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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Our Good friend Jackdale sniffed out a MMGWC discussion a mile away...hey thanks for joining us.

But Amigo...really, you want to post a link to Truthout.org and have any credibility?
You might as well post a link to Alex Jones and Chemtrails....come on...you gotta do better than that.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry but antartic sea ice is still recording at least 5% above baseline normal as of march. ( the sattalite is having issues that they are trying to remedy so no figures yet for April. Also he total Antarctic land ice volumeis increasing just like I posted some 65+ pages ago.

As of today the Antarctic sea ice is below average for this time of year; if the gray area in the graph is two standard deviations below average it looks to be about 25 percent below 'normal'. For the month of March it appears that the average was substantially below 'normal' for all but the last week or so.



Meanwhile, the Arctic is what looks to be about 4 standard deviations below average, which of course is exactly what was (and continues to be) predicted; that the Northern Hemisphere would warm at a substantially faster rate than the Southern...




And of course, though none of the "opposing side" want to hear it, the slight increase in the Eastern Hemisphere Antarctic land ice is most likely a result of climate change (or would you prefer global warming?); the hypothesis is that as the normally very cold air over the Antarctic continent warms it holds more water vapor and consequently their is more precipitation, which leads to more ice, which leads to more and faster migration of land ice to the sea (in what's generally known as a 'positive feedback loop')...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And of course, though none of the "opposing side" want to hear it, the slight increase in the Eastern Hemisphere Antarctic land ice is most likely a result of climate change (or would you prefer global warming?); the hypothesis is that as the normally very cold air over the Antarctic continent warms it holds more water vapor and consequently their is more precipitation, which leads to more ice, which leads to more and faster migration of land ice to the sea (in what's generally known as a 'positive feedback loop')...

How's that working out for Greenland? Or do natural physics differ between South and North?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here ya go all said 75% probability of polar ice gone by 2015
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...Z92tyNTDhmMotg

Here's another prediction that is dead wrong
US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | The Guardian
Ice free my butt

Originally Posted by newhaul

Crickets about my post # 1013 well I have my Arctic insulated work coveralls on the boat

Did you listen to the Fora video? Starting at about 2:11, Gore says that some of the models say that in some of the summer months, the Arctic could be 'ice free' in 5 to 7 years. The conference was on December 14 2009, so the 'prediction' could be for this year or next, at 2:37 he also adds "that the volumetric projection leads Dr. Mazlowski to make the prediction; we will find out."

Hardly seems like an expression of certainty.....

And that also brings up the question of what is "ice free"? The number I see being kicked about is 1 million square kilometers...

The Guardian article says virtually the same thing. "Could" does not mean "Will".

could
ko͝od,kəd/
verb
modal verb: could

1. past of can1.
   • used to indicate possibility.
     "they could be right"
   
   
   
   

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

How's that working out for Greenland? Or do natural physics differ between South and North?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm

Did you bother to read what you posted?

In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing more ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet. For more information on how ice sheets lose mass, a more comprehensive discussion is available here.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

How's that working out for Greenland? Or do natural physics differ between South and North?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm

Of course the 'natural physics" do not change for the Northern or Southern Hemispheres. Unfortunately, the dynamics do change, so I can't answer your question, if your question is is the land ice on Greenland gaining in mass or not.

I do 'know' that the speed to the sea of most (if not all) of the Greenland glaciers has greatly increased over the last decade or so, though I've not read of the specifics.

My computer is fried, so I've been unable to read much on the internet for the past couple months or so (I'm at the library now). It's been interesting to see how the change from the internet back to books and magazines alters the way one understands or perceives something...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Did you listen to the Fora video? Starting at about 2:11, Gore says that some of the models say that in some of the summer months, the Arctic could be 'ice free' in 5 to 7 years. The conference was on December 14 2009, so the 'prediction' could be for this year or next, at 2:37 he also adds "that the volumetric projection leads Dr. Mazlowski to make the prediction; we will find out."

Hardly seems like an expression of certainty.....

And that also brings up the question of what is "ice free"? The number I see being kicked about is 1 million square kilometers...

The Guardian article says virtually the same thing. "Could" does not mean "Will".

could
ko͝od,kəd/
verb
modal verb: could

1. past of can1.
   • used to indicate possibility.
     "they could be right"
   
   
   
   

It's refreshing to finally read a more realistic assessment of the state of the science at this point in time, namely that it is uncertain.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's refreshing to finally read a more realistic assessment of the state of the science at this point in time, namely that it is uncertain.

How many times have I agreed that the science is not settled?

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And of course, though none of the "opposing side" want to hear it, the slight increase in the Eastern Hemisphere Antarctic land ice is most likely a result of climate change (or would you prefer global warming?); the hypothesis is that as the normally very cold air over the Antarctic continent warms it holds more water vapor and consequently their is more precipitation, which leads to more ice, which leads to more and faster migration of land ice to the sea (in what's generally known as a 'positive feedback loop')...

A "hypothesis" indeed, although few on the "opposing side" seemingly want to acknowledge it. Other than simply stating that the science is "not settled" when challenged, but then continuing to submit postings & links as if it is.

Meanwhile, there is either silence or an attempt to change the subject whenever the challenge becomes unanswerable. A growing credibility gap if I've ever seen one.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Meanwhile, there is either silence or an attempt to change the subject whenever the challenge becomes unanswerable. A growing credibility gap if I've ever seen one.

Your binary thinking prevents you from understanding nuanced comments.

Please provide one single example of where I said the science is settled.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Celestialsailor]

Oh...I see what happened...The thread,"Why Climate change Won't matter in 20 years", was closed by a mod "pending moderator discussion" and brought the bitch slapping here. That's ok...won't hurt my feelings seeing this one go by the wayside.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Of course the 'natural physics" do not change for the Northern or Southern Hemispheres. Unfortunately, the dynamics do change, so I can't answer your question, if your question is is the land ice on Greenland gaining in mass or not.

I do 'know' that the speed to the sea of most (if not all) of the Greenland glaciers has greatly increased over the last decade or so, though I've not read of the specifics.

My computer is fried, so I've been unable to read much on the internet for the past couple months or so (I'm at the library now). It's been interesting to see how the change from the internet back to books and magazines alters the way one understands or perceives something...

Warm air holding more water vapour doesn't change.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

A "hypothesis" indeed, although few on the "opposing side" seemingly want to acknowledge it. Other than simply stating that the science is "not settled" when challenged, but then continuing to submit postings & links as if it is.

Meanwhile, there is either silence or an attempt to change the subject whenever the challenge becomes unanswerable. A growing credibility gap if I've ever seen one.

From the infamous closed (!?) thread, I must (unfortunately) quote myself (though I think others said pretty much the same thing in different words):


"Science is rarely 'settled'; as more information is gathered and tested, paradigms change. Hence, now (most of us) believe the earth is an oblate spheroid that circles the sun (not so 450 or so years ago), that life forms are not fixed, but change over time (not so roughly 150 years ago, except by the illiterate and ungrateful half of Americans [and others] who don't understand evolution), that Newtonian gravity isn't relevant at the quantum level (roughly 100 years ago), and that the climate is not constant and is changed at a variable rate by a large variety of factors (150 years ago to now). Doesn't mean the 'old science' was bad, just that it wasn't complete..."


And a word about 'settled'. Like most words, this too has several meanings, depending on, among other things, context and intent. Can't speak for others, but if I were to say the 'the science (of human induced climate change) is settled', that would mean that the body of evidence is such that effectively all scientists and (somewhat) educated laypeople would agree that said evidence is strong enough to treat it as an actionable fact (which is of course exactly what one sees if they look at what the every day, working scientists write. There is virtually no disagreement among them on it as a working theory; biologists use it to explain evolutionary change, geologists use it to explain mineral formation and geophysical structural changes, the list goes on and on...)

What isn't settled is the rate or amount of change and that is precisely what has the 'alarmists' (and should have any rational cautionary person) worried. Most data indicate that both the rate and amount of change taking place now hasn't been experienced by humans as we know us for about 60K years; the result of that catastrophe was a 'population bottleneck' that resulted in there being more genetic diversity in two sparrows sitting next to each other at your bird feeder than is represented in the entire human genome (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much). That is if one believes the scientists...

But hey, .... maybe we need another little 'population bottleneck'. You willing to take the chance?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Meanwhile, there is either silence or an attempt to change the subject whenever the challenge becomes unanswerable.

Since that's happened... never . Don't mistake boredom for inability.

So, bets on when your bestie Delfin will Godwin THIS thread too?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your binary thinking prevents you from understanding nuanced comments.

Please provide one single example of where I said the science is settled.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Your robotic, linear thinking renders you unable or unwilling to distinguish between stating the words "the science is settled," as opposed to almost every one of your posts where you represent the science as such. Science is almost never "settled," so your straight line reasoning process must have you convinced you will be shielded from legitimate criticism if you simply refrain from uttering the words. I'm afraid you're only convincing those who still believe in the validity of the alarmism, and are oblivious to the contrarian science and the credentials of the many scientists who support it.

It's sorta like the difference btwn. stating "I accept" the UAH satellite data but then repeatedly only using the surface data set which shows the most warming. Or posting huge, seemingly impressive numbers of the amount of CO2 emissions that have purportedly been dumped into the atmosphere, but neglecting to mention that this only amounts to 3% of the total. Or repeatedly stating that you follow and participate on Judith Curry's blog but then never mention or try and critique her views which predict a stabilization of Arctic sea ice loss in the next year or two followed by an increase. Or how about postings attributing sea level rise to AGW when you must know the many natural forces that contribute to this phenomenon, and that accurate measurements are fraught with problems.

Shall I continue with lists of specific posts or are you starting to catch on? If not, then how about your ignoring the position of many scientists who believe we are likely in a mostly natural warming trend since the LIA which human emissions have influenced, but nowhere near to the extent you continually represent as the position of 99.9% of scientists.

Despite the attempts at labeling me a "denier," I remain a "skeptic" because I personally cannot "deny" a likely preponderance of the science that holds the position that humans are likely influencing the climate to some greater or lesser degree that is significant. But since I am aware that science doesn't evolve from consensus polling, I also cannot deny the accomplished and highly credentialed scientists who believe otherwise.

Regardless of the position you, Third Day, or anyone else may hold (doesn't matter to me), what I don't doubt is that your approach is anything but nuanced, scientific, balanced, or persuasive. It is instead misleading and deceptive, that being my only objection.