Northwest Passage

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm understanding better why you feel so ambivalent about accepting Climate Change science. At a fundamental level you really don't understand how scientific information is collected and analyzed.

No, it is not necessary (though it would be nice) to have accurate historical data. There are many pre-historic proxies that are used to collect all sorts of relevant data. Here are just a few that come to mind:

Ice cores (~130,000 years in Greenland; 800,000+ years in Antarctica)
Lake and ocean sediment cores
Fossil coral cores
Tree cores
Deep rock boreholes
Loess deposits by glaciers
Limestone cave deposits
Flora and fauna distribution (fossils, pollen, etc)
Sea Level changes
and many, many more

Here are a few sources for you to update your knowledge, though it's becoming more and more apparent that additional information is not finding a receptive mind.

Paleoclimatology | Wikipedia

Climate Reconstruction | NOAA

Past Climate | NOAA

Paleoclimatology Data | NOAA



It's clear you didn't actually read all the information. Like Newhaul, you're just arguing around and around in circles. It's simply become a game of wack-a-mole. You're clearly a denier, but you so hate that term that you play games with pseudo-scientific arguments to try and disguise your true colors.

If you see my problem as not understanding how scientific information is collected & analyzed, or failing to read every one of your sources, or a need to get my neck out from under those crushing denier labels you think are so compelling, then why can't you explain how the "science" has resolved -- with a credible consensus and to a reasonable degree of certainty -- any of the issues I listed above? Not just for me, of course, but these are a partial listing of the more oft-discussed topics from scientists & lay people alike who remain skeptical. I can only assume you've both read & internalized all the bottomless well of sources you go around citing in this and various other forums, so you must have developed a solid level of expertise. I mean, given the absolute certainty you consistently express about the science, why can't you finally resolve these issues for us once & for all, and in your own words? Certainly you're not as slow, corrupt and agenda-driven as a guy like Roy Spencer who, after all, repeatedly admits there are many issues he simply "doesn't know."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

funny is last year on another CC thread he said he was currently boatless

I remember. I built a small wooden daysailer once and it took a lot longer. Maybe he just works fast.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

funny is last year on another CC thread he said he was currently boatless

I never said that, though, as I recall, a couple of folks from the denier crowd were making that claim about me. That silly little "do you own a boat" incident is yet one more reason I've concluded that the logic systems of many deniers are somehow fundamentally flawed, and not just in regards to the Climate Change discussion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Spencer is approximately correct about the 1% change due to co2 at present levels. Most of the science community would strongly disagree that this a small poke. Just calculating the difference in temperature from a 1% increase in energy gets to more than 1 degree C, remember the base line is absolute zero when figuring what 1% means energy is calculated. Also the effects of CO2 are magnified by increased water vapor. And finally the average temperature is world wide, 77% is ocean which strongly moderates temperature increases, so over land it will be much more. I'm sure Spencer actually knows this, as a Cornwall signer perhaps he believes that God will save humanity (that is what the declaration he signed states)

Not only do I agree that Spencer already knows it, but he acknowledges the issue is still being debated. He's also not emphatic that his theory is the only correct one, probably because he recognizes that others are viable and being advanced by colleagues he respects. On the other hand, raising his religious beliefs is mere libel unless you can show some connection to his professional work. Dr. Hayhoe is also an evangelical Christian and, who knows, perhaps her particular religious beliefs influence her taking opposite positions on the overall CC issue. But I would never want to presume that her beliefs are a corrupting influence on her professionalism absent evidence, and I don't think we should do the same with Spencer absent just cause. Oh but wait, you don't happen to like Spencer's stance on CC, so ergo it's OK??

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

Interesting link. I realize everyone has different motivations which are oftentimes difficult to relate to, but I've always been mystified why people in these types of threads express such personal aggrievement when confronted with contrary opinions on a subject matter none of us really understand. Especially here, where the proponents really do enjoy a lopsided advantage of scientists in their camp, at least from those who are considered or have deemed themselves "climate scientists." There's also this curious need to lump what is perceived to be "like-minded" people together and then label them, as if that will resolve the scientific debate! But then I think some really do believe they're here to "save the planet," and that posting information is a way of "contributing." And if you've internalized that one (with all the headiness & ego which accompanies), then anyone disrupting such efforts is perhaps more than just a mere contrarian, they're an actual threat.

Strange times we're living through, but maybe not so different after all?

For sure the auspices of certain contributions are within a context of helping the community, saving the planet, etc. Either that or completely pathology muckraking (other options exists but far less likely).

Not strange times. People have always done this. I mentioned this in another thread, but even in Slocum's book he references the merchant selling everything at a discount because of the impending comet strike that was to hit the earth. Dreams (night-time) of cataclism have existed through recorded history; Freud and friends have different ideas of why they exist, but nonetheless it's ordinary. In every era people come up with narratives to salve the angst...religion arguably being the most common/universal. "End is near" folks used to routinely hold up signs at sporting events; maybe they outlawed it...but you still have people forming groups planning for the end of times, etc. It's normal to have the existential fears...how we deal with them is what's questionable as to healthy or not.

This dialog is really no different than a religious proselytizer trying to convert (save) the errant non-believer. You can readily change the nouns, verbs, subjects to religious nouns, verbs, subjects...and end up with a "debate" on biblical stories (for example).

When you find yourself to be an uninvested non-believer in a conversation with a highly invested believer...I submit that you're not going to find any success in getting them to see things differently. From your perspective, you're thinking about nachos for lunch, maybe interested in learning about what climate scientists are up to. From the other perspective, it's their duty to save you and everyone immediately. The nachos can wait. No time to parse some illogical stuff contained in the "good book" or scientific literature. Blaphemy. If you walk towards the nacho stand and start recounting the illogical stuff in the science to others in the community...then indeed you are a threat. You're making the world-saver's job that much tougher. This is why they double-down on trying to convert you in the moment. The use of all the psycho-logical terms, here, is evidence of the vehemence in getting you to question your reality (whereas I attempt to use it as a logical explanation to justify what you're witnessing).

What sucks about this from my perspective is that I'm interested in the science (much of it pertaining to sailing and other meteorology-dependent life interests), but you can't have a discussion about the finer nuanced points of the science because of all the latter-day prophets unable to stop proselytizing long enough to discuss the finer details.

Off for nachos.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I never said that, though, as I recall, a couple of folks from the denier crowd were making that claim about me. That silly little "do you own a boat" incident is yet one more reason I've concluded that the logic systems of many deniers are somehow fundamentally flawed, and not just in regards to the Climate Change discussion.

You also never said you owned a boat despite your motives for posting (and starting threads) on only one thread topic (on a sailing forum) were repeatedly questioned. Not sure why you wouldn't have put it to bed long ago if you were an actual boat owner/enthusiast. Really doesn't matter except for your credibility, which given all your certainty about the uncertainties inherent with CC actually does matter. Reliance on citations & links only gets one so far.

Ah yes, that explains it -- anyone who dares dissent has "fundamentally flawed logic systems." Well, some authorities have been known to use "re-education centers" to fix that one. Do you ever really listen to yourself??

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

You also never said you owned a boat despite your motives for posting (and starting threads) on only one thread topic (on a sailing forum) were repeatedly questioned. Not sure why you wouldn't have put it to bed long ago if you were an actual boat owner/enthusiast. Really doesn't matter except for your credibility, which given all your certainty about the uncertainties inherent with CC actually does matter. Reliance on citations & links only gets one so far.

Ah yes, that explains it -- anyone who dares dissent has "fundamentally flawed logic systems." Well, some authorities have been known to use "re-education centers" to fix that one. Do you ever really listen to yourself??

Yet again, you demonstrate your flawed logic. All of the threads I've started regarding the NWP were done so because of my personal interest in the Arctic sailing environment. You can check, if you wish, that the first few of my posts in each thread were completely on-topic (including this thread -- see here, here, here, skip one response to Newhaul for not knowing what fast ice is, here, here, here, here). But since the melting of the ice in the NWP is an integral part of the topic, it doesn't take long for the denier crowd to start making stupid claims like "there's still fast ice in the routes" (yes, there always is this time of year), etc. Then it doesn't take very long for the topic to veer into the AGW debate, which I'm also happy to participate in.

But I would like, very much, for at least ONE NWP thread to stay on-topic. Frankly, I doubt that that will happen as long as Newhaul chooses to participate in those threads. He regularly makes provocative or ill-informed statements (like here and here), which seems to start the AGW debate.

I am not trying to prevent Newhaul from having his say (not that I could, even if I wanted to), but I wish he would volunteer to stay out of just one NWP thread. Maybe we then could manage to keep it on-topic for the whole sailing season.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not only do I agree that Spencer already knows it, but he acknowledges the issue is still being debated. He's also not emphatic that his theory is the only correct one, probably because he recognizes that others are viable and being advanced by colleagues he respects. On the other hand, raising his religious beliefs is mere libel unless you can show some connection to his professional work. Dr. Hayhoe is also an evangelical Christian and, who knows, perhaps her particular religious beliefs influence her taking opposite positions on the overall CC issue. But I would never want to presume that her beliefs are a corrupting influence on her professionalism absent evidence, and I don't think we should do the same with Spencer absent just cause. Oh but wait, you don't happen to like Spencer's stance on CC, so ergo it's OK??

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.* Earth’s climate system is no exception"

I only repeated what he has signed up to as part of the Cornwall pact, God is in control of the climate, repeating the facts is not libel. Perhaps he believes that is the counteracting "natural" force. You do acknowledge that he did sign the pact, right?

You ignored the 1% energy part of my comment. As much as you profess to want to learn about the issue, I don't see much progress on that front: yes I have been following these threads for quite awhile. Studying the science for a day or two might really change your outlook if you really wanted to understand the fundamentals. I provided you a website with the actual science, but there are plenty of others.... Including noaa and NASA.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yet again, you demonstrate your flawed logic. All of the threads I've started regarding the NWP were done so because of my personal interest in the Arctic sailing environment. You can check, if you wish, that the first few of my posts in each thread were completely on-topic (including this thread -- see here, here, here, skip one response to Newhaul for not knowing what fast ice is, here, here, here, here). But since the melting of the ice in the NWP is an integral part of the topic, it doesn't take long for the denier crowd to start making stupid claims like "there's still fast ice in the routes" (yes, there always is this time of year), etc. Then it doesn't take very long for the topic veer into the AGW debate, which I'm also happy to participate in.

But I would like, very much, for at least ONE NWP thread to stay on-topic. Frankly, I doubt that that will happen as long as Newhaul chooses to participate in those threads. He regularly makes provocative or ill-informed statements (like here and here), which seems to start the AGW debate.

I am not trying to prevent Newhaul from having his say (not that I could, even if I wanted to), but I wish he would volunteer to stay out of just one NWP thread. Maybe we then could manage to keep it on-topic for the whole sailing season.

Oh please. Newhaul is hardly the only one who instigates. Nor do I believe, given your dogmatism, that you shed any tears over your professed NWP threads quickly devolving. It's not the devolving you object to, but the direction it devolves in! Otherwise why would you have 100s (as you estimate) of CC propaganda articles at your fingertips if it was "only" about the NWP transit. Besides, as far as those doing the transit itself are concerned, it's how much the ice in and around the NWP has melted and not the cause of that melting which matters. No, I don't think there's anything wrong with my ability to use logic to see the transparency in your protestations.

If what you claim about sincerely being interested in the NWP transit is true, then simply start a new thread -- in an appropriate sub-forum -- that includes a large disclaimer, IN BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, that asks posters to refrain from discussing causes of the melting ice, namely CC, and then links them over to this or another (inevitable) thread where they can express their end-of-world angst or whatever suits them. Heck, the mods may even give you a hand trying to keep the new thread on-topic. You could provide a link here, and even link to the several boats who we know are currently staging for the passage.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yet again, you demonstrate your flawed logic. All of the threads I've started regarding the NWP were done so because of my personal interest in the Arctic sailing environment. You can check, if you wish, that the first few of my posts in each thread were completely on-topic (including this thread -- see here, here, here, skip one response to Newhaul for not knowing what fast ice is, here, here, here, here). But since the melting of the ice in the NWP is an integral part of the topic, it doesn't take long for the denier crowd to start making stupid claims like "there's still fast ice in the routes" (yes, there always is this time of year), etc. Then it doesn't take very long for the topic to veer into the AGW debate, which I'm also happy to participate in.

But I would like, very much, for at least ONE NWP thread to stay on-topic. Frankly, I doubt that that will happen as long as Newhaul chooses to participate in those threads. He regularly makes provocative or ill-informed statements (like here and here), which seems to start the AGW debate.

I am not trying to prevent Newhaul from having his say (not that I could, even if I wanted to), but I wish he would volunteer to stay out of just one NWP thread. Maybe we then could manage to keep it on-topic for the whole sailing season.

actually if you go back and read the whole thread you will see we stayed on topic ( for the most part ) in till jack started his redirecting the conversations from the nwp to the entire arctic basin.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.* Earth’s climate system is no exception"

I only repeated what he has signed up to as part of the Cornwall pact, God is in control of the climate, repeating the facts is not libel. Perhaps he believes that is the counteracting "natural" force. You do acknowledge that he did sign the pact, right?

This has come up many times before, and I don't recall the phrase "God is in control of the climate" as being part of the Declaration. Your interpretation perhaps? Spencer has also specifically addressed this, and said he doesn't necessarily ascribe to all of it.

As for the Declaration's stance on climate, it declares that "recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming." This goes right back to legitimate scientific debate over the temp data sets being being used to determine how aberrant the warming is, and more importantly how that data is interpreted. If Spencer is being unduly & unprofessionally influenced by his religious beliefs then it must follow that all of these scientists are too. Relatively few "climate scientists" in the mix, but there may be very good reasons for that as has been discussed.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.[34][35][36]
Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[37][38][39][40]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[41][42]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[43]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[44][45]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[42][46][47][48]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[56][57]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[58][59][60]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[61][62]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[63][64]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[65][66]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[67][68][69][70]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[71][72]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[73][74]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[75][76]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[77][78]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[79][80]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[81][82]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[84][85]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[86][87][88]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[89][90][91]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[92][93]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[94]
Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[95]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[96][97]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[98][99]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[42][100]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[101]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[102][103]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[104][105]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[106][107]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[108][109]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[110][111]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[112][113]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[114][115]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[116][117]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[118][119]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[120][121]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[122][123]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[124][125][126]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[127][128]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[129][130]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[131][132][133][134]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[135][136]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[137][138]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[139][140]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[141][142]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[143][144]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[145][146]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[147][148]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[149][150]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[151][152]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[153][154][155]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[156][157]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[158][159]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.[160][161]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[162][163]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[164][165][166]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[167][168]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[169][170][171]
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[172][173]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[174][175]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[176][177]

Deceased scientists
These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[178][179]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison.[180][181]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[182][183]
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[184][185]
Vincent R. Gray (1922–2018), New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[186][187]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[188][189]
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001–2007.[190][191][192]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[193][194][195]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[196][197]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[180][198][199]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You ignored the 1% energy part of my comment. As much as you profess to want to learn about the issue, I don't see much progress on that front: yes I have been following these threads for quite awhile. Studying the science for a day or two might really change your outlook if you really wanted to understand the fundamentals. I provided you a website with the actual science, but there are plenty of others.... Including noaa and NASA.

I read the part of your post about the 1% energy issue and thought you ably put forth the science that refutes Spencer's opinion that this amount, while seemingly small on the surface, is hardly a "small poke" as Spencer described. The factors you listed which explain how this amount is magnified seemed logical & persuasive. So am I now supposed to arbitrate which side is scientifically correct? You're entitled to come down on whichever side you choose, but what specific expertise do you claim that would allow us to side with you, for example, over Roy Spencer? Or myself for that matter, over the scientists who support your position? How do you know the issue is not as "settled" amongst actual scientists as it apparently appears to you?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

...

5. Claimed that .1C per decade is natural warming. Just for clarity that is 1C per century. 1C cooler was the definition of the ice age.. just for reference.


...

That is an interesting observation and statement, Mr Roberts. Do you think this discussion would be all unicorns and rainbows if the earth had cooled one degree on average since the LIA peak of the 1880's?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh please. Newhaul is hardly the only one who instigates. Nor do I believe, given your dogmatism, that you shed any tears over your professed NWP threads quickly devolving. It's not the devolving you object to, but the direction it devolves in! Otherwise why would you have 100s (as you estimate) of CC propaganda articles at your fingertips if it was "only" about the NWP transit.

Because I am interested in the topic of AGW and post about such on other forums. Even when I post about AGW-topics on NWP threads I try to keep my posts at least Arctic-related.

I could easily post dozens of current AGW-related scientific studies that are not Arctic-related. Believe me, your knowledge of current research appears to be nil.

Besides, as far as those doing the transit itself are concerned, it's how much the ice in and around the NWP has melted and not the cause of that melting which matters. No, I don't think there's anything wrong with my ability to use logic to see the transparency in your protestations.

No, it's both. If you are planning on doing a NWP transit it's best to have an idea WHY the melting is occurring to best judge whether any particular year is worth making the attempt.

If what you claim about sincerely being interested in the NWP transit is true, then simply start a new thread -- in an appropriate sub-forum -- that includes a large disclaimer, IN BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, that asks posters to refrain from discussing causes of the melting ice, namely CC, and then links them over to this or another (inevitable) thread where they can express their end-of-world angst or whatever suits them. Heck, the mods may even give you a hand trying to keep the new thread on-topic. You could provide a link here, and even link to the several boats who we know are currently staging for the passage.

I've seen that type of request made on other threads, and it seldom works out. Participants correctly point out that threads do drift (and that's often not a bad thing), and they also point out that the OP does not own the thread, so therefore can't really make any demands about the thread. Also, once a thread is a few weeks/months old no one remembers what the OP said in the first post, just like you don't seem to remember that my first 1/2 dozen posts in this thread were on-topic and not AGW-related.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

This has come up many times before, and I don't recall the phrase "God is in control of the climate" as being part of the Declaration. Your interpretation perhaps? Spencer has also specifically addressed this, and said he doesn't necessarily ascribe to all of it.

As for the Declaration's stance on climate, it declares that "recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming." This goes right back to legitimate scientific debate over the temp data sets being being used to determine how aberrant the warming is, and more importantly how that data is interpreted. If Spencer is being unduly & unprofessionally influenced by his religious beliefs then it must follow that all of these scientists are too. Relatively few "climate scientists" in the mix, but there may be very good reasons for that as has been discussed.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.[34][35][36]
Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[37][38][39][40]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[41][42]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[43]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[44][45]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[42][46][47][48]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[56][57]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[58][59][60]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[61][62]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[63][64]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[65][66]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[67][68][69][70]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[71][72]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[73][74]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[75][76]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[77][78]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[79][80]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[81][82]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[84][85]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[86][87][88]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[89][90][91]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[92][93]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[94]
Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[95]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[96][97]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[98][99]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[42][100]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[101]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[102][103]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[104][105]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[106][107]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[108][109]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[110][111]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[112][113]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[114][115]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[116][117]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[118][119]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[120][121]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[122][123]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[124][125][126]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[127][128]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[129][130]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[131][132][133][134]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[135][136]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[137][138]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[139][140]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[141][142]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[143][144]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[145][146]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[147][148]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[149][150]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[151][152]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[153][154][155]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[156][157]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[158][159]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.[160][161]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[162][163]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[164][165][166]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[167][168]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[169][170][171]
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[172][173]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[174][175]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[176][177]

Deceased scientists
These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[178][179]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison.[180][181]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[182][183]
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[184][185]
Vincent R. Gray (1922–2018), New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[186][187]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[188][189]
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001–2007.[190][191][192]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[193][194][195]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[196][197]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[180][198][199]

looks to me like more than a couple outlier scientists that are not on the agw side of things.