Arctic Expedition to Study Ice Loss Put on Hold Due to to Much Ice

SSDD

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2012
16,672
1,965
280
From the "You just can't make this stuff up" department:

“A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.

But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.

Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he’s seen in 20 years.”


Algore was a not sighted in the area so the vast quantities of ice can not be attributed to the algore effect...

You just have to chuckle and realize that life is good.
 
From the "You just can't make this stuff up" department:

“A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.

But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.

Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he’s seen in 20 years.”


Algore was a not sighted in the area so the vast quantities of ice can not be attributed to the algore effect...

You just have to chuckle and realize that life is good.

I was laughing my butt off at work today thinking about this.. It would have been hilarious to have "SHIP OF FOOLS 2" The sequel right before Paris to show the idiocy of these fools.... Easily predicted event of rapid ice growth and slowed melt once the warm ADO went cold and the waters into Hudson bay were now cold.

Their carefully planned expedition didn't involve commonsense.. They took it on faith that the ice would not be a problem just like the last ship of fools in Antarctica.
 
You shouldnt expose your ignorance by posting this. Just sayin.

Ah, blind faith. A true believe in the global warming religion. Who cares about science?
Who said anything about global warming?

I can't keep up with the latest buzz words you guys use. Do you prefer "climate change"?
You dont think the climate changes?
The climate changes all by itself... Man can only influence small regions of land.. beyond that its fallacy and fantasy...
 
From the "You just can't make this stuff up" department:
Actually, since you posted this, it's in the "You just can't believe anyone could be THAT stupid" department, SSooooDDuuumb.





“A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay. But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.
So what, moron?

Did someone dupe you into believing that this has anything to do with human caused global warming and the continuing un-natural extreme warming of the Arctic and the massive loss of Arctic ice?

Sorry, you poor retard, you've been fooled again.

National Snow and Ice Data Center
July 8, 2015
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for June extent is 3.6 % per decade. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 averaged 11.0 million square kilometers (4.24 million square miles), the third lowest June extent in the satellite record. This is 920,000 square kilometers (355,200 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 11.89 million square kilometers (4.59 million square miles) and 150,000 square kilometers (58,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2010.

Figure31.png


June 2015 was fairly warm in the Arctic. Air temperatures at the 925 millibar level (about 3,000 feet above the surface) were above average over much of the Arctic Ocean, notably in the Kara Sea (2 to 5 degrees Celsius or 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above average) and in the East Siberian Sea (2 to 3 degrees Celsius or 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit above average).

June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere averaged 5.45 million square kilometers (2.10 million square miles), the second lowest of the 48-year record. This ranking also holds for June snow cover assessed for North America at 4.09 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) and Eurasia at 1.36 million square kilometers (525,000 square miles).

June snow cover was especially low over Alaska and western Canada. This is in part related to last winter’s unusual jet stream pattern, discussed in our March post. The pattern brought unusually warm conditions to the region and promoted low sea ice extent to the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. Recall that the restart of the Iditarod Race had to be moved from Anchorage to Fairbanks because of poor snow conditions in the Alaska Range. This spring has also been warm and dry in Alaska. These conditions have contributed to a large number of lightning-induced wildfires in the state.

Figure4b.png
 
From the "You just can't make this stuff up" department:
Actually, since you posted this, it's in the "You just can't believe anyone could be THAT stupid" department, SSooooDDuuumb.





“A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay. But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.
So what, moron?

Did someone dupe you into believing that this has anything to do with human caused global warming and the continuing un-natural extreme warming of the Arctic and the massive loss of Arctic ice?

Sorry, you poor retard, you've been fooled again.

National Snow and Ice Data Center
July 8, 2015
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for June extent is 3.6 % per decade. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 averaged 11.0 million square kilometers (4.24 million square miles), the third lowest June extent in the satellite record. This is 920,000 square kilometers (355,200 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 11.89 million square kilometers (4.59 million square miles) and 150,000 square kilometers (58,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2010.

Figure31.png


June 2015 was fairly warm in the Arctic. Air temperatures at the 925 millibar level (about 3,000 feet above the surface) were above average over much of the Arctic Ocean, notably in the Kara Sea (2 to 5 degrees Celsius or 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit above average) and in the East Siberian Sea (2 to 3 degrees Celsius or 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit above average).

June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere averaged 5.45 million square kilometers (2.10 million square miles), the second lowest of the 48-year record. This ranking also holds for June snow cover assessed for North America at 4.09 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) and Eurasia at 1.36 million square kilometers (525,000 square miles).

June snow cover was especially low over Alaska and western Canada. This is in part related to last winter’s unusual jet stream pattern, discussed in our March post. The pattern brought unusually warm conditions to the region and promoted low sea ice extent to the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. Recall that the restart of the Iditarod Race had to be moved from Anchorage to Fairbanks because of poor snow conditions in the Alaska Range. This spring has also been warm and dry in Alaska. These conditions have contributed to a large number of lightning-induced wildfires in the state.

Figure4b.png
I tried to warn them.
 
You shouldnt expose your ignorance by posting this. Just sayin.

Ah, blind faith. A true believe in the global warming religion. Who cares about science?
Who said anything about global warming?

I can't keep up with the latest buzz words you guys use. Do you prefer "climate change"?
You dont think the climate changes?

Of course it does. It has since the Earth formed. I should have specified, "man made" climate change/global warming or whatever buzz word is in current use. That's the faith based religion of the left.
 
Clearly, the Arctic is a DENIER!!!!

Once the AGWCult make the adjustments, the expedition can go on as planned. Right?
 
Arctic ice is rather low. Ice extent in Hudson Bay is higher than normal, but it's a tiny portion of Arctic Ice.

This thread is stupid and desperate even for deniers. There's always going to be a spot with a little more ice than usual. Cherrypicking such a spot is a tactic of the pathologically dishonest. Hence, all the deniers on this thread are proudly embracing that tactic.

Now, not all deniers are pathologically dishonest. Just the majority of them. It's an interesting psychological study. Most of them didn't start out thinking "I'm going to become a pathological liar". At the time, the nonsense their political cult fed them seemed reasonable, and they thought they were defending America or some such nonsense.

But then, things went south. The evidence kept piling up that their cult had lied big to them. So much evidence came pouring in from all over, even the most devout denier cultist is away that their cult pulled a fast one on them. However, at this point, the truth no longer matters to a denier cultist. The cult has become their life. They only care about defending the cult. So, they'll auto-justify any big lie or sleaze tactic that pushes the goals of their cult.
 
Last edited:
Arctic ice is rather low. Hudson Bay is a small portion of Arctic Ice.

This thread is stupid and desperate even for deniers. There's always going to be some spots with a little more ice than usual. Cherrypicking such a spot is a tactic of the pathologically dishonest. Hence, all the deniers on this thread are proudly embracing that tactic.

Now, not all deniers are pathologically dishonest. Just the vast majority of them. The cult says to lie, so they lie.

Is it as pathologically dishonest as the AGW believers adjusting data and models to fit their preconceived notions?
 
You shouldnt expose your ignorance by posting this. Just sayin.

Ah, blind faith. A true believe in the global warming religion. Who cares about science?
Who said anything about global warming?

I can't keep up with the latest buzz words you guys use. Do you prefer "climate change"?
You dont think the climate changes?
not the argument.
 
Arctic ice is rather low. Ice extent in Hudson Bay is higher than normal, but it's a tiny portion of Arctic Ice.

This thread is stupid and desperate even for deniers. There's always going to be a spot with a little more ice than usual. Cherrypicking such a spot is a tactic of the pathologically dishonest. Hence, all the deniers on this thread are proudly embracing that tactic.

Now, not all deniers are pathologically dishonest. Just the majority of them. It's an interesting psychological study. Most of them didn't start out thinking "I'm going to become a pathological liar". At the time, the nonsense their political cult fed them seemed reasonable, and they thought they were defending America or some such nonsense.

But then, things went south. The evidence kept piling up that their cult had lied big to them. So much evidence came pouring in from all over, even the most devout denier cultist is away that their cult pulled a fast one on them. However, at this point, the truth no longer matters to a denier cultist. The cult has become their life. They only care about defending the cult. So, they'll auto-justify any big lie or sleaze tactic that pushes the goals of their cult.
sure it is, just like the research ship in the Antarctic that got stuck in ice. Yep we're the k00ks. hahahahahahahaha, you are one whacked out individual to look for an excuse for this factual piece of information.
 
Is it as pathologically dishonest as the AGW believers adjusting data and models to fit their preconceived notions?

Since no such thing ever happened, your post is a fine example of a denier cultist being pathologically dishonest.

Thank you for illustrating my point so quickly. The cult told you to tell that lie, so you proudly tell it with a smile on your face.

Remember, we know the actual science, so we know you're lying. Go on, preach to the choir of your fellow lying culitsts, get those cult brownie points, but all the honest people will keep pointing out that you're proudly spouting cult bullshit.
 
Remember, we know the actual science, so we know you're lying. Go on, preach to the choir of your fellow lying culitsts, get those cult brownie points, but all the honest people will keep pointing out that you're proudly spouting cult bullshit.

Since you know the actual science hairball..perhaps you can point out where, in the SB equation for a radiator not in a vaccum at 0 degrees K there is an expression representing incoming radiation from a cooler radiator...or any other radiator for that matter.

If you indeed know the science, you will acknowledge that there is no such expression....if you are full of bullshit and just another wacko warmer you will hurl an insult and not answer the question...which is it?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top