Time for Northwest - Passage 2018

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Funny how after just over 100yrs of recording climate man is convinced he knows all there is to know about how things work..

boatman - Nice strawman - very few climate scientists make that claim.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would not be concerned.



https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/ar...3/5/5.9/208306

that's all you got no links to MMGWC sites to refute the data?
Other than a paper that is 16 years old.
time will tell I for one will be looking for a new winter parka.
( I need a new one anyway)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that's all you got no links to MMGWC sites to refute the data?

That's some pretty tepid trolling.

Heck the professionals ( the science community) can't even agree on anything not involving money.

... and that.

I thought you were after "a thread to share articles that are potentially important to the continued pleasure trips into the arctic ocean"...?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's some pretty tepid trolling.



... and that.

I thought you were after "a thread to share articles that are potentially important to the continued pleasure trips into the arctic ocean"...?

I am more concerned about protecting the fragile ecosystem in the arctic.
I don't consider challenges of datum from the last couple of years study with data from well over ten years old to be worthwhile. ( in the realm of any of the physics disciplines ) with respect to a discord of current conditions and possible near future conditions.
( I am wanting to learn new information that others may have not rehash stuff that has been superseded by current thesises)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that's all you got no links to MMGWC sites to refute the data?
Other than a paper that is 16 years old.

We have known this for 16 years - at least.

You are aware that WUWT is the blog of a radio weatherman. It really is not a science site.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We have known this for 16 years - at least.

You are aware that WUWT is the blog of a radio weatherman. It really is not a science site.

doesn't need to be a science site to post relevant data and links to relevant scientific papers.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We have known this for 16 years - at least.

You are aware that WUWT is the blog of a radio weatherman. It really is not a science site.

new data suggests that the 16 year old data may be incorrect.
This study couldn't have been done 16 years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-sun-re...tness.html#jCp
remember science is constantly evolving.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I am more concerned about protecting the fragile ecosystem in the arctic.
...
I am wanting to learn new information that others may have not rehash stuff that has been superseded by current [theses]

I would respectfully suggest, then, that maintaining that climate scientists are faking stuff for the research money is not the best way to get there.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I would respectfully suggest, then, that maintaining that climate scientists are faking stuff for the research money is not the best way to get there.

LE I personally have never said that scientists were taking data however any data can be skewed to support a specific point of view . ( we all know this can be and is done) and not just in the scientific community)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

doesn't need to be a science site to post relevant data and links to relevant scientific papers.

Actually... it does. For context. How can anyone trust that a site with a known and somewhat non-scientific bias against AGW is not cherry-picking only the reports, that taken out of context, appear to support its bias?

Originally Posted by newhaul

LE I personally have never said that scientists were taking data however any data can be skewed to support a specific point of view . ( we all know this can be and is done) and not just in the scientific community)

Um, you just said:

Heck the professionals ( the science community) can't even agree on anything not involving money.

It's kind of inconsistent to be accusing scientists of bias, then citing cherry-picked reports from a known biased site as some kind of irrefutable proof.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Actually... it does. For context. How can anyone trust that a site with a known and somewhat non-scientific bias against AGW is not cherry-picking only the reports, that taken out of context, appear to support its bias?



Um, you just said:
It's kind of inconsistent to be accusing scientists of bias, then citing cherry-picked reports from a known biased site as some kind of irrefutable proof.

where are the reports that refute the findings? I'm looking for data .
We have had this conversation before I am just seeking more knowledge ( I couldn't care less about the agw vs anti agw fight it doesn't affect me at all in real world)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

where are the reports that refute the findings? I'm looking for data .
We have had this conversation before I am just seeking more knowledge ( I couldn't care less about the agw vs anti agw fight it doesn't affect me at all in real world)

"it doesn't affect me at all in real world". That statement suggests an anti-AGW bias...

If you're truly seeking more knowledge and you don't have a dog in the AGW fight, you could also spend some time on pro-AGW sites as well as the anti- ones you've linked to. Or even go for the actual scientific data and reports from the institutions that did the research. Jackdale's put up reams of such links here over the years. Others too.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"it doesn't affect me at all in real world". That statement suggests an anti-AGW bias...

If you're truly seeking more knowledge and you don't have a dog in the AGW fight, you could also spend some time on pro-AGW sites as well as the anti- ones you've linked to. Or even go for the actual scientific data and reports from the institutions that did the research. Jackdale's put up reams of such links here over the years. Others too.

I am not anti or pro agw I literally will feel no long term effects. I don't expect to live much over 40 more years. And I have no living children . Personally my life has no effect on the climate. My power is primarily from solar and wind with occasional dyno juice ( diesel mains.) and I am soon to install diesel forced air furnace. ( I do these things for pure financial reasons)
I have actually read many of the actual scientific papers.
Yes jack has posted links to many many papers supporting his view however as I said nowadays while valid ( for the most part) lots of the views have been shown to be lacking due to information that was not available to the scientific community at the time they were written. I am wanting some newer datasets supporting the assertion that the sun ( which provides all of our energy ) and changes in solar output has little effect on the planetary climate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I am not anti or pro agw I literally will feel no long term effects.

Many would argue that the planet is already experiencing negatively the effects of human activity. Surely you don't disagree with that? Despite the blast of Arctic air we're currently getting in N. America, the global average temparature is still trending up. And the level of alarm over AGW is of course due to the prediction that the future effects are going to be much more pronounced, if current carbon emissions trends don't change.

I am wanting some newer datasets supporting the assertion that the sun ( which provides all of our energy ) and changes in solar output has little effect on the planetary climate.

Kind of a big ask for CF. . However I believe adoxograph already covered the solar question off, to a level that few of us can follow. The tl;dr version is that the "insulation" in earth's atmosphere has a greater role on the planet's atmospheric temperature than minor solar variations. What more would you like to see?

Hint - the answer isn't in the Daily Mirror.

[Mike OReilly]

Ha … silly me.

I just dropping into this thread to learn something about doing the Northwest Passage. Despite my generally cautious attitude toward cruising, it is now a remote possibility in my future.

Sad to see this thread has become yet another pissing match between people who believe in science and those who don’t.

Carry on...