Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Yes ice extent changed and why? IMO ice breakers and money.
BTW who paid for that CCGS for the escort yep you guessed it. You did.

[newhaul]

As an aside I wonder what all that coal was used for in Finland?
Definitely not to reduce GHG emissions

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please do

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01...ie=UTF8&btkr=1

"Dark" money made up a bit over 4 per cent of spending in the 2012 presidential campaigns.

What is "dark" money?

The only thing that makes “dark money” dark is that the group spending it does not have to disclose who it got the money from.

In 2014 the biggest dark-money spenders were groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Does anyone think their agendas are a mystery?

There is zero functional difference between a dark-money issue ad and, say, an NPR or Pro Publica story critical of a Republican candidate’s position on climate change. When dark money gets spent, it gets spent to disseminate opinions—precisely what the First Amendment was written to protect.

Dark money complaints result from the loss of influence by the left because of the effectiveness of the money spent by libertarian and conservative groups in airing plain language opposition to pet liberal initiatives.

Quotes are from reason.com.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The ice breaker is escorting a Danish ship through the NWP to ensure Canadian sovereignty over the NWP. Both the Danish and US governments claim the NWP is international.

There is no newly formed ice in mid September of 2013. Ice restarts to reform in the Arctic in late September / early October

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
.

OK if that is true then the CCGS was destroying ice that had survived the summer melt then .
See ice breakers are destroying the multi year sea ice.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As an aside I wonder what all that coal was used for in Finland?
Definitely not to reduce GHG emissions

It was metallurgical coal, used in steel making. It is not burned.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK if that is true then the CCGS was destroying ice that had survived the summer melt then .
See ice breakers are destroying the multi year sea ice.

Look at the picture of of the Louis St Laurent escorting the Nordic Orion. There is hardly any ice in that photo to destroy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes ice extent changed and why? IMO ice breakers and money.
BTW who paid for that CCGS for the escort yep you guessed it. You did.

Even if ice breakers had the impact that claim without any evidence, what caused the ice to melt? From where did the heat come?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Even if ice breakers had the impact that claim without any evidence, what caused the ice to melt? From where did the heat come?

Heat caused the ice to melt due more likely to natural forces according to Judith Curry and other scientists, OR it melted mainly due to MMGW according to another group of scientists, OR it was moved somewhere else by wind & currents according to Curry et al. again, maybe to warmer waters. But what's not disputed is that all 3 of these factors and maybe even Newhaul's icebreaker theory probably contributed, but the science is unsettled as to the degree it can be attributed mainly to MMGW.

As you well know, we litigated this one long ago, and the science was conflicted. But since you frequent Curry's blog where there seems to be a good representation of many sides, you already know this too. So why are you now only presenting one side of the debate . . . yet again? You wouldn't be trying to obfuscate or mislead those who may be newcomers to the thread now, would you?

And I find it interesting that you haven't responded to Third Day's comments about your political persuasion, and how that is what is driving your CG zeal as opposed to sticking to the actual science. Could this be why you're only presenting one side of the debate? If so, it probably also explains why you won't even acknowledge, let alone try and reconcile, the 800-lb. gorilla in the room, namely the glaring discrepancies between the modeling, surface temp data, and sat temp data. Do we need to try and coax Stu back into the discussion again?

Again, there's plenty of evidence to support the theory of MMGW, and many scientists believe that it is the principal cause of the Arctic ice melt. But ignoring equally reputable scientists with contrary opinions won't make those opinions go away. I suppose it bears repeating that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Even zealots.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

"Dark" money made up a bit over 4 per cent of spending in the 2012 presidential campaigns.

What is "dark" money?







Dark money complaints result from the loss of influence by the left because of the effectiveness of the money spent by libertarian and conservative groups in airing plain language opposition to pet liberal initiatives.

Quotes are from reason.com.

Thanks for providing the balance. Without it, some may conclude that Jack's posts are mere propaganda. Wonder what all the money that is raised by the radical left is called?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
{anti-government dogma}

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...politics. Bordering on religion. I suppose this lends credence to your (and Third Day's) ability to identify a religion when you think you see one.

You're confusing "anti-govt." dogma with basic history and common sense. Any organization of human beings which requires or encourages a concentration of unchecked power will become abusive, non-responsive, and ultimately corrupt. "Govt." is not the problem per se, but the amount of personal accountability between the organization and the people working for it. Same deal with corps., labor unions, non-profits, the local Chamber of Commerce, you name it. But govt. is usually the entity that has a disproportionate amount of power and control, can be the most susceptible to unaccountability, and thus poses the greatest danger. The more unaccountable the system of govt., the more powerful and threatening it has the power to become.

None of this is partisan or party-dependent, and certainly none of it should have anything to do with whether MMGW has sufficient scientific certainty to be a threat to the planet. But unfortunately it is, and it does. As Third Day asked, why is that? The answer lies in the system of govt. all too many of the MMGW sympathizers believe is required to remedy the purported ill effects of our industrialized, capitalistic society that, in their minds, is responsible for creating MMGW.

So, once again, a bit more complex than just resorting to another label calling skeptics & deniers "anti-govt." But you like simplistic stereotypes and over-generalizations, and it's only a sailing forum after all.

[bdslack]

http://tinyurl.com/j6pxky6

We installed solar - and here are my political viewpoints:

1. It's great for the planet. (Dem)
2. It's nice to be self reliant and not forced buy something from a monopoly. (Rep)
3. It's great to set the right example. (Dem)
4. It will end up saving me a ton of money. (Rep)

Why can't we all get along and just enter the next industrial revolution already?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... The answer lies in the system of govt. all too many of the MMGW sympathizers believe is required to remedy the purported ill effects of our industrialized, capitalistic society that, in their minds, is responsible for creating MMGW.

So, once again, a bit more complex than just resorting to another label calling skeptics & deniers "anti-govt." But you like simplistic stereotypes and over-generalizations, and it's only a sailing forum after all.

To be clear, I am observing that YOU and 3D are rather anti-govt, based on what you wrote. Not all skeptics/deniers.

If over-generalization bothers you, maybe, just maybe, you could drop insisting that "all too many" supporters of MMGW are just eco-communists using MMGW as a wedge? that's kind of a simplistic stereotype, yes? And also wrong, as a generalization.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Even if ice breakers had the impact that claim without any evidence, what caused the ice to melt? From where did the heat come?

I didn't claim that ice breakers are doing it I hypothesized that they have more effect than people would want to admit to.
As far as the coal even used in the manufacture of steel releases GHG's. Not as much as burning in a power plant or to heat a home but it does still release GHG's. Thank you for letting me know what the coal was for.
You yourself posted the links concerning the absorption of thermal energy by the open sea and the reflection by the ice.
As far as where the " heat" came from , remember we are comming out of a multi year strong el Nino period.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As far as where the " heat" came from , remember we are comming out of a multi year strong el Nino period.

Nope



The current El Nino is 1.5 years old and only reached a peak recently.

The Nordic Orion went through the NWP (September 2013) during a la Nina.

[newhaul]

Most sources I can find are saying that the summer of 13 was almost neutral or at best a very weak lamina comming off a moderate el Nino your own charts support that as well. I still say heavy icebreaker activity has a singnifcant effect.