Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you you have no "acknowledged experts which refute it." Got it. Just another unsubstantiated assertion. You have nothing.

I am getting ready to head offshore for some time on a shake down and have no time for your nonsense.

Refute what? That "current warming is not human induced?" Spencer & Christy believe humans play a "role," but opine that this role is subsumed by natural forces. By "inducement," do you mean that the human role is causing ALL the current warming? You've provided plenty of authority to support that one, incl. some experts who believe that we'd have long been in a cooling phase but for. But the poll count of experts for that theory is hardly "a million to one." Besides, how do such odds square with your oft-repeated acknowledgement that climate science remains "unsettled?"

To be clear, I for one don't "refute" any of the experts you cite who espouse the core mainstream position. My only real criticism of your approach (other than a lack of civility) is that you present these otherwise valid positions as if climate science was in fact "settled." You actually go beyond that in presenting them as scientific "truths," thereby justifying your often personal derision when challenged. By your own admission (and those of climate scientists themselves), this is incongruous and misleading. It's partly why we see posts where people seem dumbfounded that there are any valid expert contrarian opinions at all ("10K like-minded scientists vs. a few internet posters"). But in your case -- especially since you've stated you follow & participate in several contrarian blogs -- it's obvious you know better. Either that or you have impenetrable blinders on (see SailOar's posted article above).

Wishing you all the best with your upcoming shake-down cruise. Enjoy.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't think there's much doubt that the planet has been going through a warming cycle, or that AGW has played a role. The controversy is over the extent of that role.

What controversy? None really in science, need to go to a few very well funded websites for that or web forums to hear non climate scientists.
Seems to be some discussion about the sensitivity of the climate due to the ever increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses but barring a tiny number (like single figures) of outlier individuals there really isn't any doubt within science that the large near instant increase in heat content which swamps the natural variation signal can only be explained by one smoking gun...

[jackdale]

4 crazy things that are happening in the Arctic right now

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...tic-right-now/

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

4 crazy things that are happening in the Arctic right now

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...tic-right-now/

Oh dear.

A number of unusual events are sweeping across the Arctic as global warming disrupts weather patterns, the landscape, and the way of life in the icy wilderness.

Followed by these snippets..

The last time a polar bear made this epic journey was in 1977


For the first time in almost 100 years, Alaska is experiencing average July-to-June temperatures above freezing


Permafrost is melting 70 years ahead of schedule



Armel Castellan, a meteorologist at the Canadian environment ministry, puts the heatwave down to an unusual high pressure front over Greenland, which feeds southerly winds on the Arctic Ocean.

I'm surprised your finely tuned CRAPP detector didn't go into melt down on this one.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

4 crazy things that are happening in the Arctic right now

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...tic-right-now/

first the picture is not current by any means
Here is the original article
https://grist.org/climate-energy/tha...ng-on-the-map/


ok secondly the polar bear Crap is all smoke and mirrors the bear population is exploding they are spreading out for territory not searching for food.

https://www.thegwpf.com/susan-crockf...-theyre-dying/

The number of wildfires in Alaska is actually on the decline
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004...ire_graphs.gif

As to the permafrost you need to look at what happened a few hundred years ago during the lia.


Then there is number 4 that is also a bunch of his direction while yes there was one town that set a record high there were many others that were setting record cold temps at that same time https://electroverse.net/all-time-re...thwest-russia/

So I say your article 75% or more failure of the craap test.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

first the picture is not current by any means
Here is the original article
https://grist.org/climate-energy/tha...ng-on-the-map/


ok secondly the polar bear Crap is all smoke and mirrors the bear population is exploding they are spreading out for territory not searching for food.

https://www.thegwpf.com/susan-crockf...-theyre-dying/

The number of wildfires in Alaska is actually on the decline
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004...ire_graphs.gif

As to the permafrost you need to look at what happened a few hundred years ago during the lia.


Then there is number 4 that is also a bunch of his direction while yes there was one town that set a record high there were many others that were setting record cold temps at that same time https://electroverse.net/all-time-re...thwest-russia/

So I say your article 75% or more failure of the craap test.

I would sat you are wrong.

Susan Crockford's expressed area of expertise is the evolution of dogs.

Your GSM sites are bogus.

GWPF is a lobby.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh dear.





Followed by these snippets..

I'm surprised your finely tuned CRAPP detector didn't go into melt down on this one.

good catch on that part about


Armel Castellan, a meteorologist at the Canadian environment ministry, puts the heatwave down to an unusual high pressure front over Greenland, which feeds southerly winds on the Arctic Ocean
I couldn't stomachs the bs long enough to get to the end of the article.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would sat you are wrong.

Susan Crockford's expressed area of expertise is the evolution of dogs.

Your GSM sites are bogus.

GWPF is a lobby.

the data is sound why not debate that instead of just discounting due to you not liking the source
Btw the temperature data is from tropical tidbits
How does this look now https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/anal...19071918&fh=78

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the data is sound why not debate that instead of just discounting due to you not liking the source
Btw the temperature data is from tropical tidbits
How does this look now https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/anal...19071918&fh=78

You need to put you sources through a CRAAP test.

The CRAAP Test - Information Evaluation - LibGuides at Duquesne University

The first A:

Authority lets us know that someone with expertise or experience in the topic is sharing their knowledge. Remember, though, that authority is contextual. Having a Ph.D. in Astronomy would not give someone authority to write about the impact of music therapy on children who have autism. The expertise or experience needs to be relevant to the topic.

• What credentials related to the topic at hand does the author have?
  
• Does the author have any relevant affiliations with a respected university or organization?
  
• What can you find about the author online?
  
• Has the author published on this subject before?
  
• Is the publication reputable?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You need to put you sources through a CRAAP test.

The CRAAP Test - Information Evaluation - LibGuides at Duquesne University

The first A:

the data is correct you don't like the source so you don't like the data why not go directly after the data other than the fact you can't admit you are incorrect

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You need to put you sources through a CRAAP test.

The CRAAP Test - Information Evaluation - LibGuides at Duquesne University

The first A:

I put your source through it and it failed on the picture alone .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the data is sound why not debate that instead of just discounting due to you not liking the source
Btw the temperature data is from tropical tidbits
How does this look now https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/anal...19071918&fh=78

Why did you use a 78 hour forecast?

Current conditions

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh dear.





Followed by these snippets..

I'm surprised your finely tuned CRAPP detector didn't go into melt down on this one.

No need to run it by a CRAPP detector when it's obviously all so "crazy." Just think, the article says the "Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by 1°C since the 1880s." Amoritized over the past 140 years or so that's an average of 0.007ºC per year. Throw in some polar amplification and presto, the "record-setting" heat is wreaking crazy havoc -- from starving polar bears to forest fires to methane releases from melting permafrost.

And it gets even more alarming. 10,000 years of gradual overall warming since the last ice age and, lo & behold, "the world keeps on warming." It's not just crazy, it's insane.

Meanwhile, the lone meteorologist in this latest episode attributes all this crazed insanity to . . . uhhh . . . the weather? Is it just a coincidence or am I starting to see a pattern of meteorologists & physicists on the other side of many of these issues from climate scientists?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why did you use a 78 hour forecast?

Current conditions

why not use it ???
Other than much over that there is an exponentially ever increasing margins for error

[newhaul]

This just in
https://bgr.com/2019/07/19/arctic-wi...te-change/amp/
Started by lightening
Here is an excerpt

The Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) has determined that the Arctic wildfires have already produced north of 50 megatons of carbon dioxide. That number, CAMS says, is the equivalent of a full year’s worth of emissions from the entire country of Sweden. Yeah, it’s a lot

Wonder how they will spin this into being mans fault.