Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 19-04-2018, 23:29   #526
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,482
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet
Too bad you blew it taking three days to figure out how to back-pedal.
Oh, and, you do realize this thread was closed, and then was (somewhat mysteriously) reopened? And that some people have lives extant to CF? Or that it's not too hard to 'figure out' the obvious...

Still having trouble with the 'How?' word are we...
__________________

jimbunyard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2018, 23:31   #527
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 7,446
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Volcanic activity is due neither to cosmic rays or to climate change. However, both might affect when volcanoes erupt, and it is certainly easier for a scientific layman, such as myself, to understand how climate change could affect volcanic activity. For instance, it is well known that many volcanoes erupt seasonally.

"We suggest that the well-documented slow deformation of Earth’s surface that accompanies the annual movements of water mass from oceans to continents acts to impose a fluctuating boundary condition on volcanoes, such that volcanic eruptions tend to be concentrated during periods of local or regional surface change rather than simply being distributed randomly throughout the year."

Just read that paper. Living where I do on the ring of fire, it was of interest.

Most frequent in January, least frequent in July.

And it never occurred to them that the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical with perihelion in January and aphelion in July?

Correlation does not equal causation.
__________________

StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2018, 23:54   #528
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,482
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Side note the the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Jim Bridenstine he is now the new confirmed man in charge of NASA
Perfect, one step closer to civil war or revolution, 1x10e8, 2100, rah! rah! rah!

Certainly compensates for the hypothesised-effect of cosmic rays on the 20% of rhyolitic volcanoes on Earth...
jimbunyard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 00:09   #529
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,482
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by conachair View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Seemed like it was worth repeating.
And yet again, with the caveat that the people without lemon juice on their faces fail to realize and/or appreciate why those that do have it do...seems quite the double-edged sword to me...
jimbunyard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 06:47   #530
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,479
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Perfect, one step closer to civil war or revolution, 1x10e8, 2100, rah! rah! rah!

Certainly compensates for the hypothesised-effect of cosmic rays on the 20% of rhyolitic volcanoes on Earth...
Jim it was more like they finally did something. They have been debating this person for 7 months. If they would have done this in a couple weeks instead of several months . More important things could have been accomplished.
Btw looking historically in geological timeframes. 90% of the vei5 to vei7 eruptions have happens during times of low solar activity and thereby higher cosmic ray flux.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 07:08   #531
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,037
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Just read that paper. Living where I do on the ring of fire, it was of interest.

Most frequent in January, least frequent in July.

And it never occurred to them that the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical with perihelion in January and aphelion in July?

Correlation does not equal causation.
I'm not a scientist or an engineer, but my unreliable intuition suggests that at perihelion and aphelion the rates of change (and therefore the stresses) might be at their lowest, while halfway between perihelion and aphelion the rates of change might be highest??

By way of analogy, I'm thinking about a tidal flow being the greatest halfway between low tide and high tide.

It should be noted that the eccentricity of Earth's orbit is relatively minor at 0.0167, where 0.0 is a circle, and 1.0 is a line. But sometimes little things make big differences.

Edit to add:
Thinking more, I'm now wondering if the greatest stresses on the Earth would be at perihelion (in January), when the Earth is closest to the Sun, and moving the fastest??

However, the reason the scientists gave for the increased volcanism in January (in both the northern and southern hemispheres, is because the greater land mass of the northern hemisphere collects a greater amount of snow (and more snow=increased weight) in the northern winter than the southern hemisphere does in the southern winter.
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 07:59   #532
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,037
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Wrong side of history??! More than a little melodramatic, no? Or is this just the moral shaming gambit for those who don't see things the same way. Next we'll read that if you don't believe in the entire AGW mantra then you don't love your children. What took you so long, btw??

I'm not preventing you from posting your extensive library of pro-CC articles & propaganda, only informing how they're coming across to me.
Very generous of you, given that I am the OP.
Quote:
If you believe that others find them credible or worthwhile, then by all means. You are aware, however, of the story about the boy who cried wolf too many times, right?
I don't think I am inappropriately crying wolf. Rather, I think you and your denier buddies have your heads buried firmly in the sand. The recent scientific reports I'm reading suggest that, at best, earlier scientific projections regarding AGW are happening as expected, and at worse, they are happening much faster than expected.

Quote:
Bias and conformity are natural human traits, and ones which I'm certainly not immune from. But being able to identify and discount such influences seems more essential than ever these days. You obviously see things differently and I respect your commitment & devotion to one of the more important issues of our time. Showing a bit more tolerance for other points of view, however, could serve you and your cause well.
In most of the articles I post about scientific studies I make no personal comment. However, certain members of this forum seem to have a compulsive knee-jerk reaction to immediately respond to those posts with an inane, poorly thought out, negative statement. Towards them I have very little tolerance.
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 08:53   #533
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,801
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post

The recent scientific reports I'm reading suggest that, at best, earlier scientific projections regarding AGW are happening as expected, and at worse, they are happening much faster than expected.

Exactly my point. The articles that you're reading. But if you're talking about Arctic sea ice, at least one of the scientific blogs I've been referencing to has a bunch of scientists agreeing that the impact of AGW on retreating seasonal ice remains largely unknown. But then these are comments from actual climate scientists and not lay journalists working for publications with a political and/or financial agenda. CC makes for good copy in case you didn't know.

In most of the articles I post about scientific studies I make no personal comment. However, certain members of this forum seem to have a compulsive knee-jerk reaction to immediately respond to those posts with an inane, poorly thought out, negative statement. Towards them I have very little tolerance.
Regardless of how they may respond, the bottom line is that they have opinions that differ from yours, and that's bothersome for you.
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 09:49   #534
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,037
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar

The recent scientific reports I'm reading suggest that, at best, earlier scientific projections regarding AGW are happening as expected, and at worse, they are happening much faster than expected.
Exactly my point. The articles that you're reading. But if you're talking about Arctic sea ice, at least one of the scientific blogs I've been referencing to has a bunch of scientists agreeing that the impact of AGW on retreating seasonal ice remains largely unknown. But then these are comments from actual climate scientists and not lay journalists working for publications with a political and/or financial agenda. CC makes for good copy in case you didn't know.
Since you proudly claim to not read either the articles I post or the underlying scientific articles, I hardly think your opinion can be considered well informed.
Quote:
Quote:
In most of the articles I post about scientific studies I make no personal comment. However, certain members of this forum seem to have a compulsive knee-jerk reaction to immediately respond to those posts with an inane, poorly thought out, negative statement. Towards them I have very little tolerance.
Regardless of how they may respond, the bottom line is that they have opinions that differ from yours, and that's bothersome for you.
When two of us are merely expressing our opinions (e.g. (me) "I don't like Trump"; (you) "I like Trump") I don't find that particularly bothersome, however misguided I think you might be. However, when I post a journalistic report from a news agency about a scientific study, and someone counters with their own personal opinion, or with a supposed rebuttal from a discredited "scientific" source, then, yes, I find that bothersome. And don't bother again bringing up your opinion that the news sources are horribly biased themselves. We've already argued that, and I've shown, at least for the one case that you posted about the Gulf Stream slowing down, that the majority of the news organizations make similar reports, and so are probably not wildly biased.

I wish I had the time and scientific training to read, understand, and evaluate the original scientific documents. But I don't; and I suspect neither do most of the rest of us. So we have to do the best we can with secondary sources of information that we can understand, like news reports , textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. I hope, and trust, that the compilers of these sources have more experience in scientific matters than I do, and that they make a good-faith attempt to report the science as accurately as possible.

I have reason to believe that my otherwise blind trust in these intermediary sources is not misplaced. A number of news organizations, for instance the New York Times, and the Washington Post, allow comments to be made after many of their articles. These two journals have nation-wide, and even world-wide circulation, and as such are read by people with a wide range of scientific expertise. If their journalistic analysis is poor, many of their readers are quick to point that out in the comments section. The fact that the NYT and the WP (among other news sources), have a relatively small number of scientifically critical comments, suggests to me that they are doing a reasonably good job of representing the scientific studies accurately.

On the other hand, many of the critical comments I see on this thread are poorly documented with scientific studies. I am not in the least apologetic in calling them out.
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 10:42   #535
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,479
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Seems kind of funny or rather hypocritical that when Sailoar posts about the AMOC it is considered a good post by some on here however when I posted the same thing several months ago citing a study on it by David Dilley it was discounted as sensationalism.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 11:12   #536
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,037
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Seems kind of funny or rather hypocritical that when Sailoar posts about the AMOC it is considered a good post by some on here however when I posted the same thing several months ago citing a study on it by David Dilley it was discounted as sensationalism.
Newhaul,
One of the many problems I have with your posts is that you make assertions without backing them up with data. In this case, you claim to have made a post about AMOC that was discounted as sensationalism. Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't. Why don't you include a link to the post in question so that we can see if your assertion is correct or not?

If you are uncertain how to do so, here is how:
-Find the post in question.
-Right-click on the post number at the top-right corner of the post.
-Click on "COPY LINK LOCATION"
-Then, in the post you are currently writing, right-click and click on PASTE.
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 12:15   #537
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 5,479
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Newhaul,
One of the many problems I have with your posts is that you make assertions without backing them up with data. In this case, you claim to have made a post about AMOC that was discounted as sensationalism. Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't. Why don't you include a link to the post in question so that we can see if your assertion is correct or not?

If you are uncertain how to do so, here is how:
-Find the post in question.
-Right-click on the post number at the top-right corner of the post.
-Click on "COPY LINK LOCATION"
-Then, in the post you are currently writing, right-click and click on PASTE.
I will get to it when I get back on grid later this week
Also for the record I do provide reference links in my posts unless they are entirely personal opinions and observations.
Some of which thanks to Eric for his first hand knowledge and inuit contacts has shown the icebreaker theory to be more truth than as some feel fantasy on my part.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 12:19   #538
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,801
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Since you proudly claim to not read either the articles I post or the underlying scientific articles, I hardly think your opinion can be considered well informed.

When two of us are merely expressing our opinions (e.g. (me) "I don't like Trump"; (you) "I like Trump") I don't find that particularly bothersome, however misguided I think you might be. However, when I post a journalistic report from a news agency about a scientific study, and someone counters with their own personal opinion, or with a supposed rebuttal from a discredited "scientific" source, then, yes, I find that bothersome. And don't bother again bringing up your opinion that the news sources are horribly biased themselves. We've already argued that, and I've shown, at least for the one case that you posted about the Gulf Stream slowing down, that the majority of the news organizations make similar reports, and so are probably not wildly biased.

I wish I had the time and scientific training to read, understand, and evaluate the original scientific documents. But I don't; and I suspect neither do most of the rest of us. So we have to do the best we can with secondary sources of information that we can understand, like news reports , textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. I hope, and trust, that the compilers of these sources have more experience in scientific matters than I do, and that they make a good-faith attempt to report the science as accurately as possible.

I have reason to believe that my otherwise blind trust in these intermediary sources is not misplaced. A number of news organizations, for instance the New York Times, and the Washington Post, allow comments to be made after many of their articles. These two journals have nation-wide, and even world-wide circulation, and as such are read by people with a wide range of scientific expertise. If their journalistic analysis is poor, many of their readers are quick to point that out in the comments section. The fact that the NYT and the WP (among other news sources), have a relatively small number of scientifically critical comments, suggests to me that they are doing a reasonably good job of representing the scientific studies accurately.

On the other hand, many of the critical comments I see on this thread are poorly documented with scientific studies. I am not in the least apologetic in calling them out.
I don't recall ever pronouncing "I like Trump," and have much respect for many of my friends who fall on either side of that particular issue. But the inevitable stereotyping & labeling is not new to these threads. This one just took a little longer to devolve to that level. Once again you're having trouble dealing with opposing opinions.

I'm probably in a similar position to you when it comes to being a layman who has a hard time delving into the primary sources surrounding this complex scientific debate. But if you have not attempted to read at least part of the Judith Curry blog and look at the historical ice graph previously discussed, you wouldn't understand that, despite the broad consensus that AGW exists and is playing a role in Arctic sea ice conditions, there remain many doubts about the extent of AGW's role vs. natural forces. You also wouldn't understand why the actual data shows seasonal ice at an all-time high over the past century or so, but at the same time retreating in the summer months at what many scientists deem "dramatic" levels. I'm sure you can comprehend summaries & abstracts as well if not better than I can, but yet you continue to rely -- exclusively it seems -- on secondary sources that are often biased in ways you apparently are unaware of. I can only assume this is because you are predictably uncomfortable reading contrary facts & opinions, have an understandable need for confirmation of your own views, and because you likely only cite but don't often actually read the underlying primary science.

I only surmise this because saying that the Wash. Post & NYT are generally neutral sources of information about the mainstream view on CC is like me saying that IBD & National Review are generally objective sources for CC skepticism (or "denial" as you seem to prefer). Bias & conformity are quite natural human conditions, and I have no illusions about changing your's or anyone else's opinions. I'm only pointing out that, more often than not, where people fall on politically charged issues comes down to what we choose to watch & read, and what we choose to watch & read usually comes down to what we're most comfortable believing. All perfectly predictable and understandable, but you shouldn't be so surprised and bothered if the sources you cite only reflect one side of a multi-faceted, complex, and often nuanced scientific debate, and people push back on it.
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 14:07   #539
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,037
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I don't recall ever pronouncing "I like Trump," and have much respect for many of my friends who fall on either side of that particular issue. But the inevitable stereotyping & labeling is not new to these threads. This one just took a little longer to devolve to that level. Once again you're having trouble dealing with opposing opinions.
No, I'm not aware if you've ever said "I like Trump." I have no idea whether you do or don't. It was my bad to use "Trump" for my example.

I meant to use "Trump" merely as in illustration of what someone once famously said:

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Again, my apologies for suggesting you said something that you, if fact, didn't say (at least not to me).

Quote:
I'm probably in a similar position to you when it comes to being a layman who has a hard time delving into the primary sources surrounding this complex scientific debate. But if you have not attempted to read at least part of the Judith Curry blog and look at the historical ice graph previously discussed, you wouldn't understand that, despite the broad consensus that AGW exists and is playing a role in Arctic sea ice conditions, there remain many doubts about the extent of AGW's role vs. natural forces. You also wouldn't understand why the actual data shows seasonal ice at an all-time high over the past century or so, but at the same time retreating in the summer months at what many scientists deem "dramatic" levels. I'm sure you can comprehend summaries & abstracts as well if not better than I can, but yet you continue to rely -- exclusively it seems -- on secondary sources that are often biased in ways you apparently are unaware of. I can only assume this is because you are predictably uncomfortable reading contrary facts & opinions, have an understandable need for confirmation of your own views, and because you likely only cite but don't often actually read the underlying primary science.
I've pretty much stayed clear of that argument. It seems clear to me that summer arctic sea ice extent has been diminishing since the satellite records began, about 1980. But what it was 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, I haven't studied closely.
Quote:
I only surmise this because saying that the Wash. Post & NYT are generally neutral sources of information about the mainstream view on CC is like me saying that IBD & National Review are generally objective sources for CC skepticism (or "denial" as you seem to prefer). Bias & conformity are quite natural human conditions, and I have no illusions about changing your's or anyone else's opinions. I'm only pointing out that, more often than not, where people fall on politically charged issues comes down to what we choose to watch & read, and what we choose to watch & read usually comes down to what we're most comfortable believing. All perfectly predictable and understandable, but you shouldn't be so surprised and bothered if the sources you cite only reflect one side of a multi-faceted, complex, and often nuanced scientific debate, and people push back on it.
I didn't complain about your posting an IBD article. It was a valid scientific discovery. Other news sources reported on the same story:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8290836.html

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...1171523017222/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0405140946.htm

As I said before, we will need to give scientists time to double check the original research, and to incorporate the new data into the climate models.

The first part of the IDB article was okay (in my opinion). The second part, following the header A Coming Paradigm Shift?, they moved away from reporting scientific discoveries and moved into editorializing. Editorializing is certainly their prerogative, but we shouldn't mix it up with responsible science journalism.

I see that IBD has added an addendum to their article:
Quote:
UPDATE: A group of climate scientists took issue with this editorial, calling it misleading and derogatory. You can read our response to their criticism here.
You seldom see backlash like this by climate change scientists against climate change articles in the New York Times, or the Washington Post. I believe that is because they generally do a much better job of making an unbiased report of a scientific study than IBD did with the nitrogen study.

Here are some of the scientist's responses to the IBD article.
Quote:
Benjamin Houlton, Professor, University of California, Davis (first author of the Science study):
Our nitrogen study does not detract from the urgency of the climate problem, nor the unequivocal evidence of the role of carbon pollution in causing global climate change. The climate threat is clear and present and we must solve it rapidly by reducing emissions and capturing existing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Rock nitrogen, if shown to be a significant part of the terrestrial cycle in future research, will continue to contribute to carbon storage in vegetation and soil. But the amount of rock nitrogen available is not enough to counterbalance the need to aggressively reduce carbon emissions worldwide. Our study does not suggest or imply that rock nitrogen will solve global climate change. Rather, we must invest in a clean energy economy and create negative carbon capture technologies at scale to reduce the risks of climate change on people, infrastructure, natural habitats, and the economy.

Charles Koven, Research Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab:
This editorial totally misrepresents many things: the way nitrogen limitations are currently accounted for in global warming projections, the importance of the newly published work in governing carbon uptake by plants, and the way in which scientists construct models and incorporate new results.

Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Antwerp:
The article includes several false statements and flawed reasonings, and suggests without evidence that scientists refuse to see when their model assumptions and projections are wrong.

Peter Thorne, Professor, Maynooth University:
Misleading inference. Nitrogen availability is just one factor in net primary productivity (carbon sequestration over land). Other factors include but are not limited to seasonal temperatures and precipitation patterns and availability of other nutrients. In some areas nitrogen may well be limiting but to imply it is the limiting factor is without basis.

Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Antwerp:
This source has always existed, and still many ecosystems are nitrogen limited. This demonstrates that nitrogen from rocks cannot resolve nitrogen limitation.

Charles Koven, Research Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab:
This is wrong. The majority of Earth system models used for global warming projections in the most recent IPCC assessment didn’t include any nitrogen constraints at all. What this means is that they assumed plants would be able to take up excess CO2 without this nutrient limitation—so its a case where almost all the models have a known limitation that will bias their results towards assuming less global warming than they should. So the Houlton paper, if correct, suggesting that the limitation by nitrogen is weaker than some previous estimates, would still imply a stronger constraint than the Earth system models that don’t include nitrogen at all.

Peter Thorne, Professor, Maynooth University:
Given that nitrogen by volume constitutes 78% of the Earth’s atmosphere it could hardly be described as limited.

Climate scientists know that the ability is limited because we can, within uncertainties, close the carbon budget. This closure shows that roughly for every three carbon dioxide molecules emitted by fossil fuel combustion one is ending up in the ocean, one in the terrestrial biosphere, and one remains in the atmosphere. This is an observed and verified behaviour. Plants are removing approximately 1/3 of the excess carbon added by humans and this has remained broadly stable over several decades.

... etc, etc, etc...
SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2018, 17:42   #540
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,801
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

You've hit on the one sentence that speaks volumes. Easy to comprehend in the abstract but often difficult to distinguish between the two. And then there's the distinction in CC science between facts, often in the form of undisputable data, and scientific opinion with regard to what that data means. The eventual write-up by a layman journalist with a possible agenda could be far afield from where "the science" actually stands on the subject.

I've pretty much stayed clear of that argument. It seems clear to me that summer arctic sea ice extent has been diminishing since the satellite records began, about 1980. But what it was 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, I haven't studied closely.

This came up not too long ago in the thread where Curry tweeted that, despite the large summer season retreats in recent decades, Arctic sea ice has been at its greatest extent during the past couple of centuries than it was during the entire Holocene Period, except for the Little Ice Age. Some context for those who read opinion articles which purport to attribute recent seasonal losses of Arctic sea ice solely to MMGW, and then believe the case is therefore closed. (see graph below)

The first part of the IDB article was okay (in my opinion). The second part, following the header A Coming Paradigm Shift?, they moved away from reporting scientific discoveries and moved into editorializing. Editorializing is certainly their prerogative, but we shouldn't mix it up with responsible science journalism.

I had the same take on it and couldn't agree more.

I see that IBD has added an addendum to their article:

This is an excellent follow-up SailOar and I thank you for presenting it. It's a rare opportunity to see some actual debate btwn authors of scientific research papers and the journalists who report and comment on them. IBD responded to the criticism, of course, which you linked to but did not quote. I thought IBD made some fair points in their own defense but on balance still believe they embellished the significance of the nitrogen discovery.

You seldom see backlash like this by climate change scientists against climate change articles in the New York Times, or the Washington Post. I believe that is because they generally do a much better job of making an unbiased report of a scientific study than IBD did with the nitrogen study.

I'm not surprised by your belief, and you probably won't be surprised by mine, which is that you don't see the same pushback in the NYT or WP because their readerships and editorial boards share the same bias towards the mainstream CC position that is promoted almost exclusively. I'm sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but I believe this applies in most cases. As one insightful NYT op-ed put it in explaining why trust in the news media has declined, "Americans say they want accuracy and impartiality, but polls suggest what most of us want is to hear what we believe."

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...type=undefined


Here are some of the scientist's responses to the IBD article.
Again, very refreshing to read this back & forth, provided of course that we also consider a few of IBD's responses to the critiques:

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ibd-editorial/
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DXYZiI9VQAEm1jw.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	114.8 KB
ID:	168451  
__________________

Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
passage

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Northwest Passage Colorado Dreamer Polar Regions 23 19-04-2018 11:12
Crew Wanted: North Sea passage to Shetland- Scotland- june 2018 roda Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 2 16-04-2018 16:30
Time for Northwest - Passage 2018 jackdale Polar Regions 98 26-01-2018 13:42
Crew Wanted: ARC Europe - BVI to Portugal May 2018 to June 2018 jhill82 Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 10-12-2017 06:30
Crew Available: French-Californian sailing couple for east-west passage beginning of January 2018! PerrineNate Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 23-11-2017 09:57



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.