Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[SV THIRD DAY]

Is the computer of the MMGWC solar powered or are they adding to evil CO2 by posting in this thread?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change - ScienceAlert

From the article:

...the researchers used a combination of climate models that assume that...temperatures would rise about 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade up to about 2040. The team also calculated that temperatures will spike a bit, rising 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade, after 2040...

So the study assumes temp changes of 5C in the regions studied by 2100. Why? That's larger than worst IPCC estimates.

Why do you think this is credible?

A more likely scenario is that the forests studied will have a much different distribution of trees, many non-native, by 2100. Invasive tree and shrub species already dominate the marginal forested lands in much of the south...most of which were introduced as ornamentals in the past several decades. Mimosa, "popcorn" tree, Chinaberry, and Chinese privet are widespread, and are rapidly extending their range and their density in areas already established.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change - ScienceAlert

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

ROTDLMAO

"To find out how these areas might change in the future, the researchers used a combination of climate models that assume that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise at the same levels they are today, which will take emission rates from 400 parts per million to 1370 parts per million by 2100. If this happens, temperatures would rise about 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade up to about 2040. The team also calculated that temperatures will spike a bit, rising 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade, after 2040, though they do not mention why these rates change that year."


1370 ppm CO2 is worse than the implausible, worst case RCP8.5 projection.

RCP8.5 is predicated on population rising to 12 billion, a huge increase in per capita energy usage combined with a major movement back to coal as the primary energy source and little technological development.

(RCP8.5 assume 1370 CO2 equivalent i.e. total forcing from all greenhouse gases)


And their prediction of 0.4 x 2.4 + 0.7 * 6 = 5.16°C (9.3F) above current levels is way in excess of even the RCP8.5 predicted increase above pre-industrial.


As Judith Curry puts it: "RCP8.5 assumes a nightmarish world even before climate impacts, resulting from substantial changes to long-standing trends.



Finally from the article:

"there is no word if the team’s findings, which are detailed in the recently published book Climate Change in Wildlands:Pioneering Approaches to Science and Management, will be published in any peer-reviewed journals, so for now, were taking their word for it."


I'm not.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change

These are the trees NASA predicts will get hit hardest by climate change - ScienceAlert

Which is a small fraction of those that will be, I dunno, "benefited mostest" by climate change.

[Exile]

So much for more realistic, credible, and less controversial predictions of impacts . . . . Yet the AGW proponents apparently believe that these sorts of untested predictions, whether ultimately substantiated or not, will scare people outside their own club into signing up. I guess if they all share L-E's recently professed inability to distinguish credible scientific fact & theory from pure alarmism, then I suppose it makes sense.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Is the computer of the MMGWC solar powered or are they adding to evil CO2 by posting in this thread?

So far it appears as though only you & Newhaul are probably not adding to evil CO2 with your posts, or at least not nearly as much as most of us landlubbers. OK, OK, maybe just symbolic, but I just can't resist the irony . . . .

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

So far it appears as though only you & Newhaul are probably not adding to evil CO2 with your posts, or at least not nearly as much as most of us landlubbers. OK, OK, maybe just symbolic, but I just can't resist the irony . . . .

Oy, wot abart me!

One of the advantages of living on a cat.
800W of solar going into the house bank and a high percentage of the extra that comes in through my shore power connection is hydro generated.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think it's tough to talk realistically about adaptation until scientists can provide us with more realistic, credible, and less controversial predictions of impacts. Your denier, etc. labels don't matter, nor does SailOar's alarmist posts. Unless you guys are interested in further alienating as many skeptics as possible, thereby frustrating any policy efforts you favor.

If the shoe fits...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

So far it appears as though only you & Newhaul are probably not adding to evil CO2 with your posts, or at least not nearly as much as most of us landlubbers. OK, OK, maybe just symbolic, but I just can't resist the irony . . . .

In two different places I've lived I've had the option of paying a premium to the power company to specifically support local wind or solar generation. That seemed like a worthwhile investment to me.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

So much for more realistic, credible, and less controversial predictions of impacts . . . . Yet the AGW proponents apparently believe that these sorts of untested predictions, whether ultimately substantiated or not, will scare people outside their own club into signing up. I guess if they all share L-E's recently professed inability to distinguish credible scientific fact & theory from pure alarmism, then I suppose it makes sense.

Something must be working.

Over the last few years I've participated in a number of AGW threads, on various forums. I've noticed there is a marked diminution in the number of posts by serious skeptical anti-AGW scientists. And when forum moderators insist on a modicum of civility, there is also a marked diminution of posts from anti-science, anti-AGW laymen.

National polls indicate a similar trend in the public

Have you also notice that trend? Why do you think that is the case?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Something must be working.

Over the last few years I've participated in a number of AGW threads, on various forums. I've noticed is a marked diminution in the number of posts by serious skeptical anti-AGW scientists. And when forum moderators insist on a modicum of civility, there is also a marked diminution of posts from anti-science, anti-AGW laymen.

National polls indicate a similar trend in the public

Have you also notice that trend? Why do you think that is the case?

Could have something to do with what was posted prior that the children that are now in their late teens and early 20's are and were being force fed the MMGW meme in school .

[SailOar]

Russia dragging heels on creation of Antarctic conservation zone | The Guardian

A major diplomatic effort is under way to persuade Russia to agree to a conservation zone in the Ross Sea, a stretch of water in Antarctica that is home to large populations of whales and penguins as well as dozens of species of fish.

The Ross Sea is one of the world’s most important ecosystems, a largely untouched marine area which scientists say is the ideal place to study life in the Antarctic and the effects of climate change.

For many years, conservationists have pushed for the creation of a no-fishing zone in the area, but Russia and China have repeatedly blocked the proposals, which need to be agreed unanimously by the 25 member states of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). China is now on board.[...]

More than 1.3 million people have signed a petition on the website Avaaz calling on Russia to sign up to the proposals. [...]

The decision will be taken in October at the annual summit of the CCAMLR in Tasmania, and there is a diplomatic effort to change Russia’s mind before then. [...]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Oy, wot abart me!

One of the advantages of living on a cat.
800W of solar going into the house bank and a high percentage of the extra that comes in through my shore power connection is hydro generated.

Ha-Ha! You & many other liveaboards I'm sure . . . proponents, skeptics, deniers, along with the vast majority who could care less about meaningless labels. Gotta be confusing for the holier-than-thou crowd, and downright infuriating for those who contribute nothing more than signaling their own virtue. Maybe symbolic in the big scheme of things, but it is something as compared to nothing. Or maybe worse than nothing if you consider the electrons consumed on these threads . . . along with the frequent loss of credibility it seems.

[Ribbit]

Assumptions are not "Science".

Any 'study' based on assumptions, isn't worth the paper it is printed on. It certainly isn't Empiricism (the Scientific Method).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Something must be working.

Over the last few years I've participated in a number of AGW threads, on various forums. I've noticed is a marked diminution in the number of posts by serious skeptical anti-AGW scientists. And when forum moderators insist on a modicum of civility, there is also a marked diminution of posts from anti-science, anti-AGW laymen.

National polls indicate a similar trend in the public

Have you also notice that trend? Why do you think that is the case?

So which part of the PR do you think is working? Given your approach, I'm assuming it's the unsubstantiated alarmism. I get it -- scare people into believing it's much worse than the current state of the more settled, sufficiently peer-reviewed science says it is. You've already acknowledged this, and your posts back it up. The problem is that to believe this is "working," you and others have to have little faith in peoples' ability to handle the truth, think for themselves, and act accordingly. But of course this is basic to more left-wing ideology that prefers putting an all-knowing cadre of "elites" in charge of dictating what's best for everyone else. And therein lies much of the explanation for the political divide surrounding what should be an issue resolved by science alone.

Not sure about your ad hoc polling, but it's a safe bet that if you & others honestly presented the true estimated costs of reducing carbon emissions as opposed to the theoretical benefits, your claimed popular support would look quite different. But isn't this exactly why only the worse-case, alarmist scenarios are discussed instead? As we've seen time & again in this thread, talk is cheap but even the most strident proponents seem reluctant to make meaningful personal sacrifices. But if you think paying more to your local utility will hasten the development of viable green energy, then more power to ya.