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

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Volcanoes And Climate Change: How Continental Volcanic Eruptions Drove Historic Climate Shifts | HNGN

In other words just like I said many months ago on that other thread volcanoes have more to do with climate change and co2 levels than humans do. ( BTW volcanic activity is on the rise.

[GoingWalkabout]

Lower Ocean Levels on the East Coast of the United States. Yet another fact that makes a mockery of the AGW cooks like Gore and his minions.

Perhaps we should be asking for our money back. The money the current US administration has given to Caribbean Islands to fight climate warming causing the seal levels to rise and endangering these poor island communities. I am convinced these massive money hand outs attached to so called GW mediation are nothing more than slush money to pay for patronage and of course scams to line the pockets of politicians associates (friends).

Just like the Clinton Money scam. Follow the money in GW remediation and you will find massive corruption. It called redistribution of wealth. The founding pillar of International Socialists and the battle cry of Marxist Leninists.

As was the case in the Soviet Union. They are attempting to redistribute wealth from the productive class to the political class. It is a con game by the political elites.

I have kept an open mind and over these past months done copious amounts of my own research. I can now honestly say that the GW hysteria is political motivated in order to transfer wealth to favored communist nations such as China and fellow traveller nations. This is a scandal of giant proportions that dwarfs the billions in bribes that the Clintons have taken through their phony charity.

I'm sorry for the good Democrats who have a social conscience. The have been taken over by greedy sociopaths. I am very sorry for this inconvenient truth.

The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...-and-new-york/


Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US.

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

The logic was clearly flawed, but obviously Nature did not accepted any comment. The science is settled, and can’t be discussed.

So, let see the data, for example for Washington DC and The Battery NY, to check if the hotspots have produced huge sea level rises since December 2009.

The figure below presents the MSL (monthly average mean sea levels) and the SLR computed with 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years’ time windows for Washington DC and The Battery NY.

Is there any one able to spot any sign or acceleration or simply oscillations? With the data up to December 2009 and with the data up to April 2016, not a chance. There are only oscillations about same longer term trend.

Which is then the novelty of the last 6 years of data? Since December 2009, the sea levels have declined in both Washington DC and The Battery NY, -3.3 mm/year in Washington DC and -10.7 mm/year in The Battery NY.

It seems that immediately after December 2009, the last month of data considered by Sallenger & co. in their June 2012 paper, corrected online June 2013 with the publishing in the supplementary of the actual numbers, a positive phase of the oscillations has been replaced by a negative phase.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by newhaul

In other words just like I said many months ago on that other thread volcanoes have more to do with climate change and co2 levels than humans do. ( BTW volcanic activity is on the rise.

I can only agree. And what about the subterranean volcanoes that are affecting water temps.

I'm in Patagonia at the moment. Not so far from the active volcanoes in Chile. The small town in Argentina Im staying in was covered in ash from a Chilean eruption about 6 months ago. The photos the locals showed me reminded me of what happened to Pompei.

By the way, the lake fishing here is out of this world. Im going to be going bore hunting in a couple of days with some of my friends in the Argentinian Gendarmerie. Great people and great fishing and hunting.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I can only agree. And what about the subterranean volcanoes that are affecting water temps..

Interesting you should ask that here is something about that and it does actually have an effect on Arctic sea ice and cruising the polar region.
Underwater volcanoes melting Arctic Ice, says geologist - Ice Age Now

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I can only agree. And what about the subterranean volcanoes that are affecting water temps.

They aren't.

Don't believe everything you read: "Volcanic source" of ocean warming and the "Great Rome Earthquake" | WIRED

http://www.wired.com/author/erikvolc/

[GoingWalkabout]

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic chain of underwater volcanoes snaking 1,800 kilometers (1,100 miles) beneath the Arctic Ocean from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

With its deep valleys plummeting 5,500 meters (3.4 miles) beneath the sea surface and its summits rising 5,000 meters (3.1-miles) above the seafloor (but still a third of a mile beneath the sea surface), the Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps.
Great source Newhaul. Thanks. As the AGW guys say. It's proven science. Yes its proven science that volcanoes on tera firma and subterranean are dramatically affecting water Temps and weather. And don't jump on me and say because I don't say it's changing climate that it isn't affecting climate. I just don't swallow the fiction that climate as a long period of weather events is being affected the way the AGW mob say.

What follows is from an actual scientist.

The Gakkel Ridge has in the recent past pulsed massive amounts of heat into the overlying ocean and thereby melted large portions of the ice that floats above the heated ocean column, says Kamis.

Climate scientists who favor the theory of man-made global warming maintain that the higher melt rate of Arctic sea ice from 1999 to 2007 was entirely due to man-made CO2 emissions, Kamis continues.

Natural forces play dominate role in sea ice extent

However, it is clear to most scientists, he continues, that non-atmospheric natural forces play the dominate role in sea ice extent and thickness.

These natural forces include variations in the Earth’s orbit, long-term cyclic changes in deep-ocean currents, and most importantly geologically induced heat and chemically charged fluid flow from deep ocean faults and volcanoes.

Even though the October 12 event was associated with an extensive earthquake swarm, a huge methane release, and a significant series of volcanic eruptions along the Gakkel Ridge, “it was, and still is dismissed as insignificant by most climate scientists advocating the theory of man-made global warming,” says Kamis

But many scientists now realize that the 1999-2007 Gakkel Ridge heat and chemically charged fluid flow event was the root cause of accelerated the Arctic sea ice melting rate.

Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet - Climate Dispatch

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet - Climate Dispatch

Interesting. Neither one of the links provided by the author substantiate anything he is claiming.

In fact the second link (Arctic News) says the opposite.

So I thought I would check out

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid...obal%20warming

and found this first link to Tom Moriarty who is an AGW skeptic.

Volcanos in Gakkel Ridge NOT responsible melting the Arctic ice
July 10, 2008
I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general. I call ’em as I see ’em.

There have been some attempts to link the arctic sea ice loss of the last several years to reports of volcanoes under thousands of feet of water in the Gakkel Ridge,

The truth is that all the energy from a volcano the size of Mount St. Helens could only melt 100 square kilometers of three meter thick ice. This is a trivial amount of ice for the arctic region, which typically oscillates between about 4 million and 14 million square kilometers every year. 100 square kilometers is only one hundred thousandth of the yearly change in Arctic sea ice extent

https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...he-arctic-ice/

Read the rest for the math involved.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

In other words just like I said many months ago on that other thread volcanoes have more to do with climate change and co2 levels than humans do. ( BTW volcanic activity is on the rise.

Over millions of years, YES.
Over the last few hundred years, NO.

Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate | Skeptical Science

[...] How does the heat get to the surface?

According to Stein and Stein (10MByte download) most of the heat energy (about 70%) that makes its way to the surface is transported by the convection of the mantle. This is the process that drives plate tectonics. Most of the rest of the heat flow, 25%, is by conduction. The small remainder is transported by mantle plumes, hot spots associated with certain volcanoes.

Figure 1: Showing mantle convection cells, which are responsible for transporting most of the Earth’s heat from the interior to the surface. Wikipedia

Mantle convection cells are the super tankers of global tectonics, transporting vast quantities of hot rock but changing speed and direction only gradually. Conduction of heat through the rocks of the Earth’s continental crust is also an unhurried and stable process; with the supply of heat metered by atomic clockwork. There are a few well-known hot spots around the world, where magma and hot water quickly bring heat to the surface but the energy released at these places does not add up to much in the global scheme of things. The rate of heat escape from the Earth is slow and very steady.[...]


How does heat flow from the interior of the Earth compare with other inputs of energy into the climate system?

Figure 4: The volumes of the cubes are proportional to the magnitude of the energy flow from various sources. The solar irradiance is the incident energy, averaged over the area of the Earth (divided by four); irradiance varies over 11 year cycles and, at the top of recent cycles, can reach 341.7 Wm-2. The increase in anthropogenic forcing since pre-industrial times comes from the IPCC. The heat flow from the Earth’s interior is the 47 TW figure (see Figure 3 caption) averaged over the surface area. The energy flow from the human energy production is based on Flanner (2009). Tidal energy is the total energy input from the gravitational interaction between the Earth, Moon and Sun; a small part of this energy is included in the energy flow from the Earth’s interior (see below for further discussion).

The net increase in the amount of planetary energy flow arising from human activities (mainly the greenhouse effects from emissions of carbon dioxide) since the industrial revolution is more than twenty times the steady-state heat flow from the Earth’s interior. Any small changes in the Earth’s heat flow over that time period—and there is no evidence for any change at all—would plainly be inconsequential.[...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Over millions of years, YES.
Over the last few hundred years, NO.
]

I disagree. The evidence disagrees. Think. LIA they say volcanoes had a major role in that.
About 75 k years ago a volcanic eruption that happened in the Indonesian islands resulted in a near extinction level event .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/t...phe_theory.htm

[Exile]

Informative discussion but an all too familiar back & forth, whether it's about the connection btwn. MMGW and solar variability, volcanic activity, sea level rise, coral bleaching, etc. In a nutshell, someone posts some science-backed contrarian views, Jack or another AGW advocate counters with why this is entirely wrong, the initial poster replies with quotes and citations showing dissent by other scientists and thus controversy, and then the all too familiar appeal to the IPCC. Hmmm . . . .

Here's a recent example:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes I have seen it before [re: the impact of solar variability on CC]

Quote:
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

That was just one persons [opinion] as you know, in the panel discussion which you commented on before too. Others of course said:

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.

For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.

and

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Originally Posted by jackdale

The whole report - http://www.nap.edu/download/13519

Lots of hypotheses, few conclusions.

Exactly! But this begs the question why the IPCC would represent solar variability's lack of impact on CC as an absolute. The absence of a temp signal in the sat data supports this to some extent, but apparently some scientists at both NASA & NOAA at least theorize about an impact on weather patterns and increased storms, a key component of the AGW alarmist mantra. It also begs the question why you have continually represented this as an absolute, esp. since you claim to have read the report.

So rather than get into more semantics about climate science being "settled" or not, maybe the approach should be to focus on what can reasonably be deemed "scientific fact" vs. "scientific theory." For a helpful explanation of how this is defined in the world of science, click here: Evolution Resources from the National Academies. For those of you actual scientists out there, and those schooled up on the science, what elements of this never-ending CC debate could or should be deemed scientific "fact" (e.g. evolution per the NAS link above), as opposed to scientific "theory?" (i.e. not a mere hypothesis or speculation, but known to a reasonable degree of consensus & certainty).

Seems to me it could be deemed a scientific "fact" that atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it was prior to the industrial revolution, but not entirely sure what degree of certainty science can provide beyond that. That is, the degree of certainty reasonably required to incur the societal & economic costs of the Paris proposals.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Informative discussion but an all too familiar back & forth, whether it's about the connection btwn. MMGW and solar variability, volcanic activity, sea level rise, coral bleaching, etc. In a nutshell, someone posts some science-backed contrarian views, Jack or another AGW advocate counters with why this is entirely wrong, the initial poster replies with quotes and citations showing dissent by other scientists and thus controversy, and then the all too familiar appeal to the IPCC. Hmmm . . . .

Here's a recent example:



I



Exactly! But this begs the question why the IPCC would represent solar variability's lack of impact on CC as an absolute. The absence of a temp signal in the sat data supports this to some extent, but apparently some scientists at both NASA & NOAA at least theorize about an impact on weather patterns and increased storms, a key component of the AGW alarmist mantra. It also begs the question why you have continually represented this as an absolute, esp. since you claim to have read the report.

So rather than get into more semantics about climate science being "settled" or not, maybe the approach should be to focus on what can reasonably be deemed "scientific fact" vs. "scientific theory." For a helpful explanation of how this is defined in the world of science, click here: Evolution Resources from the National Academies. For those of you actual scientists out there, and those schooled up on the science, what elements of this never-ending CC debate could or should be deemed scientific "fact" (e.g. evolution per the NAS link above), as opposed to scientific "theory?" (i.e. not a mere hypothesis or speculation, but known to a reasonable degree of consensus & certainty).

Seems to me it could be deemed a scientific "fact" that atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it was prior to the industrial revolution, but not entirely sure what degree of certainty science can provide beyond that. That is, the degree of certainty reasonably required to incur the societal & economic costs of the Paris proposals.

I agree with you at least I do try to connect my posts with polar cruising potential.

[newhaul]

Fwiw he increase in named storms has nothing to do with. CC it has much more to do with how insurance policies do storm damage deduct able calculations.
The deduct able is much higher if the damage was from a named storm verses just a severe weather event

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I agree with you at least I do try to connect my posts with polar cruising potential.

Can't help myself. While my boat probably has polar cruising potential, I don't think I do. Rather be too hot than too cold, but that's just me.

Not sure there are many answers when attempting to categorize scientific fact vs. theory in the world of CC, but it may also be one of the only ways of getting past what seems to be the inescapable politics. Short of a purely science-based clearinghouse for the various opinions & theories, that is. But at this point, can the issue ever really be purely science-based?

Originally Posted by newhaul

Fwiw he increase in named storms has nothing to do with. CC it has much more to do with how insurance policies do storm damage deduct able calculations.
The deduct able is much higher if the damage was from a named storm verses just a severe weather event

On many policies, yes. But I thought there had not been an overall increase in storms, named or not, and this has been one of the Hansen-inspired alarmist memes that has been debunked?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I disagree. The evidence disagrees. Think. LIA they say volcanoes had a major role in that.
About 75 k years ago a volcanic eruption that happened in the Indonesian islands resulted in a near extinction level event .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/t...phe_theory.htm

I think you're getting your grapefruit mixed up with your cherries.

The volcanic eruptions that you mention above were relatively short-term, and affected the weather/climate by the release of temperature-cooling aerosols, which reflected sunlight back into space.

On the other hand, the study I posted here is referring to much longer periods of volcanism, during which time large quantities of CO2 was released, which triggered a long-term warming trend in the climate.

Hello? Anything sound familiar?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="navy"]So rather than get into more semantics about climate science being "settled" or not, maybe the approach should be to focus on what can reasonably be deemed "scientific fact" vs. "scientific theory." For a helpful explanation of how this is defined in the world of science, click here: Evolution Resources from the National Academies. For those of you actual scientists out there, and those schooled up on the science, what elements of this never-ending CC debate could or should be deemed scientific "fact" (e.g. evolution per the NAS link above), as opposed to scientific "theory?" (i.e. not a mere hypothesis or speculation, but known to a reasonable degree of consensus & certainty).

Since you put some faith in the NAS.

Climate Change in general

https://youtu.be/gIUN5ziSfNc?list=PL...U7n7ZJOE8wvzVr

And specific to the topic at hand.

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Lots more on the site. Lots to learn.