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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Here's proof of Global warming. Croc's have been spotted in Southern Tasmania

Red....red is the universal color of Hot....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
This para. from the same article seems to balance out your comments better:

“Compared to the Arctic, global warming causes only weak Antarctic sea ice loss, which is why the IPO can have such a striking effect in the Antarctic," said Bitz. "There is no comparable natural variability in the Arctic that competes with global warming.”

HOWEVER. It seems like we've heard a lot about Antarctic ice retreat on the western side of the continent due to MMGW, and ice expansion in the east (may have reversed that) due to increased snowfall from MMGW-induced warmer temps. What gives? Have I misunderstood or is there valid scientific uncertainty concerning Antarctic ice?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not sure it will answer your valid questions, but here is another article on that research:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ange-doubters/

This WP article actually answered my questions quite a bit better, and the answer seems to be that there is a LOT of valid scientific uncertainty that still exists about the Antarctic. And since science is starting to better understand how regional factors affect other parts of the world (like supposedly more pronounced Arctic warming than the global average), resolving this uncertainty will likely have yet-to-be-discovered impacts elsewhere.

So with all the doubts detailed in the WP article, how come it is titled "This new Antarctica study is bad news for climate change doubters?" And how come, if it's been known that Antarctica is more subject to natural forces than other regions, the model predictions of more warming were so wrong? And why is this new study such "bad news for climate change doubters" if, as the article acknowledges, "scientists don’t fully understand why Antarctic sea ice is growing?" The posited explanations listed in the article aren't even described at some level of scientific theory, but rather as mere hypothetical "suggestions."

Now add the ongoing controversy about the correlation/disparity btwn. emissions, CO2, and warming, or the disparity btwn. the various data sets on temperature. And then consider that there seems to be no measurable evidence of sea level rise or even an accepted methodology for measuring it. Or how about the predicted doomsday scenarios that haven't been realized, the myriad of complex factors that influence the extent of Arctic ice in addition to warming temperatures, to name a few of the fundamental uncertainties surrounding climate science. I'm not sure what it all means, but it seems more than ample to call FOUL on the degree of grossly exaggerated scientific "certainty" we are being told exists by the IPCC, the politicians, the media, and several posters on this thread. You know, that level of certainty that is "just like" the link btwn. smoking and cancer/heart disease.

Not that there exists no credible evidence of MMGW, obviously. There certainly is reason to believe that there is. But we've been told that this amounts to an avg. of 1.5 degs since the start of the industrial revolution, and that it will most likely "accelerate" to another 2 degs. over the next 84 years! But it's also interesting what we're not being told, for example what temps. were reached during pre-industrial warming cycles due solely to natural forces, and how those warmer temps affected human and other life. Or whether the doomsday predictions appeared during the Medieval Warming Period, or how many times in the past Arctic ice has retreated to the level it has been doing in more recent years.

I don't think "doing nothing" is necessarily the answer either, either because there are other undesirable problems with fossil fuels or simply as a precautionary matter, but the mitigation should fit both the degree and likelihood of harm that has reasonable scientific certainty at this point in time. And that determination should come from the scientists through politically neutral, objective outlets. Not politicians, political bodies, pseudo-sociologists (with physics degrees), people with other socio-economic, political or environmental agendas, or the media. While the cost of doing nothing may or may not be high, the cost of overreacting are likely far higher.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Antarctic sea ice in 2014
On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers (about 7.7 million square miles) for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Antarctic increased ice: "for the first time since 1979"
Arctic decreased ice "record low".

Considering they are using the same data sets, it's strange how they so rarely say:

Antarctic increased ice: "record high"
Arctic decreased ice "for the first time since 1979".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Antarctic increased ice: "for the first time since 1979"
Arctic decreased ice "record low".

Considering they are using the same data sets, it's strange how they so rarely say:

Antarctic increased ice: "record high"
Arctic decreased ice "for the first time since 1979".

Now that I'm more aware how widespread this not-so-subtle propaganda is, I'm noticing it more & more. Little wonder how otherwise fair-minded people with no particular agenda will naturally assume the worst. But we already know that's the whole idea because we read it time & again right here -- scare people into becoming believers by exaggerating the threats, and ignoring or minimizing contrary evidence. If that doesn't work, then stigmatize, stereo-type, and marginalize. Meanwhile the actual science becomes secondary.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Now that I'm more aware how widespread this not-so-subtle propaganda is, I'm noticing it more & more. Little wonder how otherwise fair-minded people with no particular agenda will naturally assume the worst. But we already know that's the whole idea because we read it time & again right here -- scare people into becoming believers by exaggerating the threats, and ignoring or minimizing contrary evidence. If that doesn't work, then stigmatize, stereo-type, and marginalize. Meanwhile the actual science becomes secondary.

Now whan you say "exaggerating", do you mean... not a lie exactly but just a subtle twist, like WSJ "the top 20% of income earners pay approx. 80% of all income taxes", (where it's not untrue per se, but also doesn't truly portray the full personal tax burden)... or do you mean deliberate link-baity untruths like the Daily Caller's usual headlines?

[captlloyd]

The ice and water does not seem to care if you believe in climate change.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by captlloyd

The ice and water does not seem to care if you believe in climate change.

Anyone here who doesn't believe that climate changes all the time?
...
Anyone?
...
Anyone?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Now whan you say "exaggerating", do you mean... not a lie exactly but just a subtle twist, like WSJ "the top 20% of income earners pay approx. 80% of all income taxes", (where it's not untrue per se, but also doesn't truly portray the full personal tax burden)... or do you mean deliberate link-baity untruths like the Daily Caller's usual headlines?

Uh-Oh . . . another LEDZ approaches!

No, I meant exactly what I said, although "exaggerating" is probably the nicest way of describing most of SailOar's alarmist articles, or Jack's method of only presenting one side and ignoring or misrepresenting other valid scientific evidence. I agree with you that this is rather "twisted," but cannot agree there is anything "subtle" about it. But hey, we don't want to talk about, you know, the science -- let's talk about my posts or the Daily Caller instead.

Since you so enjoy the "tactic" of, among other niceties, misrepresenting other peoples' posts, I did you the favor of copying relevant portions of mine below and highlighting in RED where I wrote that the article was primarily comparing how much govt. revenue is derived from U.S. income taxes btwn. the top 20% and bottom 40% of income earners. Not only are the numbers not untrue -- "per se" or otherwise -- but they are from a nonpartisan source. But do you even know what nonpartisan means?

Originally Posted by Exile

facts from the Tax Policy Institute, a nonpartisan source as reported by the WSJ (also available from the GAO):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-o...8674384http://

When it comes to federal income tax which is the largest source of govt. revenue in the U.S. (about half), the top 20% of income earners pay approx. 80% of all income taxes. The bottom 40% receive more govt. benefits than they pay out in income taxes (often none). The U.S. income tax is also considered more progressive than many other western countries whose VAT taxes on consumption account for a much higher percentage of govt. revenue, but also amount to a much "flatter" tax and are therefore regressive. As the article and its source point out, the numbers above change a bit when you factor in social security & medicare taxes, but the U.S. tax system is highly progressive by most standards.

I used the word but to indicate that the percentages when including SS & Medicare taxes are also reported in the article, and that they are a bit different. As I recall, when including these additional taxes the top 20% of income earners account for about 67% of all federal revenue, and the bottom 40% as a group pay a little more than they take in from benefits. So the middle 40% contribute roughly 30% of revenues if SS/Med are included, and only about 20% if they are not. The problem with including SS & Medicare is that the unemployed usually don't have to pay it, employers are required to withhold it from their employees' compensation and pay both, and the self-employed are required to pay both an employer and employee share. There is also the unemployment tax which adds yet another variable. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inte...elf-employment. So as most have likely already figured out but you probably never will, leaving these taxes out of the total personal tax burden analysis results in a more accurate picture of how much revenue is being derived from income taxes based on taxpayer income , and thus a more realistic framework for evaluating "fairness" when it comes to the largest single source of govt. revenue. You know, like comparing "apples-to-apples."

But by all means, include these additional FICA taxes or fumble with the numbers any way you like, but under any honest analysis it will lead to the conclusion that the U.S. tax system is highly progressive by most measures, in part because the wealthy pay higher rates and in part because the U.S. doesn't have a general consumption or VAT tax. But if you'd like to keep embarrassing yourself, I have recent GAO (nonpartisan Govt. Accountability Office) numbers which will further debunk the liberal meme that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, and that they fail to do so at the expense of the middle class.

Enough of this boring tax stuff. Why don't you see if you can answer Stu's rather complicated question. Take all the time you need. We'll wait.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Anyone here who doesn't believe that climate changes all the time?
...
Anyone?
...
Anyone?

Probably.

Some people on net forums believe in anything you could dream up.

More interesting is why has the planet been warming so quickly very recently (and set to continue it seems).

If anyone here doesn't believe that release of greenhouse gasses is involved then 2 questions:

Why not and what has?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Probably.

Some people on net forums believe in anything you could dream up.

More interesting is why has the planet been warming so quickly very recently (and set to continue it seems).

If anyone here doesn't believe that release of greenhouse gasses is involved then 2 questions:

Why not and what has?

Please quantify "so quickly" and "very recently".

And explain the reason for your choice of your "very recently" timeframe.

Also, please explain your understanding of the word "involved" in this context - preferably by quantifying it as a percentage range of your stated warming.

And finally, please explain your rationale for "set to continue it seems"

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Please quantify "so quickly" and "very recently".

from what I've read of the science, the past century or so has seen a significant increase in global heat content, this seems near instant in climatic terms without an asteroid or volcanoes involved.



And explain the reason for your choice of your "very recently" timeframe.

Same as above

Also, please explain your understanding of the word "involved" in this context - preferably by quantifying it as a percentage range of your stated warming.

like everyone else here, I'm not a climate scientist so don't know, but have to rely on those who do that for a living. The lower end seems to be the likes of the very cautious Judith Curry at around 50%



And finally, please explain your rationale for "set to continue it seems"

over decadal scales the graph of temp increase is pretty constant, why assume it will change?

So if greenhouse gases aren't a significant driver - why not and what is?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

[...]No, I meant exactly what I said, although "exaggerating" is probably the nicest way of describing most of SailOar's alarmist articles, [...]

What do you make of the fact that these "alarmist" articles are reporting on scientific studies conducted all over the world, in a wide range of disciplines, and are being reported in a wide range of news media, including those right of center like Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and even Fox News? It's got to be the most successful scam ever foisted on the gullible people of world, right?! Sure is a relief that there are a few good people who cannot be swayed by fact, reason or data the forces of evil and darkness!

[SailOar]

New York City Is Weighing Ambitious Plans for Flood Defenses | MIT Technology Review
[QUOTE]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

"exaggerating" is probably the nicest way of describing most of SailOar's alarmist articles, or Jack's method of only presenting one side and ignoring or misrepresenting other valid scientific evidence.

No trolling there, nope.

[SailOar]

The world has the right climate goals — but the wrong ambition levels to achieve them | Washington Post