Global Warming scientists stranded by ........ICE

[Moveon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

For those that missed it the first time or chose not to read it.

[Moveon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

For those that missed it the first time or chose not to read it.

One of the foot notes in the link above for those that missed it. Think Katrina And Sandy.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ly-bad-weather

Hint: this is more interesting reading that reading about cow farts!

[DJD]

One of the foot notes in the link above for those that missed it. Think Katrina And Sandy.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ly-bad-weather

Hint: this is more interesting reading that reading about cow farts!

I read the article and it still seems that the scientists are always hedging their bets. Phrases like--attribution, in some cases, it seems, could be a fluke, isn't a long enough track record and so on.

I become a skeptic from phrases like that because I can read this and see how it actually may bolster my side of how you have to assume and have faith that this data could mean or may link bad weather to GW.

You see we can only go back to a certain time in history to compare those records kept or data from other means to now. It's such a short time frame in our history. Saying things like last year was the driest summer since 1895 or we had the worse season of intense hurricanes 2000 doesn't mean it was all GW and the article says that. It also states that you have to use "attribution" factor which to me means they put the data together and attribute their data to other findings. I'm saying maybe their findings may not be as generous to their bottom line if this attributing factor was less or not as potent?

I seem to remember more than one story out there through the years that said some scientists did "cook" the books to make their findings more compelling. What attributing values did they use? Know what I mean? Why would people who survive off donations and gubment money not want to prove they are in fact getting results that leans toward proving some idea? Just saying....

These next few sentences jumped out at me....see what I mean how they admit it's challenging and tough but if you toss in their "attibuting " factors it helps explain things.

"An approach that climate scientists call “attribution” may help explain this apparent rise in extremes. Initially, attribution studies looked for the drivers of climate change over decades, using computer simulations of climate and statistical analyses of past conditions. Such studies have helped show that human activities are contributing to rising temperatures, by establishing that observed changes cannot be explained without including the effect of greenhouse gases."

Another section of the article based on some studies....

"Neither of those studies tried to link these trends to global warming or associated human activities. That’s where attribution science steps in, and it’s challenging"

Scouting for a climate-change signature within transient events lasting just months and affecting only a small part of the globe is equivalent to hunting for a faint fingerprint amid the heavy boot prints of weather’s natural variability."

I still say its not cut and dry to being a crisis mode of GW. I find it pretty convenient that any findings from a snapshot of historical data compared to a short amount of time in the present can be made to look the way you want it. The article is quick to say that one storm or cold snap may not be attributed to GW. Also, like the following copied quote shows there is still some doubt that I think gets glazed over by uber proponents of GW. I said it before it's so easy to hint or say maybe, but or could be when on either side of this topic.

"One problem: Natural variability in Earth’s climate makes some years warmer than others, says Richard Seager of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. “The dominant features,” he notes, “are El Ni±os, during which the global mean temperature goes up, and [countervailing] La Ni±a events where the global mean temperature goes down.” But other factors — from volcanic eruptions and local cloudiness to human-caused changes like urban development and crop irrigation — can also affect winds, rainfall and sunlight.
This variability tends to smooth out on the global scale, as local effects blend together. “But as you move to smaller spatial and temporal scales,” Seager says, “the amount of random variability in climate gets bigger and bigger relative to any global-warming signal.”
He says that’s why attribution studies have largely focused on weather events that tend to be regionally broad and long-lived."

I still find it more than interesting as to why these scientists became stuck in ice. After reading an article like the one you posted one would think we are destined to all kinds of extreme heat but here we get a story of people in this field getting stuck in ice that is thicker and larger in mass then they thought was possible....it's ironic huh?

[Moveon]

All valid points. Yes there is reason to be cautious. Expecially in how we try to solve the problem.

I too was wondering why the ice is so thick at the South Pole in the summer months. BTW I just read today that the two ships that were stuck in the freed themselves and are on their way back to Austria where it's having a record heat wave this summer.

We all know that the earth rotes on it's axis now days and that it's not flat. We know that the Earth orbits around the sun not the other way around. And we all should know that the weather system on this Earth is complex but that it's created by the sunlight hitting the earth up and warming it while at the same time the heat energy is radiated back out into space and that there is a equilibrium that's ever changing due to the earth spinning. One part of the earth is in sunlight and the other in darkness. The Air and I guess the molten rock below the Earth's Crust along with the Ocean waters help redistribute the heat energy from the Sun and molten rock. We don't really know what's heating the inner earth, perhaps it's radio active elements that are decaying or something.

But we should all know that it's a very complex system. Looking at one point on earth at one point in time is not really indicative to the overall average temperatures on earth over time.

Just because the ship got stuck in the ice does not mean that Global Warming is not real and that the earth is not getting warmer. Remember by warmer they mean on average the earth is warming up one or two degree. But that's a averge for the entire global. Both the hot side facing the sun and the cold side away from the sun. Both the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. From one point in the time zone to all the others. Take them all and add them together and divide by the number or data points and get the Average Temperature.

While in Historically time our written records of the Temperatures on this Earth may seem insignificant to some it doesn't mean that we won't have a problem with Global warming in the future. But like I said I won't be here hopfully when that happens. But what about your kids and grandkids?

What I worry about is the extreme weather that has been predicted by these scientists. I can see where adding more energy to the entire global system could easily stir the pot and create more intense storms.

There was one thing I do remember studying in Geology. There were two thoughts on how the earth changed over the eons. The Catastrophic thought people and the other one that said things happen over long periods of time. I remember that I gave more credence to the latter. But then again the could be catastrophic events that happened all at one time. We just don't know for sure why or how the earth cooled down in the past and allowed the Glaciers to come all the way down to Indiana. All we know is that they did. We find evidence of the Glaciers on the exposed bedrock where the glacial till inside the ice scraped away the top soil and left groves in the igneous rocks at the surface. And the great lakes were created when the Glacier's retreated back up north as the Earth warmed up.

I personally would watch the ice sheets at the poles and on top of the mountains to see how they react to the Earth warming up or cooling down. If they melt and start to recede back up to the mountain tops then the Earth is warming up. If they advance back down the Mountain the Earth is cooling off. Most of the ice sheets are receding which is why I took notice of this issue a few years ago. Before that I generally just ignore all the hoopla.

Oh well I killed another boring day of cold weather. Wish it would warm up so that I could get back out and go fishing again. This freezing cold weather really is the pits. At least I got my truck fixed where it starts in cold weather now.

I still find it more than interesting as to why these scientists became stuck in ice. After reading an article like the one you posted one would think we are dned to all kinds of extreme heat but here we get a story of people in this field getting stuck in ice that is thicker and larger in mass then they thought was possible....it's ironic huh?[/QUOTE]