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

[jackdale]

Some perspective

[hydrodane]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets

Opps....what happens when the Warming data is faked....

There is just too much money in the MMGW Game to let it go...

Yes, the selectively chosen data for a pure economic agenda really sets the formal original argument back for many people..it obscures what is truly important. It has become enormously important as a political branding tool, and also as a financial taxing burden that many nation states can exploit.

If I could get the sense of trust with the US gov't to actually efficiently and intelligently spend tax payers dollars, and focus their many agencies with that charter, I might actually be willing to go along with the twisted data they have claimed.

but as a whole, I am more inclined to watch private corporations for profit do the hard work...for example, private tech companies doing for pennies on the dollar satellite and rocket work. It's a real benefit indirectly for these companies to explode onto the scene and take away the power and the economic cartel like agencies, such as NASA The indirect effect is less cost to the taxpayer and actually creating more practical useable technology for the everyday user.

mark my words, in a few years, perhaps as few as 5, all of you blue water cruisers are going to access LEO massive bandwidth at a fraction of what you are paying now..Imagine having zero difference in cost of fiber quality bandwith offshore to a metro area. Already, I am seeing some other interesting technology groups focus on high flyers that will offer about the same thing that will provide regional coverage that is now only provided in a very narrow group of companies who charge impossible fees.

As a side note, I also can't see the government offering to give 99 percent of their net worth back to charities...so from alot of reasons, it is much more valuable in principle and economic efficiency for consumers to get off the government "sponsorship" and begin a better more robust relationship with real technology groups. I'm not nieve..I know some tech companies will exploit for political and financial reasons..the chief difference however, is you can always go shopping for better...not true with a government that big foots the entire operational possibilities.

[StuM]

This is what is known as a "fisking".

Originally Posted by jackdale

From real solar scientists

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

Does he have any evidence to support that claim about the relative magnitude of solar v anthropogenic forcings?

He may be an expert on the solar side, but does he have knowledge about the other side. Or is just reciting the IPCC/government line.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More recently

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015\

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

First sentence again is presented without evidence. Once again just repeating the party line.

And it's more "post modern science". Their two supposed "experiments" are no such thing. They are model runs. Despite the huge reliance on them in Climate "Science", models are neither experiments nor evidence. And the major climate models have already demonstrated their inability to accurate predict anything.

Also, their model only looked at one input variable - U/V irradiance. No consideration of other factors such as Svensmark's CLOUD experiments just to name one.


+++++++++++++++++++++

The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice
per year:

- 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 - McMillan - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

That has already been refuted by a subsequent study.
"A new NASA study challenges an accepted belief that Antarctica has lost billions of tonnes more ice to melt, than it has gained through snowfall.Instead, according to the study findings, the vast East Antarctic ice sheet accumulated snow at a high enough rate in recent decades to outweigh losses elsewhere around the frozen continent, and to reduce sea level.

Antarctic ice loss challenged by new NASA study

So change that -159 to to +112 to reflect current knowledge

+ 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Yep, that's a PLUS sign

- 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

PIOMAS = Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System

Again this "data" is model, not measurement based .

But if you look at that model output you will also see that Arctic sea ice has apparently been increasing according to that model for several years. In the last 5 years, the annual average appears to have increased steadily by about 3000 cubic kilometers. (3000 GT) or about 600 GT per year

So change that - 261 GT to + 600. to reflect current conditions.

- 378 Gt Greenland, An improved mass budget for the Greenland ice sheet - Enderlin - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Paywalled. And the abstract doesn't say anything definitive about total mass loss so I don't know where that figure came from.

However, looking at the NSIDC graph at http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/fil...avier_Fig5.png it's been going on since 1949 at least which is before AGW supposedly had any major effects. And the current annual change is the same as it was in the 50's (around 300 GT).

So let's change that -378 to -300

- 259 Gt other land based glaciers, A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise: 2003 to 2009

= - 1,031 Gt, total

Corrected figure based on the above = - 101 GT

And the big question is. How much of that is from anthropogenic causes, given that we know that glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of years?

[arsenelupiga]

impact of humans of nature is very real and destructive. mickey mouse game yes, yes, no yes, noo... played by leading structure cannot hide this.

look at polluted water... or forests that dissapeared and building industry that swallows massive areas to build properties for speculating chinese & over breeding inidians.

and now we all have to be happy to eat GM food. Even 50 years ago everyone eat organic.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some perspective

Heeeessssss baaaacccckkkkk...

Posting faked data again....

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Number of science academies on the planet that dispute the conclusions of the IPCC = 0

Number of science academies on the planet that endorse the heartland funded NIPCC = 0

Hahahahahahahah

That's pretty much all such a bogus comment as that deserves...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

look at polluted water... or forests that dissapeared and building industry that swallows massive areas to build properties for speculating chinese & over breeding inidians.

In the old industrialised countries air and water quality is currently better than before. In London the air is now cleaner than it has ever been in the previous 4 centuries.
And forest area is increasing. in Europe and North America.

and now we all have to be happy to eat GM food. Even 50 years ago everyone eat organic.

The reals meaning of organic means "carbon based". Gasoline is organic.

But the marketing meaning of organic means "use only methods that were used 1 1/2 century ago". So yes, in 1900 people mostly ate "organic". And half of all deaths were children under 5 years. You really want those times back?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hahahahahahahah

That's pretty much all such a bogus comment as that deserves...

Can we see some evidence that it is bogus?

I will make it easy:

- provide 1 science academy on the planet that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

- provide 1 science academies on the planet that endorses the Heartland funded NIPCC.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

There are approximately seven billion reasons that the earth is becoming a less pleasant place to live. There does not seem to be a morally or politically practical means of reducing that number. I suspect that a means neither morally or politically desirable will in the (likely near term) future achieve that reduction. It won't be pretty.

Jim (who is normally a pretty optimistic guy)

I'm afraid you may be correct Jim. While China, India and others are polluting with free abandonment we have infestations of newer and more dangerous bacteria. Then as in the past, the virus called humanity has a way of keeping in check population growth.

We will either have infectious disease reduce the population or we may have a war that will do the job. Either way it won't be pretty. No natural self adjustment in nature is.

But then we may continue to defeat disease. We may also become more enlightened that we do not have a war that kills 100's of millions of breading age people. And we may indeed come up with alternatives to the dirty energy pollution the atmosphere in places like China and India in particular. We can only hope and work for the best. In the meantime I am going to enjoy my floating home and enjoy the far off places away from the craziness of the crazy places.

Chaya

[SV THIRD DAY]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/frances-top-weatherman-hired-by-kremlin-after-being-fired-for-questioning-global-warming/

Speak out against the Hoax and lose your job....that's the game.

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Heeeessssss baaaacccckkkkk...

Posting faked data again....

Any evidence to back up that claim?

[GordMay]

Philippe Verdier, weather broadcaster & author:
➥ https://translate.google.ca/translat...ml&prev=search

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There is just too much money in the MMGW Game to let it go...

There is far more money in big oil and other similar industries. Pot, meet kettle.

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/frances-top-weatherman-hired-by-kremlin-after-being-fired-for-questioning-global-warming/

Speak out against the Hoax and lose your job....that's the game.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[exMaggieDrum]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I'm afraid you may be correct Jim. While China, India and others are polluting with free abandonment we have infestations of newer and more dangerous bacteria. Then as in the past, the virus called humanity has a way of keeping in check population growth.

We will either have infectious disease reduce the population or we may have a war that will do the job. Either way it won't be pretty. No natural self adjustment in nature is.

But then we may continue to defeat disease. We may also become more enlightened that we do not have a war that kills 100's of millions of breading age people. And we may indeed come up with alternatives to the dirty energy pollution the atmosphere in places like China and India in particular. We can only hope and work for the best. In the meantime I am going to enjoy my floating home and enjoy the far off places away from the craziness of the crazy places.

Chaya

I rented and just watched a DVD: "Kingman the Secret Service". It was not at all some I thought it would be. Actually it was as much farce as it was spy movie. But the basic thread was that the evil guy (Samuel Jackson) was rich and developed a Sim chip that he gave away for free to the world, and he had a satellite network and transmitter that would activate all the chips at once. When activated the chips would cause the cell phones to transmit some special frequency that would turn all the people around it in to hyper-aggressive zombies who would proceed to kill everyone around him. His view was that there were too many people in the world and the population needed to be culled.

Unfortunately I think he was on to a need but the solution was pretty crazy. Our human DNA (and all living things) are hard-wired to procreate as fast as possible. We are also hard-wired to hate anyone who looks, acts, feels different than we are so our DNA will survive and take over where possible. I think may be conservatives are programmed to kill liberals and v.v. Best solution: they all die.

On another topic: can we correct or fix current practice to get things back on a healthier track? The book that is popularly called the first environmental wake-up call was "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson. I read it in 1972 so I am fuzzy on the details but basically it was about how DDT was rapidly killing off a lot of our fauna (not to mention the flora which it was designed to kill). The best example were birds in that it caused the egg shells to be weaker and they would break killing the fetus. We almost completely killed off the bald eagle from this as one example. DDT was subsequently banned (in the US and most places, may be all now) but with considerable arguments against that since it was going to hurt the bottom line of a lot of companies.

Now bald eagles are doing well. We have a lot around here. They are truly majestic creatures. I had one come to my marina every morning and sit on the mast top of a beautiful 50' sailboat. He would cry out and the gulls would pester him but he didn't care. His mate would show up but couldn't sit next to him on the mast. Unfortunately the boat was completely white-washed causing the owner much grief. I don't think he ever figured out a deterrent to the bird. I loved to hear him though.

So some types of damage can be reversed over time if action is taken in time. It doesn't do much for the current generations who continue to lose chicks but over time the cleaner environment lets them get past it and survive. I think there are some parables here.