A Weather Station Above the Arctic Circle Hit 94.6 Degrees F

[Jolthig]

Amid the hottest month in recorded history, some records still stand out as absolutely jaw dropping. That’s definitely true of a measurement made in the Arctic this July.

According to data released in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) monthly climate analysis, a weather station in Sweden north of the Arctic Circle hit a stunning 94.6 Fahrenheit (34.8 degrees Celsius) last month. As an isolated data point, it would be shocking. But coupled with a host of other maladies, from no sea ice within 125 miles of Alaska to the unruly fires ravaging Siberia, it’s an exclamation point on the climate crisis.

The steamy temperature was recorded on July 26 in the small Swedish outpost of Markusvinsa, which sits on the southern edge of the Arctic Circle. Deke Arndt, a NOAA climate scientist, said on a call with reporters that the data was analyzed and quality controlled by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and that “they have established that as highest temperature north of the Arctic Circle” for the country. For comparison, the hottest temperature recorded in New York City last month was 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius).

The heat wave that enveloped the Arctic spread a lot farther than Markusvinsa, though. Alaska recorded its hottest month ever amid extremely weird weather for the state. The heat has driven massive wildfire, and smoke from those fires enveloped Anchorage and Fairbanks, the former of which has had its smokiest summer on record, according to Alaska weather expert Rick Thoman. Salmon dieoffs, the earliest walrus haul out ever recorded, and emaciated animals have also been reported around the state.

During the same press call, Thoman expanded on the reasons why it’s been so weird in Alaska. The big one is the disappearance of sea ice six to eight weeks ahead of schedule, which has left a 125-mile ring of open water around the state. Oceans were already warm going into the summer, but the dark exposed ocean water has absorbed even more heat compared to the normally reflective ice cover.

Thoman called it “remarkable warmth” and said it surpassed the oceanic heat wave dubbed The Blob that gripped the northeastern Pacific in 2015. The hot oceans have in turn heated up the land. Increased evaporation has thus cranked up the humidity, leading to some uncomfortably warm nights in Alaska.

Just as the heat hasn’t been confined to Markusvinsa, the disappearing sea ice isn’t just an Alaskan coast thing. The Arctic Ocean as a whole recorded its lowest July sea ice extent ever, which could have in part helped fuel a bizarre lightning storm just a few hundred miles from the North Pole. Sea ice was a staggering 19.8 percent below average, dipping well under the previous low set in July 2012. Sea ice stans may recall 2012 as the year sea ice hit a record minimum extent. While we’re still six to eight weeks away from the annual sea ice minimum, and things could change in the coming month or so, this year’s icepack is in decidedly bad shape.

July’s Arctic heat is part of a larger global trend driven by carbon pollution. The NOAA data released on Thursday also confirmed that July was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth, with temperature edging 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th-century average. Based on the heat in the first seven months of 2019, the world is almost certain to have one of its five warmest years on record. Using data analyzed separately by Berkeley Earth, climate scientist Robert Rohde tweeted that there’s a 90 percent chance that 2019 will go down as the second hottest year on record, trailing only 2016.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/earther.gi ... 274379/amp

This is quite scary. Hardly any words. The earth will only continue to climb in its temperatures, and many animals in the arctic circle are going to die from this change. This catastrophe is undeniable, and I cannot see any reason to doubt this irrefutable fact. Thoughts, NSG?

[Kowani]

What I’m getting from this is we need to fix our pollution problem and work on carbon capture.

[Aureumterra]

Ok… lemme clear some stuff up, Northern Sweden, due to it’s proximity to warm ocean currents doesn’t get nearly as cold, and can have pretty temperate weather during the Summer, much of the Nords (including Iceland and the Faroes) remain quite warm. This is also why Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

[New haven america]

What I’m getting from this is we need to fix our pollution problem and work on carbon capture.

Only if the top 1% of the world and industrializing developing nations see an economic benefit in doing so.

So no, we won't be working on either of those.

[Heloin]

Ok… lemme clear some stuff up, Northern Sweden, due to it’s proximity to warm ocean currents doesn’t get nearly as cold, and can have pretty temperate weather during the Summer, much of the Nords (including Iceland and the Faroes) remain quite warm. This is also why Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

The record high for Reykjavik is only 25.7C

[Aureumterra]

Ok… lemme clear some stuff up, Northern Sweden, due to it’s proximity to warm ocean currents doesn’t get nearly as cold, and can have pretty temperate weather during the Summer, much of the Nords (including Iceland and the Faroes) remain quite warm. This is also why Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

The record high for Reykjavik is only 25.7C

That’s probably a summer temperature than, during summer, the cold ocean currents from Eastern Greenland blow in, I’m saying Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

[New haven america]

The record high for Reykjavik is only 25.7C

That’s probably a summer temperature than, during summer, the cold ocean currents from Eastern Greenland blow in, I’m saying Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

How much you wanna bet that that temperature was recorded in the past 15 years?

[Kowani]

What I’m getting from this is we need to fix our pollution problem and work on carbon capture.

Only if the top 1% of the world and industrializing developing nations see an economic benefit in doing so.

So no, we won't be working on either of those.

When your coasts are flooded, your farms are dead and your borders are swamped, you will look back and say: “at least we created a lot of value for some shareholders.”

[New haven america]

Only if the top 1% of the world and industrializing developing nations see an economic benefit in doing so.

So no, we won't be working on either of those.

When your coasts are flooded, your farms are dead and your borders are swamped, you will look back and say: “at least we created a lot of value for some shareholders.”

*Temporary value

Isn't capitalism great?

[Kowani]

When your coasts are flooded, your farms are dead and your borders are swamped, you will look back and say: “at least we created a lot of value for some shareholders.”

*Temporary value

Isn't capitalism great?

“The greatest economic system that was ever designed.”

[Pacomia]

*Temporary value

Isn't capitalism great?

“The greatest economic system that was ever designed.”

"Nothing better."

[Kowani]

“The greatest economic system that was ever designed.”

"Nothing better."

“Who cares if it kills us all.”

[Saiwania]

There will be low to no productivity to be had if people can't go outside anymore because its too hot in much of the world.

We really will have no choice but to find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere via chemistry or new technologies with that aim, and to simultaneously abandon the use of all fossil fuels to as much of an extent as is possible. Where will the energy come from that is needed to run the carbon removal machines? Ideally, it should be from nuclear fusion (if that is accomplished) or via traditional nuclear power, but with Thorium instead of Uranium.

[New haven america]

There will be low to no productivity to be had if people can't go outside anymore because its too hot in much of the world.

We really will have no choice but to find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere via chemistry or new technologies with that aim, and to simultaneously abandon the use of all fossil fuels to as much of an extent as is possible. Where will the energy come from that is needed to run the carbon removal machines? Ideally, it should be from nuclear fusion (if that is accomplished) or via traditional nuclear power, but with Thorium instead of Uranium.

We already know how to remove carbon and methane from the environment: Strategic tree planting and carbon/methane absorbers.

Those however, get in the way of profits to be had, so we can't use them.

[Saiwania]

We already know how to remove carbon and methane from the environment: Strategic tree planting and carbon/methane absorbers. Those however, get in the way of profits to be had, so we can't use them.

Planting trees isn't enough, it is too weak. No one can convince me that machines or some engineered/artificial solution can't do it better than nature.

It is clear to me anyways, that we have to do the inverse of burning fossil fuels to truly fix everything over the long term. Yeah, it's not profitable, but not doing it is even more unprofitable. Its not a matter of losing money, but to try to keep our planet habitable for us.

[Jolthig]

Ok… lemme clear some stuff up, Northern Sweden, due to it’s proximity to warm ocean currents doesn’t get nearly as cold, and can have pretty temperate weather during the Summer, much of the Nords (including Iceland and the Faroes) remain quite warm. This is also why Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

Even so, 94 F is a very unusual temperature for above the arctic circle. If there is no official written record that competes with the one we have now, then, it seems to indicate that the region is warming. You mention, "ocean currents", and I'd say, it would strengthen the fact that there is global warming with the ice caps melting and the ocean temperature steadily rising.

[New haven america]

We already know how to remove carbon and methane from the environment: Strategic tree planting and carbon/methane absorbers. Those however, get in the way of profits to be had, so we can't use them.

1. Planting trees isn't enough, it is too weak. 2. No one can convince me that machines or some engineered/artificial solution can't do it better than nature.

1. Yes, it actually can be. Scientists have discovered strategic positions to plant millions (Or even billions) of trees that can then absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide and slow the speed of climate change
2. Good job ignoring the entire 2nd part of my post to rant about how you hate nature...

[Saiwania]

2. Good job ignoring the entire 2nd part of my post to rant about how you hate nature...

What is the point of planting trees when we can have machines that'll absorb and sequester more carbon and at a faster rate than plants can? We need to remove as much carbon as quickly as possible, not wait 20+ years to have a forested planet again.

[New haven america]

2. Good job ignoring the entire 2nd part of my post to rant about how you hate nature...

What is the point of planting trees when we can have machines that'll absorb and sequester more carbon and at a faster rate than plants can? We need to remove as much carbon as quickly as possible, not wait 20+ years to have a forested planet again.

IDK, probably because an overreliance on technology and refusal to look at other options is what got us into this position in the first place?

Again, way to ignore the rest of my point. Why do we only have to go with 1 option when we could go with multiple at the same time?

[Rojava Free State]

Must have not been a great day to be sea ice

[Duhon]

From the irresponsibly greedy: "Well, at least we made a few more."
From the irresponsibly partisan: "Climate change happens in cycles, so why are you bitching?"
And I'm going to bet there are still people who haven't made it that far.
All of them selling this earthly fucking kingdom -- this one we have, this one we see with our own fucking eyes, this world of all of us -- for some fucking Rozinante.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

2. Good job ignoring the entire 2nd part of my post to rant about how you hate nature...

What is the point of planting trees when we can have machines that'll absorb and sequester more carbon and at a faster rate than plants can? We need to remove as much carbon as quickly as possible, not wait 20+ years to have a forested planet again.

The amount of fossil fuels and other resources it would take to produce those machines- and the resulting ecological footprint- would most likely outweigh the net benefit from however much carbon dioxide they sequester from the atmosphere.

[Saiwania]

The amount of fossil fuels and other resources it would take to produce those machines- and the resulting ecological footprint- would most likely outweigh the net benefit from however much carbon dioxide they sequester from the atmosphere.

It won't if the electricity needed is provided primarily by nuclear energy. It is too late to simply stop using fossil fuels. At this point, carbon will also need to be removed on a regular basis- at least until the atmosphere is back down to 280 ppm. It will take 100+ years but within only 40 to 50 years, it'll be much improved if the planet cools back down gradually from the blanket of CO2 getting thinner.

These machines and new methods, will need to be built and deployed anyways, if we're to have a hope in hell.

Of the various means of carbon removal, I'm most keen on Direct Air Capture. I believe that will be the winner compared to BECCS and some other methods.

[Page]

We already know how to remove carbon and methane from the environment: Strategic tree planting and carbon/methane absorbers. Those however, get in the way of profits to be had, so we can't use them.

Planting trees isn't enough, it is too weak. No one can convince me that machines or some engineered/artificial solution can't do it better than nature.

The hydrogen bomb, the most powerful weapon man has ever built, pales in comparison to the destructive force of a tsunami or a volcano. The energy humans generate is nothing compared to that of the Earth's core or the sun. There are trees that have endured for longer than any human built structure. Nature is still far more powerful than we are.

[Samudera Darussalam]

This saying is old already, but "we have to do something".

What I’m getting from this is we need to fix our pollution problem and work on carbon capture.

Only if the top 1% of the world and industrializing developing nations see an economic benefit in doing so.

So no, we won't be working on either of those.

As someone who lives in one of the 'developing nations', converting what technology we have currently to a more nature friendly one is not an easy task, it requires a lot of money. Even if monetary incentives are coming, we still have the corruption problems.