Academia, Environment

Antarctica Station Reports Temperatures Reaching 63.5 Degrees

240px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17The proposed cuts of the Trump Administration of the EPA has many of us deeply concerned, particularly those cuts targeting climate change offices and research.  As someone who believe that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing this planet, the evidence continues to mount that we are at or passing a tipping point.  Now, an Argentine research base near the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula has recorded the  record temperature at 63.5° Fahrenheit (17.5 degrees Celsius).  It is an astonishing and frightening increase.

Antarctica holds 90 percent of the world’s fresh water as ice. If it were to melt, it could potentially raise sea levels by about 60 meters (200 ft).

There are legitimate questions over the best way to address the obvious evidence of climate change.  However, any cutting of research and data production at this time would be extremely harmful.  These budgets are small in comparison to the rest of the budget but they contribute immensely to our consideration of different options and policies.

 

69 thoughts on “Antarctica Station Reports Temperatures Reaching 63.5 Degrees”

  1. My belief is that over the next 10 years, and possibly this year if it becomes clear that much of the so-called warming data has been faked, this whole notion of human-induced climate change will be shown to be a farce or at minimum a benign or even beneficial occurrence. It will be interesting to see how the public reacts as so many have been taken in by the marketing sales hype that is ever present at this time. Having a highly scientific background I can tell you with no qualms that the climate alarmists are practicing very bad science.

    In my view it is very uncertain just what is going on. They may be correct in worrying about climate and CO2, but frankly the odds are against there existing a real strong correlation with human activity and “destructive” climate change. The bias is so extreme. If you haven’t practiced science yourself then you will never appreciate how bad it really is and how dramatically it affects study designs and conclusions. Scientists will cheat to make names for themselves and provide a comfortable living for them and their families. It is simple human nature at work, not really science as it is now politicized beyond recognition.

    For example, there are many benefits to warmer weather and more CO2, but you will only hear extreme negative projections and dire warnings from the alarmists, they will almost never acknowledge positive developments. Why? Because this is a political agenda, not a rational analysis of what is happening in the world of climate science.

    The fallout when it becomes apparent (I think there is about an 80% probability of this happening) that the global warming now climate change alarmist movement has been manufactured for political reasons will be far reaching. We risk a reversion against real science as the populace will have no idea what to believe anymore. Just look at the “crap” that has been fed to us regarding our diets, puns intended. Turns out so much of the accepted guidance was based on whims rather than science. We have a real problem in the world with the politicization of scientific.

    1. I’ve been saying for years now that science, like Rock n’ Roll, is dead.

    2. True. But I think there are many AGW Fanatics, probably the great majority, who will never buy into the reality of the situation. They will claim that the scientists are biased, or that there is simply a temporary lull in warming, or something. Anything rather than just admit that they were taken in, and were wrong about it all. Because Liberals are never wrong. They are too smart, and good, to be wrong. Ever.

      See “When Prophecy Fails” by Festinger et.al. Even after the middle part of the United States did not turn into an inland sea, and the aliens didn’t come in their flying saucers to take the True Believers away, they did not abandon their beliefs.

      Similarly, the AGW Fanatics will never turn loose of their beliefs. IMHO.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  2. The only downside to addressing global warming is the reduction in the level in the coffers of the status quo. The status quo-oligarchs own the government, guys like the idiot Inhofe, and will argue to keep the money a rollin in. The precise paradigm is the history of bringing tobacco into control. For decades tobacco money bought and paid for politicians and advertised that tobacco was good for you. It took a rising profile of that imbecility to change that. Even the bought and paid for politicians can only keep a straight face for so long.

    Now it is sugar, global warming, and other so called expressions of freedom. There is no freedom when the oligarchs lie to the public, control the supply, create the demand, and own the politicians, and endanger all. All it takes is a sufficient level of ignorance. We have that. Couple that ignorance with the illusion of freedom and you have a perverse patriotic or nationalistic fervor that keeps the status quo.

    Global warming may be primarily caused by nature. However, reaching the tipping point will be due to a controllable ingredient, mankind, or should we say personkind or hupersonity.

    Instead of creating wealth through an industry that will eclipse and dwarf the tech industry, that could rebuild that middle class of well paid workers, that could change America from a land of xenophobic, delusional, egocentrics to a land of innovative and intelligent worldly types, that of the creation of the alternative energy industry, our Buffoon in Chief is upping spending on the military, already a military greater than all others combined. Yup, stroke the industrial military complex and pass the vaseline.

  3. USGinc. will not be of aid on this matter. It hasn’t been pro-active on protecting our earth, people, water and air for years.

    I suggest a citizen consortium which is local but also connected with all other similar groups. Each group should work to bring in alternative energy which is best suited for that area. Groups can recruit contractors to tie in with the grid or devise other methods for creating their own grid.

    I agree with Darren that the costs of being wrong about this are truly end-game while the benefits will remain benefits even if one is wrong about global warming. Do good for all and make money. What’s not to like?

  6. I would like to again remind those of my earlier argument that environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They politicized conservation and as a result their message became supported or attacked based upon either the alignment or opposition of the political party they joined. They also joined into the counter-culture of the 1970s which became off-putting to mainstream Americans. Next they made fantastic claims that hurt their credibility such as saying that if a particular road is built through a vast national forest the ecosystem will be irreparably damaged so when a true and large risk to the environment is proposed by them they are not believed. And finally they either guilt tripped or insulted the very people who might have otherwise supported them had they taken a more generally acceptable approach.

    Had environmentalists not been so sanctimonious, headstrong, and arrogant forty years ago we likely would not be having such an unwillingness on the political scene to protect nature and we will not be facing some of the stark realities ahead in the future.

    1. Very true. That is due in large part to the Main Stream Media being the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party. Because of that, every story is twisted in some way to fit the prevailing Democratic Party narrative at the time.

      Thus, if one opposes silly regulations, based on their silliness, it will instead be deemed and reported as opposition to the Democrats. (Who are simply pushing for the power to control energy usage. Just think of the favors they can buy once they control energy! And medicine! etc.)

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  7. One way to analyze the problem is to approach it from a perspective of having been wrong in one’s thinking and the effect.

    If we assume that global warming is real and take action to reduce the effect, through conservation, removal of pollution, and other mitigations and we later discover we were wrong and there is no global warming, well what was the cost? Money and improved efficiency of energy use with reduction in spill-over costs.

    If we assume climate change is a fallacy and continue to pollute the Earth, we either maintain the status quo or increase the pollution. And, if we are wrong the environment is greatly damaged and the consequences are enormous.

    Now which side of the argument should we risk embracing, assuming we could be wrong in our thinking?

    1. Darrin,

      Your first assumption does not account that less regulation spawns innovation that has the potential to solve whatever “crisis” might develop from that innovation. If one truly lived their life within the constraints of the uncertainty principle, one would never leave the confines of their bed. It is cornucopian vs. neo malthusian attitude. If man stops taking risks, he becomes stagnant. If we lived in a “what if” world, we would never have done such great things like go to the moon.

    2. I agree. It makes sense to develop sustainable energy and more manhattan project type effort should be put toward that. What I don’t get is even if 100% of the increased temperature is due to man, we are not going to be able to cut it all and the temp will likely still climb at least for a while. So if there really is a “tipping” point after which catastrophe ensues, wouldn’t it be prudent to also figure out what we need to do should that happen? I never hear that. Also, fossil fuel is heavily focused on. If methane from cattle is also a significant source maybe we should be promoting vegetarianism more and trying to reduce ranching. I don’t think this would be very popular and I am not sure how the economics would work or what the cattle industry could transform to, but it seems like there are many pieces to the equation and they aren’t discussed. There is a bit of mass hysteria surrounding the topic. Whenever I see that I am distrustful of people’s motivations.

    3. I agree with you Darren. Being a laboratory scientist, I have learned a bit about the natural world. Weather is cyclical, Earth has experienced changes throughout history. During the 13th century this planet experienced a “mini ice age”. But there is no harm in assuming that global warming is real. Any changes we make can only help, no matter what is the truth.

    4. Your thought experiment has no numbers. Look at the numbers. Since 1970, U.S. GDP has increased 246%. Emissions of six major pollutants have declined 71%. CO2 in the U.S. peaked in 2006 (and because of changes in the economy, I think it unlikely U.S. CO2 emissions will EVER again reach levels seen in 2006).

      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/1970-2015_baby_graphic.png

      The remarkable thing is that the 71% decline in pollutant emissions has happened while our population has increased by over 100 million people. Environmental zealots should be doing cartwheels in the street celebrating the fact that we’ve raised our standard of living with such impressive economic growth while at the same time reducing pollutant emissions to the lowest level in our lives. The fast growing parts of the economy are knowledge based services, internet/digital, etc. and they are far less energy intensive and emit fewer emissions. The economy has been “decoupling” from both pollutant emissions and CO2 emissions and it will continue to do so as the economy continues to shift away from producing “stuff” and toward less energy intensive services and knowledge.

      Now look at the costs of your thought experiment. Bjorn Lomborg uses the same models the IPCC uses and he has determined the Paris climate agreement will cost $100 trillion over the next century. And it will reduce the global temperature by an imperceptible 0.3 degrees.

    5. “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing” Pascal’s Wager. If we assume God is real and take action to not sin, we lose nothing if we discover later there is no God. If we assume there is no God and we continue our evil ways in this life only to discover later that God does exist, we lose in the next life. Therefore bet on the side of God’s existence, and/or Climate Change. Do I have it about right?

      But not all will believe; and of the believers, not all will believe in the same way. Then treat Climate Change like every other religion. The 1st amendment should apply. I know, I know, “but the Climate Change science is settled; and there is no scientific proof that God exists”. If both were true, then all would believe the same way. Let’s say >51% of Americans believe in God and that Christianity is a positive force for mankind, should we then empower government to require 100% of Americans to financially support religious institutions? But China or India’s population believe in some other form of God or religion or not in religion at all. What have we gained by forcing 49% of America’s non-Christians to pay for a belief that won’t have any effect on the majority of mankind?

      1. Olly,

        So I don’t have a strong opinion here, and I am still in the information gathering and learning phase about pretty much everything. But if you assume that God exists or not will only affect you, but if you don’t assume that Global Warming exists that could be catastrophic for everyone, so it seems like in one case it is an individualized Pascals wager and in another it is a systemic Pascals wager. But I have other questions regarding this debate which I have been pretty much silenced from even inquiring about, because as you know “the science is settled” and you get labeled a denier. I am not a denier and I want nothing more than to leave a clean, pleasant world for my children. I am pretty sure that is what the majority of the population would like, but I digress… so I did this calculation in my mind in terms of the tailpipe emissions. America contributes 16% of the fossil fuel emissions (I can find the actual site that I got this from if someone cares to know). So by forcing the car companies to make vehicles that get an average of 54 MPG by 2025 and assuming no other changes that would drop to 8% of the total. But fossil fuel emissions aren’t solely from individuals driving and not everyone will be able to buy a new electric vehicle. (Will food trucks also be required to have these types of engines for example? Airplanes will certainly not.) I don’t know the actual number here but, for arguments sake, let’s assume that it is the majority of the fossil fuel emission, so 5%. So the question I have is, is a 5% decrease in our contribution to global warming worth the cost of major revenue loss to car manufacturers, potentially losses of a million jobs and cars that are mores expensive than many people can afford? I honestly don’t know the answer and maybe my numbers are way off, but I think it is worth a discussion. I also find it suspicious that the EPA was supposed to be reviewing the cost/benefit of this plan until 2018 and then, before Trump took office they suddenly decided they didn’t need to review it for another year.

        I still think sustainability is a win win for everyone. I’d like to see all the ideas on the table of how to get there without creating an even greater wealth gap than the one that we already have.

        1. Kathy,

          Do some research on LFTR (Thorium) energy producers. If there was any place to put opportunity cost money, this would be it. But instead, we will waste untold fortunes/time on wind and solar with no base load capabilities. Learning about LFTR will also inform you about our interesting history with nuclear power and how we got to where we are today. This will make you more energy knowledgeable.

        2. “But if you assume that God exists or not will only affect you, but if you don’t assume that Global Warming exists that could be catastrophic for everyone,”

          However those that believe in God usually hold that the truths of one’s religion also are beneficial for all. Same argument regarding Climate Change.

          My core problem with CC is not the desired goal but reasonableness that the goal will be achieved without cooperation from all nations. Until that is addressed then we are simply violating the “establishment clause” on Climate Change in our country and respecting it in others. Until that is resolved, then the government should stay out of it and the CC advocates can evangelize just like every other religion.

          1. Yeah, I agree with the part about all nations needing to participate. It still strikes me that the cost of miscalculating global warming is higher for everyone than the cost of not believing in God, but maybe I’m not thinking about it right. But did you see my point about the tailpipe emissions? It seems like politicians are talking past one another. Shouldn’t the discussion be about the impact of the “roll back” on global warming? To me it seems minimal. Why does that not come up?

            1. I think we are talking past one another. 🙂 Not that either of us is right or wrong, just that I’m looking at the forest and you are looking at the trees. I believe your point is valid and is part of a much larger conflict opponents have with this whole thing.

              You are discussing tailpipe emissions (tree), someone else discusses solar power (tree) and so on. There are a lot of trees and the United States is just one forest. Do we blow up our economy to save the world when much larger and prolific producers of whatever is believed to be producing man-made climate change overwhelm our positive impact?

              Man-made Climate Change advocates to me are like the mega-Churches where some good is done but the leadership is getting filthy rich at the same time. It makes it seem like a scam, especially when our tithes are to be funneled (redistributed) to countries lacking our resources with no explanation of how anything will be improved in the long run.

  8. Just to play things off, in Arizona we had a month of unseasonably cold weather. They are getting our hot weather. California had record winter snows, some so deep the measuring stick is not long enough. Going to blame that on global warming?

  9. The only sane point links directly to our very own micro-environments at home – AND at insane Mein Trumpf’s 4th Reich Towers.

    Where continual polluting and unrestrained heating will eventually suffocate the whole family of Mankind, Womankind, kids, cats, dogs, goldfish, and all ya’ll!

    Once the sub oceons methane is released, it’s all over – “Say Goodnight Dick!”

    WebSearch: ‘sub oceons methane’.

  10. Based on some of these comments, I think Inhofe is posting under several names.

  11. Well well well somebody is catching on fast for a change. Excellent.

    Just use your mind, study the nature of things.and if you find a solution ask…is it moral? We don’t want any more Rachel Carson with their DDT solution (replacing DDT with starvation )

  13. Well, unless we can stop China from pumping out enough toxic soup that pretty much every day is in the red zone, as well as stop our hunger for Chinese goods, what can we really do to decrease air pollution, let alone CO2? Plus there are other heavy polluters like Russia. And although we piously legislate our own pollution, reminiscent of Elizabeth Gaskell’s “parliamentary smoke” in North and South, our consumer habits drive a lot of that manufacturing in China. We experience the ultimate Tragedy of the Commons in our atmosphere. We all breathe it, and our neighbor’s smoke blows in our backyard.

    It is in our self interest to preserve a gaseous profile conducive to mammalian life. If we skew the profile of our atmosphere too much, it will affect us. The carboniferous period, or the age of plants, had so much oxygen that it was theoretically highly susceptible to forest fires. And the Permian was super hot and dry in the interior of Pangea, while massive volcanic activity poisoned the air, and very few trees. In fact, the toxins spewed by widespread volcanic activity, as well as the effect of blocking out the sun, is hypothesized as one of the main contributing factors to several mass extinctions, the worst one being the Permian Mass Extinction.

    We are not going to be able to stop the planet from changing. Its nature is changeable. Our climate has wildly oscillated between dry hot, dry cold, moist hot, and moist cold periods of its history. And it will continue to change. We must adapt or perish, because we are not exempt from Natural Selection. But we can improve our health, and that of our planet, by combating the pollution of our air and water. It’s really too bad that we hyper fixate on only one of the gases we produce, CO2, when there are so many that directly impact our health.

    1. Oh, I forgot to mention, that if we ever manage to poison the dominant phytoplankton, we are well and truly screwed. It produces much of our oxygen, with the other powerhouse being the rainforest, which we are busily chopping down…

      1. tha’ts been going on for 50 or 60 years. the chopping but we ditched that business uip here to make up for it down there Except for the Sierra Club clear cutting it ‘s own property.

        Tell you a little secret …not nice to fool with mother nature. It’s a contrarian sort of being and will fix anything and everytning on it’s own. If a species or two gets wiped out in natural evolution and change ..no big deal Mama N. has plenty more.

        We are the only species that even worries or thinks about it.

        What’s the solution?.mmmmmmmm Only three things can happen certain sure. birth, life and death and you don’t get to pick and choose.,.

      2. Tenfold increase in the abundance of single-cell coccolithophores between 1965 and 2010
        https://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change/

        The land based biosphere has increased 14% since 1980. That’s the equivalent of adding a green continent twice the size of the U.S. to the planet.
        http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

        Those are observable, empirical data. The sea based and land based planet is flourishing.

    2. China is investing vast amounts of money in renewable energy while the US is cutting back on renewable energy and eliminating the safeguards for air and water. In the future they could have cleaner air and we could be the ones wearing the masks.

  14. https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/07/antarctica-station-reports-temperatures-reaching-63-5-degrees/#respond

    https://www.windytv.com/?temp,2017-03-09-12,-68.367,-71.895,3,m:RlaeEl

    Use the second URL it should put you into that area. One can back in time at the bottom and forward for forecasts and see animated waves winds, and all manner of conditions pertaining to this post. the plus minus is the upper right hand corner the conditions list downthe right hand side.

    From the description it is easy to locate the area referenced.

    At present…just prior to Midnight mountain time the highest temp using the switch from F to C feature was 50 in some areas. Thee are a huge amount of factors concerned. wind wave tides, pressure and time of dahy AND year as it’s early September there in the southern hemisphere.

    1. Thanks for the link, Michael. The animated marine currents are amazing.

  15. @JT
    “As someone who believe[s] that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing this planet, the evidence continues to mount that we are at or passing a tipping point.”

    100 Years Ago, Alexander Graham Bell Warned Us About the ‘Greenhouse Effect’

    “In a 1917 paper, Alexander Graham Bell wrote that the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels ‘would have a sort of greenhouse effect.’ The man who invented the telephone four decades earlier added, ‘the net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.’

    “Bell was also concerned about the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels — ‘What shall we do when we have no more coal and oil?’ So in a 1917 article for National Geographic Magazine, he urged ‘the development of renewable ethanol fuel from agricultural waste, corn stalks, and saw-mill dust.’ As one biographer wrote, Bell would ‘also explore ideas in energy conservation’ and ‘solar heating.’

    “And all this time you thought the Chinese invented the greenhouse effect to beat us at manufacturing.”

    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/42330-100-years-ago-alexander-graham-bell-warned-us-about-the-greenhouse-effect

  17. Haha. As soon as I saw the title of the article, I knew an anti-science know-nothing would begin frothing.

    1. Plants and trees PRODUCE carbon dioxide. I think everyone fell alseep in science class.
      The global elite have been pounding this cap and trade tax scheme for over a decade now, preparing the masses for rule under their thumb.
      Where we require permission and plenty of money to breath and deficate.
      We ARE decimating the planets forests, we are overfishing, and so on, and those products need to be replaced with alternative choices through education.
      If the global elite would have really cared, the would have mandated China put on the same pollution exhaust filters US and Europe factories have been using for decades. And they would have outlawed the dangerous and expensive way to heat water, nuclear energy. But they DIDNT. Because this propaganda is not about ‘saving the planet’.
      It’s about utopian slavery on Satan’s global plantation.

    1. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to the increased circumpolar winds. The coriolis effect shoves the sea ice northward and the water in the leads freezes right away.

      Of course the Antarctic sea ice almost all melts every Austral summer. What season is it in the southern hemisphere?

        1. It was a rhetorical question, fcs! Do try to show some class…

      1. I think the sea ice is diminishing some. Maybe. It is hard to know for sure, because Global Warming Fanatics jump on every factoid like a bunch of Millerites expecting the End of the World. For example, there was a story recently about the ice melting at the North Pole! OMG! Run! Hide! etc.

        Then, “cooler” heads prevailed and showed this pic from 1959 at the North Pole:

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uss-skate-open-water.jpg

        Also, this:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#794718562892

        The problem with a lot of this is that once a headline is out, people remember the headline, and never bother to check up on the reality of the situation. That is why so many people are so misinformed about so many things. Or those silly studies where you get a headline, but if you read further you discover that the study is whack.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeek,

          Exactly! Although a different topic, similar is that the movie Hidden Figures does the same thing. It is just a hit piece on NASA and white people. But if you bother to look into the facts, most of the racial aspects aren’t true but most people will not look any further than what Hollywood puts out.

  20. Thank you, Prof. Turley, for this–when will the White House face the reality?

Comments are closed.