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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um no, the tobacco lobby and their "institutions" managed to muddy the waters, attack the findings and keep the association between tobacco and cancer out of health policy for 50+ years. That's not losing. The tobacco companies paid for a result and they got it.

When you want to do science, you hire scientists. When you want someone to do for AGW what was done for tobacco & cancer ... guess who gets hired. And again, they're delivering.

[yawn]. Of course they are. After all, someone other than the advocates trying to pitch AGW must be blameworthy. Last I checked Drs. Christy, Spencer, Curry and several hundred other skeptics in the science community weren't employed by the Heartland Institute. [yawn]

Any other helpful complaints?

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Lie is exposed Folks...
Climate Scientists: Antarctic Temperatures Cooling Every Year Since 1998

Antartic Temps have actually been Cooling every year since 1998!

You can't make this stuff up, the science and data say one thing, but the MMGW Cultists say a complete different thing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Lie is exposed Folks...
Climate Scientists: Antarctic Temperatures Cooling Every Year Since 1998

Antartic Temps have actually been Cooling every year since 1998!

You can't make this stuff up, the science and data say one thing, but the MMGW Cultists say a complete different thing.

Just in case anyone is running for their safe spaces on account of Third Day's linking to Breitbart, here's the opening paragraph of the actual article from Nature (the rest is pay-walled):

Since the 1950s, research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula have recorded some of the largest increases in near-surface air temperature in the Southern Hemisphere1. This warming has contributed to the regional retreat of glaciers2, disintegration of floating ice shelves3 and a ‘greening’ through the expansion in range of various flora4. Several interlinked processes have been suggested as contributing to the warming, including stratospheric ozone depletion5, local sea-ice loss6, an increase in westerly winds5, 7, and changes in the strength and location of low–high-latitude atmospheric teleconnections8, 9. Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.

In fairness, we saw some recently posted evidence that Antarctica is less affected by anthropogenic forces than other regions of the planet. Not sure how much of a scientific "consensus" that theory enjoys, however. Either way, many have blamed AGW for warming in the Antarctic back to the 1950's and it seems pretty clear that this alarmism is not panning out based on the data.

There is also little dispute that the Arctic sea ice is also affected significantly by natural forces such as winds, run-off, currents, and other unknowns. The scientific debate centers around how much anthropogenic forcing also affects it, namely warmer temps. The fact that, despite these warming temps Arctic sea ice is now greater than it was 4 years ago when it was at record lows, and the fact that there is wide variance in sea ice extent throughout various Arctic regions, may be evidence that, as Judith Curry theorizes, MMGW plays less of a role in the Arctic as well.

But then we have someone amongst us keeping up on the Curry blog do we not? Too bad we seem to rarely receive information suggesting not much other than 2016 is a record year for ice loss in the Arctic, and that it's primarily due to MMGW of course.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Many of the links are to studies that come to no definitive conclusions, but simply argue that "maybe" bad things "could"happen, "if" the assumptions made are correct, and "if" the "modeling" is robust, and "if" the data are comprehensive and accurate. And usually, links are to studies that state that more study is needed, because...you know...we made a bit of progress in understanding an issue, but really don't have a clear understanding of it...and funding is needed, of course.

One other small point...with some frequency, valid points are made by skeptics. Those points are almost always rebutted with vigorous rancor, with arguments filled with fallacies. Why? (I suspect it's because the points ARE valid.) It erodes both the credibility of the poster and does not to advance the argument that AGW is a problem when that happens.

These are two important points, imho, and both help explain many of the misperceptions about the "certainty" of the science.

The lack of definitive conclusions in much of the actual scientific literature use qualifiers because, to their credit, the scientists themselves (for the most part) recognize the uncertainties and do not wish to overstate, distort or mislead. There are always exceptions, of course, but I suspect the vast majority of scientists are professional and honest. Starting off with a theory and then trying to prove it is not improper bias but rather how the scientific method often works. The bias comes in when the govt. politicizes research institutions with appointments and funding so that there is a disproportionate number of scientists actively engaged in trying to prove only one side of the case. To that end, everyone who is sincerely interested in reaching valid scientific conclusions should welcome the private funding that enables skeptics to attempt to prove contrarian theories. This will either hasten the validation or the debunking of the mainstream science, so either way more unencumbered research should prove helpful and not a hindrance as so many have been taught to believe.

In sharp contrast, however, are the media, blogs, and zealots (often with a much more ambitious agenda) who turn uncertainty into certainty through their use of language and cherry picked evidence from only one side. This emboldens the zealots and reinforces what otherwise fair-minded people are hearing from their politicians and MSM outlets. I suppose I can claim some credibility in making this comment because I used to be one of those seduced into not questioning the mainstream view. In fact it's fair to say I don't fit into most peoples' brain-numbing labels & stereotypes.

As for fryewe's second and related point, the marginalization and attempted initimidation of the skeptics by calling them "deniers," or pointing to their politics or religious faith, has probably been more effective than anything coming out of the evil lobbyists at the Heartland Institute. Not that there aren't skeptics or more politically-orientated media outlets that don't use improper and misleading bias on that side as well. But constantly and superficially attacking the messenger, as opposed to ferreting out such bias in the message itself, strongly suggests the absence of a credible response on the merits.

[fryewe]

Another example that erodes the credibility of the "mainstream" AGW policy arguments:

From pjmedia/instapundit:

JOHN KERRY: AIR CONDITIONERS AS BIG A THREAT AS ISIS:

Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna on Friday that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big of a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.

The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and inhalers.

“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

As someone tweeted in response, just imagine if Trump had said this. But let’s put Kerry and his party to the “global test:” When Congress returns from vacation, one of the first bills to be put up for a vote should ban the use of air conditioning at Foggy Bottom.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Another example that erodes the credibility of the "mainstream" AGW policy arguments:

From pjmedia/instapundit:

When will anyone in the MMGW Cultist movement get embarrassed and kick some of these people out of the Cult?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Another example that erodes the credibility of the "mainstream" AGW policy arguments:

From pjmedia/instapundit:

I'm actually hoping someone comes along and debunks this. Please, say it ain't so.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

When will anyone in the MMGW Cultist movement get embarrassed and kick some of these people out of the Cult?

Doesn't seem to ever happen. Just like how agreeing with part of the platform but not others is unacceptable. Can you believe in Jesus but not the Virgin Mary??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Another example that erodes the credibility of the "mainstream" AGW policy arguments:

From pjmedia/instapundit:

Does this mean I should start hoarding air conditioners to sell later when the price of them goes up ten fold?
Sounds like a good retirement plan if it were true

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Does this mean I should start hoarding air conditioners to sell later when the price of them goes up ten fold?
Sounds like a good retirement plan if it were true

The Examiner article is a little bit misleading...just like Kerry's comments.

The aim of the agreement is to eliminate R134a from cooling systems to avoid release into the environment (GW gas) by directing that alternatives that have been approved be used.

One such alternative is described here - HCR188C - English Home Page, and is very promising...competitive as a refrigerant with lower costs of material, less wear, and less corrosive. It's a mix of propane, isobutane, butane and ethane. But wait...aren't those fossil fuels? Derived from fractional distillation of crude oil?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by fryewe

The Examiner article is a little bit misleading...just like Kerry's comments.

The aim of the agreement is to eliminate R134a from cooling systems to avoid release into the environment (GW gas) by directing that alternatives that have been approved be used.

One such alternative is described here - HCR188C - English Home Page, and is very promising...competitive as a refrigerant with lower costs of material, less wear, and less corrosive. It's a mix of propane, isobutane, butane and ethane. But wait...aren't those fossil fuels? Derived from fractional distillation of crude oil?

Suppose that means my pielter refer heat pipe system can't use 404a will have to use an explosive petrolium gas instead? That sucks

[Exile]

I always thought 134a was the environmently safer alternative to R12 which was depleting the ozone. Now 134a is bad? That's it, I'm going back to margarine, super-sized soft drinks, and cigars.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Another example that erodes the credibility of the "mainstream" AGW policy arguments:

From pjmedia/instapundit:

Would you, by any chance, have a link to what Kerry actually said? I cannot find any news source anywhere with an actual quote.

[newhaul]

LE there are so many I can't decide which to link to so here ya go a Google start for ya to do your homework with john kerry air conditioners are bad - Google Search

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Would you, by any chance, have a link to what Kerry actually said? I cannot find any news source anywhere with an actual quote.

The Examiner quoted him as saying:

“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

I didn't go looking for another source. I'm amused by this quote, but if you look at my subsequent post, you'll see that I characterized the article as a bit misleading. I don't make a habit of chasing down media stories...I just take them with a grain of salt and move on. Journalists and journ-o-lists make their money stirring the pot (looking for the tempest). Facts are not always of interest to them, and I'm not sure any other story in the MSM would include Kerry's complete comments. Maybe the signing was on C-Span and you can view it there.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by newhaul

LE there are so many I can't decide which to link to so here ya go a Google start for ya to do your homework with john kerry air conditioners are bad - Google Search

Thanks for doing all that hard work, newhaul.

I looked over the search results...and decided to take a look at climatechangenews.com because it appeared to be Kerry's remarks in toto...but there it was, at the bottom...a note saying the remarks were "extracts" from his speech. Wonder what was omitted?

One thing did catch my eye...

And the use of hydrofluorocarbons is growing. Already, the HFCs used in ...inhalers, and other items are emitting an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually...

I'm assuming the HFCs in inhalers must be propellents for which there are adequate substitutes. Guess I'll have to break into a sweat Googling it to find out. Surely State and EPA aren't trying to regulate medication formulae.