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

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

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.

I understand what you are saying but some of these are following me to other threads and insulting me. Rather than discuss the issues in the thread they go after me. I do not understand how the moderators allow this to happen. Of course these trolls then scream if you attack them back in response.

This whole forum is becoming a very unhealthy place.

But thanks for the pep talk. You are right in ignoring them. It the personal attacks that I am tired of. I am sure they will get a lot of joy out of "winning". That is, I am sure, how they will view my departure.

Good luck and fair winds.
Chaya

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by 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)

Good for you (and I'm not being facetious). You're lucky enough to have access to all these tools, and the ability to make an informed decision.
However, I don't agree with the idea that they're significantly different on any given day in any but the smallest way, especially when viewed as an entire area, say either the Arctic or the Antarctic.

For example, 4 different views of the Arctic yesterday:

Uni Bremen
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/am..._AMSR2_nic.png





NSISC
Sea Ice Index



Uni Bremen
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/am..._AMSR2_nic.png





Russia http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1



Looks to me like they are all surprisingly close.

Of course the best way of verifying the accuracy of the maps above is to use them in conjunction with the satellite site I've linked to before,

https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov...?mosaic=Arctic


and cross-check them against each other. The issue of clouds comes into play, but with daily experience interpretation of the satellite picture becomes easier, and the comparison builds trust (at least it did in me) in what the maps represent.

The use of the satellite picture also allows an additional insight in that it shows when data artifacts show up in the computed maps. For instance, it was obvious, at least 4 days before it was reported, earlier this year, that the satellite data the NSIDC compiles their extent numbers from was misleading.

[Celestialsailor]

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.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Good for you (and I'm not being facetious). You're lucky enough to have access to all these tools, and the ability to make an informed decision.
However, I don't agree with the idea that they're significantly different on any given day in any but the smallest way, especially when viewed as an entire area, say either the Arctic or the Antarctic.

For example, 4 different views of the Arctic yesterday:

Uni Bremen
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/am..._AMSR2_nic.png





NSISC
Sea Ice Index



Uni Bremen
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/am..._AMSR2_nic.png





Russia http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1



Looks to me like they are all surprisingly close.

Of course the best way of verifying the accuracy of the maps above is to use them in conjunction with the satellite site I've linked to before,

https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov...?mosaic=Arctic


and cross-check them against each other. The issue of clouds comes into play, but with daily experience interpretation of the satellite picture becomes easier, and the comparison builds trust (at least it did in me) in what the maps represent.

The use of the satellite picture also allows an additional insight in that it shows when data artifacts show up in the computed maps. For instance, it was obvious, at least 4 days before it was reported, earlier this year, that the satellite data the NSIDC compiles their extent numbers from was misleading.

Here is a chart that shows where I get me scepticism of Arctic ice numbers from
There is over 2 m sq km difference from the smallest report to the largest report and these are all for august from different agencies.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...8897d5e970b-pi

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

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?

If you look at both charts, keeping in mind Michael "The acidic oceans are dissolving organisms" Mann's chart whereby 1000 years is actually around 850 on Alley's chart you will see the data is the same, but Mann cut's off before the reduction in global temps. Essentially both charts display similar data for the period (even though derived from different sources) and you've fallen back on the good 'ole Jackdale tactic of declaring the same data as "fake" because it dares question your apocalyptic global warming ideals.

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

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

It's being pedantic. Besides, you forgot to carry the 155.

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...

I accept the rate of change has been higher multiple times in the recent past, i.e. post pyramids, based on the data shown. And this is reinforced in just about every other historical temperature record. Only scare mongers like yourself would claim recent changes are extraordinary despite evidence to the contrary.

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.

It's only you claiming the graph is misrepresented. No one else has supported your incorrect views. Not even the participating scientist(s).

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is a chart that shows where I get me scepticism of Arctic ice numbers from
There is over 2 m sq km difference from the smallest report to the largest report and these are all for august from different agencies.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...8897d5e970b-pi

It appears your graph came from the Sea Ice Prediction Network (SIPN). The values on the graph ARE NOT measured values of current sea ice, but rather are the results of various models which are trying to ESTIMATE IN ADVANCE the sea ice extent for September 2016 -- September being when the minimum Arctic sea ice extent occurs.

Summary

Thank you to the groups that sent outlooks to the 2016 August report. We received 40 Outlooks; 39 pan-Arctic (three of which also provided Alaska-regional Outlooks), and one additional regional-only Outlook. Five contributions included gridded fields.

The writing of this August Outlook report was led by Jim Overland (NOAA) with contributions from the SIPN leadership team.

This month the median pan-Arctic extent Outlook for September 2016 sea ice extent is 4.4 million square kilometers (km2) with quartiles of 4.2 and 4.7 million km2, which is slightly higher than July's value (4.3 million km2) (See Figure 1 in the full report, below). If the median Outlook should agree with the observed estimate come September, this year would be the third lowest September in the satellite record. The spread in the Outlook contributions narrowed slightly from July to August, with an overall range this month of 3.7 to 5.2 million km2.

The full range of Outlooks submitted this month lies within the range of the ten lowest years of sea ice extent in the observational record. As in July, no Outlook is predicting a new record this year, despite the warm winter, record low extents for every month in 2016 except March and July, and evidence of thin ice in spring. Current sea ice extent and meteorological conditions suggest a record low is unlikely, as surface temperature over the central Arctic has been near normal in the last two months and forecasts of atmospheric temperatures for the next few weeks indicate average surface temperatures. However, a major storm in the central Arctic during mid- to late August will support continued breakup of the central ice pack. The higher end of the predictions is also unlikely given that the current extent as of 16 August is 5.3 million km2.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is a chart that shows where I get me scepticism of Arctic ice numbers from
There is over 2 m sq km difference from the smallest report to the largest report and these are all for august from different agencies.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...8897d5e970b-pi

Hope I'm not being condescending, but this graph shows projections for September 2016.



The dashed red line shows the September 1981-2010 average low Arctic sea ice of 6.5 million sq.km., the dashed dark grey line shows the average September 2014 low extent of 5.3 million sq.kn., and the light grey dashed line shows the average Sept. 2015 low of 4.63 million. The dashed blue line shows the median of all the August 2016 outlooks, or projections. The color coded bars are the modeled projections of the individual agencies making them. I suppose they'll publish an account of how accurate the projections were later this year. I guess the variety of agencies from so many diverse countries, working on one specific problem, illustrates as well as anything how silly the idea that there is a vast 'conspiracy' of scientists all working together to hoodwink the public at large seems to a lot of us. Just for starters, how on earth would they co-ordinate their efforts?


I couldn't tell from your post if you visit Neven's website, but it is usually very good and has a lot of good information about this complex subject. In case you haven't visited it, this is the link I use:
Arctic Sea Ice

He has a complete summary of the 2016 SIPN Sea Ice Outlook: August Report, from which the table above is taken, up now.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Anti-Science....you want to talk Anti-science and relate it to a political ideology...hey I'm game, lets talk. And folks this example will highlight how Cultish behavior and group-think happens and can spread through a political/religious ideology.

Gender:
Science defines a Male of a species as having an XY chromosome
Science defines a Female of a species as having an XX chromosome.
With the exception of birth defects, which are well known and classified by Science, there is no grey area and everyone fits into XY or XX...it's basic 8th Grade Bioligy. The individual animals don't get to define what gender they are, they don't self-identify as male or female they simply are by the very nature of their DNA. That's Science.

Now enter the Left and the Cultish mindset:
Basic Science is upended and now the very phrase Man/Woman, Male/Female is hate-speech and if you even bring this issue up, you are labeled a hater, this-aphobe or that-aphobe. Just like how the left labels people Deniers to silence them, the same Alinsky tactics are used on this topic. The "Consensus of Scientists" (which is really just a convenient way to say "shut up, all the smart people already figured out the truth and you ain't one of them"). Mmainstream pop culture now calls Scientific fact and basic Science a lie...look the other way, nothing to see here as we change the basic meaning of terms and science. In the past if a person thought they were Napoleon or someone other than themselves, medical science and the culture would both agree and say that person was suffering from a mental illness. Their illness wouldn't be promoted or celebrated, treatment would be sought for that individual. But not today, where Science yields to the whims of pop Culture. Today there are over 58, yes 58 different forms of gender. Science is out the door and the Cult of pop culture has taken over. Even reading this you feel uncomfortable due to your social programing...it goes to show you just how powerful this game is.

The MMGWC asks us dim-whitted Deniers, if there is a conspiracy and how could the entire scientific community be in on a fraud? It's impossible they say. Well folks, it's easy...we now have over 58 different official genders. And if you speak against it you are a hater...bingo...see how the game is played on the left and how Science and Truth have no roll other than to be used as a means to their end.

Interesting but perhaps not in the way you intended.

Their illness wouldn't be promoted or celebrated, treatment would be sought for that individual.

Gender misalignment is indeed a recognized mental health issue. With treatment options. Your "58 types" link -which lists different words and adjectives, not 58 different types of gender - demonstrates that this situation has been acknowledged in many cultures for centuries. Like every mental health issue, stigmatizing it has never been a useful or productive response.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not a mental health professional... so you don't have clue one about this condition, do you? I doubt that you will ever be (intentionally) interacting with a transgender or gender-misaligned person, because of social circle and because they're under 0.5% of the US population, and because current stigma means that most keep it hidden, so you're ragging on about an issue you don't understand and people you probably won't ever have to deal with.

So why mention it at all? (in an AGW thread in a sailing forum ). One of your crap rightwing sites has obviously gone off on this, so it must be truth, is that it?

Social and medical issues tend to go through awareness phases, dependent on the whims of the popular press. Perhaps, because of misunderstanding or unfamiliarity, the current attention on this topic makes you uncomfortable. Well, relax, it will cease to be front-section material shortly, and like gay marriage, decriminalization of homosexuality, giving women the vote, abolition of slavery ... the world didn't end; you will get over this too.

So - what have we learned from this post?
- you don't read links completely
- you apparently don't know that in many animal populations, a small percentage of homosexual behaviour and gender-role switching occurs naturally (...science)
- you still seem mired in those crap news sites, and are quite happy to take their small-minded distortion as gospel
- if you're out to lunch on this, your anti-AGW position might be similarly weak.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interesting but perhaps not in the way you intended.

So - what have we learned from this post?
.

My goal exactly was met exactly. You ran with the typical left wing assumptions. Thanks for playing along.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

My goal exactly was met exactly. You ran with the typical left wing assumptions. Thanks for playing along.

Prove me wrong. Otherwise, if the shoe fits...

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Some of these people are really nasty.

C'mon. Grow a thicker skin. I have a bag of concrete somewhere in my garage that you can eat to harden up a bit.

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I'm sick of it.

C'mon, be honest you enjoy it too much to be nasty yourself here and to give it to the bastards.

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I'm out of here.

Bladibladibla. No-one believes this and you have already proven that you did not mean it by posting again. I don't understand why you would portrait yourself as hypocrite?

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Happy sailing Third Day. Your comments have been like a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

Now you disappoint all of us. We thought you are a bright spark. Now you are sucking up to Rich? What for? You want Rich as an ally? Rich of all people?

He takes the piss out of everyone here including you. He is only here for the laughs he get out of people who think posting in a sailors forum about global warming will change anything. And he will tell you that he is doing exactly that on every other page of this thread. Still, people jump on everything he says. I bet he is rolling on his new teak deck holding his belly because he can't stop laughing. And you are sucking up to him? Rich the brilliant master troll? Really?

I hope you are trolling us too, because so far I thought that you are quite smart.

@Rich How are you doing it? I'm amazed of the influence you have on other people. I know it's unintentional, but it's brilliant. How did you get her to accept you as her guru?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Prove me wrong. Otherwise, if the shoe fits...

Sorry...I don't play the game Lake...I just giggle the worm for others to bite...put some ice on your lip before it swells...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I bet is is rolling on his new teak deck holding his belly because he can't stop laughing. .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Hope I'm not being condescending, but this graph shows projections for September 2016.



The dashed red line shows the September 1981-2010 average low Arctic sea ice of 6.5 million sq.km., the dashed dark grey line shows the average September 2014 low extent of 5.3 million sq.kn., and the light grey dashed line shows the average Sept. 2015 low of 4.63 million. The dashed blue line shows the median of all the August 2016 outlooks, or projections. The color coded bars are the modeled projections of the individual agencies making them. I suppose they'll publish an account of how accurate the projections were later this year. I guess the variety of agencies from so many diverse countries, working on one specific problem, illustrates as well as anything how silly the idea that there is a vast 'conspiracy' of scientists all working together to hoodwink the public at large seems to a lot of us. Just for starters, how on earth would they co-ordinate their efforts?


I couldn't tell from your post if you visit Neven's website, but it is usually very good and has a lot of good information about this complex subject. In case you haven't visited it, this is the link I use:
Arctic Sea Ice

He has a complete summary of the 2016 SIPN Sea Ice Outlook: August Report, from which the table above is taken, up now.

Yes the chart of the august report did come from Neven's blog site
I'm following the Arctic cyclone that is currently moving over the pole and watching how it affects the end of this years " melt season" ( there are already reports of some freeze over happening on and to melt ponds)

[newhaul]

Now for something different sconcidering the state of the climate in northern attitudes what is the better insulation I can use at the cheapest price ( I'm thinking good old spray foam or blue foam