Wednesday, February 27, 2013 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Sir Ranulph Fiennes' frostbite highlights global warming

There have been numerous stories of the same kind (even on this blog) but they apparently never stop coming. Sir Ranulph Fiennes (63) decided to become the first human to cross Antarctica in winter:

Sir Ranulph Fiennes to Attempt First Wintertime Trans-Antarctic Trek
The page above and many others revealed that a key purpose of the event was to promote the global warming panic:
But this trek is not merely another notch in Fiennes’ belt (which, presumably, is comprised entirely of notches). Ironically, the expedition team hopes ‘The Coldest Journey’ will draw attention to global warming — namely, the effect that climate change has wrought upon the polar ice cap. Fiennes additionally intends to raise $10 million for Seeing is Believing, a charity organization that assists the blind.
This motivation has been behind many similar treks so you may be able to guess what the outcome is. ;-)

Yes, the outcome was described in The Telegraph and uncountable other outlets:
Sir Ranulph Fiennes abandons Antarctic crossing after frostbite
During a (Southern) summer training for his trek, he made the "small slip" to remove his glove at –30 °C. Previously, he cut fingertips on his hand so that doctors wouldn't have to amputate the fingers.

Unfortunately, such a previous case of frostbite makes one more susceptible and sensitive. So his new frostbite is another problem, perhaps a greater one, and the plans for the "Coldest Journey" have been abandoned.

At any rate, he managed to draw attention to global warming as he planned. Global warming has clearly caused his frostbite. While global warming warms the globe, it brutally cools down the volumes of air surrounding gloves that have been just taken off.

More seriously, I want to assure all heroes and not quite heroes that even if a real ongoing trend or process deserved to be called "global warming", it just cannot have any detectable implications for the old wisdom that the polar regions are damn cold. Global warming – independently of the subtle questions about its causes – may have added 0.15 °C per decade. In two decades, since your last visit to the frozen continent, it could have contributed 0.3 °C to the temperatures over there. But there's still about 50 °C by which Antarctica is colder than what your fingers would find comfortable! When it comes to the experiences of an individual who visits the frozen continent, global warming is at most a 0.01 sigma effect and that's surely considered a non-effect by everyone familiar with statistics. As long as you are mostly rational, the concept of "global warming" just cannot and shouldn't possibly affect what you do with your gloves! ;-)

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (8) :

reader laboussoleestmonpays said...

Facts with an empirical base can bite, yes indeed !

reader Ann said...

When is this bizarre form of mass insanity going to end?

reader Ian Wilson said...

When it ceases to be useful to obtain more money or more power.

reader Honza said...

Never. The best you can hope for - it will transform to some other, slightly different, yet equally bizarre mass insanity. ;-)

reader Honza said...

I do not know much about this guy, but based on this article, he does not seem fit to cross North Dakota in winter (Average January temp -20), and one can wonder how would he do in Edmonton (Average January temp -19) or Winnipeg (-23). ;-). Why did they let him go to Antarctica at all. Rather than that, he should try to live in Northern US or Canada for a while, and as long as he can survive he should report why does he think a temperature increase of 1-2 oC in next century is a problem.

reader dougproctor said...

Your comment on how, with -50* of cold, a <1* of warming will have no effect: what about snowfall in a warming world?
Snow falls when the dewpoint is reached. It doesn't matter if the temp goes to 5 degree below dewpoint or 20. What will drop will drop. The only change is when the minimum temp hovers around the dewpoint. So snowfall will be impacted only in a narrow band where this occurs.
Considering that the warmists say that absolute humidity will go up, would not that mean that for signficant temps below dewpoint, MORE snow has to come out?
What am I missing in this argument?

reader Shannon said...

He might have thought that because he has a "Sir" title in front of his name he could do it.

reader Klimatflykting said...

I don´t get it, I have spent lots of time in-30-35. You can take your gloves off for a very short