Comments on: Wind Patterns May Be Responsible for Arctic Sea Ice Loss http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Ivan http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-78 Ivan Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:36:05 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html#comment-78 <p>Roald Amundsen was successful in making the Northwest passage in the early 20th Century, but I believe he wintered over at least 1 year (looks like 2 according to Wikipedia). He spent that time studying the natives and how they survived in such an inhospitable climate. As I recall from a documentary I saw he came close to losing his ship to the ice at least once. </p> Roald Amundsen was successful in making the Northwest passage in the early 20th Century, but I believe he wintered over at least 1 year (looks like 2 according to Wikipedia). He spent that time studying the natives and how they survived in such an inhospitable climate. As I recall from a documentary I saw he came close to losing his ship to the ice at least once.

]]> By: James Howe http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-77 James Howe Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:50:21 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html#comment-77 <p>"...OOOO! A nit to pick! "This century" started in 2001...."</p> <p>Quite correct. Carelessness on my part.</p> <p>"... The error in this thinking is that it lets AGW (or anyone) just make up claims, and puts the onus of proof on anyone who doesn't accept it on blind faith. ..."</p> <p>Also correct, but that seems to be pretty much par for the course these days. </p> “…OOOO! A nit to pick! “This century” started in 2001….”

Quite correct. Carelessness on my part.

“… The error in this thinking is that it lets AGW (or anyone) just make up claims, and puts the onus of proof on anyone who doesn’t accept it on blind faith. …”

Also correct, but that seems to be pretty much par for the course these days.

]]> By: Bearster http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-76 Bearster Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:35:40 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html#comment-76 <p>"...global warming supporters could easily argue that..."</p> <p>The error in this thinking is that it lets AGW (or anyone) just make up claims, and puts the onus of proof on anyone who doesn't accept it on blind faith.</p> <p>The proper approach is to demand that the proponent prove his claims. Since AGW predicts and claims many things which are untrue, it should be rejected by anyone whose standard is reason.</p> <p>Environmentalism is a faith-based movement, i.e. a religion.</p> “…global warming supporters could easily argue that…”

The error in this thinking is that it lets AGW (or anyone) just make up claims, and puts the onus of proof on anyone who doesn’t accept it on blind faith.

The proper approach is to demand that the proponent prove his claims. Since AGW predicts and claims many things which are untrue, it should be rejected by anyone whose standard is reason.

Environmentalism is a faith-based movement, i.e. a religion.

]]> By: Larry Sheldon http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-75 Larry Sheldon Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:42:44 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html#comment-75 <p>OOOO! A nit to pick! "This century" started in 2001, but other wise that is a middling good question.</p> <p>The one in the area that intrigues is this: Somebody famous set out from Europe some years ago looking for the "NorthWest Passage to China" seems like. Long enough ago that it was mention in history books I read as a kid, so you know it was a _long_ time ago. And it seems like there were reports of successful transits although it never became the boon that is now predicted. How did they do that?</p> <p>And on the question about "what is 'normal'"...I always thought (with respect to people) normal=boring and with respect to everything else "normal" was the value such that half the examples measured were above it and half were below it.</p> <p>Since there seems to be no agreement on what was measured, what the measured values are, and which of myriad adjustments are or are not, should or should not, were or were not applied the task of determining what "normal" means belongs in the "too hard box[1]".</p> <p>[1] Bernie Peters taught me to say that.</p> OOOO! A nit to pick! “This century” started in 2001, but other wise that is a middling good question.

The one in the area that intrigues is this: Somebody famous set out from Europe some years ago looking for the “NorthWest Passage to China” seems like. Long enough ago that it was mention in history books I read as a kid, so you know it was a _long_ time ago. And it seems like there were reports of successful transits although it never became the boon that is now predicted. How did they do that?

And on the question about “what is ‘normal’”…I always thought (with respect to people) normal=boring and with respect to everything else “normal” was the value such that half the examples measured were above it and half were below it.

Since there seems to be no agreement on what was measured, what the measured values are, and which of myriad adjustments are or are not, should or should not, were or were not applied the task of determining what “normal” means belongs in the “too hard box[1]“.

[1] Bernie Peters taught me to say that.

]]> By: James Howe http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-74 James Howe Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:59:27 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/wind-patterns-m.html#comment-74 <p>This is interesting information but I have a simple question. When the researcher talks about wind patterns set up at the beginning of 'this century', I have to assume he means starting in 2000, not 1900? If so, global warming supporters could easily argue that AGW is the driving force behind these changing winds and so ultimately it is still AGW that is causing the ice to melt, just not directly.</p> This is interesting information but I have a simple question. When the researcher talks about wind patterns set up at the beginning of ‘this century’, I have to assume he means starting in 2000, not 1900? If so, global warming supporters could easily argue that AGW is the driving force behind these changing winds and so ultimately it is still AGW that is causing the ice to melt, just not directly.

]]>