behaviour??? Posted April 28, 2010 #1 Share Posted April 28, 2010 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. Read more... Thanks B??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2010 #2 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Thanks B??? When does a freak event stop been freaky ? Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astute One Posted April 29, 2010 #3 Share Posted April 29, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted April 29, 2010 #4 Share Posted April 29, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted April 29, 2010 #5 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all..... What it doesn't work both ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astute One Posted April 29, 2010 #6 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all..... What it doesn't work both ways? Not for the tail less donkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 29, 2010 #7 Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) Oh this is just localised warming. Not a global indicator at all..... What it doesn't work both ways? 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 April 29, 2010 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted April 29, 2010 #8 Share Posted April 29, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 29, 2010 #9 Share Posted April 29, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted April 29, 2010 #10 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Notice how the whole global warming hysteria has all but vanished...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted April 29, 2010 #11 Share Posted April 29, 2010 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted April 29, 2010 #12 Share Posted April 29, 2010 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=181244&st=0&p=3395094&fromsearch=1entry3395094 Of course it's never been this warm before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZELDAR Posted April 29, 2010 #13 Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) Im curious about the temperature up there. Is it freezing rain? I can imagine ice darts....yikes Edited April 29, 2010 by ZELDAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 1, 2010 #14 Share Posted May 1, 2010 (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 May 1, 2010 by Mattshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 1, 2010 #15 Share Posted May 1, 2010 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=181244&st=0&p=3395094&fromsearch=1entry3395094 Of course it's never been this warm before. That is really relevant or the point is it. No, didn't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 1, 2010 #16 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 1, 2010 #17 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2010 #18 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 1, 2010 #19 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2010 #20 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 1, 2010 #21 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2010 #22 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 1, 2010 #23 Share Posted May 1, 2010 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2010 #24 Share Posted May 1, 2010 (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 May 1, 2010 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 1, 2010 #25 Share Posted May 1, 2010 (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 May 1, 2010 by socrates.junior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now