The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

[Abdullah719]

Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic.

It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.

But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.

At the same time, one of the key indicators of the state of the Arctic — the extent of sea ice covering the polar ocean — is at a record low. The ice is freezing up again, as it always does this time of year after reaching its September low, but it isn’t doing so as rapidly as usual.

In fact, the ice’s area is even lower than it was during the record-low 2012:

Twitter’s expert Arctic watchers also are stunned. Zack Labe, a PhD student at the University of California at Irvine who studies the Arctic, tweeted out an image on Wednesday from the Danish Meteorological Institute showing Arctic temperatures about 20 degrees Celsius higher than normal above 80 degrees North Latitude.

“Today’s latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction . . . up. Quite an anomalous spike!,” Labe wrote. Here’s the figure:

As you can see, temperatures north of 80 latitude were around -5 degrees Celsius — still below freezing, but not by that much — instead of the normal of around -25 degrees C.

“Despite onset of #PolarNight, temperatures near #NorthPole increasing. Extraordinary situation right now in #Arctic, w/record low #seaice,” added Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA.

This is the second year in a row that temperatures near the North Pole have risen to freakishly warm levels. During 2015’s final days, the temperature near the Pole spiked to the melting point thanks to a massive storm that pumped warm air into the region.

So what’s going on here?

“It’s about 20C [36 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia,” Jennifer Francis, an Arctic specialist at Rutgers University, said by email Wednesday.

“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 has published research suggesting that the jet stream, which travels from west to east across the Northern Hemisphere in the mid-latitudes, is becoming more wavy and elongated as the Arctic warms faster than the equator does.

“It will be fascinating to see if the stratospheric polar vortex continues to be as weak as it is now, which favors a negative Arctic Oscillation and probably a cold mid/late winter to continue over central and eastern Asia and eastern North America. The extreme behavior of the Arctic in 2016 seems to be in no hurry to quit,” Francis continued.

Francis cited the work of Judah Cohen, a forecaster with Atmospheric and Environmental Research, who has linked odd jet stream behavior with cold air over Siberia.

Indeed, another Arctic expert, James Overland with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that the jet stream at the moment is well configured to transport warmth northward into the Arctic. “There is strong warm advection into the Arctic, especially northern-central Canada, in through the Atlantic, and east Siberian/Chukchi Sea,” Overland said.

The whole situation is pretty extreme, several experts agreed.

“Both the persistence and magnitude of these temperature anomalies are quite unusual,” Labe added by email. “Large variability in temperatures is common in the Arctic (especially during the cold season), but the duration of this warm Arctic — cold Siberia pattern is unusual and quite an impressive crysophere/sea ice feedback.” (The “cryosphere” refers to that part of the Earth’s system that is made up of ice.)

Abnormally warm air has flooded the Arctic since October. Richard James, a meteorologist who pens a blog on Alaska weather, analyzed 19 weather stations surrounding the Arctic Ocean and found that the average temperature was about 4 degrees (2 Celsius) above the record set in 1998.

Since November, temperatures have risen even higher. “It is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October,” James wrote on his blog.

Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., agrees that something odd is going on. Not only are air temperatures unusually warm, but water temperatures are as well. “There are some areas in the Arctic Ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now,” Serreze said. “It’s pretty crazy.”

What’s happening, he explains, is sort of a “double whammy.” On the one hand, there is a “very warm underlying ocean” due to the lack of sea ice forming above it. But, at the same time, kinks in the jet stream have allowed warm air to flow northward and frigid Arctic air to descend over Siberia.

“The sea ice is at a record low right now, for this time of year, that’s one thing,” Serreze said. “And why it’s so low — again, there’s so much heat in the upper ocean in these ice-free areas, the ice just can’t form right now. The ocean’s just got to get rid of this heat somehow, and it’s having a hard time doing so.”

The situation this winter could set the Arctic’s ice up for very thin conditions and a possible record low next year, Serreze said, although it’s too soon to say.

The weather in the Arctic can change swiftly. Temperatures could cool and the ice could rebound.

But the record-low sea ice extent and unprecedented warmth in the region fit in well with recent trends and portend even more profound changes in the coming years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...egrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/

 

[JaDed]

Replies in this thread show the interest of such an event even globally.

 

[desirous of desire]

the major cause is the release of CO2 in atmosphere by industries which thickens the atmosphere with green house gases. We should also move towards solar energy for vehicles and stop tropical deforestation.

 

[Saeed]

Meanwhile Pakistan is building coal power plants. At least Trump will be able to sell some coal to Pakistan.

 

[jeetu]

Weird climate changes are going around. Just saw news with headline "Tokyo sees first November snow in 54 years".

 

[Ellipsism]

Developed countries are to be blamed. They have the money to invest in technologies to develop sustainable methods of energy. Some options are:

Use Renewable energy sources- renewables such as solar and wind need more development to match affordable and substantial amounts of power generated by coal.

Develop 'clean coal' technology- a process that captures emissions and stores them underground. This technology is in it's early stages of development and is not likely to be used on a large scale for decades.

Use Nuclear Power- The nuclear power option is subject to wide debate in many countries because of its potential for misuse in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, and the problem of safe disposal.

Use less energy and use it more efficiently- this is the fastest and easiest way to reduce emissions. It cannot solve the problem alone, but it does buy extra time to develop other energy sources.

 

[gani999]

Developed countries are to be blamed. They have the money to invest in technologies to develop sustainable methods of energy. Some options are:

Use Renewable energy sources- renewables such as solar and wind need more development to match affordable and substantial amounts of power generated by coal.

Develop 'clean coal' technology- a process that captures emissions and stores them underground. This technology is in it's early stages of development and is not likely to be used on a large scale for decades.

Use Nuclear Power- The nuclear power option is subject to wide debate in many countries because of its potential for misuse in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, and the problem of safe disposal.

Use less energy and use it more efficiently- this is the fastest and easiest way to reduce emissions. It cannot solve the problem alone, but it does buy extra time to develop other energy sources.

There is the classic South Asian 'it is always them and not the super perfect us' attitude. How predictable!

Almost all developed countries have very strict emission norms and are adopting green technologies wherever they can. It is the big developing countries, which are building more factories and putting more cars on the roads than ever before, that are responsible for the increased pollution. In their mad quest for getting richer at the cost of everything else the likes of India, China, South Africa and others are giving environmental laws the heave ho like never before; And don't get me even started on the Brazilians who are destroying the rainforest at such a phenomenal rate that it may well be history in another twenty years.

I simply cannot understand why countries like India and Brazil, which have 300+ days of sunshine very year, are not adopting solar energy more agressively.

 

[Yossarian]

Meanwhile Pakistan is building coal power plants.

The developed world "We have been messing up the planet with pollution for centuries, whilst also robbing the rest of the world of their wealth and resources via colonisation, thereby allowing us to build up our infrastructure, build our industries and provide our citizens with a better quality of life. "

But now that those who were robbed and looted for centuries want to improve their own lives, by outputting, on average per person, still only a fraction of the greenhouse gasses that the industrialised world is outputting, they should be told they can't, because they will be polluting the planet!"

That's like a very wealthy person who throws away into the rubbish bin 50 times as much food every day as a poor individual needs to survive, telling that poor individual he's eating too much and the 'waste' he's generating is overloading the capacity of the waste processing plant.

 

[Yossarian]

There is the classic South Asian 'it is always them and not the super perfect us' attitude. How predictable!

Almost all developed countries have very strict emission norms and are adopting green technologies wherever they can. It is the big developing countries, which are building more factories and putting more cars on the roads than ever before, that are responsible for the increased pollution. In their mad quest for getting richer at the cost of everything else the likes of India, China, South Africa and others are giving environmental laws the heave ho like never before; And don't get me even started on the Brazilians who are destroying the rainforest at such a phenomenal rate that it may well be history in another twenty years.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters


Even today, the deveping countries are not the problem. The developing countries still output, per capita, a fraction of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases compared with the industrialised world, especially the USA.

I simply cannot understand why countries like India and Brazil, which have 300+ days of sunshine very year, are not adopting solar energy more agressively.

Initial investment costs for building factories, production plants and general infrastructure before the benefits start being realised? Isn't that obvious enough?

An ethnic Pakistani defending India, against an Indian (ethic Indian?) who's criticing India unfairly!! Oh the irony!

 

[Saeed]

The developed world "We have been messing up the planet with pollution for centuries, whilst also robbing the rest of the world of their wealth and resources via colonisation, thereby allowing us to build up our infrastructure, build our industries and provide our citizens with a better quality of life. "

But now that those who were robbed and looted for centuries want to improve their own lives, by outputting, on average per person, still only a fraction of the greenhouse gasses that the industrialised world is outputting, they should be told they can't, because they will be polluting the planet!"

That's like a very wealthy person who throws away into the rubbish bin 50 times as much food every day as a poor individual needs to survive, telling that poor individual he's eating too much and the 'waste' he's generating is overloading the capacity of the waste processing plant.

But why can't they try other alternatives? They can go for solar energy or wind turbines. Back then they didn't have these alternatives but we do now. People did a lot of things back then but it doesn't mean we have to repeat that. Somebody has to break the cycle or the madness continues.

 

[anakin]

But why can't they try other alternatives? They can go for solar energy or wind turbines. Back then they didn't have these alternatives but we do now. People did a lot of things back then but it doesn't mean we have to repeat that. Somebody has to break the cycle or the madness continues.

Do you know how much it costs per unit of electricity through non-conventional sources of energy?
What is the setup cost ? How long does it take to even break even with such projects?
How reliable and uniform is the output from non-conventional sources of Energy (talking about wind, solar power) ?

It is truely absurd to ask the absolute poor to pay exorbitant price while the developed world continue to burn fuels @100 times per capita.

 

[Yossarian]

But why can't they try other alternatives? They can go for solar energy or wind turbines. Back then they didn't have these alternatives but we do now. People did a lot of things back then but it doesn't mean we have to repeat that. Somebody has to break the cycle or the madness continues.

Simple: Cost of initial development, implementation plus timeframe required to start realising the benefits when the need is immediate. Furthermore, solar energy and windpower, whilst providing a useful addition, in no way solve the total energy demands unless there are many thousands of acres of solar panels and wind turbines (for every decent sized power station) - and even then the problem is not solved. What do you do at night if there's no wind? Zero electricity production, that's what.

 

[endymion248]

View attachment 70709

View attachment 70710

View attachment 70711
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters


Even today, the deveping countries are not the problem. The developing countries still output, per capita, a fraction of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases compared with the industrialised world, especially the USA.


Initial investment costs for building factories, production plants and general infrastructure before the benefits start being realised? Isn't that obvious enough?

An ethnic Pakistani defending India, against an Indian (ethic Indian?) who's criticing India unfairly!! Oh the irony!

Making a developed/non-developed dichotomy is not right.

High emitters: UAE (developing), Saudi Arabia (developing), Canada (developed), Australia (developed), USA (developed)

Low emitters: India (developing), Congo (developing), France (developed), Sweden (developed), Norway (developed)

 

[endymion248]

The developed world "We have been messing up the planet with pollution for centuries, whilst also robbing the rest of the world of their wealth and resources via colonisation, thereby allowing us to build up our infrastructure, build our industries and provide our citizens with a better quality of life. "

But now that those who were robbed and looted for centuries want to improve their own lives, by outputting, on average per person, still only a fraction of the greenhouse gasses that the industrialised world is outputting, they should be told they can't, because they will be polluting the planet!"

That's like a very wealthy person who throws away into the rubbish bin 50 times as much food every day as a poor individual needs to survive, telling that poor individual he's eating too much and the 'waste' he's generating is overloading the capacity of the waste processing plant.

The developed world didn't know about global warming when they industrialized, poor countries now do.

When global warming happens, it's nlt going to look at who polluted first, planet will warm up everywhere. Instead of point scoring, developed countries should do the rational thing, what's best for them.

 

[endymion248]

Simple: Cost of initial development, implementation plus timeframe required to start realising the benefits when the need is immediate. Furthermore, solar energy and windpower, whilst providing a useful addition, in no way solve the total energy demands unless there are many thousands of acres of solar panels and wind turbines (for every decent sized power station) - and even then the problem is not solved. What do you do at night if there's no wind? Zero electricity production, that's what.

Nuclear, hydropower, low-emission gas. There is no excuse in the 21st century to be using coal.

 

[Yossarian]

Nuclear, hydropower, low-emission gas. There is no excuse in the 21st century to be using coal.

You're expecting the developed world, especially the nuclear club, to open the doors to nuclear power (ie nuclear technology) to the developing world? Unless of course it is all under the full control (including operationally) under the developed world? Otherwise, would the developed world allow nuclear power in the developing world if that meant they could also process/produce the fuel needed for the nuclear power stations, ie Uranium enrichment.

Hydropower is not possible on a large enough scale in those parts of the developing world where the availability of water sources, weather, local geography are unsuitable.

And what if there is unavailabity of low-emission gas, but abundance of coal, in an energy starved developing country? Should the people of that country be denied energy just because the developed world is (per capita) polluting the planet to such a large extent?

 

[90MPH]

But according to Trump Global warming is a made up Chinese conspiracy.

Some scientists have already pressed the doomsday button, it's probably too late now and it will be inevitable that the polar ice caps will melt in the future.

 

[GenericBrand]

But according to Trump Global warming is a made up Chinese conspiracy.

Trump already making his move
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...onald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

 

[last_knight]

Hostile Climate, epidemics of fatal illness, Demographic shifts, Famines and Floods bla bla, These kind of things have had happened in every era during history. It's ridiculous to believe that world or human are in danger because of this.

Historically, to mask the actual reasons behind some unavoidable acts and associated collateral damage, rulers of the world have blamed these Natural Events to be the reason. This is Infrequently successful.

 

[endymion248]

You're expecting the developed world, especially the nuclear club, to open the doors to nuclear power (ie nuclear technology) to the developing world? Unless of course it is all under the full control (including operationally) under the developed world? Otherwise, would the developed world allow nuclear power in the developing world if that meant they could also process/produce the fuel needed for the nuclear power stations, ie Uranium enrichment.

Hydropower is not possible on a large enough scale in those parts of the developing world where the availability of water sources, weather, local geography are unsuitable.

And what if there is unavailabity of low-emission gas, but abundance of coal, in an energy starved developing country? Should the people of that country be denied energy just because the developed world is (per capita) polluting the planet to such a large extent?

Many developing countries have nuclear reactors: China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Brazil etc...

Many developing countries have the geography for hydropower.

Many developing countries have local sources of petrol, gas or biofuel.

In the unlikely scenario that none of this is possible (doubt such countries exist) then they buy more expensive gas from abroad because the local pollution from coal (acid rain, smog,...) by itself compensates the fact that it is cheaper. Using coal is short-sighted and, to be honest, frankly stupid.

 

[TalhaSyed]

The matter of fact is that no one will do any thing until it is too late IMO.

You hear about all these incentives like 20% since 2020 and 100% renewable by 2045 - however, the infrastructure is just not there to utilise the alternate sources of energy. To put the infrastructure in place will cost millions, if not billions of pounds/dollars/any fricking currency in the world.

Take the UK for instance.

Feed in tariffs for solar installations are being cut and will soon be abolished. New builds will have some PV since the regulations force you to, however, there is next to no financial incentive for someone occupying a building which is already developed to fork over 1000's of pounds to install PV on the roof.

The UK isn't a massive country so there's no space for large wind farms.

The most tidal and wave power is in the north west of country - however, there is no national grid up in those parts. To get the national grid up there and link it back to the existing grid will cost millions - however, instead we need to renovate Buckingham palace so dont have any tax payer money to do useless stuff like improving the grid.

Looking outside the UK...

Across in USA we have Donald Trump who thinks global warming is a Chinese myth

We have some countries in Europe doing a great job - however - they are too small to make any significant impact on a global scale

Countries across Africa & Asia simply dont have the funding to put the alternate systems to use.

No one - anywhere in the world - is willing to worsen their standard of living and the global population continues to grow so the demand for power continues to grow.

In summary - we are all screwed

 

[Ellipsism]

There is the classic South Asian 'it is always them and not the super perfect us' attitude. How predictable!

Almost all developed countries have very strict emission norms and are adopting green technologies wherever they can. It is the big developing countries, which are building more factories and putting more cars on the roads than ever before, that are responsible for the increased pollution. In their mad quest for getting richer at the cost of everything else the likes of India, China, South Africa and others are giving environmental laws the heave ho like never before; And don't get me even started on the Brazilians who are destroying the rainforest at such a phenomenal rate that it may well be history in another twenty years.

I simply cannot understand why countries like India and Brazil, which have 300+ days of sunshine very year, are not adopting solar energy more agressively.

Setting up a large scale solar system isn't cheap at all. Burning fuels are still much easier and cheaper, and developing countries are always going to go with the cheaper alternative.

We'll look at the emissions per capita for a few developed countries:

USA- 16.5
AUS- 17.3
Canada- 15.9
Germany- 9.3
France- 5
Italy- 5.5

Now the emissions per capita for a few developing countries:

India- 1.8
Indonesia- 1.8
Brazil- 2.5
Pakistan- 0.9
China- 5.0

Your point?

 

[Ellipsism]

Many developing countries have nuclear reactors: China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Brazil etc...

Many developing countries have the geography for hydropower.

Many developing countries have local sources of petrol, gas or biofuel.

In the unlikely scenario that none of this is possible (doubt such countries exist) then they buy more expensive gas from abroad because the local pollution from coal (acid rain, smog,...) by itself compensates the fact that it is cheaper. Using coal is short-sighted and, to be honest, frankly stupid.

A few cons for hydropower, which imply heavily to developing countries.

There are numerous environmental consequences of damming water, flooding entire areas, creating massive reservoirs, changing water flow, blocking the natural course of rivers, and constructing power lines and roads.

There are only a limited number of places where these power plants can be built.

The initial expense is huge (though comparatively, so are other energy resources)

Lack of water. Droughts have a serious impact on how much hydropower can be produced.

 

[HussainRx8]

There is the classic South Asian 'it is always them and not the super perfect us' attitude. How predictable!

Almost all developed countries have very strict emission norms and are adopting green technologies wherever they can. It is the big developing countries, which are building more factories and putting more cars on the roads than ever before, that are responsible for the increased pollution. In their mad quest for getting richer at the cost of everything else the likes of India, China, South Africa and others are giving environmental laws the heave ho like never before; And don't get me even started on the Brazilians who are destroying the rainforest at such a phenomenal rate that it may well be history in another twenty years.

I simply cannot understand why countries like India and Brazil, which have 300+ days of sunshine very year, are not adopting solar energy more agressively.

That's a very superficial reading of the issue. Seems like your timeline for emissions doesn't go back to the 19th or the 20th century. Even today, Canada and US remain emit more than double the global average per capita.