Log in

View Full Version : Researchers freezing while researching global warming


harveyc
03-25-2009, 11:44 PM
Can't make up stuff this good!

From: Polar Explorers Run Short of Food; Weather Stops Supply Flights - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aSqC0BzVMdKk&refer=canada)

Polar Explorers Run Short of Food; Weather Stops Supply Flights

By Alex Morales

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- Three U.K. explorers bound for the North Pole on a scientific expedition to study global warming said they are close to running out of food after “brutal” weather conditions halted three attempts to fly in supplies.

The support team hopes to decide within hours on when it can send an airplane to land on nearby ice with provisions, Tori Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Catlin Arctic Survey in London, said in an interview today.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in a statement e-mailed yesterday by his team. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

The severe weather is jeopardizing a journey aimed at projecting when global warming may melt the entire Arctic Ocean cap, a phenomenon that scientists say might trigger further gains in temperature.

Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley are 18 days into their 100-day, 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) journey to the pole, during which they planned to use a custom radar to take as many as 13 million ice-thickness measurements. They aim to help scientists gauge how quickly the Arctic sea ice is thinning.

Previous estimates of melting have been based on less reliable depth soundings made by satellites and submarines, which can’t distinguish ice from snow. Scientists have made few surface measurements that are highly accurate because of difficulties in traveling on the ice cap.

“We’ve located a suitable airstrip,” Taylor said. “We hope the plane will be able to land.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 18, 2009 06:07 EDT

Richard
03-26-2009, 12:22 AM
You gotta love it!

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:8SGiOnjvYI1KeM:http://i.current.com/images/asset/895/871/52/ndwCXU.jpg

harveyc
03-26-2009, 02:07 AM
Yeah!

http://www.redpills.org/wp-content/img/AlGore2c.jpg

bepah
03-26-2009, 10:01 PM
This is what happens when a belief system takes precedence over facts.

I am certain that the poor folks freezing to death still believe in GW....and will until they freeze to death.

Belief systems are hard to break down. Even when it is clear that the facts stand in opposition to what is rooted in faith, people deny them to theior own demise.

This applies to more than just GW......remember that Barack H. Obama promised a lot of stuff and has been seen as some kind of messiah by those who think that corporatins are innately bad. His popularity is still high, but support for his programs is falling like a rock......

Back to the topic.....ask someone in Fargo if they are interested in a speech by algore.

Richard
03-26-2009, 10:25 PM
I don't care for self-appointed pontiffs at either extreme!

:lurk:

harveyc
03-26-2009, 10:48 PM
Me either. There wasn't really any need to post a whacky image of Rush, though, since this article had nothing to do with him. At least Al is partly related to the article.

I just found the contradictions of the article to be funny.

Richard
03-26-2009, 11:16 PM
Oh! But presenting that story as a contradiction to Al Gore's global warming ideas is exactly the sort of thing I would expect Rush to expound upon.

harveyc
03-26-2009, 11:21 PM
Oh, okay, as long as you're not comparing me to Rush. That would be "ridiculous"! :P

Richard
03-27-2009, 12:02 AM
Nope. You're not egotistical enough to risk the entire health of a country for your own personal gain.

harveyc
03-27-2009, 12:44 AM
I thought you were talking about Rush but now you've switched to Obama???

chong
03-27-2009, 12:54 AM
I thought you were talking about Rush but now you've switched to Obama???

Touché, Harvey ! ! !

Richard
03-27-2009, 01:06 AM
I thought you were talking about Rush but now you've switched to Obama???

No way, you take things too personally to be compared to Obama!

harveyc
03-27-2009, 01:18 AM
:)

As far as doomsday stuff, what do you think about Space storm alert: 90 seconds from catastrophe - space - 23 March 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true) ??? Pretty awesome potential there, but I'd like to observe from a distance!

Richard
03-27-2009, 01:33 AM
Reed Business Information Ltd -- the publishers of New Scientist, are experts in creating stress in the reader so that the reader finds relief in the advertising.

harveyc
03-27-2009, 02:40 AM
That might be the case, but that is a NASA report. There is no indication of what the odds are, though.

Richard
03-27-2009, 09:34 AM
Well, it is a dramatic piece of journalism written about a NASA report.

bigdog
03-27-2009, 09:57 AM
:ha::ha::ha::ha::ha:

That article is hilarious! Good stuff. The shift has already begun to calling GW "climate change" now.

Nope. You're not egotistical enough to risk the entire health of a country for your own personal gain.

Richard, this is a classic example of how the Left fears Rush Limbaugh, and I think it's hilarious. The idea that a talk show host could have the power to "risk the entire health of a country" is amazing! There's only one man that has that kind of power as of right now, and that is President Barack Hussein Obama. Love him or hate him (and there doesn't seem to be much in-between), Rush doesn't have that power, so you can relax. :bed:

Frank

turtile
03-27-2009, 01:34 PM
I don't get it.

damaclese
03-27-2009, 01:37 PM
you guys make me laugh
Rush just makes me nervous
and some times i think Al is just out of touch

but no mater which side of the fence your on they both are passionate arn't they

thanks for posting the article i was quirky just like you Harvey J/K LOL

harveyc
03-27-2009, 03:05 PM
I don't get it.

Just perhaps these researchers were thinking the North Pole was going to be like Miami and didn't prepare appropriately. I think their is a strong contradiction in this story between the global warming these researchers are studying and the severe cold weather they are experiencing. I've never heard of anyone having ice in their sleeping bag before. Did they pee in their bags since it was too cold to go outside?

Richard
03-27-2009, 04:24 PM
Richard, this is a classic example of how the Left fears Rush Limbaugh, and I think it's hilarious.

I think his divisive approach is problematic. Of course, making assumptions about my political tendencies is also problematic ...

(image of voter registration card deleted ...)

saltydad
03-27-2009, 04:43 PM
"Richard, this is a classic example of how the Left fears Rush Limbaugh, and I think it's hilarious."

Well, I am definitely on the left and proud of it. I don't fear Rush; I find him bombastic and ignorant. However, I will say he's better than Coulter. Where the heck did you guys find her? :ha:

Richard
03-27-2009, 05:18 PM
Well, I am definitely on the left and proud of it. I don't fear Rush; I find him bombastic and ignorant. However, I will say he's better than Coulter. Where the heck did you guys find her? :ha:

Well stated!

bigdog
03-27-2009, 08:41 PM
I think his divisive approach is problematic. Of course, making assumptions about my political tendencies is also problematic ...

http://www.frostconcepts.com/registration.jpg


Deepest apologies, Richard! It just sounded like something a liberal would say, and I have lots of liberal friends.

Well, I am definitely on the left and proud of it. I don't fear Rush; I find him bombastic and ignorant. However, I will say he's better than Coulter. Where the heck did you guys find her? :ha:

I would disagree about Rush being bombastic, which implies that his verbage has no substance. On the contrary, I find him to be quite substantive with his language. A bit pompous, yes. We're all ignorant about something, which just means that there are still things that we don't know, so I'll agree that he is ignorant, as am I and everone else I know.

Coulter, on the other hand, is obnoxious. I wish she would go crawl back under the rock that she crawled out from.

chong
03-27-2009, 10:14 PM
Coulter, on the other hand, is obnoxious. I wish she would go crawl back under the rock that she crawled out from.

She is a lawyer, after all!!! Need I say more?

Moonshiner
03-27-2009, 10:40 PM
Interesting how just a few hours ago I was remarking to my wife how I find it refreshing that the garden forums I subscribe to are amazingly apolitical. Then I found this thread!

I have always agreed with the philosophy of to each his own, and refuse to cast aspersions on others beliefs because they don't match mine. It's what makes our republic so much different than most. Your two cents is worth just as much as my two cents.

My two cents:

Rush Limbaugh is a puto. Anne Coulter is a hybrid human-praying mantis.

:D

'shiner (who has voted on both sides of the ticket.)

turtile
03-27-2009, 11:05 PM
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't understand what this has to do with politics or anything to do with the temperature. Nowhere in the article does it mention that its colder than normal. It says that the weather is severe, not extremely cold. Since when does cold weather prevent planes from flying? Starving people = good?

Richard
03-27-2009, 11:26 PM
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't understand what this has to do with politics or anything to do with the temperature. Nowhere in the article does it mention that its colder than normal. It says that the weather is severe, not extremely cold. Since when does cold weather prevent planes from flying? Starving people = good?

For those who pursue divide-and-conquer political strategies -- the "us vs. them" thinking -- and mocking the "other side" is presented as a social norm where social points can be gained: this article becomes a tool for their game. It is exactly the sort of thing I would expect Rush L. to expound upon, hence the image in post #2.
:(

Moonshiner
03-27-2009, 11:38 PM
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't understand what this has to do with politics or anything to do with the temperature. Nowhere in the article does it mention that its colder than normal. It says that the weather is severe, not extremely cold. Since when does cold weather prevent planes from flying? Starving people = good?


I think the original idea it was funny is that those studying global warming are encountering bizarre cold conditions. The hyperbole given by those who don't agree with the scientific facts that the earth is warming due to greenhouse effects from carbon emissions like to say that because it's cold somewhere, there is no global warming. It's far more complicated than that.

The facts are that the sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and the extra heat during the summer months can cause a change in weather patterns that will indeed make some places experience colder than normal winters.

It's easy to laugh it off, make fun of Al Gore, etc. But the facts are there. If people choose to not believe them then that is their prerogative. You can't change someone's belief in a higher power by giving scientific facts either. I kinda like to believe in science, mathematics, logical progressions. But I also think there is something else out there we can't explain.


Maybe he/she/it is warming us all up for the big finish!!! :nanerwizard:

Richard
03-27-2009, 11:59 PM
Maybe he/she/it is warming us all up for the big finish!!! :nanerwizard:

God has a sense of humor! -- Bill Cosby

bepah
03-28-2009, 12:36 AM
It seems that everyone has now positioned themselves as to where they stand in their beliefs....each of us has a belief in the fact that support whatwe agree with and disregard others that do not (even if they might be true).

I for one am in support of some global warming for my own personal reasons and hope that everyone who is claiming that the world is warming are correct! If it is, I will be able to grow more and more interest plants; my heating bill will be lower, etc.

I do worry about those today who are freezing to death in North Dakota, and the 1 foot of snow that will be falling in Oklahoma tomorrow. While I want the globe to warm up, I see little evidence of it for the past 3 years with 2 record cold winters in my area in the past 3 years.

I do see a lot of disingenuity among those who want to blame mankind for any warming. While I am one who dislike pollution, I am not one who consider CO2 a pollutant. Joining this together is the current thread that I see in the environmental talk and in my opinion, it is 2 different issues. Remember that without CO2 your plants will not grow, fires will be harder to extinguish, and cancers will accelerate in those who spend time outside.

It is easy to be vocal in things we believe in, it is much harder to deny your faith and look at the facts as they continue to unfold. Unless you are a climatologist, you depend on what you read. Scientific journals can be dreadfully boring, so where do we turn? The NY Times? Which source depends on bad news to attract readers? 30 years ago the Times was screaming of global cooling, nuclear winter and snowball earth..have they replaced scientists or reporters?

Bad news sells papers.....everyone needs to be more critical in their thinking and less dependent on their heart for how opinions are formed.

I am now preparing for the flames which I hope contribute to GW!

Chironex
03-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Most people tend to find their opinions in the thoughts and rants of others. They ascribe to one that they find easy to accept and defend, close their mind to contradicting information and ridicule the source. Meanwhile, the true problem is seldom identified and goes unresolved. Wars are started over such things.

Let's open our minds to consider the substance of the issues, work towards a resolution that is substantive and contemplates core issues, not necessarily the egos, motives and supercilious logic behind frail and loosely knit conclusions.

damaclese
03-28-2009, 10:46 AM
not to stray to far of the topic but id like to add this just for the sake of putting out there another interesting fact to further confuse and bewilder:

ever 27ish thousand (I don't remember the exact cycle of time) years the earth lines up with the center of the Galaxy's.
when this happens are entire solar system becomes bombarded with a level of X and Gama Rays that it doesn't normally get along with many other naturally occurring particles. thus we know from studies of soler bombardment that this heats up the atmosphere. so what about that Guys and Gals could it been that the heating up of are atmosphere is a naturally occurring event.

And before you jump on me for implying that theirs no green house affect. I'm not implying that at all they could both be occurring simultaneously!

this is a restatement of the above but in hopefully a more concise terms:

a Little known fact the earth is not naturally part of the milky way its actually part of the Pegasus Galaxy's which is being swallowed up by milky-way and is in a rotation that is 90dreg to the axises of the milky way so in Essenes we are orbiting the milky-way and this orbit take to many millions of years (I cant remember how long)so two times in that orbit the earth pases within the accretion disk of the milky way and again is exposed to many millions of times higher levels of Gama and X ray emissions coming from the center of the Milky-way heating up are atmosphere Hypothetically

bepah
03-28-2009, 10:49 AM
Most people tend to find their opinions in the thoughts and rants of others. They ascribe to one that they find easy to accept and defend, close their mind to contradicting information and ridicule the source. Meanwhile, the true problem is seldom identified and goes unresolved. Wars are started over such things.

Let's open our minds to consider the substance of the issues, work towards a resolution that is substantive and contemplates core issues, not necessarily the egos, motives and supercilious logic behind frail and loosely knit conclusions.

Well stated, Scot!

I hope that othes see it as well.

damaclese
03-28-2009, 10:59 AM
frail and loosely knit conclusions

Did you mean "Frail and Loosely knit Minds!" LOL sorry i just couldn't resist

Bob
03-28-2009, 11:17 AM
Global warming my A$$!!!! There's no one in the northeast mentioning it this year.

saltydad
03-28-2009, 03:28 PM
Not really much colder this past winter. See the attached and read beyond the last few years. Those of us who have been trained in scientific disciplines know that outliers in data points do not negate measures of central tendancy as long as they are few and not outlandishly extreme (ie- the standard deviation is normative). In other words, extreme cold or warm temperatures for a single season or indeed decade do not change the overall conclusion that we are in a period of global warming. The main question seems to be whether or not this is man-made. I am not a climate scientist (my research publications have been in the area of prenatal drug exposure- behavioral teratology), but reading the scientific press (not the popular screeds) has lead me to believe in the basic hypothesis. I wish we could divorce the science from the politics, but that seems a forlorn hope.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html)

Moonshiner
03-28-2009, 03:44 PM
Guys...I just stated some facts, and that I believe in the science. Let's not take these things personally. I live in SoCal, so I'm more worried about earthquakes than global warming. And there's very little I can do to make a difference in either.

And then there's Arnold...........

turtile
03-28-2009, 04:14 PM
Not really much colder this past winter. See the attached and read beyond the last few years. Those of us who have been trained in scientific disciplines know that outliers in data points do not negate measures of central tendancy as long as they are few and not outlandishly extreme (ie- the standard deviation is normative). In other words, extreme cold or warm temperatures for a single season or indeed decade do not change the overall conclusion that we are in a period of global warming.

What I find strange is the fact that the article never mentions anything to conclude that the temperature is below normal. It seems that most people assume "severe,brutal" weather means its extremely cold since many of us have had a colder winter than the past few. If you look at the climate history, this year has barely been below average.

As for the climate, no one really understands it. None of the information we have can give a conclusion as we don't have enough data. For instance, if I asked everyone on this forum if a quarter will land on "heads" or "tails", most people will say that there is a 50/50 chance. The fact is that there is not a chance of either. It will either land on "heads" or "tails". If you take into account all of the forces that affect the quarter, you will know if it lands on "heads" or "tails".

Until you understand all the forces behind the weather and their interactions, you will never be able to conclude what is causing the weather. For instance, (completely making this up) I could find a correlation between the amount of people that visit my town and the temperature. Lets say that in the last 10 years, higher amounts of people has equaled higher temperatures. I could then conclude that Lewes will get warmer and cooler based on the amount of people that visit. However, this does not mean a thing.

momoese
03-28-2009, 05:24 PM
As for the climate, no one really understands it. None of the information we have can give a conclusion as we don't have enough data. For instance, if I asked everyone on this forum if a quarter will land on "heads" or "tails", most people will say that there is a 50/50 chance. The fact is that there is not a chance of either. It will either land on "heads" or "tails". If you take into account all of the forces that affect the quarter, you will know if it lands on "heads" or "tails".


How to Win a Coin Toss ;)

A coin toss can be used to determine everything from who gets the last diet coke to which team gets to receive the kickoff in a football game. Normally, your odds of winning a coin toss are 50 percent. But, there are a couple ways you can guarantee yourself of a coin toss win.

1
Determine what side the coin lands on. Execute the coin toss as normal by asking the other person to call heads or tails in the air, tossing the coin and catching it in your hand. Feel the coin with your thumb because the heads side has a smooth edge and the tails side has a rougher edge. Either flip the coin over or don't depending on how you want the coin toss to come out.

2
Spin the coin instead of flipping it. Ask the other person to call the coin toss before you toss the coin. When you toss it, instead of flipping it, flick your fingers so it spins but does not turn over. If you make the coin wobble a little, it will have the appearance of flipping.

3
Try to make the coin wobble without spinning it. Instead of spinning the coin, you can thrust it into the air with only the pressure of your index finger. If you do this gently, the coin will wobble but not flip over.

4
Use two trick coins to win a coin toss. Get one trick coin with two heads sides and one with two tails sides. Press the coins tightly together so one heads side is showing and one tails side is showing. Show the other person both sides of the coin quickly, but be careful so they don't get a good look at the sides of the coins. Before the toss, slip one of the coins into your pocket.