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

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ahhhh.... The good 'ole "There's more ice because it's warming argument". Right up there with the "More snow because it's warming" argument.

It's not a good ole anything, it's a publish scientific paper, you can not read it and disagree.

Or read it and understand it, then disagree and write a letter or Nature outlining where you think the science is wrong.

You seem to prefer option 1...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

And the difference between the two statements is?

You're making my point:
- the actual units are irrelevant
- that neither version contains reference to what part of the chosen scales is safe vs dangerous.

It's deniers who select units for the best optics, then go pffft.

If you folks don't have any concern over pumping up the CO2 by 40% in 160 years, (and it's continuing to rise) and you dismiss the small amount of climate change already witnessed, though you probably know that the bulk of the warming will come in the future, and you don't accept what the majority of the field are telling you... then I'm pretty sure that it's you deniers who are running on faith and/or ignorance.

Don't like the current models? Do better. Put something behind YOUR faith.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

It's not a good ole anything, it's a publish scientific paper, you can not read it and disagree.

Or read it and understand it, then disagree and write a letter or Nature outlining where you think the science is wrong.

You seem to prefer option 1...

Actually, I understand the science quite well. You do realise, of course, that if you collate together a collection of the peer reviewed papers regarding Antarctica`s ice sheets and climate you will invariable end up with a bunch of different conclusions? Regardless of how prestigious or well respected the publishing journal and peer review is, good 'ole common sense should tell you that most of these paper's authors must have invariably arrived at the wrong conclusion, for if that were not the case there would be no need for multiple, dare I suggest - competing, papers attempting to explain the same empirical evidence.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, I understand the science quite well. You do realise, of course, that if you collate together a collection of the peer reviewed papers regarding Antarctica`s ice sheets and climate you will invariable end up with a bunch of different conclusions? Regardless of how prestigious or well respected the publishing journal and peer review is, good 'ole common sense should tell you that most of these paper's authors must have invariably arrived at the wrong conclusion, for if that were not the case there would be no need for multiple, dare I suggest - competing, papers attempting to explain the same empirical evidence.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Ah, the good ole "the science is wrong!"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're making my point:
- the actual units are irrelevant
- that neither version contains reference to what part of the chosen scales is safe vs dangerous.

It's deniers who select units for the best optics, then go pffft.

If you folks don't have any concern over pumping up the CO2 by 40% in 160 years, (and it's continuing to rise) and you dismiss the small amount of climate change already witnessed, though you probably know that the bulk of the warming will come in the future, and you don't accept what the majority of the field are telling you... then I'm pretty sure that it's you deniers who are running on faith and/or ignorance.

Don't like the current models? Do better. Put something behind YOUR faith.

Actually, the majority of the field is telling us there's two tenths of stuff all we can do about it. And that's assuming we're the sole cause. You're obviously upset that 1/3% increase in real terms is not scary enough. I suspect many "deniers", on the other hand, are actually pretty stoked that such large increases in atmospheric C02 content has had such little effect on global temperatures. No wonder there's been a smattering of peer reviewed papers - some no doubt published in Nature - trying to explain away this "missing" heat.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Guess you're not big on paying attention...

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2177154

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2157580

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2156875

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2156105

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2152981

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2148414

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2147680

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2140080

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2136820

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2136159

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2133797

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2131478

Originally Posted by conachair

Ah, the good ole "the science is wrong!"

Go nuts. ^^^^^^^^

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GoingWalkabout]

SailOar. Why are you trolling me? You go over to another unrelated thread and you post your climate stuff there. You have turned what was an interesting discussion on this thread into a non relenting cut past troll by you.

Please stop trolling me. Stop following me to other threads and trolling me on these threads. Stop turning a conversation on this thread into a cut past trash can.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

...You have turned what was an interesting discussion on this thread into a non relenting cut past troll by you...

Why thank you! I am indeed pleased that interjecting scientific reports into this thread has had the salutary effect of turning what was a monotonous drone by Deniers into an informative thread about the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[SV THIRD DAY]

???
You guys actually read what MMGWC SailOar posts?
Ha ha ha...I haven't read one of his posts in months, why would I when I can write his script as a comedy central gag.

For someone to Troll you...you must actually READ what the are saying...Problem, meet Solution.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

???
You guys actually read what MMGWC SailOar posts?
Ha ha ha...I haven't read one of his posts in months, why would I when I can write his script as a comedy central gag.

For someone to Troll you...you must actually READ what the are saying...Problem, meet Solution.

You know I might actually read some of the drivel he posts if he would actually include a synopsis of the articles and I mean in his own words not a cut and paste out of the articles

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know I might actually read some of the drivel he posts if he would actually include a synopsis of the articles and I mean in his own words not a cut and paste out of the articles

Absolutely right...

It's just good forum posting etiquette to post some type of summary and not just be a cut/paste link farm. If someone can't take the time to tell me what's in the article link they are posting...why should I bother to go check it out. For all I know it's link to a Porn site or worse a MMGWC apologetics Site.... Heck...My Spam blocker software most likely wouldn't let me go to half the links he posts anyway....

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why thank you! I am indeed pleased that interjecting scientific reports into this thread has had the salutary effect of turning what was a monotonous drone by Deniers into an informative thread about the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I do not read your cut and pastes. Your mindless spamming is exactly what it is. Spam. Your following me to a non related thread that has nothing to do with climate and making a snide comment on AGW to me makes you also a troll.

I have long ago ignored your daily spam. Trolling me on other threads has just shown who you really are.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I do not read your cut and pastes. Your mindless spamming is exactly what it is. Spam...

If you don't read them how do you know they are mindless?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I do not read your cut and pastes. Your mindless spamming is exactly what it is. Spam. Your following me to a non related thread that has nothing to do with climate and making a snide comment on AGW to me makes you also a troll.

I have long ago ignored your daily spam. Trolling me on other threads has just shown who you really are.

Part of it is who the Left are...the most intolerant bunch of people you will ever meet. It isn't enough for them to share and exchange ideas and then smile and say hey, lets have a beer with you. Their belief system makes them hate those that disagree with them. You are either with them or against them. You see it here...you see it in the calling for Prosecution of Climate Change Deniers. Deniers must be attacked, must be silenced for the good of Mother Gia, for the Jihad and holy war.

At first hearing my Replacement Theology comparison of the MMGW fanatics, most people think it's over the top and a little out there. But then the more you find out, the more you dig and the more you interact with the movements True Believers there is that moment when you think to yourself...."Holy Bat Crap...that Crazy Rich is right?" From that point on your life is ruined because seeing the Truth changes you, for the better, but changes you nonetheless.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know I might actually read some of the drivel he posts if he would actually include a synopsis of the articles and I mean in his own words not a cut and paste out of the articles

You have a strange logic system. If what I post is drivel than it will remain drivel whether I include a synopsis in my own words or not. So why would you read it if I gave a synopsis, but won't read it in its original form?

I don't see why I should bruise your tender ears with my drivel when professional journalists can explain the science so much more clearly than I ever could. If you're not interested in reading the current science that's fine with me. It certainly explains a lot about the positions you take.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

???
You guys actually read what MMGWC SailOar posts?
Ha ha ha...I haven't read one of his posts in months...

No need to inform us of that. It's quite evident from your posts that your relationship with actual science is tenuous at best.