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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes that is a myth.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Settled science is a be-arch.

Insulating layer of air above the Greenland ice sheet reduces precipitation – Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen

The Earth’s climate has been warming, but even though the Greenland ice sheet is melting rapidly in the coastal regions, there are large parts of the ice sheet (40 percent) where there has hardly been any melting on the surface. A warmer climate usually also means that there is more precipitation, but there has been no increase in the amount of precipitation on the ice sheet. New research with participation of the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this is due to an insulating layer of air that forms near the surface during the winter, which insulates the ice sheet from the upper atmosphere and reduces both evaporation and precipitation. The results are published in the scientific journal, Science Advance.

So either a warming climate causes more precipitation in polar regions. Or less. Which is it?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

From the infamous closed (!?) thread, I must (unfortunately) quote myself (though I think others said pretty much the same thing in different words):


"Science is rarely 'settled'; as more information is gathered and tested, paradigms change. Hence, now (most of us) believe the earth is an oblate spheroid that circles the sun (not so 450 or so years ago), that life forms are not fixed, but change over time (not so roughly 150 years ago, except by the illiterate and ungrateful half of Americans [and others] who don't understand evolution), that Newtonian gravity isn't relevant at the quantum level (roughly 100 years ago), and that the climate is not constant and is changed at a variable rate by a large variety of factors (150 years ago to now). Doesn't mean the 'old science' was bad, just that it wasn't complete..."


And a word about 'settled'. Like most words, this too has several meanings, depending on, among other things, context and intent. Can't speak for others, but if I were to say the 'the science (of human induced climate change) is settled', that would mean that the body of evidence is such that effectively all scientists and (somewhat) educated laypeople would agree that said evidence is strong enough to treat it as an actionable fact (which is of course exactly what one sees if they look at what the every day, working scientists write. There is virtually no disagreement among them on it as a working theory; biologists use it to explain evolutionary change, geologists use it to explain mineral formation and geophysical structural changes, the list goes on and on...)

What isn't settled is the rate or amount of change and that is precisely what has the 'alarmists' (and should have any rational cautionary person) worried. Most data indicate that both the rate and amount of change taking place now hasn't been experienced by humans as we know us for about 60K years; the result of that catastrophe was a 'population bottleneck' that resulted in there being more genetic diversity in two sparrows sitting next to each other at your bird feeder than is represented in the entire human genome (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much). That is if one believes the scientists...

But hey, .... maybe we need another little 'population bottleneck'. You willing to take the chance?

Respectfully Jim, I don't think that's an accurate or fair representation of the current state of climate science. "Taking the chance" or balancing the risks against the costs is ultimately what society and its leaders will have to determine based on science that has a more reasonable degree of certainty than where it's at now. But it's not just about the science itself, but the trustworthiness of the proponents. In the U.S. anyway, the public is divided, polarized, and distrustful of its opposition on many issues that affect them more immediately and significantly. In this environment, and regardless of which side is to blame, the extreme politicization of this scientific issue is very unfortunate.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Settled science is a be-arch.

Insulating layer of air above the Greenland ice sheet reduces precipitation – Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen



So either a warming climate causes more precipitation in polar regions. Or less. Which is it?

This is what is happening

Fall, winter, and early spring snowfall in Greenland is near-average, except in South Greenland where anomalies are higher than the interannual variability. Above average snow totals occurred in the southeast while snowfall was below average along the southern western coast where the early melt event occurred. Last season’s snow can absorb much of this early meltwater. However, a lower than normal winter snowpack combined with this early melt event favor higher summer melt in this area because bare ice below the winter snow cover should appear sooner. Snowfall also plays an important role in the albedo of the ice sheet. New snow has an albedo between 0.85 and 0.90, absorbing only 10 to 15 percent of the incoming solar energy, but as warm conditions and surface melting continue, the surface darkens as the snow becomes coarse and wet.

The answer is "it depends"

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This is what is happening





The answer is "it depends"

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

My link references research and was released on 29 April 2016. Over a week later than your graph. Time to go back to the drawing board.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Since that's happened... never . Don't mistake boredom for inability.

So, bets on when your bestie Delfin will Godwin THIS thread too?

That's right L-E. Must just be boredom, and a coincidence that our most prolific poster -- your "bestie" I might add -- simply gets "bored" whenever seriously challenged. Kinda like your equally convincing attempt to dispute the local newspaper article that the Portland, OR school board was banning textbooks that mentioned skepticism about AGW. Most persuasive.

Probably won't be long for Delfin and Mr_F to join, and I would welcome them both. But hopefully Delfin won't mention Middle East politics again or this thread will be equally doomed. But isn't that what you've been hoping for??

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Settled science is a be-arch.

Insulating layer of air above the Greenland ice sheet reduces precipitation – Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen



So either a warming climate causes more precipitation in polar regions. Or less. Which is it?

Did you read the entire article?

“We have simply discovered an important process that helps to explain why there is no relationship between temperature and precipitation on the Greenland ice sheet,” says Hans Christian Steen-Larsen.

It is neither.

BTW - I have never said the science is settled.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My link references research and was released on 29 April 2016. Over a week later than your graph. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Received for publication 24 November 2015.
Accepted for publication 31 March 2016.

Surface-atmosphere decoupling limits accumulation at Summit, Greenland | Science Advances

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A discussion of the NWP and NSR would be worthwhile. This ain't it.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Not Without Parents?
Non Sexual Relationship?

SFBP
Same Four Bickering Posters

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you read the entire article?





It is neither.

BTW - I have never said the science is settled.

Not unless it contradicts the doom and gloom predicates of AGW theory, of course.

[newhaul]

Meanwhile any day above ground is a good day
Ice is forming
Ice is melting
Its the rythim of the planet but I predict that the Arctic will continue to have ice for the next fifty years more in winter less in summer but some measure of ice year round.
( I'm clairvoyant that way)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW - I have never said the science is settled.

Good. At last we have convinced you that the science is not settled. And given the known and unknowns at this time, we should weigh the costs of proposed mitigation with the most realistic benefits.

I knew you'd eventually come around!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Good. At last we have convinced you that the science is not settled. And given the known and unknowns at this time, we should weigh the costs of proposed mitigation with the most realistic benefits.

I knew you'd eventually come around!

You give yourself way too much credit. Ever since I read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions in grad school (1980-81), I have concluded that science is in flux.

You last statement is correct. I have done so, and arrived at a conclusion different from yours.

Time for a second order agreement.

Bye.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You give yourself way too much credit. Ever since I read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions in grad school (1980-81), I have concluded that science is in flux.

No doubt about that one, even for a liberal arts major like me, and thank goodness I didn't even have to read that complicated sounding book of yours to figure it out. Judith Curry's blog is a good example of such flux in the world of climate science with all the different opinions debated back & forth. But somehow I doubt your approach gets much traction over there.

You last statement is correct. I have done so, and arrived at a conclusion different from yours.

Probably safe to say that some majority/preponderance of scientists have done so as well, so entirely reasonable. But somehow those with skepticism appear unreasonable, and get dismissed, misconstrued, bad-mouthed, or ignored on account of factors like religion or politics that have nothing to do with the science. Is this how you present your arguments on the professional science blogs? If so, then I might know of a debate coach you could consult with.

Time for a second order agreement.

Not even Google Scholar helped me out with this one. But then I reduced it to an acronym and immediately understood. An off-topic sailing forum is a venue obviously beneath you.

Bye.

Third Day keeps saying you'll be back, and so far he's been right. Go figure that guy bein' right about sumthin' . . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...your equally convincing attempt to dispute the local newspaper article that the Portland, OR school board was banning textbooks that mentioned skepticism about AGW. Most persuasive.

Fail on your cognitive skills. I wasn't disputing the Portland textbook story. I was broadening the story by pointing out how many US textbooks get disputable content in the first place. "Intelligent Design", anyone? (Of course no one named the textbooks or quoted the offending passages, yet we were supposed to conclude without questioning that green lefty censorship is running rampant, right? )

It's the same story with the anti-AGW 'proofs' posted here. You know, the actual scienc-y bits, not the scientists-are-corrupt/conspiracy ones. Many of the referenced findings are not inaccurate or false, but when put into proper context they are not the killing blows to AGW that you claim they are. Until someone bothers to produce a better modelling of the climate that incorporates more of the available info, including the 'skeptic' findings, and uses that to prove that AGW is genuinely less of a concern, the skeptic bits just remain rabbit punches against what are still the best and most useful models we have.

[transmitterdan]

Getting back to science for a minute...

A recent paper published in Nature and written by the Canadian government says that the oil sands operations in Canada produce copious amounts of vapor that through chemistry create atmospheric aerosols. Aerosols, as we know from science, tend to reflect the sun's radiant energy back into space. But these same aerosols are not good for oxygen breathing creatures. So the question becomes should we spend many billions trying to stop the vapor emissions and thus speed up global warming or should we leave things as they are?