Here we have more CO2 Insanity. Now a “freak” 3 minute period of rain in the Arctic is considered to be proof of global warming, or at least is is in Jim Hoggan’s DESMOGBLOG.COM in the article “Freak April Rain Showers Hit Arctic.” Your first clue should be the word “freak.”
While the Gulf of Mexico continues to choke on oil from a man-made disaster, the Arctic is experiencing another form of man-made onslaught thanks to climate change.
Late last month, British explorers hiking in the Canadian Arctic reported that their ice base off Ellef Ringnes Island had been hit by a three-minute rain shower. A team of Canadian scientists camped about 145 km west also reported being hit by rain at the same time.
Pen Hadow, the British team’s expedition director, told Reuters, “It’s definitely a shocker … the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event.”
So, now “freak” events are living proof of global warming? “Man-made onslaught?” Hysteria over 3 minutes of rain? This is caused by global warming? Has this happened before? Is it rare or not? Read on, the silliness persists. (Some of my comments in blue after the quotes).
Hadow, whose team is gathering data on the effects of climate change on the Arctic Ocean in the Catlin Arctic Survey, said that “scientists would tell us that we can expect increasingly to experience these sorts of outcomes as the climate warms.” “Expect” sounds like scientific proof positive to me.
But the group was not expecting such a sudden reminder of the consequences of a warming Arctic. Yes the “warming arctic” that has more ice this year than since 1980, not to mention it kept increasing past the normal date where it starts decreasing. Sounds like proof-positive of those “consequences. (Not!).
More large words like “consequences” designed to scare the “consequences” out of you and soil your undies. Now lets throw in some more drama-queen stuff.
“We have been told there will be more unpredicted events like this as the climate of the region warms. Our team up there have already reported many locals people at Resolute have also been commenting on the unusual warmth of the winter this year,” Pen Hadow added.
Doesn’t it strike you as funny that “this year” seems to constitute proof of global warming? Why is it that when the “deniers” mention the unusually cold winter in the Northeast US and in the UK in 2009-2010 that it’s only “weather” and doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming. Some would even have you belive that the unusually cold weather is caused by global warming. Again, no matter what, its global warming related. I suppose I can blame my lousy dinner tonight on global warming, too. Must have affected the noodles. Also if it’s “unusually warm” then why all the sea-ice?
The Arctic is heating up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, and scientists have linked the higher temperatures to global warming pollution. Yes, again, that’s why we have more sea ice this year since 1980. Must be all that heat.
Scientists working in the Arctic say the thick multi-year ice covering the Arctic Ocean has essentially vanished, and U.S. data shows the 2009 ice cover was the third-lowest on record, after 2007 and 2008.
Notice we don’t mention the 2009-2010, that is because (again!) the sea-ice is now back up to levels not seen since 1980, but you’re not supposed to be made aware of that or you won’t soil your underwear and send money to Al Gore and his Carbon Cartel.
Now, let’s get real. It does occasionally rain in the Arctic, and it is unusual, but it isn’t completely uncommon either. Here’s some snippets from a National Geographic article titled “Mysterious Rain on Snow” from March 4, 2008.
That’s because a mysterious phenomenon known as “rain on snow,” when sudden warm air turns northern snows to rain or slush, can cause animals to starve.
Sounds like perhaps this has happened before and it’s not a sure-fire sign of global warming? Sudden warm air. Let’s see, didn’t we have a strong El Nino in 2009-2010, could it just possibly be that warm air was caused by that?
In October 2003 on Banks Island in Canada’s Northwest Territories, a rain-on-snow event caused the deaths of more than a quarter of the musk-ox population—20,000 animals.
So way back to 2003 we had an event. Funny, 2003 was an El Nino year. Not like 2009-2010 but nevertheless. Coincidence? I wonder.
“When I [first] tried to get more information, there was almost nothing on rain-on-snow events,” he said.
“They are very elusive, so we don’t know how often they occur, whether they have changed over time, or their spatial distribution.”
So, they’re “elusive” and “we don’t know” jack about it according to National Geographic. So far so good.
Stories told by local people suggest that these events occur in Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Canada, and affect approximately four million Arctic inhabitants.
Must not be a new phenomenon. It’s happened before, thought apparently it’s not a frequent event. Perhaps it isn’t global warming after all? Perhaps it’s been happening infrequently for a long time? They do have “freak” snowstorms in the desert, but I don’t run around yelling that’s proof of global cooling, it’s just a rare weather event. So, why should “freak” rainstorms in the Arctic be some sure proof of global warming?
But, alas, National Geographic does eventually hop on the AGW bandwagon because they have their suspicions this is caused by global warming, not to mention they probably feel a need to keep their “warmer” readers happy or they’ll cancel their subscriptions.
Based on these models, Grenfell “strongly suspects” the trend of climate change will make rain-on-snow events more common in the Arctic.
They have no real proof, but everything and anything is either caused by or will cause global warming. To give you an idea of what they’re talking about, what “proof” they have and how sure they are, read on. (My comments in blue).
“The next step is to take to all the data that exists to find out how often rain-on-snow events occur, where they happen, and are there special places [where they take place],” Putkonen said. So bascially they haven’t done anything yet, they’re clueless, but it’s global warming, sure thing.
“We can look back into time because the satellite data has been archived for 25 years, so we can find out if these changed with time and climate, and could they change or drift with future warmer conditions.” Back to a whopping 25 years is going to prove global warming? Yeah right. Funny if the “deniers’ only go back 25 years it’s “only a blip in time” or something on that order, and doesn’t prove anything. But, it it’s claimed to prove AGW then 25 years is great science. Even one rare rainfall event in the Arctic is sure positive proof of global warming.
In fact, Putkonen’s previous climate modeling work suggests that in the next hundred years there could be a 40 percent increase in the area affected by rain-on-snow events. Back to “climate modeling” 2010’s version of the computerized crystal ball. If they don’t have the actual data to work with, then what good is their “model?” They can’t even tell what the weather is going to be next month.
Based on these models, Grenfell “strongly suspects” the trend of climate change will make rain-on-snow events more common in the Arctic. Yes, I’m sure scientists worldwide consider “stongly suspects” to be absolute 101% proof positive of anything. Again, yeah right. Perhaps if I “strongly suspect” my bank account has 40 billion dollars in it, it will mysteriously appear? I think not.
“This is one of those fairly rare occasions where there is a very interesting scientific problem to understand natural properties that we know very little about,” Putkonen said, “but [which] have very high societal value.” He even admits it’s a “rare occasion” and “we know little about,” yet this is supposed to lead us down the primrose path of global warming. I cant’ fathom where these “scientists” come up with this or how they actually expect anybody with an IQ over 60 to believe them.
In closing, we have a rare event, that barely lasted 3 minutes, that we know very little about, but it’s supposed to be proof of global warming. Sorry but I can’t fathom how you’d expect anyone to believe this. It’s like the “warmers” will jump upon the slightest almost unnoticeable thing if they even remotely think it makes their case. As you can see, the desperation is increasing. So is the CO2 Insanity.