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

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

.. I say it is asinine to base models over decades when you should be using century and millennia. ...

You are confusing models to predict events with a statistical analysis of past data here. Those are two different pair of shoes not to be mixed up.

The analysis of past data can be done with high school grade statistics skills. The development of models is a little bit more complicated.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes first I thought it was satire too but then I found this here: Today's Law As Amended

That just renews an older law that would have been time bared from litigation and affects corporation, etc that"directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition". Nothing in it violates a individuals freedom of speech.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

That just renews an older law that would have been time bared from litigation and affects corporation, etc that"directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition". Nothing in it violates a individuals freedom of speech.

Only on the surface I'm afraid. The targeted "unfair competition" is the oil cos.' alleged concealment of climate science that shows their product contributing more to GW than they have revealed. This "unfairly" bolsters their product at the expense of cos. producing alternative energy like solar & wind, thereby creating the purported "unfair competition" that most state consumer protection statutes are designed to thwart. Exact same legal theory advanced by the state AG's, except this one extends the statutes of limitation to allow prosecutors to potentially dig further back in time into oil co. records. This will allow for more discovery, more legal fees, and potentially a "chilling effect" on oil co. funded scientific research & public advocacy.

Scary stuff, imho, and a precedent everyone should reject since it could all too easily be used against the same people who are pushing it to silence their critics now.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes first I thought it was satire too but then I found this here: Today's Law As Amended

Great!!!...we can get Rich arrested for smiling with intent to laugh

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Great!!!...we can get Rich arrested for smiling with intent to laugh

I plead the 5th....haha

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I plead the 5th....haha

Really I figured you would drink the fifth not plead it

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Rich...This is a bogus site. The bill is not true.
TO ALL OTHERS. THIS LINK ADDS A TON OF ADWARE TO YOUR COMPUTER...Thanx Rich

This sort of scare tactic to discourage people from finding out the facts for themselves is a classic warmist approach.

So do tell us which of the two links you claim to be a bogus site?

The legitimate Washington Times site or the official government legislature.ca.gov site which contains the actual bill under discussion.

NO adware on either of them.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Then that truly amazes me...but yes when I went to the Washington post site, i received 3 pop-ups and my fan which rarely comes on was screaming. I just bought a new Toshiba SSD laptop. Maybe my anti-virus is weak.

So first you claimed that you Googled it. Now you say you went to the Washington POST.

The original link was direct to the Washington TIMES.

Clearly, you did not bother to read the linked article and are just indulging in the usual warmist spreading of FUD.

[SailOar]

Abnormal Arctic ice season may signal abrupt climate change | Mongabay

Following record-breaking high global temperatures, both Arctic Ocean sea ice and Greenland’s massive ice sheet have responded with dramatic early seasonal melting. These conditions are likely to increase overall ice loss during the summer months of 2016 as well as contribute to abrupt regional warming.

A so-called “Blue-Ocean Event” — a period during the melt season with less than one million square kilometers (a little over 386,100 square miles) of Arctic sea ice — was not expected to occur until 2070 to 2100 by most science modeling projections of the early 21st Century.

Recent polar ice observations, however, indicate extreme loss of volume. Many climate scientists now project the first “Blue-Ocean Event” within a decade or less. Some experts speculate it may even occur during the melt season of 2016.

Daily sea ice loss rates since late April 2016 have averaged about 75,000 square kilometers (about 29,000 square miles) per 24 hours, resulting in continuously record low levels.[...]

Scientists at the Denmark Meteorological Institute (DMI) recently announced Greenland’s ice sheet has begun melting about two months earlier than normal. The researchers consider melting season as the date when at least 10 percent of the surface of the ice sheet begins to melt. 2016’s onset of melt initiated April 11, with about 12 percent of the ice surface undergoing at least one millimeter of melt. The former record for ice melt onset was May 5, 2010.

Some of the models produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the complete melting of summer sea ice may directly contribute to “one-third of the warming of the Northern Hemisphere and 14 percent of total global warming by the end of the century.” The rapid melting of both Arctic sea ice and Greenland’s ice sheet appear as warnings of abrupt, severe climate change.[...]




Dashed green line: 2012, a record summer minimum
Solid green line: 2015
Red line: 2016

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

You are confusing models to predict events with a statistical analysis of past data here. Those are two different pair of shoes not to be mixed up.

The analysis of past data can be done with high school grade statistics skills. The development of models is a little bit more complicated.

I agree the analysis is far more complicated than the simpleton high school grade statistics being used by AGW alarmists are using. You still fail to address the core of my contempt for using decade time frames rather than what needs to be measured over millenia.

The AGW use a time frame that is Akin to taking an opinion poll of 2 people to gauge the national opinion on a given topic.

Please do not continue to be condescending. It is you who needs to be schooled in valid statistical analysis. You sir are totally underestimating my intelligence. You may understand equations in a limited sense as you have already demonstrated but you are obviously no MENSA member.

It is irritating to see the less intelligent educated fools display contempt towards those who are in fact their intellectual superiors. But there is non so foolish than the one who thinks he is all knowledgeable. The arrogance and lack of intellectual honesty of the AGW crowd is a classic case of foolishness.

I ask questions. I enquire. I question fundamental premise. I challenge mine and others thinking, constantly. This is a proper scientific approach. All this talk of settled science in order to halt questioning is both fascist in nature and anti science at its core.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by StuM

This sort of scare tactic to discourage people from finding out the facts for themselves is a classic warmist approach.

So do tell us which of the two links you claim to be a bogus site?

The legitimate Washington Times site or the official government legislature.ca.gov site which contains the actual bill under discussion.

NO adware on either of them.

I don't really care if YOU didn't receive pop-ups or not. Yes...it's a conspiracy. We are out to get you.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by StuM

So first you claimed that you Googled it. Now you say you went to the Washington POST.

The original link was direct to the Washington TIMES.

Clearly, you did not bother to read the linked article and are just indulging in the usual warmist spreading of FUD.

Ok Stu...let me try to walk you through this. I went to WP link first...received 3 pop-ups. I call that adware. You ok so far?
Then I read the so called bill...then I copied and paste the bill on Google. You with me still? The search brought up different hits for it. That's it!
So is it a real bill? According to the paranoid deniers...yes. Do I care? Not really. I just enjoy the banter back and forth.

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

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Ok Stu...let me try to walk you through this. I went to WP link first...received 3 pop-ups. I call that adware. You ok so far?
Then I read the so called bill...then I copied and paste the bill on Google. You with me still? The search brought up different hits for it. That's it!
So is it a real bill? According to the paranoid deniers...yes. Do I care? Not really. I just enjoy the banter back and forth.

Time to bulk up on anti spam software for your new PC??

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Time to bulk up on anti spam software for your new PC??

You're absolutely right! I'm amazed I paid as much as I did and had to install an online AVG anti-virus.
The WP site had rotating sidebar ads and I think one of them installed the pop-ups.
Ok...now lets get back to the drama.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I agree the analysis is far more complicated than the simpleton high school grade statistics being used by AGW alarmists are using. You still fail to address the core of my contempt for using decade time frames rather than what needs to be measured over millenia.

The AGW use a time frame that is Akin to taking an opinion poll of 2 people to gauge the national opinion on a given topic.

Please do not continue to be condescending. It is you who needs to be schooled in valid statistical analysis. You sir are totally underestimating my intelligence. You may understand equations in a limited sense as you have already demonstrated but you are obviously no MENSA member.

It is irritating to see the less intelligent educated fools display contempt towards those who are in fact their intellectual superiors. But there is non so foolish than the one who thinks he is all knowledgeable. The arrogance and lack of intellectual honesty of the AGW crowd is a classic case of foolishness.

I ask questions. I enquire. I question fundamental premise. I challenge mine and others thinking, constantly. This is a proper scientific approach. All this talk of settled science in order to halt questioning is both fascist in nature and anti science at its core.

And you are calling me condescending? Wow...

Please let me address every point in your post

1. Statistical analysis of past data is basic statistics, not very complicated.
2. Models that predict future events are much more complicated.
3. Models that are working perfectly on past data does not necessarily imply that those models can predict future events - And then you have to re-model the model.
4. Back to statistical analysis. Millenia you say? This is not even necessary. The analysis of the last 136 years shows 0.8Deg C raise in temperature. The sum of measurement and calibration errors of thermometers is larger than that.
5. I am a scientist and make my living with research. Although in a different field (Astronomy/Astrophysics). I'm not an expert in climate science and no I'm not even up-to date with the research in this field. (Don't have time to sieve through 20,000 papers)
6. I never took any side in the debate. I only explain methods and results. Sometimes I even comment on it (s.a. 4.)
7. You hit the nail on the head. I am nothing but an very well educated fool.
8. I also agree with you that science is never settled. (Otherwise I would be out of a job).
9. And I agree with the science, but not with the political interpretation. I even consider the IPCC a political and not a scientific organisation (Just look at the name, they don't even hide this fact!)

I hope that cleared this up.

This is getting really interesting.