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

[newhaul]

Couldn't have anything to do with the ever increasing propencity to have sensors in heat islands now than they were then could it?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Do you know what this is attributed to or should we ask the two climate scientists who are responsible for producing this data?

Just asking questions?

Or you could ask the guys responsible for this graph.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Couldn't have anything to do with the ever increasing propencity to have sensors in heat islands now than they were then could it?

Glad you asked.

Richard Muller and the good folks at BEST discounted UHI.

The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Berkeley Earth

The paper itself

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Without my glasses, I'd say that the avg. temp. of the climate changed approx. 0.45 degs. in almost 30 yrs. Do you know what this is attributed to or should we ask the two climate scientists who are responsible for producing this data?

You do gotta admit...
Sometimes this is just too easy.

[jackdale]

OK an apparent upside to disappearing Arctic sea ice - faster Internet.

Boy, are some climate change deniers going to take this one the wrong way.
This past June was the worst month on record for Arctic sea ice coverage according to the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, with the ice cover accumulated over the winter disappearing at a rate of 74,000 sq km a day -70 per cent faster than normal.
Scientists are concluding that global warming is hitting the Arctic much harder than previously estimated, and the damage is only expected to get worse as retreating ice coverage will mean a loss of the ice’s reflective white surface in exchange for the darker ocean waters, which more readily absorb the sun’s energy and cause further heating up of the Arctic and the planet. The NSIDC reported that overall sea ice coverage is down about 1.36 million sq km -an area about twice the size of Texas.
“As a result of human-caused climate change, the Arctic is warming at a rate roughly twice as fast as the global average,” says meteorologist and science writer Scott Sutherland with the Weather Network, “And these extraordinary warm temperatures are whittling away at the sea ice there.”
A side consequence of the devastation has been that newly opened up Arctic waters are making it easier for transportation and infrastructure to push further into the North. Quintillion Networks, for example, based in Anchorage, Alaska, is in the midst of a three-stage installation plan to connect Asia, North America and Europe through an undersea fibre-optic cable stretching across the Arctic Circle.

Melting sea ice brings faster internet to Alaska - Cantech Letter

[SV THIRD DAY]

Just like the Left...change is bad...panic.
I like melting sea ice...warmer weather lets you grow more food...you remember that Population Bomb myth..ha ha

[fryewe]

Notice anything?

Yep. The slope of that plot doesn't really support this...

...If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050...

Matter of fact, it's been 28 years since Hansen's testimony, and the observed effects during that time have been very much less than he projected, and because the response to increasing CO2 concentrations is non-linear (changes in concentrations have lesser effect as the concentration increases), it would seem that his projections for 2025 to 2050 are grossly in error.

Has he ever said "I was wrong [and this is why]?"

Models must have been wrong. Did they find out what was wrong with them? Have they published their findings?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just asking questions?

Or you could ask the guys responsible for this graph.

I really didn't have to ask since many others already have, and here's how Christy & Spencer summed things up just last year:

"Yes . . . there is climate change. Yes . . . humans play a role in that climate change. No . . . it's not a catastrophic event."

Much more detail here: 7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years | AL.com

Remember? Or was it just another round of questions you preferred not to answer?

And even though these two scientists' views are in the minority, somehow their papers articulating those views wound up as part of the 97% majority "consensus." Huh. But then we know this consensus has been thoroughly discredited because Powell "proved" it was really 99%. You don't even need peer review to figure out why when you learn that these two well known skeptics are somehow part of the "overwhelming" weight of scientific opinion. Has anyone else figured out what's going on with the beloved "consensus" yet?

Btw, here's that graph discussed on the other thread many, many posts ago (just in case Jack forgot about this one too). It shows the same UAH satellite temp data (or does it?) and compares it to some of the modeling. You don't have to spend much time examining it to better understand why Jack has been so reluctant to post it himself.

Edit: Looks like Jack used the RSS graph the second time or switched one for the other. Not sure why since RSS shows even less warming than UAH. Maybe because the developer of the RSS data -- Dr. Mears -- claims the discrepancies with the surface data is due to underestimating the amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans. Not sure what the scientific consensus is on that one.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Notice anything?

Yes. The world's still turnin' and we're all still smilin'.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Glad you asked.

Richard Muller and the good folks at BEST discounted UHI.



Berkeley Earth

The paper itself

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

I think I hear adoxo calling . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You do gotta admit...
Sometimes this is just too easy.

Kinda like the debate btwn. butter & margarine, right? Wonder how hard it'd be to find scientists in support/opposed to one or the other? How about you take butter and I'll take margarine, and the first one to find the smoking gun "consensus" wins, OK?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That is the most absolutely delusional argument against technology I've ever read. Great insight into the mind of alarmists which appear to work in a binary mode. Everything must either be black or white, there can be no shades of grey. No such thing as evolving tech. By the above logic a car is just an extension of the first skid pulled by an ox.

Anyhoo, two things straight off the bat since 1941.

1) Laser. Originally invented with no practical application, it is now used in many thousands of areas.
2) Internet. If writing is considered the greatest invention of the human race (which it is), the internet will one day be recognised as the second greatest invention.

There will be thousands more, no doubt. Most technological inventions don't make headlines. They just meld into our lives. Not that it matters, but most of what we depend on today is a product of the industrial revolution.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Originally Posted by Exile

I had similar thoughts, although I respect JimB.'s honesty. Better to reveal the mindset behind the zeal for the CC movement than hide behind the ruse that it's not just all about a path towards "soshulism," or whatever ideology feels personally satisfying, regardless of reality.

Calling it a binary mode of thinking seems apt. An easier and simpler way of trying to resolve the complexities of the world we live in. No surprise that all sorts of political & (extreme) religious ideologies also attract such types of thinkers, and in such large numbers.

Unfortunately this sort of zeal also makes it difficult to come to a political consensus re: any steps towards mitigation, and explains why any sort of proposal other than full acceptance and adoption of the entire meme is so strenuously objected to. Shall I test this and propose "adaptation" again? The politicians on both sides just exploit this, of course, thereby emboldening the extremism.

Been out for a bit, so back to quibbling...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....
While I appreciate the superlatives in 'the most delusional argument against technology I've ever heard', I cannot accept the compliment unless you can demonstrate where any of the statements I made are unsupported by facts, unless noted otherwise.
As for binary thinking (if that is what ya'll're talking about) might I suggest you re-read this paragraph:
　
"Obviously technology will play a role in the future advancements --and setbacks--of human civilization and, by extension, those of the rest of the planet. The somewhat parochial view that technology will solve more problems that it generates is one that should to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The best we could hope for is simultaneous techno-socio-politico-revolutionary change as quickly as possible. Maybe the 400-500 years of fossil fuels we have left will be enough to get us over the hump. If not, whether one likes it or not, it's back to a (probably healthier) natural lifestyle where people live within their (and their worlds') means and do mostly physical labor to survive and prosper."
　
There is nothing 'binary' in stating historical facts. All technological changes come with pluses and minuses. Examples of 'technological advances' having negative effects (anywhere from forced emigration to complete societal collapse) on local economies and ecologies are ubiquitous from prehistory to the present day. The difference today is that the changes (because of the size of the human population and the humans comprising that populations' desire to 'improve their lifestyles' without considering the effect on themselves, others, and perhaps most disturbingly, their offspring) are having global, not regional effects, and there's nowhere left for population to expand into. Surely you're not going to suggest that we use current technology to jet off to Mars and terraform a planet for ourselves? (Forgetting of course that humans are unable to have a significant effect on the atmosphere of an entire planet.)
　
The takehome point is that the time for blind reliance on any technological fixes (again, especially ones that don't exist) is over. Recognizing that any remedy will have a grey physiognimy is crucial to its' eventual adoption and implementation.




Or, if your objection is 'The best we could hope for, etc.', 'best' does not mean 'only'. There are an almost infinite number of other possiblities, so it's hard to call the statement binary. The fact remains, fossil fuels are finite, they will be used, completely (or until something better comes along), amd if a society is dependent on those fossil fuels for it's survival (and something better doesn't come along), without them it will change or fade into the sunset...(now that's a binary statement)



It appears I have been called a political religious zealot, so I guess I must address this also. For the record, there is no supernatural being that watches and counts my every move, politics in the current era is a money making device used to manipulate the population for profit, and the only things I'm even remotely zealous over is taking resposibilty for my own actions, and understanding the environment in which I live.


Regarding the laser, the theoretical underpinnings were laid out in the general theory of relativity in 1917, actual theoretical work was done in the mid 1920s, and according to my nuclear-submariner, electronic geek friend, the first laser was built in the mid 30's.


My original intent was to include a list of technological advances, from any time. I questioned whether I should include the internet (brought to your PSID, PC, laptop or what-have-you-- thanks to legislation authored by the nemisisical Al Gore, no less). After all, it's just an extension of Gutenburg's press, which was just a re-invention of the Phaistos technology from 2700 years previously....Given most of the uses to which the internet seems to be put, I'd say it's a pretty good example of exactly the point I'm trying to make...


As has been brought up previously, adaptation is inevitable and is going on, at some level, constantly. The questions are in whether or not the world we're making (and forcing everyone and everything else, whether they like it or not, into [now there's an ethics question for you]) is one that is as good as, or better, or worse, or even as viable, as this one is. It is telling that the vast majority of earth scientists, and most others as well, are at best uneasy about the future at current levels of consumption.


For a little insight into the world of 'adaptation' might I suggest you look at trophic cascades and high complexity food webs, such as this one. The blue are 68 parasites, the green (basal) and red (consumer) are 117 taxa from Estero du Punta Banda, Baja California.
　



So again, short of generators made from dark matter producing pollution-free dark energy (gotta love the imaginations of those astrophysicists) for Kum By Yah-chanting socialist hippies at federally-subsidized discount rates, the hope of 'technology to the rescue', given the (non)-advances of the last 75 years, seems to be the rankest folly, especially without corresponding economic-social-political change.

Of course, the technological advances that will have the most effect will almost certainly be refinements and combinations of existing technologies, along with changing socio-political necessities and desires. There appears to be much more chance of changing the laws of human interaction than in changing the laws of physics, at least in this universe...


de·lu·sion

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument
　
　
bi·na·ry
ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
adjective
Related to or composed of two things.
　
Binary Thinking
Phrase. Denotes a system of thought that predominantly considers things in an "either, or", "right, wrong", "black, white" way, ignoring any subtleties or consideration of third or more alternatives.

In philosophy, this is know as a "bifurcation fallacy".

People who habitually think in this way are usually fairly unintelligent and unimaginative.
G.W. Bush: "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists".
Me: "Wow, Bush can only seem to understand the world through binary thinking..."
　
　
　

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Notice anything?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Absolutely Priceless....
This is exactly why I call them MMGW Cultists...facts do NOT MATTER to them..it's all feel good, mother earth, being a good person, get the girls cultism. It's both sad and halarious at the same time.

Wow Rich...Talk about denial...and you think it's the wrong term...sheeesh!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Been out for a bit, so back to quibbling...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....
While I appreciate the superlatives in 'the most delusional argument against technology I've ever heard', I cannot accept the compliment unless you can demonstrate where any of the statements I made are unsupported by facts, unless noted otherwise.
As for binary thinking (if that is what ya'll're talking about) might I suggest you re-read this paragraph:
　
"Obviously technology will play a role in the future advancements --and setbacks--of human civilization and, by extension, those of the rest of the planet. The somewhat parochial view that technology will solve more problems that it generates is one that should to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The best we could hope for is simultaneous techno-socio-politico-revolutionary change as quickly as possible. Maybe the 400-500 years of fossil fuels we have left will be enough to get us over the hump. If not, whether one likes it or not, it's back to a (probably healthier) natural lifestyle where people live within their (and their worlds') means and do mostly physical labor to survive and prosper."
　
There is nothing 'binary' in stating historical facts. All technological changes come with pluses and minuses. Examples of 'technological advances' having negative effects (anywhere from forced emigration to complete societal collapse) on local economies and ecologies are ubiquitous from prehistory to the present day. The difference today is that the changes (because of the size of the human population and the humans comprising that populations' desire to 'improve their lifestyles' without considering the effect on themselves, others, and perhaps most disturbingly, their offspring) are having global, not regional effects, and there's nowhere left for population to expand into. Surely you're not going to suggest that we use current technology to jet off to Mars and terraform a planet for ourselves? (Forgetting of course that humans are unable to have a significant effect on the atmosphere of an entire planet.)
　
The takehome point is that the time for blind reliance on any technological fixes (again, especially ones that don't exist) is over. Recognizing that any remedy will have a grey physiognimy is crucial to its' eventual adoption and implementation.




Or, if your objection is 'The best we could hope for, etc.', 'best' does not mean 'only'. There are an almost infinite number of other possiblities, so it's hard to call the statement binary. The fact remains, fossil fuels are finite, they will be used, completely (or until something better comes along), amd if a society is dependent on those fossil fuels for it's survival (and something better doesn't come along), without them it will change or fade into the sunset...(now that's a binary statement)



It appears I have been called a political religious zealot, so I guess I must address this also. For the record, there is no supernatural being that watches and counts my every move, politics in the current era is a money making device used to manipulate the population for profit, and the only things I'm even remotely zealous over is taking resposibilty for my own actions, and understanding the environment in which I live.


Regarding the laser, the theoretical underpinnings were laid out in the general theory of relativity in 1917, actual theoretical work was done in the mid 1920s, and according to my nuclear-submariner, electronic geek friend, the first laser was built in the mid 30's.


My original intent was to include a list of technological advances, from any time. I questioned whether I should include the internet (brought to your PSID, PC, laptop or what-have-you-- thanks to legislation authored by the nemisisical Al Gore, no less). After all, it's just an extension of Gutenburg's press, which was just a re-invention of the Phaistos technology from 2700 years previously....Given most of the uses to which the internet seems to be put, I'd say it's a pretty good example of exactly the point I'm trying to make...


As has been brought up previously, adaptation is inevitable and is going on, at some level, constantly. The questions are in whether or not the world we're making (and forcing everyone and everything else, whether they like it or not, into [now there's an ethics question for you]) is one that is as good as, or better, or worse, or even as viable, as this one is. It is telling that the vast majority of earth scientists, and most others as well, are at best uneasy about the future at current levels of consumption.


For a little insight into the world of 'adaptation' might I suggest you look at trophic cascades and high complexity food webs, such as this one. The blue are 68 parasites, the green (basal) and red (consumer) are 117 taxa from Estero du Punta Banda, Baja California.
　



So again, short of generators made from dark matter producing pollution-free dark energy (gotta love the imaginations of those astrophysicists) for Kum By Yah-chanting socialist hippies at federally-subsidized discount rates, the hope of 'technology to the rescue', given the (non)-advances of the last 75 years, seems to be the rankest folly, especially without corresponding economic-social-political change.

Of course, the technological advances that will have the most effect will almost certainly be refinements and combinations of existing technologies, along with changing socio-political necessities and desires. There appears to be much more chance of changing the laws of human interaction than in changing the laws of physics, at least in this universe...


de·lu·sion

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument
　
　
bi·na·ry
ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
adjective
Related to or composed of two things.
　
Binary Thinking
Phrase. Denotes a system of thought that predominantly considers things in an "either, or", "right, wrong", "black, white" way, ignoring any subtleties or consideration of third or more alternatives.

In philosophy, this is know as a "bifurcation fallacy".

People who habitually think in this way are usually fairly unintelligent and unimaginative.
G.W. Bush: "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists".
Me: "Wow, Bush can only seem to understand the world through binary thinking..."
　
　
　

Nice word salad. It would have been simpler to admit you were wrong, though.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Wow Rich...Talk about denial...and you think it's the wrong term...sheeesh!

And if the trend was downward it would still be seen by the alarmist community as some kind of tragedy in the making and we'd all be reading endless waffle about sulphates and white roofs and other such nonsense, most likely.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app