Alaska shattering heat records
 

When its almost 100 degrees in Alaska you know things are getting fucked up.
------------


Alaska, well known for its long and brutal winters, has dealt with a historic heat wave this week.

As an unusually strong and very warm ridge of high pressure is parked in the upper atmosphere above Alaska, at least five cities broke all-time record highs Monday:

* Talkeetna, 75 miles north of Anchorage, reached 96 degrees. Just a day earlier, it had tied its all-time record high of 91, also set June 14, 1969 and June 26, 1953. The 96-degree high was hotter than any town in the entire state of Florida on Monday.

* McGrath hit 94 degrees, crushing its all-time record of 90 set June 15, 1969 and just tied on Sunday. A daily record high of 91 degrees for June 18 was set on Tuesday. McGrath is deep in the interior of southwest Alaska, 215 miles northwest of Anchorage.

* Cordova hit 90 degrees, breaking its record of 89 set July 16, 1995. Cordova is on the coast 145 miles east of Anchorage.

* Valdez touched 90 degrees as well, erasing its record of 87 set June 25-26, 1953. Valdez is on an arm of Prince William Sound, 120 miles east of Anchorage.

* Seward hit 88 degrees, eclipsing its all-time high of 87 set July 4, 1999. Seward is on the coast of the Kenai Peninsula, 80 miles south of Anchorage.

On Wednesday, Nome, on the state's west coast, tied its all-time record high of 86 degrees (also set on July 8, 1968 and July 31, 1977).

http://www.weather.com/safety/heat/b...-heat-20130618


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...otoblog600.jpg

You know there are ZERO babes on an Alaskan public beach :1orglaugh

+1

I used to live in Alaska. You're lucky to find a 6/10 over there.

so true!:1orglaugh

http://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress...07-ak-temp.jpg

:stoned

ADG

Ugliest girl I ever put my dick in was from Alaska.

Well, the ice age is ending. Things will heat up.

ummm interesting :)

I saw those Palin daughters on celebrity wife swap..they were alright http://i.imgur.com/TIO0Smx.gif

You gotta be tuff to live up there, just like Canada.

I told know what I've been told, but Eskimo pussy is really cold.

apparently not for long

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...oling-is-here/

"To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here


Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand?s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, ?The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.? Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA?s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

?Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.?

That is even more significant because NASA?s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

?Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.?

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, ?Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn?t bring about considerable climate change ? only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater ? up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.? In other words, another Little Ice Age........"


Article continues here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...oling-is-here/


.:2 cents:

Just watch this documentary. No bullshit on either side can match time lapse pics and vids.

http://www.chasingice.com

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you can't seriously believe this

Sure looks like global cooling to me.......


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...9ht6UYuIEqy68Q


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...H5jfuGy4QrOZKX


http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming....scaBraasch.jpg


http://images.fanpop.com/images/imag...41_536_499.jpg


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...o7q0PMYTl4r2L6


http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/r..._1940-2006.jpg


http://blog.safog.com/wp-content/upl..._glacier_f.jpg

SuckOnThis; interesting photos. Thanks.


.

As I understand it...the Earth heats up for many hundreds of years...and cools down for many hundreds of years.

Shit changes drastically when it does. Just like those Norse settlements in Greenland 700 years ago were wiped out by freezing temps.

Not sure what all the argument is about.

the science we have for warming and cooling periods are 'natural', and without human pollution

so, now that the earth, and mars for that matter, is warming, does the man-made gasses trap more heat, thus creating a chain reaction/cataclysmic event

We agree with each other? WTF? Did hell freeze over?

It's exactly what you said - the earth heats up, it heats down - and there isn't much we can do about it. It makes sense to minimize our footprint on the planet, but there are seven billion of us... Not sure how much we can do.

not ass raping the planet would be a good place to start

not limiting technology

a proper distribution and use of research

letting go of 'smart' and accepting 'more'

etc etc

I honestly don't know if it does or it doesn't.

You have meteorologists saying "no" the Earth isn't warming, and the scientists at NASA pointed out that the Earths mean temperature has been flat for the last ten years.

And then you have scientists on one side saying it's warming because of man. And other scientists saying it isn't.

And then of course I remember when I was in highschool in the 1970's and climatologists were stating that we were headed for an "Ice Age" because of carbon in the atmosphere from man. (that one didn't quite work out)

My real question is this:
If we are really destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels...then why aren't our govt.'s doing anything about it?
Look at us in the USA. We are being forced to buy health insurance whether we want it or not. We are forced to wear seat belts when we drive. We are spied on by our govt.

And yet...with this planet-ending, end-of-human-life catastrophe...the govt. does nothing.
If they can already force us to do all these other, relatively inconsequential things...then why doesn't the govt. mandate solar panels on every building in the United States?

You would think that if this is going to kill everybody unless we do something, then drastic measures would be taken. We've already see that the people in the U.S. will roll over like sheep for the govt.
So why aren't they taking any steps to do something?

When WW2 happened, the entire U.S. was told to get behind the War Machine and it did. Car factories stopped making cars and started making tanks and jeeps. New tires weren't allowed for civilian use...all rubber was for military vehicle tires. The list goes on.

Why aren't we doing that NOW.

Instead of treating this like an emergency, our govt. seems to be acting as if it's some kind of money grab ("carbon credits", giving money to "green" companies, etc.)

I don't put anything past our govt. and politicians. And since they've already know that the majority of people will believe something based on "faith" (religion)...that tells them that they could theoretically invent most any story and make people believe it.

It's confusing for normal people like myself.

On one hand you have scientists who are funded by people with interests in "Green Energy" saying that mankind using fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm up (or freeze over if you believed what they said in the 1970's/1980's).
On the other hand you have scientists who get funding from oil companies saying it's not true.
Then on the other hand...you have meteorologists and NASA scientists saying that it's not really warming up relatively speaking.

Hard to tell who is telling the truth.

But I do believe that if we are really on the verge of extinction from fossil fuels, that the govt. would at the very LEAST mandate all buildings to use solar panels and wind turbines.

The fact that the govt. itself isn't taking it seriously enough to do so tells me something is fishy.

Releasing 439 gigatonnes (a gigatonne is one billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide every year into the atmosphere is a problem. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from 313 ppm to just over 400 in just the past 50 years. Deforestation is killing the planets ability to rid itself of CO2. Venus is a perfect example of what happens when to much CO2 is in an atmosphere where it has experienced a runaway climate change and experiences temperatures over 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

That sounds pretty scientific!

I agree 100% about deforestation. But don't forget that those same plants "respire" at night when they aren't able to photosynthesize and then they release: carbon dioxide (just like you do every time you exhale)

I'm not suggesting that plants are a problem...we need more forests and more trees obviously. I'm just pointing out that they do release carbon dioxide as well.

Also the ocean itself releases about 330 Gigatons of CO2 every year as well. Not sure if we're gonna be able to shut the ocean off or not. lol

We're all gonna die!!!!!!!

lets look at the whaling industry. do you think the only available source of oil was whales? or was it just the easiest way to make as much money as possible, damn the consequences?

so, with that in mind, lets look at how environmental laws started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

this river caught on fire. several times. first starting in the 1800s, and the last was 1969.

let me say it again.

the last time the river caught on fire was 1969.

that started a wide range of environmental laws,

this was 40 years ago.

so if this was SO MUCH EFFORT, over something that is FUCKING BLATANT, you turn around and use this 'government inaction' as a way to discredit what the very planet is desperately trying to communicate?

Tell me Robbie,

do you really, truly, love your country?

No. I hate the way our govt. has turned out as far as human rights, military invasions, etc.

As for the govt. stepping in and doing something about the local environment. Yeah, the EPA did do a lot of good. The regulations they put in place back in the day cleaned up some local areas. (of course at the same time we were blowing shit up and driving tanks and dropping Napalm to completely deforest all of Vietnam...so which was better?)

Anyway, as I said...why isn't the govt. doing anything except coming up with money making schemes? "Carbon Credits"???

Really? The world is supposedly coming to an end and they come up with buying and selling "carbon credits"?

Why not simply mandating that all buildings...both residential and business be fitted with solar panels?
They could have used those couple of trillion dollars that was spent on bailout and "stimulus" and done that. Would have given a lot of people jobs and helped save the planet at the same time.

Guess there wasn't enough money in it for our crooked politicians. And more importantly...they don't consider it to be important enough.
That should tell us all something right there.

Yes, plants and the oceans do release CO2 but they also absorb as much or more as they produce. The oceans do release 332 gigatons per year, but at the same time absorb 337 gigatons per year. So its all a question of balance. Also, the polar ice caps reflect quite a bit of sunlight back into space, as they become smaller and smaller less of that is reflected back and add to that the added CO2 in that frozen ice.

A bigger issue though that scientists didnt account for is the release of methane from the melting ice. Methane is 25 times more efficient at trapping solar heat compared to CO2. The energy companies and some governments see this as an opportunity for more energy production which is why there is a reluctance to act.

I have lived in or near the Rocky Mountains my whole life and over the past decade have noticed that the winters are getting shorter and snow levels have decreased quite a bit and is getting worse. This snow supplies water to The Colorado River, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, and the Platte Rivers which in turn supply drinking water to over 40 million people in the SW United States. You can probably find a few posts on here from me a few years ago expressing my concern about these rivers drying up and just this spring the Colorado River was placed as the #1 most endangered river in the country. If these rivers dry up, and I predict they will, it is going to be something like we've never seen before.

awesome, does it have time lapses for the last 10 000 years?

The global warming theory is big business now, at least it's mean that I have to pay 250% more for electricity because people somehow believe that will make me use less energy.

of course he can. if you tell him a liberal said the sky is blue. He would say bullshit. lol

well what it should tell us is there is 'bigger priorities' for the 'government'.

If you have all these things in mind, look at the military budget, you see where the 'priority' is

carbon credits etc is designed to do exactly what you're mad about.. look like more taxes, piss you off. what it was actually designed to do initially, was properly tax businesses for the pollution that they are generating. So you have a mining company, making a 'profit', but can't actually generate a profit without the loss being pushed onto the state. This is why privatized national resources is a tad insane

you're entirely right regarding government action towards this 'recession'(economic warfare), it requires a letting go of 'democracy/republic' and accepting the fact WW2 never ended for some folks. When you look at the details of how the government acted/funded during the 2008 recession, you will see how funny all this is.

it's a long conversation that probably requires some beer, but to move forward the only thing we need to do is continue getting the word out there. With the current 'brainwashing' with 'freedom/peace/clean environment', the current governments policies won't last for long, without fundamental changes or a huge smack down

then it will be just a matter of money vs people.. again.

edit: my apologies, i was being facetious with the patriot point. i just find it funny how patriotic people seem to be, yet miss the major points that patriotism requires

Or how about 21,000 years back:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ice_sheets.png

Is that what these people would prefer?


People really need to start brushing up on their ice age knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

whether you believe in cooling or heating the climate is changing.

Insurance companies are saying that they will soon stop offering home insurance in certain parts of CANADA due to the changing conditions and this month one of the last visitor Flower Gardens in Vancouver is shutting the doors cause the climate produces more rainy days then it ever has. The guys said he cant sell it cause the new owners would face the same dire situation with the property.

I also hear it is getting hot as fuck in the southern parts of the US

Holy shit....

Thanks big oil and coal. Fuck you in the neck.

Man, the alarmists love people like you.

Dose of reality:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/2...re-anomaliess/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930150.html


Note that that the all-time record high of 100 was set in June of 1915.

Just did some more reading.

Looks like scientists now say that the Earth was in a "Little Ice Age" (LIA) from around 1400 to 1880 and the earth was much, much cooler than it is supposed to be during that time.

So we are now in a heating up phase back to "normal"

Not saying that greenhouse gases don't have an effect...I'm just saying that all those places in Alaska and glaciers, etc. are going to get warmer. MUCH warmer because the Earth is now in a "normal" phase.

Pictures from 30 years ago on a time lapse don't really mean much in the big picture. Those areas are supposed to be green and warm already.

Mankind just hasn't seen it in 600 years since we have been in a small "ice age"

Thanks for all the rock solid info, Bill Nye.

dude, it's snowing somewhere

must mean climate change doesn't exist

Sorry, but that is completely untrue Tony. As a Libertarian, I thoroughly approve of liberals that are against drug laws, anti-war, and pro civil liberties, etc.... It's quite distressing to me that since Obama took office, liberals now seem fine with undeclared wars, drones killing children, and government spying on everyone and violating their 4th amendment rights in the name of "security". Where have the liberals gone? I guess as long a THEIR guy is doing these things, then it's all no problem.

However, it is rather illuminating that you mention that it comes from "Liberals". It seems that you must, at least on some level, agree that the Climate Change stuff is much more about politics, money and power, than it is about saving the planet. And since, like you noted, it's the "liberals" that are pushing this agenda, you are automatically ok with the move towards a world government in the name of "saving" the environment.


:2 cents:

Yes, and extreme record temperatures, both high and low, are being broken all the time all over the earth. And that is proof of exactly nothing.

And I never said that climate change doesn't exist. But citing a few abnormally hot days, or even a slight warming trend, in Alaska, or anywhere, as some sort of catastrophe caused by coal and oil is pretty ridiculous.

Ever hear George Carlin's routine on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

yes, and there is also previous records for those cities etc etc etc

i know what denial and misdirection is

question, all the 'nothing to see here-ers' keep talking about previous records being set

but there seems to be no mention of the last time previous records were broken in at least 5 different cities at the same time

it's also been 'over a week', pressure doesn't seem to be letting up.. of course this must have happened before too.. just seems to be no reference to that.. at all.

So is a record being "broken in 5 different cities at the same time" some sort of threshold for an imminent catastrophe?

Either I fail to see your logic or you fail at logic. Broken temperature records are proof of absolutely nothing. Especially when those records only go back 150 years or so.

If people think warming is so bad and must be stopped at all costs they should at least consider the alternative:

If you guys just reed science papers about the climate, not ones about global warming, but the ones that talk about the straight facts.

you keep talking about history

show me when it happened before

within the past '150 years'

Okay, I think this is something along the lines of what you are looking for:

April 2013: Cold and snow wave grips the USA, nearly 10,000 cold and snow records set in the last six weeks


Anyways, restricting any analysis of climate change to the past 150 years is completely foolish. A few broken temperature "records" and swings of a degree up or down over a century does not equal real climate change. And in all past instances of real climate change warmer has always been more favourable to life on earth.

indeed.. you also get retarded 'scientists' etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

these are much better

dude what is this site you keep citing?

'There is no corresponding anti-snowfall record.'

dafuq?

this guy knows weather works in a 'balance', not 'just gets warmer'

so if you have a system that is out of balance, that means everyhting is out of balance

the argument about cold tempatures/records, is an argument for climate change

isn't the entire site dedicated to there being no climate change?