Report says Arctic temperatures at record highs

October 16, 2008 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- Autumn temperatures in the Arctic are at record levels, the Arctic Ocean is getting warmer and less salty as sea ice melts, and reindeer herds appear to be declining, researchers reported Thursday.

---

Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

---

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

NASA data show Arctic saw fastest August sea ice retreat on record

Sep 28, 2008 | 2.8 / 5 (14) | 4

Arctic sea ice narrowly missed record low in winter 2007, says University of Colorado team

Apr 04, 2007 | 3.8 / 5 (4) | 0

Carcasses of dead walruses spotted on Alaska coast

Sep 17, 2009 | 5 / 5 (1) | 1

Vast expanses of Arctic ice melt in summer heat

Aug 09, 2009 | 4 / 5 (15) | 5

Researchers forecast 1 in 3 chance of record low sea ice in 2007

Apr 19, 2007 | 4.5 / 5 (2) | 0

• Rick69 - Oct 16, 2008
  • Rank: 2.7 / 5 (10)
  Pardon me, but in another report I read today it stated that one of the major Alaskan glaciers expanded this year for the first time since the mid 1700s. (By quite a large amount for a year) Two points of interest here. Since the glaciers have been decreasing each year since the mid 1700s, a time before AGW could be blamed, the explanation that we are just in a period of recovery from the little ice age makes a lot more sense than AGW. Also, note that this story refers to 2007, the year BEFORE this exceptionally cold year of 2008 in Alaska.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• mikiwud - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
  Arctic sea ice is 28.7% above the area of this date 2007.Recovery is already above 2005 levels.
  http://wattsupwiththat.com
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Treetops - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
  climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 2.8 / 5 (9)

  climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.

  
  
  Yes, the trends are very clear. There is nothing wrong with the current climate cycle according to those very same trends when you look at a large enough slice of time.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• mikiwud - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  Maybe they'll like this fact.
  
  When applying heat to a heterogenous system the greatest effect will be concentrated in the driest, coolest regions of the system.
  
  So when you warm the earth, the driest, coolest regions, (the artic, antartic, australia), will see the greatest change.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• GrayMouser - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (8)

  climate is about multi annual averages and trends. The trends are clear and can not be denied.

  
  Well what about this from Anchorage Daily News (http://www.mcclat...4.html):
  "Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008."
  
  Or you could try Dr. Keen's "Global Warming Quiz" at http://atoc.color...050/1050 ppt/Global warming quiz.ppt.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Excalibur - Oct 17, 2008
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.
  
  In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• mikiwud - Oct 18, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
  Thanks Excalibur for proving my point.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Oct 18, 2008
  • Rank: 2.8 / 5 (9)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.
  
  In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

  
  
  You want to explain the 1 i got then?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• deatopmg - Oct 18, 2008
  • Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
  ALL the facts in 1 place, not just 1 data point or selected data like this report:
  
  http://www.americ...u_1.html
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Excalibur - Oct 19, 2008
  • Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.
  
  In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

  
  
  You want to explain the 1 i got then?

  
  Which particular "1" would that be?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Oct 20, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  You got a "1" for stating a selected factoid, one that is NOT INDICATIVE of the trend.
  
  In other words, you deliberately tried to mis-lead by mis-representation.

  
  
  You want to explain the 1 i got then?

  
  Which particular "1" would that be?

  
  
  Anyone who breings an opinion you disagreee with gets an auto spam warning from you. Great way to create a proper debate and inject information into the discussion, start it off as hostilly as possible.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Noein - Oct 25, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (3)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  
  I gave you a "1" for cherry-picking a popular soundbite from big oil's global warming denialism blogosphere.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Oct 25, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)

  I see I got 1/5 for stating facts!
  See why not to argue with idiots,it only brings you down to their level and then they will win through experience.

  
  
  
  I gave you a "1" for cherry-picking a popular soundbite from big oil's global warming denialism blogosphere.

  And you got a 1 for repeating the same rhetoric that has been proven inaccurate time and time again.
  
  You do know the IPCC has received donations from Exxon, British Petroleum, and the House of Saud, right? Guess you didn't. Oh well, by your own logic AGW is full of it as well, afterall, some of their money came from big oil.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5