck of a lot of other things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything about the climate is fundamentally incorrect, including this statement.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NickW said:

The rate has been very stable for the last 6000 years - less than 1mm a year. In the last 20 it has increased to over 3mm a year so the rate is expanding rapidly. 

We're confident in that 3 mm number? Because compared to the average ocean depth that works out to 0.000000008134% in just one dimension. Given that the oceans are constantly moving and the "land" adjacent to it is constantly eroding, I'm curious how they get any value at all. 

Not to mention there's a castle in England many miles inland that used to be right on the seashore with cannons to thwart shipping attacks. What happened there? Is the ocean supposed to come back to where it belongs? 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

We're confident in that 3 mm number? Because compared to the average ocean depth that works out to 0.000000008134% in just one dimension. Given that the oceans are constantly moving and the "land" adjacent to it is constantly eroding, I'm curious how they get any value at all. 

Not to mention there's a castle in England many miles inland that used to be right on the seashore with cannons to thwart shipping attacks. What happened there? Is the ocean supposed to come back to where it belongs? 

Care to divulge where? Scotland is rising. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

We're confident in that 3 mm number? Because compared to the average ocean depth that works out to 0.000000008134% in just one dimension. Given that the oceans are constantly moving and the "land" adjacent to it is constantly eroding, I'm curious how they get any value at all. 

Not to mention there's a castle in England many miles inland that used to be right on the seashore with cannons to thwart shipping attacks. What happened there? Is the ocean supposed to come back to where it belongs? 

NASA's work seems to correspond with land based work on this subject. 

NASA research shows 3.3mm / PA since 1995

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If it were expanding rapidly you would see a sharp drop in the value of all real estate near the ocean's shores. I will trust my own observations over those of the global warming community. 

60 mm = 6 cm = 2.3622 inches  over 20 years.
conversion table at link below.
 
 
At that rate, people will be willing to tear down old buildings and build new buildings.at higher elevations. 

Yes because real estate is a paragon of objective decision making🤣

Besides over 20 years 6cm is less than the height of a brick. Its like slow boiling a frog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NickW said:

Care to divulge where? Scotland is rising. 

I think it's Camber castle. When I was there it was called something else, started with a W. 

Scotland rising means ocean lowering? Or maybe I'm correct in that you really can't competently measure this. Maybe a little creek has defined banks but once you get to major river status it's already impossible, and the oceans dwarf that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I think it's Camber castle. When I was there it was called something else, started with a W. 

Scotland rising means ocean lowering? Or maybe I'm correct in that you really can't competently measure this. Maybe a little creek has defined banks but once you get to major river status it's already impossible, and the oceans dwarf that

Scotland had 3 km of ice sitting on it during the Ice Age. Now there isn't any so the land mass there is rising - it is called Isostatic adjustment. 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/glacial-adjustment.html

Camber Castle is in Sussex on the South Coast of England. The answer to that observation is that the harbour silted up giving the apparent distancing of the fort from the sea. 

Same story in the Wash - Villages that were once fishing villages are now several km inland - Terrington St Clements is one notable example. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrington_St_Clement

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites