Sun rises two days early - in Greenland

[Derek Smith]

My understanding is that the atmosphere has a 'lensing' (I might have made that verb up) effect. This can vary according to how dense the atmosphere is and on weather patterns, e.g. the variation of high and low pressure areas. This means that the sun apparently sets later than Newton might have thought. It also rises earlier than it 'should' but the gap between calculated and obsereved is not the same as setting normally due to the different temperatures and such.

I accept that as a scientific thesis this lacks a certain amount of detail but I was told this by a science lecturer at Sussex Uni when sitting on a patio watching the sun set when he was a wee bit drunk.

So the times of 'observed' sunrise and sunset depend on the weather.

No more detail to follow from me.

[turbobloke]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Could any of this have something to do with the Earth's axis tilt?

In theory yes but we would have noticed a comet or asteroid impact

The changes to our planet's axial tilt which make it vary between 22.1 deg and 24.5 deg (currently about 23.5 deg), are smooth and continuous in a cycle of about 42000 years.

Derek Smith said:

My understanding is that the atmosphere has a 'lensing' (I might have made that verb up) effect.

...

So the times of 'observed' sunrise and sunset depend on the weather.

Earlier I said:

though of course refraction is pertinent to sunrise.

[turbobloke]

Obliquity cf Precession:

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a...

[The real Apache]

This constant stream of ill educated journalism and imaginary science aimed at blaming everything on AGW is doing a wonderful of discrediting the entire scam......long may it continue

[Eric Mc]

It would take a mind boggling amout of force to be impinged on the earth to affect its orbital tilt. If such a force had impacted the earth - either from outside (asteroid, planetoid impact) or from within the earth (massive volcanic eruption) I think we would not be here discussing it.

[Ayahuasca]

This is a non-story. All that has happened is that a small part of a small glacier has melted a bit.

No asteroids, no earth-tilt, no shift in the fabric of space/time. FFS.

[Eric Mc]

It's like saying that the sun rose early because someone chopped a tree that was blocking the view down.

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 17th January 16:41

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

The real Apache said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are these particularly thick scientists? Dear God how utterly absurd

Common occurrence with climate officialdumb these days.

what's the beef? Greenland is warming (=changing climate) and no mention of a man-made cause in the article.

[Eric Mc]

Is it warming though?

[kerplunk]

Eric Mc said:

Is it warming though?

Are you kidding? about twice the global rate or something like that.

[chris watton]

Are you kidding! So, it’s worse than worse than worse than previously thought!

OK, I’m sold, where do I sign up to sponsor a baby Polar Bear and receive my smug tt badge!

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

The real Apache said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are these particularly thick scientists? Dear God how utterly absurd

Common occurrence with climate officialdumb these days.

what's the beef? Greenland is warming (=changing climate) and no mention of a man-made cause in the article.

True Believership imprecision strikes again.

So errors of omission are OK.

Really? No.

The general intention is clear, and it is to mislead by assumption in a propagandised audience.

[sidicks]

kerplunk said:

Eric Mc said:

Is it warming though?

Are you kidding? about twice the global rate or something like that.

But two times zero is still zero........

Sidicks

[odyssey2200]

The sun rising above the Horizon is due to the position/attitude of the planets and FA to do with Climate, Tree food gas, CFCs, cow farts or anything on this planet what-so-ever.

I wonder how this is going to turn out to me my fault?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 17th January 23:44

[Ayahuasca]

kerplunk said:

Eric Mc said:

Is it warming though?

Are you kidding? about twice the global rate or something like that.

So what? It has warmed before. Google 'Viking settlements in Greenland'. In fact to save you the bother: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenla...

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

Eric Mc said:

Is it warming though?

Are you kidding? about twice the global rate or something like that.

And as you said below, no causality to humans. Also the overall melt season trend needs a mention before anything else.



Given the rampant substitution going on in news releases of regional and global temperatures...for the 'Arctic' as opposed to where actual temperatures are measured, as the man said is it basically a convincing idea to use land/city/Airport temperatures for temperatures at sea?

As to 'twice the global rate', you seem to be going off a 2004 article in No Scientist. Cherry picking of timescale perhaps - see my bold in the quote that follows. In that article, dated as it is, it's not clear where modelling ends and data (if there is any in use) begins, not on the first re-read anyway. Current reports (2010) shouild refer to El Nino...see below.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6615-arctic-...

Meanwhile "according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, Arctic temperatures are currently below -35.15 degrees Celsius or -31.27 degrees Fahrenheit. That is more than five degrees below normal and the lowest reading since 2004. The slope of decline has also recently been quite sharp, dropping from 252K on January 1, a drop of 14 degrees in 22 days."

So is this twice as much warming thing actually half as much cooling?

As above temperatures in both polar regions are both below normal atm regardless of substitution colouring in by proxy. This false colour rendition appears to reflect reality more than most.



Meanwhile reports of high temperatures in 2010 also suffer from a typical error of omission, namely, reference to the cause: transient natural El Nino.

It's all a bit on the short timescale side anyway. Let's wait a few decades and see if a Dalton Minimum emerges and all that new ice heats up the world by virtue of the 2nd Law of Thermos Dynamics.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

The real Apache said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are these particularly thick scientists? Dear God how utterly absurd

Common occurrence with climate officialdumb these days.

what's the beef? Greenland is warming (=changing climate) and no mention of a man-made cause in the article.

True Believership imprecision strikes again.

So errors of omission are OK.

Really? No.

The general intention is clear, and it is to mislead by assumption in a propagandised audience.

Seems like an obvious explanation to me. I hope someone is curious enough to find out.

[robm3]

thegman said:

Magog said:

Remember all those animals are committing mass suicide as well... It's like something out of an M. Night Shyamalan film, maybe the Mayans were right, hope you're all stocked up on tinned food and shotgun cartridges.

So it will be a bit spooky but with poorly developed characters and a laughable plot?

Shyamalan himself will cameo as a 7-11 clerk who's slurpies explode mysteriously, basically the same as all his other ego serving cameo's.

[steviejasp]

Perhaps the tide is out

[kerplunk]

Ayahuasca said:

kerplunk said:

Eric Mc said:

Is it warming though?

Are you kidding? about twice the global rate or something like that.

So what? It has warmed before. Google 'Viking settlements in Greenland'. In fact to save you the bother: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenla...

Looks like I've triggered some auto-responses.

Yes, maybe the sun rose a couple of days earlier in Ilulissat then too - who knows.