I don't think this is an issue but an answer is needed.

Looking at the Arctic temperature chart below there are at least seven anomalously high readings in North America adjacent to the Arctic basin. Any known reasons for these or are they real?

This image will soon change - anyone know if there is an archive link?

Warm water flowing in from the North Pacific would be my guess.
The sst's have been quite high for some time now but seem to be easing off a bit lately.(Link below in bold)

DMI /COI [Satellite SST analysis]

Use the dropdown in the parameter box to view anomalies.

.

EDIT: Not quite sure you meant to post this here though??

Is this the key issues thread or another sea ice thread?

Now, I don't know how the temperatues displayed  in these charts compare with the records that go on to compile the data base used in the figures that are argued about in the AGW debate. I was just hoping for some clarification.

Sorry for the above Polarwind.

Should have went to specsavers.

I'm have a really drawn out discussion (read: argument) on a different forum with a poster who says that because CO2 causes about 1/4 of greenhouse effect (in terms of radiative forcing), that must mean it has a 4x feedback factor.

Can anyone else see the flaw in this logic, or is it just me?

I assume he is drawing a direct link between the 1/4 and the 4x?  If so, I agree with you that the logic is flawed.  Not sure what point he is trying to make?  Surely by that logic the other 75% would also have 4x feedbacks for each quarter...?

Yes, as far as I can tell he's working on the implicit assumption that CO2 is the only driver and all else is feedback, and although he denies this I can see no other explanation.

This logic makes sense only if you consider all non-condensible GHGs (not just CO2), and assume that if you took out all of those, the remaining water vapour would result in a greenhouse effect so small as to be negligible.

This paper suggests that 20% or so of the greenhouse effect would remain if you took out all the CO2 and let the system equilibriate. As a first approximation maybe the 4x is okay, but it sure helps (particularly if arguing with ardent, die hard sceptics) to be as clear and accurate as possible on all points.

Key issues are regularly being discussed here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/05/clouds-the-wild-card-of-climate-change/

With the greatest respect that is hardly a source of impartial scientific information and discussion....

You might as well say that there are good discussions about child-raising on the KingHerod.com website.....

Gandalf, I don't think anyone needs your partisan opinion as to the merits of different sites.

Readers will make up their own minds.

You are just trying to prop up your own prejudices by spreading them around.

As for that cloud discussion even the IPCC concedes substantial ignorance in that area so it is clearly a key issue and it is being discussed at WUWT so breezy is right.

Sorry Stephen, I thought this was a Forum for people to express their views?   You express yours frequently enough.

WUWT is a sceptic site, which is precisely why the sceptics trawl its pages looking for the latest quasi-tabloid 'news' to lift and deposit in this Forum.  Whilst people do that I will continue to maintain my right to keep pointing out the inherent bias in anything that emerges from that site.

Sadly ,G.T.W. , I know of no 'extreme science' sites to allow us the chance of doing the same. We're stuck with science papers ,reviews and the IPCC........

And so here is a 'key issue' of AGW , updated for last years numbers;

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/GHG_bull_6_en.pdf

looks like Methane (from the permafrost/wetlands/tropical wetlands) is on the way up.

A key issue?

The free market demonstrates its creativity in the face of a potential human disaster -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19878-carbon-trading-tempts-firms-to-make-greenhouse-gas.html

A handful of Chinese and Indian chemicals companies seemingly have the world over a barrel – or rather a large number of barrels of a super-greenhouse gas called HFC-23, which is 14,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

This week, apparently following Chinese threats to vent stockpiles of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, a UN panel issued two million valuable carbon credits to a company called Juhua. It has a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where the gas can be destroyed.

Nobody needs HFC-23. It is a waste by-product of the manufacture of a refrigerant called HCFC-22, used mostly in developing nations. To curb the release of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, the signatories to the Kyoto protocol agreed to pay carbon credits to refrigerant manufacturers that agree to capture and destroy it. The manufacturers can then sell the credits to western companies that want to offset their obligations to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases, under a Kyoto scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The offer only applies to HCFC-22 plants that were built before 2000. Even so it has proved highly lucrative. By some estimates, the value of the carbon credits is up to 100 times the cost of incinerating HFC-23. The resulting income of Chinese companies alone is estimated to reach $1.6 billion by 2012.

Whoops! Hopefully that loophole will be closed. Carbon credits are definitely a tricky business. I'm not sure how I feel about them.

Of course, you'd only consider the venting of HFC-23 a problem if you believe that the greenhouse effect exists. Sadly some people are still arguing it doesn't, which is another key issue!

By threatening to vent the stockpile?

What would be really impressive is if the free market invented a way not to produce the stuff in the first place.

Yes. Very sad that nations take a stance like that, but, that is the way that the Mafia works.

Very nice article about comparing the various surface and satellite temperature series

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/#more-3206

Thank you soooo much for that link Ulric!!!

It's been a tad frustrating relying on my 'understanding' and words to explain to folk why they are 'wrong' in their interpretations (Watts verbatum) of these 'discordent' data.

And a very Merry Christmas to you!