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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I don't mind your word salad, but I you got most of your facts completely wrong.

It's not that his facts are wrong, it's that today most people have lost their ability to discern Fact from Opinion. To them if they Believe something...that makes it true.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's not that his facts are wrong, it's that today most people have lost their ability to discern Fact from Opinion. To them if they Believe something...that makes it true.

Rich, you are a well educated man (BASc I guess?) and as such you know that his facts are wrong and that he does not have a clue what he is talking about (i.e. confusing Relativity with Quantum Physics or dating the invention of lasers much too early ... and so on).

I guess you could not be bothered reading the whole word salad?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So answer your question. And provide some evidence to support it.

BTW the climate models predicted that the Arctic will warm faster.

Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276.

Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.




This image shows trends in mean surface air temperature over the period 1960 to 2011. Notice that the Arctic is red, indicating that the trend over this 50 year period is for an increase in air temperature of more that 2° C (3.6° F) across much of the Arctic, which is larger than for other parts of the globe. The inset shows linear trends over the period by latitude.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-...te_change.html

Actually, both polar regions are supposed to warm at a higher rate than the tropics. What's going on at the South Pole?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, both polar regions are supposed to warm at a higher rate than the tropics. What's going on at the South Pole?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The Arctic warms more than the Antarctic - as predicted by the models.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

But the OP says it is getting cooler.

Missed the whole point again?

The OP said it is going to get cooler. Which is quite possible.

And since cold is more harmful than warm, we should be preparing to deal with it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Missed the whole point again?

The OP said it is going to get cooler. Which is quite possible.

And since cold is more harmful than warm, we should be preparing to deal with it.

The OP has no friggin clue about climate change / science. That is the point.

[jackdale]

Let us revisit the OP claims.

Zharkova's news release is misrepresented.

“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” Valentina Zharkova told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "


There will be no long term cooling. Nada . Zilch. Period.

La Nina will be a factor for a very short time. as was El Nino.

The NWP and NSR are opening for commercial, tourist and leisure traffic.

Plan your Arctic passage.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's not that his facts are wrong, it's that today most people have lost their ability to discern Fact from Opinion. To them if they Believe something...that makes it true.

Originally Posted by jackdale

There will be no long term cooling. Nada . Zilch. Period.

I knew it wouldn't take long.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There will be no long term cooling. Nada . Zilch. Period.

La Nina will be a factor for a very short time. as was El Nino.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.



(Clipped from the website https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...wolf-syndrome/)

The article at the link is a good read. It suggests that the past can sometimes be a reliable predictor of the future, and that a future radically different from an observable past must have very strong arguments for support.

It also makes the case that warming ain't so bad...that it's the cooling that'll kill you. I think the author makes a good case.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Arctic warms more than the Antarctic - as predicted by the models.

And what models would they be?

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The OP has no friggin clue about climate change / science. That is the point.

Now that's not very nice. In fact it's very rude, condescending and arrogant. I have more of a clue about climate change than you would ever be able to comprehend. You see I ask questions. Those who don't ask questions. Or I should say those who don't question hypothesis and therom and question rigorously are the non scientists. Challenging assumptions and observations is so fundamental to science that if it's not done then it can not be called science. And those who ridicule such questioning can hardly call themselves scientists.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well my good fellow, if you can keep it to 5000 words or less, please erudiate us with the ramifications for the population at large. And no cheating with sea level rise, polar ice melt, raised atmospheric CO2, higher global average temperatures, powerful hurricanes, super storms, extreme droughts, mega floods, heatwaves, polar vortexes, pine beetle plagues or el nino's. These conditions had occurred many times in the past well before 1941 rolled around on the calendar, after all.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I don't mind your word salad, but I you got most of your facts completely wrong.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's not that his facts are wrong, it's that today most people have lost their ability to discern Fact from Opinion. To them if they Believe something...that makes it true.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Rich, you are a well educated man (BASc I guess?) and as such you know that his facts are wrong and that he does not have a clue what he is talking about (i.e. confusing Relativity with Quantum Physics or dating the invention of lasers much too early ... and so on).

I guess you could not be bothered reading the whole word salad?

Again, please which 'facts in the word salad' are wrong'? Concision in language is, apparently contrary to some's popular belief, important to understanding. Unless, of course, the goal is misunderstanding...

And, yet again, please, any of you, demonstrate any incipient, upcoming, new, groundbreaking, revolutionary, efficient, practical, cost effective, energy technology that will support the life style that roughly 2 billion people 'enjoy' (a hugely subjective, relative term) for 8-10 billion people for any reasonable, extended period (say 150 years). Or perhaps yall'd prefer wild population swings like those experienced with prey/predator populations in (increasingly rare) natural environments?

And, to answer each of you in turn, though it's generally mostly redundant;

Mr. Reef Magnet,

The point is not what we know, but what we don't know. Given the evidence of past climate change, in a geologically short time frame compared to that happening now, which (compared to a very roughly average geological time frame) is instantaneous, the ecological relevance of our actions (which like it or not, we're all part of, and are responsible for) is crucial. While it's certainly par for the course (of all life, not just Homo Avari Hominis) to look out for themselves first, it certainly is not par for the course for Homo Sapiens. Indeed, the reason for the 'success' of the species is (punctuated) cooperation rather than conflict. So I have to return the question to you, What do you think the result of the loss of the only concentrated energy source available will be on a society built on that energy source (whether it's in your lifetime or that of your great great great great grandchildren)? And please, don't bore me with promises of non-existent technology. We're looking for answers here, not hopes.

That's 177 words (one count, not too interested in accuracy, for somewhat obvious reasons...)


Mr.Adoxograph,

Well, if you mean 'I don't mind your word salad, but I think you got most of your facts completely wrong', please don't be coy, elaborate, lest I question your credentials, (as if, of course, that matters).

Mr. 3rd Day,

Another instance of the 'pot calling the kettle black'. And by the way, again, what is that 'Third Day' a reference to?

Mr. Adoxograph,

"In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation) via a re-derivation of Max Planck's law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients (Einstein coefficients) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation.[12] In 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existence of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption."

So I succumbed to the folly of my (usually) good memory. So what, the point remains, the first theories predicting lasers (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) were published in 1917 (or before if one counts a re-derivation) and confirmed in 1928. That is of course only if one believes Wikipedia and the sources published...

And finally, of course, I must offer a (reasonably) sincere thank you for the trolling effort, without which I couldn't have concluded my 14 or so beer Friday night out so enjoyably... Thanks yous guys.

[Wanderlust]

Just picking up on the chart posted by fryewe, look what happens if you crop the future predictions.

The present looks uncannily similar to the past doesn't it? The time is right for another peak. So what caused those virtually identical spikes in the past? When will a model predicting the future actually work as predicted?

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...

Mr. Adoxograph,

"In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation) via a re-derivation of Max Planck's law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients (Einstein coefficients) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation.[12] In 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existence of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption."

So I succumbed to the folly of my (usually) good memory. So what, the point remains, the first theories predicting lasers (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) were published in 1917 (or before if one counts a re-derivation) and confirmed in 1928. That is of course only if one believes Wikipedia and the sources published...

And finally, of course, I must offer a (reasonably) sincere thank you for the trolling effort, without which I couldn't have concluded my 14 or so beer Friday night out so enjoyably... Thanks yous guys.

How does a laser relate to relativity as you said in your original post? Your quoted Einstein (1917) paper has nothing to do with relativity; and lasers, which did not exist before the 50's is only one outcome from the principles discussed in this paper. Einstein did not even imagine lasers in this paper, although he was an astrophysicist with a vivid imagination. With your logic Einstein predicted GPS as early as 1916.

What about your idea about Dark Matter? Man, I really do not want to go there right now.

But feel free to enlighten us. If you need assistance I could point you to some of my and my colleagues peer reviewed papers in the Astrophysical Journal.

Btw. I really do not care whether you accept my credentials or not, but please try at least to grasp the basic science of whatever you post.

You are either very sloppy or just parroting. Either way it might be a good idea to be more precise in your posts and accept that your memory has failed you in this one.

Do you really want me to take your post apart piece by piece and show you where you were wrong? Really? Are you sure?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Mr. Reef Magnet,

The point is not what we know, but what we don't know.

Well, I don't know if I'll be run over by a bus tomorrow. But that won't stop me crossing the road.

Given the evidence of past climate change, in a geologically short time frame compared to that happening now, which (compared to a very roughly average geological time frame) is instantaneous, the ecological relevance of our actions (which like it or not, we're all part of, and are responsible for) is crucial. While it's certainly par for the course (of all life, not just Homo Avari Hominis) to look out for themselves first, it certainly is not par for the course for Homo Sapiens. Indeed, the reason for the 'success' of the species is (punctuated) cooperation rather than conflict. So I have to return the question to you, What do you think the result of the loss of the only concentrated energy source available will be on a society built on that energy source (whether it's in your lifetime or that of your great great great great grandchildren)? And please, don't bore me with promises of non-existent technology. We're looking for answers here, not hopes.

That's 177 words (one count, not too interested in accuracy, for somewhat obvious reasons...)

Ok, here's a crackpot theory for you. All organisms on the planet have evolved to fill a niche. Human societies, almost without exception, have utilised fire. Perhaps our niche is to consume energy. Sound crazy, yes? Well, pause and think about it for a moment. Prior to humans, all excess energy collected in the environment. Vast forests, dead wood, lakes of oil, reservoirs of gases and stratas of coal. This vast store of energy collected over many, many millennia and was reaching the point where it posed a very real risk to endangering all life on earth. It endangered life by locking up carbon. Carbon vital for maintaining a temperate climate and for providing raw building material for all plant life. It also resulted in an extremely volatile, high fire risk environment. In simple terms, humans simply returned the CO2 to the environment in a controlled manner that plants had previously extracted.

So, along comes humans, to solve the problem. They consume this excess energy, releasing the by products back to the natural cycle. In fact we become so good at filling this niche that not only do we loose most of our hair (because we can just light a fire to keep warm) but we are so efficient that no other species, aside from Neanderthal man of course, evolves to compete with us in this niche.

Fast forward to today and we have become efficient beyond belief in returning the by products back to the environment. So to answer your question: When the energy runs out, the niche disappears and human populations will shrink en-masse, just as with any other organism that has it's niche disappear.

All is not lost, however, as a simple solution to feed our need to consume energy in a fossil fuel devoid world is to create a worldwide grid of linked solar (and perhaps wind and tidal also) farms to solve the current problems with supply using these technologies.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app