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

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Negatory

Again, negatory.

When a person holds their breath, voluntarily or otherwise, the uncomfortable feeling that starts almost immediately IS NOT caused by a lack of oxygen, but rather by a build-up of CO2 in the body's cells and in the lungs. The body has a very slow response to hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen.

If you put your "experimental" plastic bag over your head and continuously flood it with nitrogen, or argon, or helium (or any non-toxic, non-reactive gas) you will breath "normally", without discomfort, until you black out -- say, in 2 to 5 minutes. Some time after you become unconscious your body will start reacting to becoming hypoxic and may twitch a little. But you will not be conscious, so you won't "feel" it. For most people, permanent brain damage will occur by 5 minutes into your "experiment", and death certainly by 10 minutes.

The reason you won't "feel" uncomfortable during this "experiment" is because you are purging the plastic bag of CO2 with the non-toxic gas. It is the buildup of CO2 that makes you feel like gasping for breath, not the lack of oxygen.

This is why it can be dangerous playing around with breathing the helium from balloons to make your voice sound funny. The helium itself is inert and won't hurt you. But it can displace the oxygen in your lungs while also purging the signalling CO2 from your lungs. So you don't realize anything is amiss until you black out. Of course, you will then probably start breathing a normal air mixture and regain consciousness with no ill effect, but you are dancing near the edge of a cliff, so to speak.

Anyway, as others have said, don't try the plastic bag "experiment" unless you are fully prepared for St. Peter's entrance interview.

Now we have 3 different set-ups for the experiment. Not bad, I like it.

I hope everyone here understands, that pulling a plastic bag over your head will most likely kill you! So don't do it!!!!

[Reefmagnet]

More scientific nonsense. I been walking around with a bag on my head all day. Even took a selfie to prove it...



No I'll effects at all. The science is w

Rh

O...?

,,,?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Now we have 3 different set-ups for the experiment. Not bad, I like it.

I hope everyone here understands, that pulling a plastic bag over your head will most likely kill you! So don't do it!!!!

That warning reminded me of this:

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

To drive a point home...I liked what Muller (not Miller) stated that the only people he could convince were those that are open=minded. That theory sure has been proven here.

Of course. If you want to program a mind the subject needs to have an "open" mind.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

As some of you think it is time to attack scientists here a friendly reminder of the scientific method.

One important aspect of the scientific method is that any theory must be possible to be disproven. Only religion works with dogma.

Why did you choose not to address the falsity of the scientists data points? Science based in unscientific data is an insult to science. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Why did you choose not to address the falsity of the scientists data points? Science based in unscientific data is an insult to science. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Precisely what data are you referring to?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Of course. If you want to program a mind the subject needs to have an "open" mind.

Yes...as opposed to the closed one's I see here.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

What I am looking at? I don't understand the Y-axis in this graph. It shows a temperature of about -31.6 degrees right now.

Is it just the local temperature of wherever the ice-core was taken? What was the method to determine the temperature? Isotopes of 18O and D, as fractionation is temperature dependent?

I don't know. The point I was making was about what appeared to me to be an attempt by Udacha to use the first graph to disprove the second. The original paper is available here, I imagine it has the answer to your questions. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Mr Muller made some interesting admissions. First let's look at his wonderful assisting scientist, Art Rosenthal who worked with Muller on creating his analytical graphs.

Art Rosenthal is indeed a scholar. A world renowned scientist of great intellect. A Scientist who also strove to use his intelligence for the betterment of mankind. Social aspirations one would expect from a Berkley alumni and I say that without criticism.

"In 2010 he was voted into the National Academy of Engineering. That year he was also appointed Distinguished Scientist Emeritus at LBNL, where he devotes much of his attention to an international campaign for the adoption of white roofs and "cool colored" surfaces to reduce heat islands and mitigate global warming."

He used his theories, research and wonderful intelligence to find ways to conserve energy. He indeed has had a positive impact on society in this endeavor. But as the above quote shows, the Global Warmers were not content with this scientist creating applied solutions towards energy conservation, they had to add that he worked to mitigate global warming.

He may well have become a global warming adherent given his links with Berkley University. Which calls into question his dispassionate thinking in working with Muller.

Of the many other things that struck me when listening to Muller was his statement about those who collected tests results around the world were they drew their figures from. I paraphrase. "some only submitted 20% of their tests while others only 7% ".

No explanation was given as to why this serious fault in test samoling? Why did the measure takers discard 80% to 93% of the data collected? What biases came into play in their decision making into which data sets to keep and which to not use? If course no answer was even touched upon.

These now unscientific figures were used to create his wonderful model. I am sure he secured his place at Berkley once again following his retirement. To heck with rigorous scientific enquiry. Muller and Rosenthal now enjoy support from Berkley in their twilight years.

Don't know who Art Rosenthal is, but is Art Rosenfeld (I assume that's who you're talking about) a scientist or a Scientist? (Please don't answer, that is a joke.)

At this point, it probably surprises no one that you see conspiracies at every turn, but apparently only if they challenge your (obviously) higher standards and superior truth-determining abilities. Congratulations on ferreting out the conspiracy where an appointment to an emeritus position for work in the mitigation of the effects of climate change is an example of the evil 'Global Warmers' unending campaign to brainwash the undiscerning 'sheeple'. Good job!

And, while we're at it, what about this guy (who also worked with Muller on the project)?


Saul Perlmutter (born September 22, 1959) is an American astrophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2003. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Perlmutter shared the 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy, the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, and the 2015 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics with Brian P. Schmidt and Adam Riess for providing evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.


Is he a Scientist or a scientist? Oh wait, his doctoral advisor was --what?--who? -- Richard Muller, and he works at Berkley. So, two strikes, can we find a third? How bout this one:


Perlmutter wrote his PhD thesis on the possibility that a second "killer" sun orbiting ours every 26 million years is responsible for periodic mass extinctions, including that which wiped out the dinosaurs. "This is still not yet completely disconfirmed," he says.


Yeah, throw him out too, no real Scientist would seriously even consider something like that, much less write a PhD thesis on it. We all know that asteroid or comet impacts are what cause mass extinctions...

As for the 'what struck me' paraphrase, the statement at 1:20 in the video clearly states Muller's concern with some models using 'only 20 or as little as 7 percent of the data' to establish their models as at least some of the reason for his unease accepting the 'status quo' of climate science at the time. That the model his group worked up closely matched those that used 'only' 20 or 7
percent seems to imply that the that the selection bias used by the other modelers was in fact good. Of course this is S.O.P. for science, where arriving at the same results using different methods is normally looked at as a confirmation of those results.


It may be just me, but the whole post seems to show a touch of selective paranoid personality disorder, which is generally characterized by someone having a long-standing pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others, or who will nearly always believe that other people's motives are suspect or even malevolent.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Umm, check the 1000 year mark on Richard Alley's graph and compare it to Michael "90% of the GBR is dead" Mann's data. Who exactly is tricking who, here?

I'm a little simple. Could you explain what you're referring to in the '1000 year mark' comparison?

Yo serious, bro? This isn't a car ticket price.

Of course I'm serious. You might have missed the point though...



That the current rate of climate change bandied as extraordinary with everything unable to adapt is actually mediocre? That resolution improves with fresher samples?

That you don't accept or understand the extra-ordinariness of the change or rate of change is irrelevant; those that do the statistical science that we all, even you, rely on say that the science says it is extraordinary. That you don't comprehend what you mean when you say 'adapt' is obvious.
Resolution can improve with fresher samples, but it doesn't have to...

Better go read up on how ice core samples work with temperature determination.

Why? At issue was the comparison of one misrepresented graph with the implication that it somehow superseded, or made invalid, another one. Mainly, all I was pointing out was that the part of the graph that made the 'Hockey Stick' (in)famous, was missing from the graph (Alley's) purportedly refuting it! Which is of course a well known trick of those trying to manipulate data or improve a shaky position.

Oddly enough, while looking into your question about Richard Alley's graph, I came across this interpretation of the one Udacha started this off with:

"Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855."

Which is the same conclusion I came to.

Since you bring Alley up, what do you think his view of MMGW is after watching this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

" Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found..."

Miller's study doesn't amount to a pile of beans when one considers his flawed data sources.

Because you say so, right?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

" Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found..."

Miller's study doesn't amount to a pile of beans when one considers his flawed data sources.

Which dataset is it you don't like and why?
Or is it all of them?
Berkeley Earth

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

I don't know. The point I was making was about what appeared to me to be an attempt by Udacha to use the first graph to disprove the second. The original paper is available here, I imagine it has the answer to your questions. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland



Don't know who Art Rosenthal is, but is Art Rosenfeld (I assume that's who you're talking about) a scientist or a Scientist? (Please don't answer, that is a joke.)

At this point, it probably surprises no one that you see conspiracies at every turn, but apparently only if they challenge your (obviously) higher standards and superior truth-determining abilities. Congratulations on ferreting out the conspiracy where an appointment to an emeritus position for work in the mitigation of the effects of climate change is an example of the evil 'Global Warmers' unending campaign to brainwash the undiscerning 'sheeple'. Good job!

And, while we're at it, what about this guy (who also worked with Muller on the project)?


Saul Perlmutter (born September 22, 1959) is an American astrophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2003. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Perlmutter shared the 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy, the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, and the 2015 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics with Brian P. Schmidt and Adam Riess for providing evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.


Is he a Scientist or a scientist? Oh wait, his doctoral advisor was --what?--who? -- Richard Muller, and he works at Berkley. So, two strikes, can we find a third? How bout this one:


Perlmutter wrote his PhD thesis on the possibility that a second "killer" sun orbiting ours every 26 million years is responsible for periodic mass extinctions, including that which wiped out the dinosaurs. "This is still not yet completely disconfirmed," he says.


Yeah, throw him out too, no real Scientist would seriously even consider something like that, much less write a PhD thesis on it. We all know that asteroid or comet impacts are what cause mass extinctions...

As for the 'what struck me' paraphrase, the statement at 1:20 in the video clearly states Muller's concern with some models using 'only 20 or as little as 7 percent of the data' to establish their models as at least some of the reason for his unease accepting the 'status quo' of climate science at the time. That the model his group worked up closely matched those that used 'only' 20 or 7
percent seems to imply that the that the selection bias used by the other modelers was in fact good. Of course this is S.O.P. for science, where arriving at the same results using different methods is normally looked at as a confirmation of those results.


It may be just me, but the whole post seems to show a touch of selective paranoid personality disorder, which is generally characterized by someone having a long-standing pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others, or who will nearly always believe that other people's motives are suspect or even malevolent.




Oddly enough, while looking into your question about Richard Alley's graph, I came across this interpretation of the one Udacha started this off with:

"Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855."

Which is the same conclusion I came to.

Since you bring Alley up, what do you think his view of MMGW is after watching this video?

Because you say so, right?

Now I am supposed to have a personality disorder. Where did you get your training? Sol Alinsky.

You misquoted both the Professor and I.

"As for the 'what struck me' paraphrase, the statement at 1:20 in the video clearly states Muller's concern with some models using 'only 20 or as little as 7 percent of the data' to establish their models as at least some of the reason for his unease accepting the 'status quo' of climate science at the time. That the model his group worked up closely matched those that used 'only' 20 or 7
percent seems to imply that the that the selection bias used by the other modelers was in fact good. Of course this is S.O.P. for science, where arriving at the same results using different methods is normally looked at as a confirmation of those results."

He admitted in the video that he "used" the questionable data. It was not as you described.

Now lets get back to the personal attacks on the posters you disagree with.

[newhaul]

OK here is the reason I don't believe the Arctic sea ice numbers and sat pictures .
I can look at five or more different agencies that will each show a different picture of sea ice area on any given day not to mention diferences in their graphs of the data. so who do I believe .
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
I don't believe any of them I do however have to look at all of them and draw my own conclusions from all of the available data.
( sorry I'm not going back to the Arctic to get up close and personal again I'm to old and its to cold)

[SV THIRD DAY]

Just checking in...
Looks like all is under control and well...
Carry on....

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Just checking in...
Looks like all is under control and well...
Carry on....

Some of these people are really nasty. I'm sick of it. I'm out of here. Happy sailing Third Day. Your comments have been like a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

[newhaul]

Here ya go evidence for my nuke icebreaker therom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRy6t5K3R4

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Some of these people are really nasty. I'm sick of it. I'm out of here. Happy sailing Third Day. Your comments have been like a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

While true that Cultists and the left in general are most often mean-spirited and nasty to those they disagree with, there is a pretty easy way to handle them. I just don't read their posts. Oh I scan them now and then to grab a quick point to pick apart, but I read their comments as I would graffiti scratched into a public bathroom stall. Once you know how to read their comments...this thread gets more and more fun and entertaining.