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

[newhaul]

Don't know about Christmas but it has snowed in the grand Bahamas .
Back in 1977 . The Day it Snowed in The Bahamas | Nassau / Paradise Island, Bahamas | Bahamas Local News - Nassau / Paradise Island, Bahamas

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Don't know about Christmas but it has snowed in the grand Bahamas .
Back in 1977 . The Day it Snowed in The Bahamas | Nassau / Paradise Island, Bahamas | Bahamas Local News - Nassau / Paradise Island, Bahamas

Interesting. Thanks newhaul. Strange that this occurred well into the industrial revolution caused global warming period.

Reading the comments section of the referenced article I found this.

"Dean Counts
Firefighter/EMT at Clark County Fire District 13
It snowed last month in the hills in Guadalupe Island much farther south, granted not on the beach but still weird
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · Apr 10, 2016 12:09pm "

Looks like global warming is causing snow to fall on Guadalupe Island now.

[StuM]

Will we see antarctic winter sea ice extend expand to block circumpolar flows at Cape Horn with a consequent total disruption of global climate?

Cape Froward is at almost 54°S and winter antarctic sea ice already gets to north of 60°S.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

This is a good one. Using their own argument. Hilarious!

You are expecting too much from the participants here, which are mostly blinded by their political believes (left and right) and do not understand the underlying science at all.

The worst thing is both sides do not even try to get a scientifically balanced view, relying only on sources (cut and paste/quoting) confirming their believes (there is no AGW/there is AGW) and consequently ignoring everything that would contradict this believe. Even worse, both sides are discrediting sources, which do not fit in their world view. I think there is a word for that. Ah yes, it is called bias.

This is a thread where the whole argument can be summarised as: "See Prof.Dr.John Doe said it and therefore I'm right and you are an ignorant imbecile/true believer" followed by the counterargument "John Doe is a charlatan, he is not even a Prof. How stupid can you be believing him?"

However, this is exactly what makes this thread so entertaining.

You'll notice not one of them from either side wanted to touched this one. Rather continue on their merry path of did to-did not, is to-is not strategy.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Atmospheric CO2 contributes to atmospheric warming. It's a simple scientific fact.

Ah great then.
Since it is a simple scientific Fact, then you (or the MMGW Cultists) can tell us (by means of a predictive model) what the temperature rise will be per ppm of CO2 increase.

That's the way simple scientific facts work, they are known and understood well enough to make models and accurately predict the future.

Hmmmm...you mean you can't do that with CO2....well...hmmm...maybe it isn't a simple scientific fact after all.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ah great then.
Since it is a simple scientific Fact, then you (or the MMGW Cultists) can tell us (by means of a predictive model) what the temperature rise will be per ppm of CO2 increase.

Let's start with a simpler question.

When the sun shines down on a black asphalt parking lot, how much of the radiant energy from the hot asphalt is absorbed by the atmosphere, and how much radiates out into space?

[SV THIRD DAY]

That's a trick question that those without a proper understanding of the 4th Law of Thermodynamics won't have a chance at getting right. Can they Google it...

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ah great then.
Since it is a simple scientific Fact, then you (or the MMGW Cultists) can tell us (by means of a predictive model) what the temperature rise will be per ppm of CO2 increase.

That's the way simple scientific facts work, they are known and understood well enough to make models and accurately predict the future.

Hmmmm...you mean you can't do that with CO2....well...hmmm...maybe it isn't a simple scientific fact after all.

Please stop with the name calling if you want to have a discussion. "Cultist" is a derogatory name IMO implying an inability to think for one's self.

Scientists are able to calculate how much heat is trapped by CO2 alone. Were it not for the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere Earth would be wintery pretty much everywhere. It's also why higher elevations are colder than lower elevations.

Climate involves many other effects which are difficult to separate from the effect of CO2 alone. Just because something is hard to model doesn't make it untrue.

[SV THIRD DAY]

So lets reveiw shall we:

Denier is ok...
Cultist is bad...
Go it.

The MMGWC say adding CO2 to the atmosphere in PPM levels will make the earth uninhabitable for humans and cause calamity.
BUT when asked what amount of temp a PPM of CO2 will cause so we can plan or put a compare/contrast list together for said PPM of CO2...well that's complicated, can't model it, but they believe it on faith anyway.
Ok...Got it.

Translation:
We have no idea how much CO2 is bad, but we are going to change the world's economy based on our guess and tax the citizens for "Climate Change" when the history of Climante on the Earth is to...TA-DA...Change.

Sorry, as a scientist myself, that's not how Science works, but it IS how a Religion or Cult works, which is why the phrase MMGWC is so fitting. Facts don't matter, science doesn't matter, only Religion and Faith matter to the Warming Alarmists. The sacrament of climate sin is washed away by the CO2 Credit and Recycling your glass bottles. To deny MMGW is to Deny Gia and her Deity.

Man this thread is fun.....

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Scientists are able to calculate how much heat is trapped by CO2 alone.

They know that a doubling or tripling of CO2 would, in and of itself, have a minimal effect on climate.
They also know there are myriad interacting feedback loops which might act to magnify or diminish the effects of CO2.
And they guess that net of these feedback loops is to significantly increase global temperatures - for which they have no actual evidence. They do, on the other hand, have multiple computer models, none of which has been able to successfully prove the past.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So lets reveiw shall we:

Denier is ok...
Cultist is bad...
Go it.

Actually denier is ok. That is what's happening Rich, on both sides. It's not like you are being called an extremist even though it might be accurate. People just want to be treated with respect. Not much to ask really.

[fryewe]

https://weather.com/forecast/regiona...montana-photos

Snowing at 6500 feet in July in three western states. It's abnormal. But...

It's just weather.

But if were hotter at 6500 feet in July in three western states, media and talking science heads would make inferences that the high temps contributed to a pattern showing...ta-da!!!...AGW.

How long before someone says the cold air being carried south from the Arctic is an indication of how we've screwed up the wind patterns with...ta-da!!!...AGW?

Is the melting sea ice in the Arctic contributing to these wind patterns?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Jdege

They know that a doubling or tripling of CO2 would, in and of itself, have a minimal effect on climate.
They also know there are myriad interacting feedback loops which might act to magnify or diminish the effects of CO2.
And they guess that net of these feedback loops is to significantly increase global temperatures - for which they have no actual evidence. They do, on the other hand, have multiple computer models, none of which has been able to successfully prove the past.

Bingo...if you can't plug in the data and make it predict the past and present then they don't have Science. They have a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) as apposed to just a WAG (Wild Ass Guess).

So based on this SWAG...they want to do WHAT to the world?
They Want how much in fees, Taxes and Regulations?
Green is the new Red folks...it's all about a means to justify the control of the masterminds who don't have any better Science than you...but have a better religion (IE Cult) in the vernacular.

[[On edit: remember I was once part of the MMGW Cult myself, wrote the papers, presented at the conferences, did the air testing. But then I figured out that the data/science didn't matter and being a scientist I bailed on the Cult, which is why I can call it a Cult...I was on the inside and managed to get out while watching other literally drink the KoolAid to protect/save their jobs, positions, and special interests]]

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Actually denier is ok. That is what's happening Rich, on both sides. It's not like you are being called an extremist even though it might be accurate. People just want to be treated with respect. Not much to ask really.

I don't mind being called a skeptic, but DO mind being called a denier.
I suggest you revisit your conclusion after reading below:


From thesaurus.com
skeptic


or sceptic


Noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

denier



noun 1. a person who denies.

-------------------------------

The former indicated conscious thought processes, whereas the latter does not.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Is the melting sea ice in the Arctic contributing to these wind patterns?

Funny you should ask

Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled "Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall", was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. "The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents."

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Je...?entrynum=2065