Signs of Arctic climate change increasing: NOAA state of the Arctic report

Agreed!
The mythical man-made Global Warming never was a problem, and climate change is a natural part of the earth's continuing evolution.
I don't know a single person who isn't against doing something about pollution.

And I don't know a single person who says Global Warming is man-made.

What the scientific consensus is, held uniformly, is that man-made pollution contributes to and aggravates climate change.

The people pretending that scientific facts are simply myths are funded by the fossil fuel companies.

THEY are the ones who are against doing something about pollution.

"And I don't know a single person who says Global Warming is man-made."

You should try getting out more ;)

What the scientific consensus is, held uniformly, is that man-made pollution contributes to and aggravates climate change.

Do you accept that or deny it?

"man-made pollution contributes to and aggravates climate change"
Show me a link ;)

Thank you so much for those links.
Both are alarmist articles that sing the same, "CO2 is pollution" tune.
One article is from 1999, the other 2007. Never mind!

Edit: nearly missed the third site, but seeing as it comes from a group that states, "NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action group..." I doubt there would be much in the way of scientific information there.

The way to cut back on pollution is to end the use of coal and oil.

Real scientific information can't be found on FAUX News or with likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and ORielly. Global warming, as a result of human activity is a fact, and your opinion that it isn't happening is irrelevant. In other words you can look down the tunnel and claim that the light you see is the opening on the other side. However if you don't step off the tracks, the oncoming train will kill you no matter what.

What does T1279 and ERA40 mean?

Because your data is wrong.
I notice you did not provide a link.

Both refer to resolution.
Basically, you need to look at the green line and the red line. If the red line is below the green line it shows lower temperatures than the long term average.
The 2010 data clearly shows temperatures were constantly below the long term average during the melt season.
This data shows the statement, "surface air temperatures through the 2010 summer were higher than normal throughout the Arctic, though less extreme than in 2007" to be incorrect.
I assume the negative votes were because I dared to show real data that disputes an extremist's view.

Data is from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
I can supply contact information if you wish to tell them personally that their data is wrong?
Please feel free to post your own data.

Still no link huh?
A link is all the contact information I need.
A link to the website where you got the graph, that has it placed within context.

If you haven't the ability to find the Danish Meteorological Institute's website without a link... Life isn't all about links. There isn't a rule that says there has to be a link to everything to make it valid! How do you evaluate TV documentaries or newspaper articles, do you phone the authors and ask for links?

So, STILL no link.
I was not asking for a link to the Danish Meteorological Institute's website.

I was asking for a link to the website where you got the graph, that has it placed within context.

You know what context is, right?

That means the article with the chart, that explains it, and points to how your interpretation has NOTHING to do with reality.

THAT link.

But, your refusal to provide the link where you got the chart is just like your refusal to say you are not a creationist.

It's VERY suspicious.

Look at the DMI website, I'm sure you'll find many links to climate related data there.

Your constant evasiveness makes it quite clear:

You drew that chart yourself.

If you actually got it from any reputable website, and the text on that website confirmed what you wrote, you would have NO PROBLEM giving the link to the page you got that graphic from.

But since it came from a Creationist website that you yourself made, you can't provide one.

You're so lazy!
All you had to do was follow the source of the image back to the host site...
Here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php
You're going to have to translate the page through google or some other method.
The graphs are representative of temperatures in areas above 80 degrees N
Green lines are the average temperature, red lines are the given year's temperature
They have graphs dated back to 1958
They have plenty of contact information for you...

Center for Ocean and Ice - Danish Meteorological Institute - Summit House 100 - 2100 Copenhagen Ø
Tlf: +45 39 15 72 29 - Fax: +45 39 15 73 00 - Email: Tel: +45 39 15 72 29 - Fax: +45 39 15 73 00 - Email: marin@dmi.dk

Less than 5 minutes of research found this information...

According to you the data shown in the chart is incorrect, so what would be the point in supplying you with a link? Would you then say the data is correct and tell me you're now going to look into the lies and distortions written in the article featured here?
If you have no idea of how to acquire or use data from official agencies, you have no business asserting that the data is incorrect.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newes...

A link explaining how to read the graphs and how the data is obtained in case you're still having trouble

I like how providing the requested information gets voted down. Current...lol

That's because this is only one part of the Arctic, not the entire Arctic. More cherrypicking. And notice it is only their graph of this one part from 2010. No comparison to 2007.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newes...

"Plus 80N Temperatures - explanation.
The temperature graphs are made from numerical weather prediction (NWP)
"analysis" data. Analyses are the model fields used to start NWP models. They
represent the statistically most likely state of the atmosphere, given the
information available to make the analysis. Since the data are gridded, it is
straight forward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North.
However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean
temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most
northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual
physical mean temperature of the arctic."

The NOAA report is about the Arctic in total, not just one part. And it's laughable that the same people always come here disputing NOAA when it doesn't fit into their agenda, but have no problem posting only parts of other data and trying to pass it off as complete.

"surface air temperatures through the 2010 summer were higher than normal THROUGHOUT the Arctic, though less extreme than in 2007;”
You've got 65N to 79N to go.

The alternative is to use NASA GISS data which consists of one single ground station. That data is used to represent the entire Arctic. Whereas the DMI data cannot be used to represent the entire Arctic, it does accurately represent the state of the Arctic.

"...do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic"

What this actually means is, because of the number of data sources, the data gathered is 'lumped together' and collated to produce one single figure, the representative temperature. Just as if you had ten thermometers in your garden, and they all gave a slightly different temperature, taking the average of them would not give you the actual temperature but would still give you useful long-term data with which to work.
Anyone visiting the DMI site can see the data for themselves. Few, it seems, actually understand it.

--------" Basically, you need to look at the green line and the red line. If the red line is below the green line it shows lower temperatures that the long term average.
The 2010 data clearly shows temperatures were constantly below the long term average during the melt season. "-------

Of coarse not. Enthalpy. The ice is melting. Just like we've always told you. Releasing latent heat of crystalization. The ice melts and carries the heat away as water. Multiply that by thousands of cubic miles of ice melting, and you get a LOT of heat.

NOAA has deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe. Their coverage of the entire Arctic is poor, to say the least, their interpretation of that data seems to be riddled with political ideology. Still, so long as it fits in with your belief system you'll fall for it, as usual.

Oh, something you may not have read.

“The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987."
Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box and Glen Lesins, Climatic Change, Volume 63, Numbers 1-2, 201-221, DOI: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018509.74228.03.

“Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea"
Hanna, E., and J. Cappelen (2003), Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(3), 1132, doi:10.1029/2002GL015797.

Not everyone thinks the Arctic is burning up.

You are full of sh**. This is only information for ONE position, North of 80N which you conveniently left out of your post. Wonder why. And I KNOW how to read. You are only here to plant seeds of doubt about something that is obvious even to the naked eye for your own agenda. You know where you can stick your thermometer.

I said it was incorrect, because of how YOU were using the data.
And you knew that- and that is why you refused to provide the link.
Now that we have the link, no thanks to you, we can see that your analysis was incorrect.

So, is it that you were being deceptive on purpose, or do you have no idea of how to acquire or use data from official agencies?

The point was not my laziness, but her dishonesty.
She was acting like someone with something to hide- because she was.

It says:
"...do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic"

Yet, that is EXACTLY what you were doing right here, on this website, when you posted that chart.

You say:
"Anyone visiting the DMI site can see the data for themselves. Few, it seems, actually understand it."

And that is the point- either you did not understand it, or you were being purposefully deceptive.

It's difficult to work out whether this is sad or just hilarious.
It seems people here have absolutely no idea of how data works, how to read it or how to read the literature regarding the data.
The data presented is well regarded and widely used by many agencies. If you choose to deny its accuracy (which, by the way, you did) then that's up to you. Obviously it's best to believe the scaremongering articles rather than data. That's understandable judging by the lack of intelligence displayed within the last batch of abusive comments.
Enjoy what remains of the warm period :)

I knew full well that you would not understand the data and would not be use the data in the way in which it was meant to be used.
The data was there for you had you been bothered to look for it, you didn't actually need a link (although, you probably did) in order to see the data. It seems you were either too lazy (as previously stated) or lacked the ability to find these things for yourself.
Hence the reason why you get your information from alarmist articles and the likes of extreme activists whose only knowledge comes from hours of trawling the internet looking for suitable articles to post here.

Sorry, I seem to have upset you again!
I knew you wouldn't understand the meaning behind the text within the article you pasted here and it seems I was right.
Correct, the data is for one position only; all of 80N and above, but even you would have to admit that that is a fairly large 'single position'.

This is not the first time you have admitted you have no idea of how to interpret data, how to read charts and graphs, and again you admit your knowledge of the subject is gained only from articles in dubious publications and activists' websites.

Oh, and finally (for now) please tell me (again) that this is the final time you're going to respond to me. I'm getting sick of hearing it and yet it never comes to fruition... much like the claims of an ice-free Arctic. They keep on telling us it's going to happen but reality always steps in. Hopefully reality will step into your life at some point too, it would surely be better than spending so much of your life searching for propaganda with which to prop-up your love affair with the failed Mr. Gore.
By the way, when old man Gore decides to come clean and admit his part in the scam, will you too denounce the position you have held for so long, as you did when he did a U-turn on ethanol?

-------" It's difficult to work out whether this is sad or just hilarious.
It seems people here have absolutely no idea of how data works, how to read it or how to read the literature regarding the data."---------

When the temperature is below 0*C, water freezes. When the temperature is above 0*C ice melts. Ice is melting in the arctic. Therefore, the arctic must be getting warmer.

So, what is your interpretation of the data?

agreed. +^d

In principal a good idea, but I'm afraid the mindset of the people who make the decision will only disregard them as liberal crooks, who only want to push the "climate change hoax".

I think the only way of battling the effects of climate change (biodistress), is to start a grassroots movement which takes matters in their own hands, instead of waiting for politicians to lead who only have the next election in mind. I commend all those people, who almost on a daily basis point out the signs and effects of climate change, but for most people that is an solely academic discussion. I think if one really want to change something one has to motivate wide parts of society to participate. To do this one has to come up with ideas which can be implemented by normal individuals without making big investment and if they can save some money in the process even better (Money is a great motivator). For example why not offer a website (and widely advertise it) with all kinds of information on how to decrease our impact on the climate and on companies who sell products which follow those principals. If people would stop buying products of companies with bad environmental records, change could happen.

Agreed

Hmm , how about this ? A community sustainable energy fund . takes donation an the community decides the priorities of how to spend it . Example , getting the schools off grid for emergency shelters in a power outage ( we get hella snow here and that happens almost every year ) , or fire dept . or what have you ?

Also agreed.