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

[GoingWalkabout]

La Niña will bring its full impacts to the U.S. throughout the winter season, Pastelok said.

In the East, snowfall is expected to be around normal. La Niña could lead to some big East Coast systems during the second half of the season.

"Areas like southern New York state and northeastern Pennsylvania that missed out on snow last year could see higher-than-normal totals this winter," Pastelok said.

Colder-than-normal conditions are predicted to grip the northern Rockies and northern Plains over the late fall and into the winter, with some harsh spells at times.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Couldn't help but thinking of my friends and comrades here at CF while watching this episode of QandA. It fairly screams out for someone to ask Mr. Roberts what his definition of 'empirical evidence' actually is...

I'd suggest the empirical evidence might simply be looking out the window. Nothing's changed of any significance climate wise since 1850.

Or maybe it refers to looking at the evidence of increased farm yields, increased productivity, reduced infant mortality, longer lifespans, reduced working hours, improved working conditions, better medical procedures, healthier forests, better lifestyle and literally thousands upon thousands of other positives not including the possible dissolving shells of some obscure marine organism.

Or maybe it refers to the piddly alleged temperature increase relative to the 150 degree Celsius extremes of temperature recorded on the planet. Which is even more piddly when expressed as Kelvins.

Or maybe it refers to NASA claiming effects of warming as more intense hurricanes in one particular location, drought increases in another particular location (even when regional benefits are scoffed at by alarmists whenever positive outcomes are suggested) and sea level rise disguised as a modern phenomena when in fact it has been rising for the past twelve thousand years.

Yes sir, that q & a guy must be off his rocker to question the science.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd suggest the empirical evidence might simply be looking out the window. Nothing's changed of any significance climate wise since 1850.

NASA's on line 2; they'd like to have a look out your window. It seems better than what they're seeing from their terrestrial and orbiting windows or instruments.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

NASA's on line 2; they'd like to have a look out your window. It seems better than what they're seeing from their terrestrial and orbiting windows or instruments.

What do they see?
What do you see?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

^^ The Farmer's Almanac is not a recognized forecaster of climate (or weather).

But it consistently provides more accurate long range forecasts than government meteorologists.

[SailOar]

Center of U.S. tornado activity shifting east and south, possibly due to climate change | Purdue University

A Purdue University research team has found that the center of tornado activity in the United States has shifted in recent decades, and this shift is possibly influenced by climate change.

“This completely redefines annual tornado activity in the United States,” said Ernest Agee, a professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Findings detailed in a paper that appeared Aug. 4 in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, published by the American Meteorological Society, show evidence that the central area of annual tornado activity has moved from Oklahoma to Alabama.

Agee’s team studied data from the past 60 years to look for a shift in annual tornado activity. The team divided the 60 years into two groups: 1954-1983, which was a time of cooler temperatures compared to an increasingly warmer second period, from 1983-2013.

Data showed a notable decrease in both annual counts and tornado days in the traditional “tornado alley” of the central plains, aided by declines in summer and autumn. However, annual values were sustained in the southeast with some increase in “Dixie alley” due in part to substantial autumn seasons increases from Mississippi to Indiana, Agee said.[...]

[SailOar]

Climate change already accelerating sea level rise, study finds | PHYS.org

Greenhouse gases are already having an accelerating effect on sea level rise, but the impact has so far been masked by the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).[...]

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Climate change already accelerating sea level rise, study finds | PHYS.org

The problem us "mere mortals" have with this kind of story is that the eruption of that volcano was well known. And it was well known that particulates from volcanoes have a significant effect on climate. Yet the alarmists did not correctly get that into their models. Thus us mere mortals (aka un-alarmed) are left to wonder whether it was an honest mistake or if modeling simply cannot predict accurately the future changes in climate? But we almost never get the answer to that question. Actually, some scientists have been brave enough to publish their findings with the caveat that Earth's climate is a chaotic, non-linear system which makes accurate modeling of the entire system impossible. If the alarmists would tell that simple truth to the public I believe they would get more support for their position. Instead they beat people up with "consensus" and a never ending list of published stories about the certainty of the horrible future we face. Its a simple concept, tell people the truth and they will listen much more intently.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The problem us "mere mortals" have with this kind of story is that the eruption of that volcano was well known. And it was well known that particulates from volcanoes have a significant effect on climate. Yet the alarmists did not correctly get that into their models. Thus us mere mortals (aka un-alarmed) are left to wonder whether it was an honest mistake or if modeling simply cannot predict accurately the future changes in climate? But we almost never get the answer to that question. Actually, some scientists have been brave enough to publish their findings with the caveat that Earth's climate is a chaotic, non-linear system which makes accurate modeling of the entire system impossible. If the alarmists would tell that simple truth to the public I believe they would get more support for their position. Instead they beat people up with "consensus" and a never ending list of published stories about the certainty of the horrible future we face. Its a simple concept, tell people the truth and they will listen much more intently.

Try to separate the science and the people doing it, from the groups doing advocacy and the media outlets who write it up. The latter group are the 'alarmists'; scientists put together the models.

Notwithstanding, I don't agree that the scientists have failed to include volcanoes, or made other such errors. They've been at this for a while...

Yes climate is a big complex chaotic system that is currently impossible to make completely predictive models for. But you can consider it in two components: the normal chaotic spread, and the long-term average trend. The long-term heating trend that correlates with AGW is unmistakeable, and the broad effects (ocean warming, acidification, polar ice loss, change to weather patterns) are pretty much happening as predicted by the models.

That's the truth, but people can't or won't grasp it. There was a lovely little example of innumeracy a while back:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...Or maybe it refers to the piddly alleged temperature increase relative to the 150 degree Celsius extremes of temperature recorded on the planet. Which is even more piddly when expressed as Kelvins.

No, the actual change does not get bigger or smaller because you switched units. It's the same when deniers go on about the amount of atmospheric CO2 only increasing by roughly 160 ppm (0.00016) since 1850. Yes but that represents a 40% increase in that short span- a buildup that has not happened so fast ever before, as far as we can tell. And is still trending upwards.

See, the truth is out there, Scully, and if you can get past the 'alarmist' popular media stories, you can find it. The 'consensus' isn't a myth; the majority of people in science don't doubt the reality of AGW and that it's going to have impact.

[Reefmagnet]

Actually, the significance of the Kelvin is that it commences from absolute zero i.e. the point where no thermal energy exists. This means that the difference of atmospheric thermal energy increase between so called pre industrial levels and modern levels can be seen in true proportion rather better than when expressed using a scale based upon the phase changes of water. Using the Kelvin scale, the Earth's average global temperature has (allegedly) increased from an average 286.9 K to 288 K in the past 166 years, or roughly 1/3%. This method of determining actual percentage increase is EXACTLY the same as you have previously advocated as being only valid way of expressing increased CO2 atmospheric content over this same period to arrive at the approx 40% you have also previously quoted.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, the significance of the Kelvin is that it commences from absolute zero i.e. the point where no thermal energy exists. This means that the difference of atmospheric thermal energy increase between so called pre industrial levels and modern levels can be seen in true proportion rather better than when expressed using a scale based upon the phase changes of water. Using the Kelvin scale, the Earth's average global temperature has (allegedly) increased from an average 286.9 K to 288 K in the past 166 years, or roughly 1/3%. This method of determining actual percentage increase is EXACTLY the same as you have previously advocated as being only valid way of expressing increased CO2 atmospheric content over this same period to arrive at the approx 40% you have also previously quoted.

No my friend, that's ********, intended to deceive. The planet's life does not exist happily at every point between 0 and whatever, Kelvin, for starters. It seems you want us to blindly go on this great experiment, pushing the biosphere's temperatures higher than this current set of organisms has experienced, instead of being a little bit cautious about it. Why?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No my friend, that's ********, intended to deceive. The planet's life does not exist happily at every point between 0 and whatever, Kelvin, for starters. It seems you want us to blindly go on this great experiment, pushing the biosphere's temperatures higher than this current set of organisms has experienced, instead of being a little bit cautious about it. Why?

No BS, buddy. Just facts. An inconvenient truth, if you like. If you don't think the average thermal energy contained within the atmosphere has increased by a bit more than one third of one percent over the last 166 years, feel free to provide your numbers. BTW, how's the view from your window?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No BS, buddy. Just facts. An inconvenient truth, if you like. If you don't think the average thermal energy contained within the atmosphere has increased by a bit more than one third of one percent over the last 166 years, feel free to provide your numbers. BTW, how's the view from your window?

I'm not disputing your "1/3%", just that it tells us nothing useful about what that change will bring, and your attraction to unit-fiddling highlights your refusal to recognize the magnitude of the effect we are having on our own atmosphere and climate, in a way that's actually relevant to us organisms that depend on them.

If you're not doing this deliberately, then I concede that it's not BS, just ignorance.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not disputing your "1/3%", just that it tells us nothing useful about what that change will bring, and your attraction to unit-fiddling highlights your refusal to recognize the magnitude of the effect we are having on our own atmosphere and climate, in a way that's actually relevant to us organisms that depend on them.

If you're not doing this deliberately, then I concede that it's not BS, just ignorance.

So the 1/3% tells us nothing....yet your 200ppm to 400ppm does?
See this is the game...the MMGW Cultists can show no predictive scientific models but they say "but we can't risk it...what if we are right". Right about what, they have no idea, but if the holy scriptures say CO2 is Sin, then by God we must fight a War on CO2. The Climate Jihadists have left the field of Science long ago, and not anyone who speaks out against the Cult is a Denier or a Heretic. Lets Prosecute them evil Deniers...lets take away their freedom of speech because drawing a photo of the prophet CO2 of talking blasphemy of the prophet is a sin, a sin punishable by FaceBook and Internet chat room death.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So the 1/3% tells us nothing....yet your 200ppm to 400ppm does?
See this is the game...the MMGW Cultists can show no predictive scientific models but they say "but we can't risk it...what if we are right". Right about what, they have no idea, but if the holy scriptures say CO2 is Sin, then by God we must fight a War on CO2. The Climate Jihadists have left the field of Science long ago, and not anyone who speaks out against the Cult is a Denier or a Heretic. Lets Prosecute them evil Deniers...lets take away their freedom of speech because drawing a photo of the prophet CO2 of talking blasphemy of the prophet is a sin, a sin punishable by FaceBook and Internet chat room death.

I'll ignore your small misstatement on quoted values. it's not as if you and are scientists.

So, you think a human-caused 40% increase in atmospheric CO2, in 160 or so years, isn't significant?

The rest of your 'cult' rant can safely be stuffed back up the orifice from which it originated.