A recent article in Gizmodo titled, “Ground Temperatures Hit 118 Degrees in the Arctic Circle,” is yet another example of “climate alarmism” to hit the internet.
The author argues that select locations in Siberia recently set record high temperatures and that this could result in a host of deleterious effects down the line.
These include thawing permafrost, increased methane flux, more wildfires, and destabilization of structures standing on previously frozen ground.
In lockstep with other climate stories populating the news cycle, the driver cited for this emerging “catastrophe” is anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide.
As with many other “gloom-and-doom” reports though, the article only highlights a piece of the proverbial climate puzzle.
A broader look at short-term temperature changes in the Arctic reveals something very different: the Arctic is currently cooler than normal!
The Danish Meteorological Institute’s temperature plot of the average temperatures north of 80° N clearly depicts this:
The mean temperatures for a larger Arctic slice reveal the same trend. According to the UAH satellite temperatures of the lower atmosphere, readings north of 60° N are 0.048°C below normal for 2021 (through May 31).
The southern polar region (i.e., south of 60° S) is colder still, registering a -0.16°C anomaly for the same period.
Whether or not these trends hold up over the long term is a much deeper discussion, but suffice to say that the earth’s poles are currently cooler than normal.
What’s important to keep in mind is that “cherry-picking” data to satisfy a particular narrative is never a good idea and must always be called out.
Climate hyperbole seems to be reaching a crescendo, yet we must always be true to the tenets of the scientific method regardless of how strident the demagoguery becomes.
One must, of course, believe that the climate is already being destroyed. In Australia, it is widely accepted by the faithful that up to ninety percent of our unique flora will suffer drastic reductions in their natural range.
This is why one must never plant any native Australian species that are not indigenous to the local area which could possibly escape into the bush…
No, hang on. That doesn’t work… If the natural range of plants is being reduced already, shouldn’t we be fortifying the bush with other native species which could survive there in the future? Would it not be better to have something than nothing?
But, of course, we don’t need to, although in some instances it probably wouldn’t hurt as diversity is good for life in any case.
The reality is that life is far more diverse and resilient than greenies give it credit for. Polar bears have survived fluxes in their population and range, just as Australian plants have. Life is not fixed at any point on a map or at any point in time.
Greenies like to think it should be, because deep down they really don’t know that much about the chaos of life in the natural world. They may love nature, but they don’t understand it that well. That applies to many highly qualified people just as it does it does to immature activists taking a gap year before their tertiary indoctrination.
Rather than spending it earnestly saving polar bears from a non-existent threat, would it not be better to spend that time reflecting on the manifest contradictions and base assumptions of the deep green manifesto? One of those is that the natural state is always best, but if it naturally warms a wee bit in Siberia it’s always the worst state of affairs instead, because it can’t be natural.
There is no room for movement in such opinions. Those opinions are fixed, just as they seem to imagine nature to be.
Sounds like the usual lies, propaganda and scamming that always accompany anything the left claim about about “climate change”.
It is not well known that sun stroke always has been a hazard in Siberia in the summer. The days are very long. The sun has to travel though less atmosphere so it is very hot.
The Arctic Circle is doing Fine its just has the problems with Greens and their idiotic ideas