It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expedition To Study Global Warming Put On Hold Because Of TOO MUCH ICE

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Well, the title of the article pretty much says it all, but...



The CCGS Amundsen, a Medium Arctic icebreaker and Arctic research vessel operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, was to travel throughout Hudson Bay, a body of water in northeastern Canada, but was rerouted to help ships who were stuck in the icy water.

A Coast Guard officer said the conditions were the “worst he’s seen in 20 years,”


Global Warming is so now bad in the Arctic that ships are getting stuck in thick ice in late summer...

Global Warming...really?

Paging Mr. Gore...Mr. Al Gore...




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Well, that proves it. If the planet's climate was really changing due do human activities it would just get steadily hotter every day with no variation at all. Furthermore, all the ice at the poles would be gone by now. That's just common sense.

Thanks for bringing this to us and ending the debate once and for all.


edit on 24-7-2015 by BiffWellington because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
this issue will never be addressed because of the monumental idiot that decided to call it "global warming" when the more accurate description is "climate change"

I find it amazing how to win the issue what you really need is to get the naming right.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Another ATS member who doesnt understand the difference between the deep layer of ice that took 1000s of years to form and the ice on top which changes season to season from many variables.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Admit it, you don't know anything about the AGW theory do you? Just sound bytes from the right and to periodically insult Al Gore.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Not easy to face the cold hard facts I guess.




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: mobiusmale

Another ATS member who doesnt understand the difference between the deep layer of ice that took 1000s of years to form and the ice on top which changes season to season from many variables.


I assume you are confusing the difference between annual variations in glacial formations...and the annual seasonal changes that occur in Arctic bodies of water like Hudson Bay.


The climate of the region depends largely on the water surface. In January and February the bay is covered with pack ice, preventing any warming effect on the air, and temperatures are consequently very low. The ice begins to melt in May and rapidly disappears in June, when cloudiness and fog increase. The water temperature rises up to 10°C in July and August as a result of the influx of fresh water. During October and November the waters of the bay yield heat and moisture, bringing showers of rain and snow. Fog is most frequent in June, July and August, as warm air cools over the colder water. Winds are strong in all but the summer months and rise to 110 km/h and even 150 km/h in autumn.


Annual Hudson Bay Ice Conditions

So, it is indeed unusual to have ships getting stuck in the ice in late July.
edit on 24-7-2015 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Yes and unusual weather patterns and weather events are indicative of man made climate change.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale

Admit it, you don't know anything about the AGW theory do you? Just sound bytes from the right and to periodically insult Al Gore.


Admittedly, Al is an easy target...and was comical even before he became the de facto spokesman for the Global Warming...er, Climate Change...um, Carbon Tax...lobby.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Well, the title of the article pretty much says it all, but...



The CCGS Amundsen, a Medium Arctic icebreaker and Arctic research vessel operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, was to travel throughout Hudson Bay, a body of water in northeastern Canada, but was rerouted to help ships who were stuck in the icy water.

A Coast Guard officer said the conditions were the “worst he’s seen in 20 years,”


Global Warming is so now bad in the Arctic that ships are getting stuck in thick ice in late summer...

Global Warming...really?

Paging Mr. Gore...Mr. Al Gore...






You do realize sea ice and glacial melting are not related right? That glaciers are the concern and the "ice" that is effected by year round warming not current atmospberic conditions in the short term. Sea ice can form over a week. Glacial ice can not reform until the next ice age.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Politician != Scientist. Attacking Al Gore for what he says and promotes doesn't invalidate climate change theory. Carbon credit scams are also not proof of climate change being fake. When you deniers start throwing those two fallacies out, it is immediately clear to me that you guys don't care about the actual science involved and just care about the right wing sound bytes and back patting that usually goes on in these threads.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale

Yes and unusual weather patterns and weather events are indicative of man made climate change.


They certainly are indicative of the process of climate change. The source(s) of said climate change, I think are rather more multifaceted than the simple "we did it" model.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

You do realize sea ice and glacial melting are not related right? That glaciers are the concern and the "ice" that is effected by year round warming not current atmospberic conditions in the short term. Sea ice can form over a week. Glacial ice can not reform until the next ice age.


Right you are...which according to the most recent reports, should begin in about 15 years.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

That's because you don't understand the science behind it and think that you can substitute ignorance for valid reasoning.
edit on 24-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Not easy to face the cold hard facts I guess.





Oh it's quite easy. Every year there is some group of eco-activists or other who attempt some scheme to prove how devastated the Arctic ice is and wind up running into the cold, hard fact.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: luthier

You do realize sea ice and glacial melting are not related right? That glaciers are the concern and the "ice" that is effected by year round warming not current atmospberic conditions in the short term. Sea ice can form over a week. Glacial ice can not reform until the next ice age.


Right you are...which according to the most recent reports, should begin in about 15 years.


Remember when the "most recent reports" told us it should all have melted off by now?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale

Politician != Scientist. Attacking Al Gore for what he says and promotes doesn't invalidate climate change theory. Carbon credit scams are also not proof of climate change being fake. When you deniers start throwing those two fallacies out, it is immediately clear to me that you guys don't care about the actual science involved and just care about the right wing sound bytes and back patting that usually goes on in these threads.


I would never deny that Climate Change exists, and/or is ongoing...nor that it can/will have measurable effects on the lifeforms on this planet.

Very large swings in climactic conditions...many seemingly cyclical, others apparently due to catastrophic events of various kinds...have been recorded over Earth's history. Previous warming/cooling trends had nothing to do with man's greenhouse gas emission levels (as far as we know anyway), but were natural in origin.

I have no problem with the idea that CO2 (and other) emissions can have a measurable impact on the atmosphere (denying that would be like saying that smog doesn't damage lungs, or that acid rain doesn't happen).

I just happen to be in the camp that believes that there are also larger natural-based forces at work in the present - and discussion about these factors...and how they should be worked into the prediction models...are getting drowned out by the man-made climate change crowd, who like to throw around derisive labels like "denier" if anyone has any other ideas they feel should be considered.
edit on 24-7-2015 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

nope...didn't confuse a thing...we are still talking about two different things.....you are talking about a second in cosmic time and im talking about a minute....so what...its cold one year....the total weight of the ice mass is decreasing as a whole



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale

That's because you don't understand the science behind it and think that you can substitute ignorance for valid reasoning.


The science is not yet complete or comprehensive in this field, and so to be a blind adherent to it displays a certain ignorance as well.

All proponents of (any) scientific theories, now and over human history, speak in the present with loud and authoritative voices...even whilst knowing that the scientific method itself will one day cause them to have to retract or amend their conclusions.

Take a deep breath, and keep an open mind...the truth is likely somewhere out there in the middle



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

There is no debate on natural climate change factors. That is just a red herring invented by the right wing media to make it sound like a climate change denier isn't really denying science. But like I said, no debate exists around natural climate change. Climate scientists believe in it just as much as they believe in man made climate change, so mentioning it is irrelevant. Scientists DO factor in natural factors into their climate change models. Then they factor in the man-made ones and get the results they do.




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join