Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Actually denier is ok. That is what's happening Rich, on both sides. It's not like you are being called an extremist even though it might be accurate. People just want to be treated with respect. Not much to ask really.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I don't mind being called a skeptic, but DO mind being called a denier.
I suggest you revisit your conclusion after reading below:


From thesaurus.com
skeptic


or sceptic


Noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

denier



noun 1. a person who denies.

-------------------------------

The former indicated conscious thought processes, whereas the latter does not.

And denier presumes that the many facets of CC science are factual and settled, when most who have even a cursory understanding of the science understand why much of it is neither. Instead, most of the media and the politicians purport to present it as factual and settled, so those who challenge it should be more accurately and honestly described as skeptics as SenorM's definition points out. This is why the science is so often compared to the scientific certainty surrounding tobacco use, or the scientific laws of gravity, evolution, heliocentrism, etc. Hence the propaganda value of "denier" and "flat-lander" labels, as opposed to more honestly and accurately calling those who question and challenge mainstream & alarmist views as "skeptics."

So no CS, I respectfully disagree that the term denier is in any way respectful.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

How long before someone says the cold air being carried south from the Arctic is an indication of how we've screwed up the wind patterns with...ta-da!!!...AGW?

Is the melting sea ice in the Arctic contributing to these wind patterns?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Funny you should ask

Quote:
Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled "Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall", was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. "The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents."

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Je...?entrynum=2065

The obvious implication, of course, is that AGW has created these supposedly "unusual" weather patterns by causing the melting sea ice, even though the article never makes that connection, and Judith Curry is well known to theorize that natural forces are probably more responsible than AGW. But it's the implication that counts I guess.

But the article at least provides some context for what is yet another highly uncertain area of climate science, but you have to read a little further past the part that Jack quoted:

Quote:
Obviously, loss of Arctic sea ice is not having the same impact each winter; such factors as El Niño/La Niña, the phase of the 11-year sunspot cycle, and the amount of snow cover in Siberia also have strong influences on the winter weather pattern that sets up. Cold air is less likely to spill out of the Arctic during a solar maximum, as we are now headed towards, so this factor may tend to reduce the odds of getting big cold blasts in the U.S. during the coming two winters. However, cold air may be more likely to spill out of the Arctic in winter due to the decades-long pattern of warming and cooling of Atlantic Ocean waters known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). A 2012 study by NASA scientists found that the warm phase of the AMO (like we have been in since 1995) causes more instances of atmospheric blocking, where the jet stream gets "stuck" in place, leading to long periods of extreme weather. It will be interesting to see how all these factors play out in the coming years. If these three newly-published studies are correct, the U.S. should see more winters like 2010 - 2011 and 2009 - 2010 in coming decades, as Arctic sea ice continues to melt and affect global atmospheric circulation patterns more strongly.

I'm reading lots of "ifs," "mays," uncertainties about past cause & effect, and not much more than educated guesses about the future based on many complex yet natural factors (El Nino/La Nina, sunspot cycle, snow cover, AMO). Yet reading Jack's post in response to fryewe's post leaves the implication that AGW is to blame.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So lets reveiw shall we:

Denier is ok...
Cultist is bad...
Go it.

The MMGWC say adding CO2 to the atmosphere in PPM levels will make the earth uninhabitable for humans and cause calamity.
BUT when asked what amount of temp a PPM of CO2 will cause so we can plan or put a compare/contrast list together for said PPM of CO2...well that's complicated, can't model it, but they believe it on faith anyway.
Ok...Got it.

Translation:
We have no idea how much CO2 is bad, but we are going to change the world's economy based on our guess and tax the citizens for "Climate Change" when the history of Climante on the Earth is to...TA-DA...Change.

Sorry, as a scientist myself, that's not how Science works, but it IS how a Religion or Cult works, which is why the phrase MMGWC is so fitting. Facts don't matter, science doesn't matter, only Religion and Faith matter to the Warming Alarmists. The sacrament of climate sin is washed away by the CO2 Credit and Recycling your glass bottles. To deny MMGW is to Deny Gia and her Deity.

Man this thread is fun.....

Denier is not ok if the denial stems from ignorance. But if one knows the scientific facts which are easy to self verify and still denies these facts then it applies. Denying that NASA put a probe in the orbit of Jupiter would be a whacky position to take.

Skeptic is not ok either in my opinion but it isn't derogatory. Just as the term ignorant is not ok but it isn't derogatory. Ignorance just means lack of knowledge.

Acknowledging scientific facts does not make one a worshipper of imaginary deities.

It is accurate to say that no one can predict with high degree of confidence that there will be a specific temperature rise/decrease planet wide for each additional PPM of CO2. It is even harder to predict local changes in climate. The earth is a highly complex nonlinear system with variable inputs. But that inability to accurately predict the future does not invalidate the scientific certainty that the greenhouse effect exists. We know it exists because Earth is habitable by mostly hairless mammals who would freeze to death without the greenhouse effect.

It would take an incredible leap of logic to assume adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will have no effect or that it will for sure decrease air temperatures.

Likewise, there is a lot of evidence that global warming due to man's release of CO2 will not cause a catastrophe. The planet is pretty stable and robust. And human adaptability is a further feedback that helps ensure against catastrophe.

So I am with you that we are most likely not going to destroy ourselves or the planet. But it isn't logical to deny the science behind the greenhouse effect. It is for sure real.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I don't mind being called a skeptic, but DO mind being called a denier.
I suggest you revisit your conclusion after reading below:


From thesaurus.com
skeptic


or sceptic


Noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

denier



noun 1. a person who denies.

-------------------------------

The former indicated conscious thought processes, whereas the latter does not.

How about "contrarian", used by Dana Nuccitelli and some others? Carl Mears of RSS uses "denialist," which has the ring of an ideological stance; that has some truth to it.

Then I am more partial to "climate science affirmer" than I am to "alarmist".

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So I am with you that we are most likely not going to destroy ourselves or the planet. But it isn't logical to deny the science behind the greenhouse effect. It is for sure real.

What Science are you referring to? See you throw this phrase out but still even you admit the MMGWC can't define this so called science and how it relates to a temperature increase that is said to destroy man's ability to live, grow crops, raise food and survive. You keep confusing (as many non-scientists do) the basic Greenhouse effect that keeps the planet warm from the MMGW that will kill us all and we need to pay a Carbon tax to prevent. See the Game...you play? To disagree with a clamatous MMGWC agrument, you are then said to be stupid of basic science...I call BS on that. MMGWC don't like to be called out when they claim "science" but then can't even use science properly along with the scientific method to argue their MMGWC case. Then they start calling names...Denier...Witch...Hater...Heretic...Apostat e...etc. IF you can't win the argument go on the attack...right out of the Alynski Rules for Radicals.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How about "contrarian", used by Dana Nuccitelli and some others?

You just convinced me not to use "contrarian" anymore, but I certainly understand why you are drawn to anything Mr. Nuccitelli might have to say:

"Dana Nuccitelli in Sac Bee: 'Now that the science is settled that humans are causing global warming, we need to settle on a policy to solve the problem...With the latest study showing 97% certainty about climate change being caused by human activity, we're 100% certain that Congress needs to pass serious climate legislation such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax."

Carl Mears of RSS uses "denialist," which has the ring of an ideological stance; that has some truth to it.

You just convinced me that Dr. Mears' attempt to label skeptics in a derogatory way means he has more of an ideological stance than just trying to discredit the satellite temp data based on science alone. This helps explain all the thread discussion and then silence on this particular topic.

Then I am more partial to "climate science affirmer" than I am to "alarmist".

I'm not surprised. "Climate science affirmer" presumes that all climate science has a high degree of certainty, and then implies that anyone who is not a skeptic affirms all of it. Another great example of an ideological vs. a fact-based approach, and one which seems (dare I say) cult-like.

[fryewe]

"Dana Nuccitelli in Sac Bee: 'Now that the science is settled that humans are causing global warming, we need to settle on a policy to solve the problem...With the latest study showing 97% certainty about climate change being caused by human activity, we're 100% certain that Congress needs to pass serious climate legislation such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax."

I really like some of the proposals in this article...

Glenn Reynolds: Ban AC for DC

If AGW is the problem it's said to be by The Affirmers (May Gaia's Peace Be Upon Them) then many of these proposals should be heartily accepted.

Where I grew up, a hypocrite was commonly teased to "Put your money where you mouth is." The column says it more eloquently.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

You are expecting too much from the participants here, which are mostly blinded by their political believes (left and right) and do not understand the underlying science at all.

The worst thing is both sides do not even try to get a scientifically balanced view, relying only on sources (cut and paste/quoting) confirming their believes (there is no AGW/there is AGW) and consequently ignoring everything that would contradict this believe. Even worse, both sides are discrediting sources, which do not fit in their world view. I think there is a word for that. Ah yes, it is called bias.

This is a thread where the whole argument can be summarised as: "See Prof.Dr.John Doe said it and therefore I'm right and you are an ignorant imbecile/true believer" followed by the counterargument "John Doe is a charlatan, he is not even a Prof. How stupid can you be believing him?"

Well... other than yourself, the regulars here are all essentially "laypersons", yes? In something as complex and specialized as climate science, which has required an almost imponderable number of person-hours from thousands of scientists etc to measure, analyze and model, all of us layfolk must rely on the work of these experts to support our arguments and positions.

So, we're all of us appealing to authority, by necessity. Even a "skeptic" is appealing to the authority of some expert whose work appears to counter the assertion he is claiming to skeptical of.

Mea culpa - the core of my argument remains 99.99% appeal to authority. My argument is simply that when (pick your fave modifier: 97%, just about all, the vast majority, a veritable sh!tload) of the subject matter experts have apparently concluded, after significant effort, that AGW is a thing we need to do something about, and when the UN acknowledges this and has formed the IPCC to try to come up with agreement on the threat and mitigation, and when the majority of the world's leading countries have reviewed and accepted the determinations put out by the IPCC, and when 100% of science organizations who have expressed an opinion have expressed support for this position... well, the standard of proof required to refute such a well-backed position should pretty damn high, shouldn't it?

If the science points were all that was being discussed... But it's not; there has been much effort here and in general directed towards disparaging the individual scientists, their institutions, and the whole field itself. All these were by turns accused of incompetence, dishonesty, fraud, careerism, grant-whoring, collusion, secret political agenda... the US government is signing onto AGW for ulterior reasons, and all its scientific organs - NASA, NOAA, research funding recipients - they are all in on this AGW scam (cult!), dontcha know. Disparaging the field is a much lower bar than countering the science.

So anyway, the CF version of the AGW debate has ossified into... this thread. The few remaining participating regulars have entrenched and well-known positions, yet there's apparently entertainment value to be had by goading opposites into reaction, and then riffing off of that. Rinse and repeat. It's an ill-tempered jam session. Only rules - don't get caught dissing hard be nice, stop linking or pasting, let's not clutter up CF

However, this is exactly what makes this thread so entertaining.

My condolences, you must really be hurting for distraction.

[Reefmagnet]

Dana Nuccitelli is, for all intents, the US representative of Skeptical Science.

And, in just one of literally thousands of examples, when Michael E Mann (who ticks all the boxes regarding being a real climate scientist, yet isn't a marine biologist, AFAIK) comes out with a claim that all the organisms in the oceans are dissolving and that 90% of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached (with inference that it has died) due to climate change - who comes across the more stupid? Is it the "affirmist's" that accept this as fact or the skeptics that call BS?

And don't worry, extreme cold weather events are already well and truly blamed on global warming...

Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap

Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | TIME.com

Is global warming causing COLDER winters? Melting ice is destabilising the polar vortex, study claims

Are freezing winters CAUSED by global warming? | Daily Mail Online

Many climate scientists believe that natural variations in the climate system are sufficient to explain the frequency of cold spells in recent years. Others suggest these weather phenomena could be influenced by climate change due to the ongoing decreases in arctic sea ice and the faster rate of temperature increase in the arctic compared to lower latitudes. This is an area of intense current research and considerable concern.

What is a polar vortex? | Cornell Climate Change

Some researchers suggest that such kinks in the jet stream that allow that cold air to spill out could actually become more common in a warming world because of changes to the environment where that cold air originates — the Arctic.

Cold Air Invasion Coming: What’s the Role of Warming? | Climate Central




And good ol' Dr Mann even chimes in...

So, is there a climate connection to this strange occurrence? While more study is certainly needed, I have been increasingly impressed by the growing body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that climate change may lead to more persistent meanders in the jet stream. In a world without global warming, the temperature difference between the freezing Arctic and warmer lower latitudes creates a pressure field that confines the jet stream to a relatively tight band around the Arctic, with wave-like meanders characterized by ephemeral "ridges" and "troughs." As the Arctic melts and warms, however, that temperature difference is reduced, and the meanders of the jet stream potentially become more pronounced and more sluggish. The more sluggish and persistent those meanders, the more persistent the patterns of regional warmth where the jet stream pulls warm air northward, and the regional cold where it pulls arctic air south.

Does Polar Vortex Mean 'So Much for Global Warming?' (Op-Ed)

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

What Science are you referring to? See you throw this phrase out but still even you admit the MMGWC can't define this so called science and how it relates to a temperature increase that is said to destroy man's ability to live, grow crops, raise food and survive. You keep confusing (as many non-scientists do) the basic Greenhouse effect that keeps the planet warm from the MMGW that will kill us all and we need to pay a Carbon tax to prevent. See the Game...you play? To disagree with a clamatous MMGWC agrument, you are then said to be stupid of basic science...I call BS on that. MMGWC don't like to be called out when they claim "science" but then can't even use science properly along with the scientific method to argue their MMGWC case. Then they start calling names...Denier...Witch...Hater...Heretic...Apostat e...etc. IF you can't win the argument go on the attack...right out of the Alynski Rules for Radicals.

I have advocated against name calling so there is no issue on that point. Let us end senseless name calling on all sides.

It is a fact that CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere. More CO2 retains more heat. The exact relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration is not easy to compute if one also has to consider the complexity of an entire planet. So far as I know no one has done that to prove their model is correct. It is unlikely anyone will be able to do so any time soon. Therefore, the people running around saying we are all doomed are not acting in a scientific capacity in my opinion. They are guessing.

It is equally unproved that continuing to increase the CO2 concentration will not have some bad effects. To say that rising CO2 has no bad effect is also guessing. We simply do not know to any high degree of certitude one way or the other.

I strongly encourage everyone to read about carbon tax plans and look past the word tax. Not all taxes are terrible. With zero taxes civilization could not exist. Likewise, with 100% taxation civilization could not exist. There is a fair carbon tax system that would tend to reduce CO2 emissions without harming anyone.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That's a trick question that those without a proper understanding of the 4th Law of Thermodynamics won't have a chance at getting right. Can they Google it...

I wish I would have come up with that one. Brilliant.

Rich this the best posting in this thread. Thanks for that. It made my day. I'm sill laughing.

[adoxograph]

This thread is real fun!

Why in your right mind would you label yourself or others? Sceptic, Denier, Cultist, Believer, etc.

Guys, science is never settled. The statement "98% of scientist agree" means only that there is a prevailing theory on which scientists agree on right now that this particular theory describes realty best. Because most of scientist are considering a theory as valid at one point in time does not make it true. Just ask Ptolemy. His theory was the prevailing theory for over 1400 years until Galileo and Kepler came along. Or ask Isaac Newton who's prevailing theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's theories. The list goes on!

A scientist is by definition a curious sceptic. Believing that one knows it all is called religiously following dogma.

Just resolve the equation in my avatar and you have the answer to all your questions!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Just resolve the equation in my avatar and you have the answer to all your questions!

The smaller you are, the closer you get to unity?

When you are nothing, you are one?

[weavis]

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

There is a fair carbon tax system that would tend to reduce CO2 emissions without harming anyone.

But you yourself said you can't link how much CO2 to what temp increase...so any Tax to do what you said can't and hasn't been done yet is what? I will tell you what...a Big Government Scam mi Amigo. You can't like the Tax to reducing the dangers...but you still want the tax why...why because that is what the Govnet hacks do...they want money to feed their Pension Plans...Bingo.