no denials????

Could be cyclical:

 

Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?

<small>March 22nd, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.</small>

---

 

 

Do you remember your junior high American history class?  Remember how we learned about the great explorers like Hudson and Cabot?  What were they looking for?  The Northwest Passage to the Orient, right?  Did they find it?  No.  Because the Arctic was frozen year round.  They couldn't find a passage, even in the summer, because of the ice. Is it the same today?

________________________________________________________________

 

Remember the climate during the time of Hudson and Cabot was called the Little Ice-Age.

---

We have planes today, we can fly over the ice.

Why wasn't the Northwest Passage established at the end of the Little Ice Age (c. 1850)? 

MONTREAL, Sept. 19, 2014 /CNW Telbec/ - Fednav, a Canadian-owned company and world leader in Arctic navigation, today announced that its vessel, the MV Nunavik sailed from Deception Bay en route to China via Canada's Northwest Passage, with a full cargo of nickel concentrate. The Nunavik will be one of the first commercial vessels to transit the Northwest Passage completely, and the first to do so unescorted with an Arctic cargo, and with Canadian expertise.

 

The Nunavik is the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) icebreaking bulk carrier in the world, and sails from Deception Bay, Northern Quebec year round, transporting product from the Canadian Royalties mine. The Nunavik will deliver 23,000 tons of nickel concentrate to Bayuquan in China.

 

The Nunavik will be supported by a s****-based team of ice navigation specialists from Fednav and its subsidiary, Enfotec. The vessel will receive regular ice charts including real-time satellite imagery in order to operate Enfotec's proprietary onboard ice-navigation system, Icenav^TM, further enabling safe and efficient transit.

http://www.fednav.com/en/media...-northwest-passage-0

 

I don't think the technology of 1850 was capable of building icebreakers.

There have been cargo vessels with ice breaking capability for decades. Why now?

____________________________________________________________

 

You might need to note that "ice free" doesn't exactly mean "ice free" necessitating the need for ice-breaking abilities :

 

http://www.fednav.com/en/voyage-nunavik

I might also note that to sail the Northwest Passage has always needed icebreakers or lots of luck:

 

The first traversal of the Northwest Passage via dog sled^[46] was accomplished by Greenlander Knud Rasmussen while on the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921–1924). Rasmussen and two Greenland Inuit travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the course of 16 months via dog sled.

 

Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, leaving Vancouver 23 June 1940 and arriving at Halifax on 11 October 1942.^[47] More than once on this trip, he was uncertain whether the St. Roch, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner, would survive the pressures of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered "if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice." The ship and all but one of her crew survived the winter on Boothia Peninsula. Each of the men on the trip was awarded a medal by Canada's sovereign, King George VI, in recognition of this notable feat of Arctic navigation.

 

Later in 1944, Larsen's return trip was far more swift than his first. He made the trip in 86 days to sail back from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Vancouver, British Columbia.^[48] He set a record for traversing the route in a single season. The ship, after extensive upgrades, followed a more northerly, partially uncharted route.

 

On July 1, 1957, the United States Coast Guard Cutter Storis departed in company with USCGC Bramble and USCGC Spar to search for a deep-draft channel through the Arctic Ocean and to collect hydrographic information. Upon her return to Greenland waters, the Storis became the first U.S.-registered vessel to have circumnavigated North America. Shortly after her return in late 1957, she was reassigned to her new home port of Kodiak, Alaska.

 

In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreakers CCGS John A. Macdonald and CCGS Louis S. S^t-Laurent. The U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers Northwind and Staten Island also sailed in support of the expedition.^[49][50]

 

The Manhattan was a specially reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil. While the Manhattan succeeded, the route was deemed not to be cost effective. The United States built the Alaska Pipeline instead.

 

In June 1977, sailor Willy de Roos left Belgium to attempt the Northwest Passage in his 13.8 m (45 ft) steel yacht Williwaw. He reached the Bering Strait in September and after a stopover in Victoria, British Columbia, went on to round Cape Horn and sail back to Belgium, thus being the first sailor to circumnavigate the Americas entirely by ship.^[51]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

Since you won't answer my question of "Why now?", I will. 

 

It is because it is now commercially feasible (i.e., a profit can be made) to use the Northwest Passage because there is more open water and the ice that is present is thinner, allowing a cargo vessel with ice breaking capabilities to sail virtually unencumbered by ice.  

 

Note that the SS Manhattan had four ice breakers accompany it. 

 

"THE SS MANHATTAN WAS POWERED BY 43,000 HORSEPOWER BUT WAS NO MATCH FOR 16-20 FOOT THICK SEA ICE IN MCCLURE STRAIT AND HAD TO TURN AROUND (NO SMALL TASK FOR A 1005' LOA X 148' WIDE BEAM SHIP IN NEAR 16' SEA ICE) AND CHANGE THE NAVIGATION ROUTE TO USE THE NARROW AND CONSTRAINED PRINCE OF WALES STRAIT ON THE EAST SIDE OF BANKS ISLAND."

 

http://greygooseadventures.blo...-ice-icebreaker.html

ing to even small amounts of sea level rise

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/08/

 

If you worship at the church of climate change and drive a vehicle powered by fossil fuel, you are a hypocrite. Do you own an internal combustion engine of any kind and worship at the church of climate change? If so, you are a hypocrite. Until you give up your conveniences provided by fossil fuels don't ask me to pay extra or do without for your unfounded fears!

Since you won't answer my question of "Why now?", I will. 

 

 

 You obviously you didn't take note of the fact from the Wikipedia article that in 1944 (schooner), 1957 (Coast Guard cutter and two buoy tenders), and 1977 (private yacht) that non-icebreakers made the trip rather quickly before the satellite measurement of sea ice. I think the only way they made the trip was that the past global warming was more than this years global warming. 

 

Oh by the way, if Antarctic sea ice is increasing while the Arctic decreased, shouldn't we be talking about both hemispherical warming and cooling?

 

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest).  Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).

http://www.climatecooling.org/

Ok, I've presented the scientific data.  You've presented opinion.  So, ok, all you are right.  The National Snow and Ice Data Center is wrong.  The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is wrong.  NASA is wrong.  The U.S. Geological Survey is wrong.  The National Science Foundation is wrong.  The Royal Society is wrong.  The National Geographic Society is wrong.  All those tens of thousands of scientists are in a conspiracy.  They are all doing it just for a paycheck.  They are all conspiring to falsify data to mislead the public so they can collect a paycheck.  If it weren't for their conspiracy, they wouldn't have a job. 

 

 

------------------------------

If you worship at the church of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, then I have no doubt you will continue to deny the science.

 

(gee, that sounds just as stupid as your statement.)

______________________________________________________________

Try to keep an open mind, the science is still not settled.

What is the criteria for 'settled science'?

___________________________________________________

 

It sure ain't having 31,487 American scientists with 9,029 with PhDs disagreeing with the "consensus".

I don't listen to rush or Glen, I stand by my statement. If you are in any way using modern conveniences and screaming about climate change, you are a hypocrite.  For some reason al Gore's parishioners expect everyone else to do without while they are allowed to have private planes, rv's and other luxuries that you want to be unavailable for the common person.

------------------------------

Hey, don't you criticize my Bentley, 747, and 120ft yacht.  You can go ride a horse for all I care! 

_________________________________________
Or, using a short survey with 79 climatologists to claim 97 percent of all scientist agree on global warmin.

----------------------------------

The what is it?  It appears to me that the National Academy of Sciences considers it 'settled science', as do many other scientific organizations.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but for some reason these guys have whole websites dedicated to climate change:

 

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/

http://environment.nationalgeo...ment/global-warming/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

And how many American scientists are there?  How many American scientists with PhD.s? 

Is your 31,487 dissenting American scientists 1% of the total number of American scientists?  10%?  20%? 

 

Here's some more web sites about this 'unsettled' science:

 

http://www.caltech.edu/news/ca...climate-change-42608

http://globalchange.mit.edu/re.../special/2014Outlook

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

 

Merchants of Doubt is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the climate change debate and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached, was the basic strategy of those opposing action.^[1] In particular, they say that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.^[2]

The Marshall Institute and Fred Singer, two of the subjects, have been critical of the book, but most reviewers received it favorably. One reviewer said that Merchants of Doubt is exhaustively researched and documented, and may be one of the most important books of 2010. Another reviewer saw the book as his choice for best science book of the year.^[3]

________________________________________________________

Note the ".gov" in most of those sites. The people running those just might like to keep the paychecks coming as long as "the boss" is pleased. The same goes for some of ".edu" 's and ".org" 's wanting research stipends to support those who desire to seize control of the means of production and all property or at least to effectively regulate those things as to effectively control them. The rest of those people at those sites might actually believe in the global warming "consensus".

--------------------------

Its a conspiracy! They're all in on it, all them evil comunist scientists!

Here's a number for you:

6.2 Million.

 

And that "consensus" might be changing its mind:

 

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010). Yet, apart from discussions among scientists, public concern over climate change is also waning in the US (Leiserowitz, Maibach & Roser-Renouf, 2008, 2010; Maibach, Leiserowitz, Roser-Renouf, & Mertz, 2011; Pew Research Center, 2009), the UK (Jowit, 2010), and Canada (Berry, Clarke, Pajot, Hutton, & Verret, 2009).

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

 

Those evil Koch's must be going broke to buy all those scientists.

OldSalt, it don't matter if you can get a million scientists to prove "global warming", one crackpot reinforces their mindset.

You won't get a 'million' scientists to "prove" global warming/cooling, and it's hardly one or a crackpot that disagrees with them. Even if it was true, what are you saving it for?

someone tell best, there are future generations of people who will have to live on this planet... maybe then she can stop asking 'who are you saving it for?"... i believe she thinks this is the last generation, on earth.

 

______________________________________________

So prepare a statistical sample set at 90 percent accuracy , sent it to the prerequisite number.  Then, get back to us on the results.

-----------------------------------------------

Who would want to eat out of an iron rice bowl.  The rice would probably taste funny.  Porcelain is much better, and prettier too!

--------------------------------------------------

Since you missed it, that 31,478 is the number of scientists that Stanky claims signed a petition (of all things) stating they disagree with the idea that human-caused climate change will have catastrophic consequences for the earth and humanity, or something along those lines.  So I don't need a survey.  You do a survey.

salt you are wasting your time.