Extreme temperature spikes such as this one have occurred multiple times in the past two winters, whereas they only previously occurred once or twice per decade in historical records according to research published in the journal Nature.
As Mashable science writer Andrew Freedman put it: “Something is very, very wrong with the Arctic climate.”
Source: It’s about 50 degrees warmer than normal near the North Pole, yet again - The Washington Post
As someone that follows the science, I definitely understand the difference between weather and climate. However, it takes climate change to create aberrations this extreme, this often.
This is all very real. It is unfortunate that many of our elected representatives don't agree with the science.
The crack in Larsen C now reaches over 100 miles in length, and some parts of it are as wide as two miles. The tip of the rift is currently only about 20 miles from reaching the other end of the ice shelf.
Once the crack reaches all the way across the ice shelf, the break will create one of the largest icebergs ever recorded, according to Project Midas, a research team that has been monitoring the rift since 2014. Because of the amount of stress the crack is placing on the remaining 20 miles of the shelf, the team expects the break soon.
Source: A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months - The New York Times
Climate Change is real, and keeps on chugging. The visuals in the NY Times article are quite impressive and give you a more visceral sense of what is going on.
Very cool interactive graph visualizing temperature anomalies reported in the US from 1964 to current. The full site gives all the data they used and methodology for the analysis.
xkcd today takes the actually Hurricane Center Advisories from 2005 (when we ran out of letters) and draws the narrative. The results are hilarious.
There is a good posting on the Real Climate blog about the IPCC AR4 blow back that is happening. I think this gets to the heart of it:
To those familiar with the science and the IPCC’s work, the current
media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal.
Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now
outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. We’ve
met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who
were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having
never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make
their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told
about it. And there are well-organized lobby forces
with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told
the “right” story. That explains why some media stories about what is
supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by
opening the report and reading. Unfortunately, as a broad-based
volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is
not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation.
Ars Technica does an incredible job providing a climate change primer
trying to get back to some basics. After the sensationalism around the
leaked CRU emails the last couple of weeks, it's nice to have a piece
that explains some basic facts of what we know and how we know it, in a
very digestible form.
Update: I had the wrong link in my copy buffer, fixed now.