Global Warming Study Cancelled

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the source article in Science Daily

“The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.”

I added the emphasis. It reinforces what I’d thought: warmer seas led to softer ice which led to shifting ice. Thus, my confirmation bias was confirmed. 😉
 
If you believe in global warming, any new information will support your belief and likewise for us sceptics.
 
peter26 said:
If you believe in global warming, any new information will support your belief and likewise for us sceptics.
Click to expand...
Since this isn’t a matter of faith belief has no part in it. Anyone with basic understanding of sea ice processes knows that the the smaller amount of arctic sea ice due to climate change leads to more mobile sea ice. Icebreakers can handle sea ice, but it slows them down. If there’s more sea ice than expected south of where it normally would be then you have to adjust plans.
 
So warming waters caused increased ice to form and then break up?

I’m sure I was told there wouldn’t be any summer ice by now.
 
If there’s already scientific consensus that man-made climate change is real, and it’s bad, why do we even need more studies? All the research in the world isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, no matter what the results of the research are. All research of this type is good for is scientist lifestyle maintenance at public expense.
 
Brassring said:
If there’s already scientific consensus that man-made climate change is real, and it’s bad, why do we even need more studies? All the research in the world isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, no matter what the results of the research are. All research of this type is good for is scientist lifestyle maintenance at public expense.
Click to expand...
Except there isn’t an actual scientific consensus, that’s a media concoction.

These scientists couldn’t predict the ice flows less than a year out to plan their research trip.
 
Theo520 said:
Except there isn’t an actual scientific consensus, that’s a media concoction.

These scientists couldn’t predict the ice flows less than a year out to plan their research trip.
Click to expand...
Erm… I’m not sold on MMGW, but just how exactly should they predict ice flow? Even taking into account standard currents, we’re not psychic and there’s really no way to predict nature beyond things like rainfall.
 
Here’s an article from the CBC:

cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-change-study-1.4157216

“They determined it was multi-year ice, not typical of the northeast coast of North America and most likely from the High Arctic. Chunks measured between five and eight metres thick.”

Multi-year ice, the ICE not produced at lower latitudes, breaking off was too thick for the ice breaker. The original article is being disingenuous by hiding the fact that this was ice breaking off of the Antarctic ice mass at a higher rate. This completely changes the reason for turning back.

Read more into the issue people, carefully chosen sound bites can be used to say almost anything. You don’t have to look much further than “reality” TV to see its use.
 
Here’s where I am on the whole “global warming/climate change” issue:

do I believe the climate is changing? Sure. Do I believe that human activity is playing a part in it? Maybe.

Do I believe that human activity is the largest driving force behind climate change? Nope.

Do I believe that there will be negative impacts of climate change? Yeah

Do I believe that the impact will bad as bad as the proponents claim? Not for a second.

Do I believe the alarmism in the scientific community is being partly driven by a desire for more grant money? you bet.

Am I willing to make any change at all in my lifestyle to mitigate climate change? Nope.

Do I believe the government should force any changes to lifestyles or economic activity to mitigate climate change? Not. At. All.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
**An expedition designed to gather evidence of global warming and “climate change” in the Arctic was canceled last month after a humiliating discovery was made: There was so much ice in the Arctic that the icebreaker it was going to use was needed elsewhere.

conservativetribune.com/global-warming-study-cancelled/**

The wording adds a slant to the story. The problem that they encounter is that ice has been breaking off the arctic shelf making navigation of the waters dangerous. With present wording someone might misinterpret the story to mean that this is an indication of colder temperatures though it’s an indication that there has been melting.
Theo520;14772065:
So warming waters caused increased ice to form and then break up?
Click to expand...
No, the ice was already there. As melting occurs ice breaks off from the arctic shelf.
Click to expand...
 
Brassring said:
Do I believe the alarmism in the scientific community is being partly driven by a desire for more grant money? you bet.
Click to expand...
Yeah…the Trump Administration has also severely if not canceled funding for this kind of research. There’s no doubt this is purely political. Effectively telling people to shut up is a much bigger issue than any direction research goes to get funding.
 
PJH_74 said:
Yeah…the Trump Administration has also severely if not canceled funding for this kind of research. There’s no doubt this is purely political. Effectively telling people to shut up is a much bigger issue than any direction research goes to get funding.
Click to expand...
Like I said, if the scientists are already convinced it’s happening, we’re causing it, and it’s going to be terrible, why do they need more research? They’ve got their conclusions.

I’ll tell you why: because reframing it as an issue that needs constant monitoring is how you turn one project into a solid, middle-class career.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Erm… I’m not sold on MMGW, but just how exactly should they predict ice flow? Even taking into account standard currents, we’re not psychic and there’s really no way to predict nature beyond things like rainfall.
Click to expand...
The ice extent is monitored in detail all year, as is the flow when it breaks up. If a bit more is breaking off that previously, why should that be predicted and considered in their planning?

I’m confident Gore told us we would be rid of summer sea ice by now, opening the NW Passage for travel WITHOUT an ice breaker.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Theo520 said:
I’m confident Gore told us we would be rid of summer sea ice by now, opening the NW Passage for travel WITHOUT an ice breaker.
Click to expand...
I’m sure competition in that passage in the coming years will be interesting…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top