Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
behaviour???

Arctic explorers get unpleasant surprise

34 posts in this topic

In what looks to be another sign the Arctic is heating up quickly, British explorers in Canada's Far North reported on Tuesday that they had been hit by a three-minute rain shower over the weekend.

The rain fell on the team's ice base off Ellef Rignes island, about 3,900 km (2,420 miles) north of the Canadian capital Ottawa.

"It's definitely a shocker ... the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event," said Pen Hadow, the team's expedition director.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Thanks

B???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

B???

When does a freak event stop been freaky ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it snowed in Houston for the first time in November in recorded history. In fact, it has snowed in Houston more over the last five years than I can remember is the past 40 years.

You are so quick to jump at a chance to say its AGW without even looking at another cause. It would be funny if it wasn't such a great indication of how screwed up science has become. It's not even science. It's pinning the tail on the donkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it snowed in Houston for the first time in November in recorded history. In fact, it has snowed in Houston more over the last five years than I can remember is the past 40 years.

You are so quick to jump at a chance to say its AGW without even looking at another cause. It would be funny if it wasn't such a great indication of how screwed up science has become. It's not even science. It's pinning the tail on the donkey.

problem is they dont have the tail or the donkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all.....

What it doesn't work both ways? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all.....

What it doesn't work both ways? :innocent:

Not for the tail less donkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all.....

What it doesn't work both ways? :innocent:

Climate change, understand - climate changes not just warms. Locally can be either way.

I know its a bit complex, but lets try to get our heads round it.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change, understand - climate changes not just warms. Locally can be either way.

I know its a bit complex, but lets try to get our heads round it.

Br Cornelius

I know the name was changed, but if you do a little bit of reasearch the key premise of "climate change" is the greenhouse effect which will cause overwhelming warming, My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the name was changed, but if you do a little bit of reasearch the key premise of "climate change" is the greenhouse effect which will cause overwhelming warming, My link

The planet is a complex "system" with multiple interrelated energy conveyors. I keep repeating it, because its the most obvious example, the gulf stream brings warm water from the tropic to the North of the Atlantic. Increasing Ice water melt due to general warming is creating a dense block of cold fresh water in the north Atlantic which is resisting the flow of the warm tropical waters. The gulf stream has diminished by at least 10% as a consequence of climate change. This has two effects - the Gulf of Mexico is getting slightly warmer (localised warming) because it cannot move its heat load away, and the North Atlantic is getting colder because it is not receiving the warm tropical waters(local cooling). The two are one in the same process, and yet create completely different results in different parts of the globe.

A similar process is happening down in the Antarctic where warm moisture laden air is been stopped by the high antarctic mountains and dropping more snow, hence the internal ice cap (not the sea ice which is shrinking) is actual growing as a consequence of more heat been transported down to the pole. Doen't seem right that heating can create more snow does it - but its true and a direct consequence of the whole planetary system having to cope with more trapped heat.

These are both counter intuitive consequences of general warming, but the principles governing them are entirely logical and inevitable.

You can try to dress this up as much as you like but putting more energy into a complex thermodynamic system will produce unprecictable results - not just across the board warming. This is where you have to want to try to grasp the systems dynamics behind the bare headlines - which only try to tell simple stories for simple people. Don't be a simple person, grasp the complexity and try to understand what is going on.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how the whole global warming hysteria has all but vanished...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change, understand - climate changes not just warms. Locally can be either way.

I know its a bit complex, but lets try to get our heads round it.

Br Cornelius

Yes, I'm drowning in the complex sea of knowledge you're bringing to the table here. Definitely...now anyway, why did it start out as global warming then?

Yes, I realize everything to do with unpredictability etc. But, the scientists who you're relying on were saying, not long ago at all, that global warming was the problem. Now, of course, it's "climate change"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im curious about the temperature up there. Is it freezing rain? I can imagine ice darts....yikes

Edited by ZELDAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Notice how the whole global warming hysteria has all but vanished...lol

You mean apart from in the scientific community, the people who actually study these things.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm drowning in the complex sea of knowledge you're bringing to the table here. Definitely...now anyway, why did it start out as global warming then?

Yes, I realize everything to do with unpredictability etc. But, the scientists who you're relying on were saying, not long ago at all, that global warming was the problem. Now, of course, it's "climate change"

That is not true, you are confusing mass media with science

Here is a paper from 1980 written in 1979 which specifically calls it climate change.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281980%29037%3C0099%3AOTDOCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not true, you are confusing mass media with science

Here is a paper from 1980 written in 1979 which specifically calls it climate change.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281980%29037%3C0099%3AOTDOCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Look, I could follow that lead, and link a bunch of papers which call it global warming...but I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I could follow that lead, and link a bunch of papers which call it global warming...but I won't.

Because your mind is closed on the matter.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because your mind is closed on the matter.

Br Cornelius

Nope, my mind isn't the closed one here. I was actually commenting on the tactic used as an instance of a closed mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, my mind isn't the closed one here. I was actually commenting on the tactic used as an instance of a closed mind.

But your point was that once upon a time it was global warming and when the facts got a bit complex they changed the name to hide the fact that it was not just about warming, but Matt proved that was rubbish.

How does it support your position in any way. How does that show you are broad minded and open to admit you might have got something wrong.

No you would rather ignore the inconvenient data - just like I suspect you are doing with any data that supports the vast wealth of evidence that man is causing Global Warming/Climate Change.

If you were trying make a point you failed.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your point was that once upon a time it was global warming and when the facts got a bit complex they changed the name to hide the fact that it was not just about warming, but Matt proved that was rubbish.

How does it support your position in any way. How does that show you are broad minded and open to admit you might have got something wrong.

No you would rather ignore the inconvenient data - just like I suspect you are doing with any data that supports the vast wealth of evidence that man is causing Global Warming/Climate Change.

If you were trying make a point you failed.

Br Cornelius

Uh, no. Matt linked one article. ONE ARTICLE. And that somehow proves his point? I could link an article too. Since we were talking about the name of it, I could link some to point out, "Oh yeah, they do call it 'global warming'!"

I accept the fact that some people may have been more accurate, earlier, than other people, but that doesn't change my original point.

Here...here's a link...I guess that will "prove my point."

http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf

Oh, they DO call it global warming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. Matt linked one article. ONE ARTICLE. And that somehow proves his point? I could link an article too. Since we were talking about the name of it, I could link some to point out, "Oh yeah, they do call it 'global warming'!"

I accept the fact that some people may have been more accurate, earlier, than other people, but that doesn't change my original point.

Here...here's a link...I guess that will "prove my point."

http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf

Oh, they DO call it global warming...

In the first line it refers to Climate Warming, and then Climate Changes. How has that proved your point.

Your point is wrong. I suspect that Global Warming was always a term cooked up by the mass media to sell a difficult idea.

It would have been obvious to any scientist from the beginning that Climate change would be locally variable and the fact that one of the first prediction was the decline of the North Atlantic drift and hence the increase in Northern European precipiation and localised cooling.

Your point has absolutely no merit.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first line it refers to Climate Warming, and then Climate Changes. How has that proved your point.

Your point is wrong. I suspect that Global Warming was always a term cooked up by the mass media to sell a difficult idea.

It would have been obvious to any scientist from the beginning that Climate change would be locally variable and the fact that one of the first prediction was the decline of the North Atlantic drift and hence the increase in Northern European precipiation and localised cooling.

Your point has absolutely no merit.

Br Cornelius

Once again, you're not seeing the point.

Let's reiterate my point.

Scientists referred to a certain phenomenon as "global warming." They wrote papers about it, urged governments about it, and so on and so forth. Now, with it being obvious, as you said, to real scientists, that "climate change" is locally variable, the name changed. I'm just making a point about unpredictability...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again, you're not seeing the point.

Let's reiterate my point.

Scientists referred to a certain phenomenon as "global warming." They wrote papers about it, urged governments about it, and so on and so forth. Now, with it being obvious, as you said, to real scientists, that "climate change" is locally variable, the name changed. I'm just making a point about unpredictability...

And my point is did scientific papers using the term global warming, or was that a media invention.

And really I'm struggling to see what your ultimate point is.

What the great problem you are pointing out, because your last comment seems to be backtracking a little.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And my point is did scientific papers using the term global warming, or was that a media invention.

Br Cornelius

Yes they did. Here, I'll link some.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JHM1058.1?prevSearch=&searchHistoryKey=

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4258.1?prevSearch=&searchHistoryKey=

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2154.1?prevSearch=&searchHistoryKey=

EDIT: Look, it isn't like the noble scientists got callously used by the "mass media." The scientists pandered to the media.

Edited by socrates.junior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.