With all this certainty we still have this year in the far north.: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Which shows the better part of a year with temperatures which can only be described as typical or normal as compared to the thirty year mean.
Perhaps a one off but puzzling.
"Better part of the year"? That looks t be about day 140 to 240 if you mean the time temperatures were below the mean. For the rest of the year (265 days) the temperature has been above the mean by a few degrees, and first impressions are the area above the mean is greater than below.
It would have been useful to have a few more of the recent years' curves presented.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:"Better part of the year"? That looks t be about day 140 to 240 if you mean the time temperatures were below the mean. For the rest of the year (265 days) the temperature has been above the mean by a few degrees, and first impressions are the area above the mean is greater than below.
It would have been useful to have a few more of the recent years' curves presented.
You can click on any year in the table to the left and compare. It is seldom right on the mean and you need to look at the whole years areas above or below the curve to discern if the year was warmer or colder then average.
Clicking through all the years is instructive about the degree of year to year variability in deep winter vs. the consistency of summer with all that ice absorbing latent heat as it melts.
With all this certainty we still have this year in the far north.: