The scientists are frighted

[Guest pelmetman]

nowtelse2do - 2013-10-04 2:58 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-04 8:51 AM

 

Blimey 8-)....................a proper scientist B-)...................welcome Norman to Chatterbox and the thinking mans motorhome forum :D.......

 

You creeping barstewred.........Watch this one Norman, he'll be asking which are the best solar panels to buy next :D

 

Welcome to the forum ;-)

 

Dave

 

Naah......Solar is so old hat *-)................I've invented a self propelled wind turbine ;-)............

 

 

 

Although it might lead to a sprout shortage 8-).....

[nowtelse2do]

donna miller - 2013-10-04 3:47 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2013-10-04 2:58 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-04 8:51 AM

 

Blimey 8-)....................a proper scientist B-)...................welcome Norman to Chatterbox and the thinking mans motorhome forum :D.......

 

You creeping barstewred.........Watch this one Norman, he'll be asking which are the cheapest solar panels to buy next :D

 

Welcome to the forum ;-)

 

Dave

 

There we go Dave, I've fixed your post for you.

 

Thanks Donna, the blood pressure was a bit high when posting :D (you forgot barsteward) :D

 

Dave, you keep that type of turbine in Lincolnshire :-D :-D

 

Dave

[CliveH]

Superb analysis from "resilient earth" :-

 

 

"The report (IPCC AR5) does its best to put a brave face on an uneventful climate. For example, consider this statement from the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):

 

'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'

 

[which is what most of our bozon politicians read and no more! *-) ]

 

Obviously, the measurement period has been expanded in an attempt to hide the 15 year plateau in global temperatures. Some of the verbiage has been softened between the many drafts and the final release. Bob Tisdale has a nice comparison between some of the different versions on his website. Even so, leaked or released versions of the SPM contain a number of nuggets, like:

 

No increase in hurricanes (tropical cyclones) and drought: “Low confidence” in both a “human contribution to observed changes” and “likelihood of future changes.”

 

“There may also be ... an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing”

 

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends”

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

 

More will be revealed as the body of the report is examined in detail. In the meanwhile, warmists are spinning like mad, claiming the new report does not back down from the conclusions of the previous AR4.

 

Even if that were so, it would mean that the IPCC has not advanced in seven years, despite the efforts of thousands of scientists and the spending of billions of dollars. During that time the climate science community's main product has been a constant stream of propaganda aimed at frightening the public.

 

Naturally, global warming skeptics are having a field-day with the new reports. “Unless global temperature will begin to rise again in the next few years, the IPCC is very likely going to suffer an existential blow to its credibility,” said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

 

Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was even blunter: “IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”

 

The main take home point seems to be that the core scientific understanding remains unchanged. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, details this and a number of other interesting observations on his website under the title “Five Points on the IPCC Report.” As Dr. Pielke put it:

 

“The release of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report should give anyone following the climate issue a deep sense of deja vu, if not a full-on case of Groundhog Day syndrome. We have seen this all before.”

 

.....................

 

Indeed we have.

 

:-|

[nowtelse2do]

If every year was like 1976 then I would agree the planet is getting warmer. What a great year except for Eve, she was pregnant with our daughter until October, I was working in Scotland and only coming home for a weekend every fortnight and she also had the two other lads on her plate aged 8 & 6, bless her, never moaned once........only when conceiving her :D :D

 

Dave

[Mrs T]

Like I said climate change is a religion. Very simple. All fictitious.

[Guest pelmetman]

Mrs T - 2013-10-05 2:43 PM

 

Like I said climate change is a religion. Very simple. All fictitious.

 

Careful Mrs T 8-)..................John47 will have you excommunicated for such blasphemy :D........

[bigal55]

could anyone far more intelligent than me tell me what % of co2 is produced by man , Millibland & carolyn lucas were asked on radio5 and both of them fudged the answer, the bbc don,t state the figure & if you look on the internet it,s from 5 to 100%.mt pinatubo produce more co2 than the industrial revoloution. so clever people give me the answer & your sources

[Guest pelmetman]

bigal55 - 2013-10-05 10:57 PM

 

could anyone far more intelligent than me tell me what % of co2 is produced by man , Millibland & carolyn lucas were asked on radio5 and both of them fudged the answer, the bbc don,t state the figure & if you look on the internet it,s from 5 to 100%.mt pinatubo produce more co2 than the industrial revoloution. so clever people give me the answer & your sources

 

CO2 is used to put out fires ;-)........................so I suspect if the world gets too hot and the CO2 levels rise :D.....................earth will have invented its own sprinkler system B-)........

 

 

 

Sadly the human race will be dead *-)............................but hey you cant have everything (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

bigal55 - 2013-10-05 10:57 PM

 

could anyone far more intelligent than me tell me what % of co2 is produced by man , Millibland & carolyn lucas were asked on radio5 and both of them fudged the answer, the bbc don,t state the figure & if you look on the internet it,s from 5 to 100%.mt pinatubo produce more co2 than the industrial revoloution. so clever people give me the answer & your sources

 

This is the crux question bigal

 

If you believe some of the Alarmists they would have us believe that CO2 is a poison that somehow did not exist before the Industrial Revolution and so every molecule of CO2 is man made.

 

Which is nonsense of course because every aerobic animal on the planet breaths in O2 and breathes out CO2. This is balanced by plants that via Photosynthesis take in CO2 combine it with water via the energy of sunlight to form CH compounds (carbohydrates etc) and O2.

 

It is a cycle - and this is why Deforestation is such an unbelievably stupid thing we get other countries to do so they can grow Palm Oil so we can make CO2 targets via our use of Bio-deisel etc.

 

As for how much overall CO2 is produced by Man, may I suggest you have a look at Dr Judith Curry's comments on the recent paper published in Nature. Here she makes comments on what is Natural CO2 and what is Anthropomorphic (man made)

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-04 11:31 PM

 

 

"The report (IPCC AR5) does its best to put a brave face on an uneventful climate. For example, consider this statement from the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):

 

'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'

 

[which is what most of our bozon politicians read and no more! *-) ]

 

1. Obviously, the measurement period has been expanded in an attempt to hide the 15 year plateau in global temperatures.

 

2. “Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends”

 

3. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”

 

:-|

 

Still at it, I see. The extracts I have reproduced above from your latest post really did make me smile!

 

1. The 15 year plateau in global temperatures! You take part of a story and ignore the bits that are inconvenient to you. As I have said many times, the pattern of climate change is very complicated. For example, there is evidence to suggest there has been a declining trend in the upper troposphere during the period you mention but the recorded figures show an increasing trend at ground level - and indeed at depth in the oceans. The end result is overall warming, major ice melt and a steadily rising sea level. The following explains it all in very readable language. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483 . Incidentally, the article from 1999 which you criticised me for was put in to explain the process; I deliberately did not make use of the figures - but as you can see from this article dated 2012, the trend has definitely continued.

 

2. This is precisely the point I have been making! The picture is complicated. However, you seem to think that it all hinges on the fact that CO2 is essential to plant life and therefore it doesn't matter how much is pumped into the atmosphere. You ignore everything else, come out with plainly silly phrase like "the oceans are big enough to cope" or that Scottish geriatricians will be pleased or that you haven't met a scientist who can distinguish between CO and CO2 or that everybody other than you seems to think CO2 is a poison. And you have the nerve to say that others can't see beyond the opening paragraph! Thanks for the laugh, at least.

 

3. Please try to read what you write. A reduction in surface warming trend is NOT the same as saying there has been cooling (or that there has been some kind of "pause"). It means that the rate of increase is not as great as it was. A more significant point is, of course, the one you made above - that you cannot simply extract short-term trends and isolate them from medium and long-term ones. Nonetheless, this is precisely what you are trying to do!

 

As I have said many times, in the short term, natural variations may mask the influence of man at a given time but accentuate them at others. One of the most significant natural short-term cycles relates to sunspots and works on a roughly 15 year basis. It follows that when this cycle produces a cooling trend it will mask longer trends to an increase. It also follows that when the cycle swings into a warming trend it will accentuate it. And the medium term trend we are passing through at present shows an undoubted warming effect which is reflected in the continual melting of the polar ice caps.

 

Take those blinkers off, realise that, although CO2 is not a poison, a serious increase in the amount of it in the atmosphere has many and various effects, some of which can lead to situations which are detrimental to human life. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a 40% increase - and half of that has come in the past 50 years. Most of that increase can be attributed to man's activities (from burning coal to destroying the rain forest). You may think it can be ignored but thank goodness most serious-minded people don't agree with you.

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-06 6:33 PM

 

If you believe some of the Alarmists they would have us believe that CO2 is a poison that somehow did not exist before the Industrial Revolution and so every molecule of CO2 is man made.

 

 

And this statement perfectly illustrates your technique - pretend that others are saying something that is clearly nonsense and which they have never said and then shoot your own invented statement down!

[Guest Had Enough]

TORONTO -- A Danish-owned coal-laden cargo ship has sailed through the Northwest Passage for the first time and into the history books as the second bulk carrier to navigate the Arctic route.

 

The Nordic Orion left Vancouver on Sept. 17 carrying 15,000 tons of coal. Ed Coll, CEO of Bulk Partners, an operational partner of ship-owner Nordic Bulk Carriers, said Friday that the freighter has passed Greenland. He said it is expected to dock in Finland next week after traversing waters once impenetrable with thick ice.

 

Interest in the Northwest Passage is on the rise as climate change is melting Arctic sea ice, creating open waterways. The melting ice could make it a regular Atlantic-Pacific shipping lane.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/danish-owned-coal-cargo-ship-sails-through-northwest-passage-1.1474487

[CliveH]

John 47 - 2013-10-06 9:51 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-06 6:33 PM

 

If you believe some of the Alarmists they would have us believe that CO2 is a poison that somehow did not exist before the Industrial Revolution and so every molecule of CO2 is man made.

 

 

And this statement perfectly illustrates your technique - pretend that others are saying something that is clearly nonsense and which they have never said and then shoot your own invented statement down!

 

John,

 

Your cited BBC article of 1999 was about the theory of Ocean Drift Disruption or Thermohaline Circulation, which is where the large amounts of fresh water ice melt disrupts the ocean (saline) currents.

 

This theory had its main claim to fame as the idea behind the 2004 Sci Fi film “The Day After Tomorrow”.

 

As Theory it was pretty much discredited in 2009 via actual measurements via the RAFOS probes. The Article in Nature of that year from the WoodsHole Oceanographic Institute found that on 8% of the RAFOS probes followed the circulation as postulated by the Thermohaline Models.

 

So forgive me for pointing out that your BBC article from 2012 you now cite inferring that it somehow backs up what you intimated earlier actually does nothing of the sort. It is about Ice Melt – but it is not specifically about the theory once postulated about what affects ocean currents to give Europe its mild climate.

 

What is interesting about this article is that it states:-

 

“The results show that the largest ice sheet - that of East Antarctica - has gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added to its volume.”

Hmmmmmm!

 

2) CO2 is a trace gas and a vital part of Krebs Cycle. In your post of 30/09/13 @ 2:39pm you specifically link CO2 with melting Ice sheets.

 

“…. Lots of negative results (such as the well documented melting of the ice sheets in the Anatarctic)” –

 

which I found odd seeing as the ice sheets in the Antarctic are currently increasing:-

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

 

Much of what else you say in Para 2 is smear and innuendo – not worthy of you John – you let yourself down old son.

 

I never said the “oceans are big enough to cope” – what I said was that is heat is being absorbed as Trenberth postulates then the dilution of that heat is such that the laws of Thermodynamics would indicate that it will be all but impossible for the oceans to regurgitate that heat back into the atmosphere

 

– i.e. put the heat back in the kettle.

 

The main point of this is not the obvious dilution effect of the heat itself – it is the fact that the Alarmist models did not factor in the possibility. Which simply underlines the inaccuracy of the models. But there are still questions – for example, as I stated in a previous post – what “turned the oceans on to being a heat sink in 1998? Because the data indicates that they were not doing this prior to 1998. Could the assumptions made in “correcting” the Data be at fault? Hansen did love to muck about with the figures when he was at GISA after all! As NASA to its embarrassment found out to its cost.

 

Also – you dismiss the benefits of a warmer world, which whilst I still say the Warming has Paused, I also know that with the natural cycles our planet goes through that warming and cooling come in cycles. As an IFA I take great interest in research that indicates what may happen to things like Crop Yields as this has a clear and obvious effect on world commodity prices.

 

So research like this from MIT is of great interest as it points out that GW will have a positive effect on US Crop Yields

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=564722

 

And indeed there is a more recent paper from China

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000180

 

Which is more interesting because it indicates that whilst increased precipitation will increase crop yields the lack of proper irrigation and water management will mean that in some regions the potential benefit could be lost.

 

What gets me John is that these papers, this research, and far far more - is out there and openly discussed by many many people in the "real world" – but if you listen to the Alarmists such as yourself, all you want to focus on is the doom and gloom!.

 

And with the IPCC AR4 being such a dogs breakfast of dodgy dossier grey literature, unsubstantiated claims masquerading as Peer Reviewed Science, little wonder then that AR5 is getting hard scrutiny from day one!

 

As for CO and CO2 I suggest you look at what the US EPA said some years back!

 

You may find it hard to believe - I certainly did – but here is some of the responses to the debacle of the Snr. Bods at the US Environmental Protection Agency dropping one of the biggest bollox ever seen in the torrid history of “AGW”, “Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change”

 

The EPA actually went ahead and listed CO2 as a poison – using data that applied to CO.

 

Amazing! - See below:

 

‘Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled by Government agencies such as the EPA who confuse Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

 

Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually plant food. They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life. Thus regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes', 'Cap and Trade' or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

 

 

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

 

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

 

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

 

"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food." - Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

 

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

 

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

 

"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet." - Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

 

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA

 

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

 

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

 

"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)." - Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist

 

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry’

 

These guys all went on record to state that CO2 was not a poison, not a pollutant and that the EPA got it VERY WRONG INDEED!

 

 

As for the “Pause” – do please do your research on it John – and go a bit deeper than BBC articles PLEASE!

 

You really are beginning to embarrass yourself mate!

 

If the Pause continues – then I think the IPCC will become irrelevant and questions will be asked as to how and why did Governments make such monumental and expensive decisions.

 

I think Judith Curry sums it up very well:-

 

 

 

“IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.” - Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 12:08 AM

 

TORONTO -- A Danish-owned coal-laden cargo ship has sailed through the Northwest Passage for the first time and into the history books as the second bulk carrier to navigate the Arctic route.

 

The Nordic Orion left Vancouver on Sept. 17 carrying 15,000 tons of coal. Ed Coll, CEO of Bulk Partners, an operational partner of ship-owner Nordic Bulk Carriers, said Friday that the freighter has passed Greenland. He said it is expected to dock in Finland next week after traversing waters once impenetrable with thick ice.

 

Interest in the Northwest Passage is on the rise as climate change is melting Arctic sea ice, creating open waterways. The melting ice could make it a regular Atlantic-Pacific shipping lane.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/danish-owned-coal-cargo-ship-sails-through-northwest-passage-1.1474487

 

Did you read the first comment to this article Frank?

 

In case you didn't - I will repeat it here:-

 

"Many people don’t realize that commercial passenger ships have been traversing the Northwest Passage for three decades.

 

The Lindblad Explorer did it for the first time in 1984, although the tanker Manhattan had made it from the US East Coast to Prudhoe Bay and back in 1969.

 

Expedition voyage transits are now offered by no fewer than six operators, including Compagnie du Ponant (Le Soléal) from France, Hapag-Lloyd Cruises (Bremen and Hanseatic) from Germany, Lindblad Expeditions (National Geographic Explorer, pictured) from the US , Adventure Canada (Sea Adventurer) and One Ocean Expeditions (Akademik Ioffe), both from Canada, and Silversea Expeditions (Silver Explorer) from Monaco."

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 7:36 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 12:08 AM

 

TORONTO -- A Danish-owned coal-laden cargo ship has sailed through the Northwest Passage for the first time and into the history books as the second bulk carrier to navigate the Arctic route.

 

The Nordic Orion left Vancouver on Sept. 17 carrying 15,000 tons of coal. Ed Coll, CEO of Bulk Partners, an operational partner of ship-owner Nordic Bulk Carriers, said Friday that the freighter has passed Greenland. He said it is expected to dock in Finland next week after traversing waters once impenetrable with thick ice.

 

Interest in the Northwest Passage is on the rise as climate change is melting Arctic sea ice, creating open waterways. The melting ice could make it a regular Atlantic-Pacific shipping lane.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/danish-owned-coal-cargo-ship-sails-through-northwest-passage-1.1474487

 

Did you read the first comment to this article Frank?

 

In case you didn't - I will repeat it here:-

 

"Many people don’t realize that commercial passenger ships have been traversing the Northwest Passage for three decades.

 

The Lindblad Explorer did it for the first time in 1984, although the tanker Manhattan had made it from the US East Coast to Prudhoe Bay and back in 1969.

 

Expedition voyage transits are now offered by no fewer than six operators, including Compagnie du Ponant (Le Soléal) from France, Hapag-Lloyd Cruises (Bremen and Hanseatic) from Germany, Lindblad Expeditions (National Geographic Explorer, pictured) from the US , Adventure Canada (Sea Adventurer) and One Ocean Expeditions (Akademik Ioffe), both from Canada, and Silversea Expeditions (Silver Explorer) from Monaco."

 

 

Er, yes I did. But I realised the difference between relatively small passenger ships and a huge bulk carrier. The article was telling us that for the first time in decades a VERY large vessel has made it through the NW Passage. It even pointed out that that the last time a tanker made it was in 1969! Still, you did post quite early and maybe you weren't wide awake?

 

However, this was the part I found interesting:

 

"Interest in the Northwest Passage is on the rise as climate change is melting Arctic sea ice, creating open waterways. The melting ice could make it a regular Atlantic-Pacific shipping lane.

 

Climate change is advancing more quickly to the point where the Northwest Passage has become a more viable shipping route, roughly 30 years earlier than most scientists estimated it would," said Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia."

 

Anyway, that's my last post on this. I seldom come here now as I've learned the folly of arguing with a man who can never admit that he is wrong and considers everyone else from from leading politicians to the governor of the Bank of England as some kind of morons. A word to the wise though Clive, you're becoming a bit boring on this subject. I fell asleep last night reading some of your many long-winded posts. It's not really worth all the time you spend researching this on the web you know. There's only a handful of people reading them and I suspect that they've all switched off!

 

Regrettably, unlike some on here I don't claim to know everything and I can't say with certainty whether man is affecting the climate, although I suspect that we may well have an influence. As with many things in life I'm prepared to admit that this is beyond my expertise and prefer to leave it to the real scientists. It must be wonderful to have such faith in your own opinions.

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Yes it can be hard to stay attentive to a complex subject when you get older Frank!

 

As for what people think - i admit to being a sceptic to the Global Warming Hype - I realised that something was very wrong when CO2 was categorised as a pollutant and even a poison. I never bother what other people think - only people with large egos have that problem.

 

Whatever you think of me Frank - I do have a degree in microbiology from years back and whilst it is way out of date I was deeply disturbed and the untruths and dodgy dossiers that surround the debacle that is AGW and the hype that goes with it when the scare stories first hit the news.

 

As for the NM Passage.

 

I too can use old BBC reports like John does (lol)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/918448.stm

 

Year 2000 - no ice found at all.

 

Well that is the BBC for you!

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 7:32 AM

1. Your cited BBC article of 1999 was about the theory of Ocean Drift Disruption or Thermohaline Circulation, which is where the large amounts of fresh water ice melt disrupts the ocean (saline) currents.

As Theory it was pretty much discredited in 2009 via actual measurements via the RAFOS probes.

 

2. your BBC article from 2012 ......

What is interesting about this article is that it states:-

“The results show that the largest ice sheet - that of East Antarctica - has gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added to its volume.”

Hmmmmmm!

 

3. ......which I found odd seeing as the ice sheets in the Antarctic are currently increasing:-

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

 

4. I never said the “oceans are big enough to cope” So research like this from MIT is of great interest as it points out that GW will have a positive effect on US Crop Yields

 

5. "CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food.

 

1. Nonsense. If THC has been discredited, as you say, then somebody better tell these authors (among many!) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n3/full/ngeo1391.html. Once again, you pick up on part of a story, misunderstand it and conveniently ignore the bits that don't suit your blinkered view.

 

2. And this illustrates my above point perfectly! You pick out half a sentence and ignore the fact that it goes on to say that the increase in the East Antarctic sheet is MORE THAN OFFSET by the decrease in the Western sheet and the Greenland sheet, with the result that the global figure is a very clear negative (ie the ice is melting and the sea levels rising).

 

3. And so it goes on - you don't even understand the links you post. The graph refers to "extent". Nobody has ever disputed the fact that the ice extent has been greater in recent years. The point is, however, that the volume is considerably less. Since you didn't understand my previous analogy, I'll try another one. If you place a block of butter on a table and then apply heat, the butter will melt and spread out over a wider area (that is "extent"). However, in the process, some of the liquid will evaporate, thus decreasing the volume. Understand now?

 

4. YES YOU DID - in precisely those terms. This is not the first time you have denied saying what is there in black and white for all to see!

 

5. I suggest you look up what is meant by the word "pollutant". Just as a weed is a plant in the wrong place, a pollutant is something which, although otherwise valuable, is in the wrong quantities and in the wrong place. Thus CO2 (and anything else) can become a pollutant very easily. I'll try to put it in terms you might understand: water is essential to life.......but if you try to live at the bottom of a lake you might find that water can have some pretty negative effects!

 

You really must try to do better :-D

[CliveH]

Oh dear

 

Poor show John

 

1 - You accuse me of something you do with depressing regularity - You try to infer that I say the THC is discredited???????

 

My word but you are silly - the article you cited was specific to "Ocean Drift Disruption which was an Alarmist prediction extrapolated from the relatively scant knowledge of the time on THC. Try reading the article - RAFOS probes would be a good place to start. Sometime you are hard to believe John! *-)

 

2 And you ignore the graphs I cite -- and the research

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

 

"Antarctic sea ice extent reached 19.47 million square kilometers (7.52 million square miles) on September 22, a record high maximum extent relative to the satellite record, and slightly above the previous record high set last year. This year’s maximum extent was 3.6% higher than the 1981 to 2010 average Antarctic maximum, representing an ice edge that is 35 kilometers (approximately 22 miles) further north on average. Overall, Antarctic September sea ice extent is increasing at 1.1% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This increase is likely due to a combination of factors, including winds and ocean circulation. A recent paper by our colleague Jinlun Zhang at the University of Washington concludes that changes in winds are resulting in both more compaction within the ice pack and more ridging, causing a thickening of the pack and making it more resistant to summer melt."

 

Hmmmmmmmm

 

Did you read that John?

 

"A recent paper by our colleague Jinlun Zhang at the University of Washington concludes that changes in winds are resulting in both more compaction within the ice pack and more ridging, causing a thickening of the pack ......................."

 

And yet you still witter on with out checking your facts.

 

Oh deary deary me!

 

Re the oceans "Coping" - I cannot find where I said that - but if I did - I will apologise - not because in the context of how it was written it has to be incorrect - but because I genuinely do not remember using those words.

 

Please provide a reference - time date etc.

 

I do know the definition of the word Pollutant - and I can assure you - as can all those eminent individuals I cited re there response to the barmy statement the EPA made, that CO2 does not come any where near that definition.

 

You are losing credibility here John!

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 10:16 AM

 

Oh dear

 

Poor show John

 

1 - You accuse me of something you do with depressing regularity - You try to infer that I say the THC is discredited???????

 

My word but you are silly - the article you cited was specific to "Ocean Drift Disruption which was an Alarmist prediction extrapolated from the relatively scant knowledge of the time on THC. Try reading the article - RAFOS probes would be a good place to start. Sometime you are hard to believe John! *-)

 

2 And you ignore the graphs I cite -- and the research

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

 

"Antarctic sea ice extent reached 19.47 million square kilometers (7.52 million square miles) on September 22, a record high maximum extent relative to the satellite record, and slightly above the previous record high set last year. This year’s maximum extent was 3.6% higher than the 1981 to 2010 average Antarctic maximum, representing an ice edge that is 35 kilometers (approximately 22 miles) further north on average. Overall, Antarctic September sea ice extent is increasing at 1.1% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This increase is likely due to a combination of factors, including winds and ocean circulation. A recent paper by our colleague Jinlun Zhang at the University of Washington concludes that changes in winds are resulting in both more compaction within the ice pack and more ridging, causing a thickening of the pack and making it more resistant to summer melt."

 

Hmmmmmmmm

 

Did you read that John?

 

"A recent paper by our colleague Jinlun Zhang at the University of Washington concludes that changes in winds are resulting in both more compaction within the ice pack and more ridging, causing a thickening of the pack ......................."

 

And yet you still witter on with out checking your facts.

 

Oh deary deary me!

 

Re the oceans "Coping" - I cannot find where I said that - but if I did - I will apologise - not because in the context of how it was written it has to be incorrect - but because I genuinely do not remember using those words.

 

Please provide a reference - time date etc.

 

I do know the definition of the word Pollutant - and I can assure you - as can all those eminent individuals I cited re there response to the barmy statement the EPA made, that CO2 does not come any where near that definition.

 

You are losing credibility here John!

 

 

You really are losing the plot, aren't you? You said that the theory of THC was discredited in 2009; you are shown that this statement was nonsense and now you try to pretend you didn't say it! laughable.

 

And you continue to confuse extent with volume. Look at the ACTUAL RECORDED FIGURES! The rates of melt now are three times greater than in the 1990s, the sea levels are rising by some 0.5 mm per year and you claim nothing is happening! I have never come across anyone more in denial than you. Even your vain attempt to divert attention by confusing compaction with volume is not borne out by the article you quote.

 

I'll look up the reference to your quote and let you know.

 

And if the increased levels of CO2 are producing effects that are negative for human life then there is absolutely no problem with using the word "pollutant". It is short-hand for saying that we should be concerned. Well, to everybody except you it seems. Not even the people you quote would support your blinkered interpretation.

 

 

[John 47]

John 47 - 2013-10-03 9:46 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-03 7:44 PM

4. this simply underlines that the Alarmist models are wrong, they run too hot and that if the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about.

 

4. The volumes of the ocean are such that we have nothing to worry about? Are you serious? Are you completely unaware of the role of ocean currents on our climate and the susceptibility of those currents to relatively small fluctuations of temperature and salinity? Not to mention the environmental impact, as outlined in the post from Symbol Owner above. If you had a position of power you would be a very dangerous individual indeed.

 

 

 

 

Found it!

[CliveH]

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

I also did not say the theory of THC was discredited - I said the Alarmist model of Ocean Drift Disruption was discredited. And cited the research published in Nature that by using the RAFOS probes proved this by way of only 8% of these Probes actually followed the route predicted by the Alarmist Models.

 

Still it made for a good film *-)

 

 

John

 

You habitually infer that I say something I have not. Your classic example where you stated i said:-

 

(That) "the oceans were big enough to cope"

 

Which I NEVER did!!

 

And then you alter what I did say to read:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have nothing to worry about"

 

When it is clear for all to see that I actually said:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

By altering what i said you create a totally differing emphasis.

 

You Sir

 

Are being dishonest with the facts.

 

You should be ashamed

 

Altho we have our differences in this subject I was hoping that you were an honourable and honest individual.

 

The proof of the above indicates otherwise.

 

I not too that you conveniently ignore all the points and references I cite that you cannot deal with - instead you prefer to manufacture "evidence" that i said what I clearly did not.

 

And you a Teacher!

 

Like I say - you should be ashamed!

 

And you try to infer that I am a dangerous man!

 

I am appalled at your actions.

 

I refer you to my previous citations and references and suggest that you read these and take some time to think about and contemplate your actions.

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 1:12 PM

 

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

I also did not say the theory of THC was discredited - I said the Alarmist model of Ocean Drift Disruption was discredited. And cited the research published in Nature that by using the RAFOS probes proved this by way of only 8% of these Probes actually followed the route predicted by the Alarmist Models.

 

Still it made for a good film *-)

 

 

John

 

You habitually infer that I say something I have not. Your classic example where you stated i said:-

 

(That) "the oceans were big enough to cope"

 

Which I NEVER did!!

 

And then you alter what I did say to read:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have nothing to worry about"

 

When it is clear for all to see that I actually said:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

By altering what i said you create a totally differing emphasis.

 

You Sir

 

Are being dishonest with the facts.

 

You should be ashamed

 

Altho we have our differences in this subject I was hoping that you were an honourable and honest individual.

 

The proof of the above indicates otherwise.

 

I not too that you conveniently ignore all the points and references I cite that you cannot deal with - instead you prefer to manufacture "evidence" that i said what I clearly did not.

 

And you a Teacher!

 

Like I say - you should be ashamed!

 

And you try to infer that I am a dangerous man!

 

I am appalled at your actions.

 

I refer you to my previous citations and references and suggest that you read these and take some time to think about and contemplate your actions.

 

I really didn't want to get involved in this but you really need someone to tell you what you're doing here, which is totally losing the plot or becoming so desperate that you'll stoop to this level of character assassination just to try to score points.

 

John47 didn't try to alter your post, he actually quoted it in full and yes, you did say 'little'. He replied and used the word 'nothing'.

 

He wasn't being devious at all. If I told someone that we have little to worry about regarding Islamic extremism for instance and later he accused me of believing that Islamic extremism is nothing to worry about I couldn't give a toss. It's semantics and you making such a song and dance about a word, possibly written in haste, is pathetic.

 

During this entire debate John47 tried to keep it civilized but you started the insults (or ad hominem as you always pompously call it) by continually insulting him and calling him a silly ,silly man etc.

 

And this from a man who is continually upbraiding people about such behaviour. You really are the worst kind of hypocrite!

 

I posted earlier about a bulk carrier making it through the NW Passage for the first time in decades and what do you do? You bang on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages and conveniently ignore the main point of the article which was that it was a VERY BIG ship that successfully made the journey. Now that was devious!

 

Finally, for God's sake learn the difference between imply and infer. Your use of the wrong word makes a nonsense of many of your posts.

 

I see that you haven't changed in my absence!

 

Note to John47 - give up on this man, you will never win, even when you're right. He is so determined to keep up what he sees is his role on here, which is the resident know-all, that he will never admit that he may be wrong. I and others have leaned that it's pointless and eventually you'll do the same.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

There speaks a man of such tact and diplomacy we all are overcome with gratitude when he honours us with his presence.

 

(Sarc is on - like you have a moral compass Frank when it comes to someone like me that stands up to your bullying claptrap.

 

You just could not stay out of it Frank - something which I note you accused me of doing in the past!

 

Typical.

 

You and John are two of a kind - both of you resort to personal attacks when you do not get your own way. I called John silly because he was being silly - He was saying things like the "Pause" is not called a "Pause" by real climatologists because they would not use such words!

 

Then when I give chapter and verse where the Met Office and others DO use the term he makes stuff up about that which I have written!

 

I hope you two are very happy together!!!! Match made in Cyberspace where nobody can see either of you - so you feel safe doing what you would not dare to do in a face to face discussion!

 

Meanwhile - those of us who understand a bit about the subject and try to be honest and cite REAL data not biased BBC articles of over a decade ago will have a few chuckles at your expense and carry on as before.

 

John - I still think very much the less of you for what you have done - it is not the actions of an honourable man.

 

Not surprising then that you can find a Champion in the likes of Frank Wilkinson - (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-10-07 2:01 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-10-07 1:12 PM

 

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

I also did not say the theory of THC was discredited - I said the Alarmist model of Ocean Drift Disruption was discredited. And cited the research published in Nature that by using the RAFOS probes proved this by way of only 8% of these Probes actually followed the route predicted by the Alarmist Models.

 

Still it made for a good film *-)

 

 

John

 

You habitually infer that I say something I have not. Your classic example where you stated i said:-

 

(That) "the oceans were big enough to cope"

 

Which I NEVER did!!

 

And then you alter what I did say to read:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have nothing to worry about"

 

When it is clear for all to see that I actually said:-

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

By altering what i said you create a totally differing emphasis.

 

You Sir

 

Are being dishonest with the facts.

 

You should be ashamed

 

Altho we have our differences in this subject I was hoping that you were an honourable and honest individual.

 

The proof of the above indicates otherwise.

 

I not too that you conveniently ignore all the points and references I cite that you cannot deal with - instead you prefer to manufacture "evidence" that i said what I clearly did not.

 

And you a Teacher!

 

Like I say - you should be ashamed!

 

And you try to infer that I am a dangerous man!

 

I am appalled at your actions.

 

I refer you to my previous citations and references and suggest that you read these and take some time to think about and contemplate your actions.

 

I really didn't want to get involved in this but you really need someone to tell you what you're doing here, which is totally losing the plot or becoming so desperate that you'll stoop to this level of character assassination just to try to score points.

 

John47 didn't try to alter your post, he actually quoted it in full and yes, you did say 'little'. He replied and used the word 'nothing'.

 

He wasn't being devious at all. If I told someone that we have little to worry about regarding Islamic extremism for instance and later he accused me of believing that Islamic extremism is nothing to worry about I couldn't give a toss. It's semantics and you making such a song and dance about a word, possibly written in haste, is pathetic.

 

During this entire debate John47 tried to keep it civilized but you started the insults (or ad hominem as you always pompously call it) by continually insulting him and calling him a silly ,silly man etc.

 

And this from a man who is continually upbraiding people about such behaviour. You really are the worst kind of hypocrite!

 

I posted earlier about a bulk carrier making it through the NW Passage for the first time in decades and what do you do? You bang on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages and conveniently ignore the main point of the article which was that it was a VERY BIG ship that successfully made the journey. Now that was devious!

 

Finally, for God's sake learn the difference between imply and infer. Your use of the wrong word makes a nonsense of many of your posts.

 

I see that you haven't changed in my absence!

 

Note to John47 - give up on this man, you will never win, even when you're right. He is so determined to keep up what he sees is his role on here, which is the resident know-all, that he will never admit that he may be wrong. I and others have leaned that it's pointless and eventually you'll do the same.

 

 

 

Oh dear - Frank - your attention to detail is not so good anymore is it!

 

You say -

 

"I posted earlier about a bulk carrier making it through the NW Passage for the first time in decades and what do you do? You bang on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages and conveniently ignore the main point of the article which was that it was a VERY BIG ship that successfully made the journey. Now that was devious! "

 

You accuse me of "banging on about small passenger liners doing the same thing for ages......"

 

When I made it quite clear in my post that it was not me that made that comment - it was made under the article you linked to and I simply re-posted it.

 

It was posted by a chap called :-

 

Kevin Griffin

on Sep. 28, 2013

at 8:50 AM

 

And you go on to accuse me of being "devious"

 

pot kettle black *-)

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-07 1:12 PM

 

John what I ACTUALLY said was this.

 

 

"If the oceans act as a heat sink then the volume of the oceans are such that we have little to worry about"

 

 

YOU changed it to make out that I said we had "NOTHING" to worry about.

 

 

Well, for somebody who seems not to know the difference between something cooling down and something warming up at a reduced rate, I find your hair-splitting over terminology quite simply comical.

 

Your dismissal of the increase in temperature of the ocean deeps (whatever language you use) was very clear - and equally very silly.

 

Similarly with your wriggling to try to get out of your comments about THC, about not knowing any scientist who could distinguish between Monoxide and Dioxide, about Scottish geriatricians being in favour of global warming and about ice melt. You don't understand the meaning of the word "pollution" and you seem to believe that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can go on increasing ad nauseam without any detrimental consequences. You posts links to scientific papers without understanding them and draw conclusions that are in marked contradiction to the actual measured facts. I'd be very interested to hear from those you have linked to as to what they think of these statements from you!

Somehow I don't think you'd get much support.

 

I think you said earlier that you were trained in micro-biology. Well I don't know much about that world but if the links between cause and effect in it are as simplistic as you imply, I can only inform you that on the global scale of climatology the picture is very much more complex and very delicate. We most definitely have much more than a little to be worried about.