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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Here is what is so funny.
We will not do anything anyway even it all the gloom and doom is true because the cost is just too high. And then when we don't all die what will the Hoxers say?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Here is what is so funny.
We will not do anything anyway even it all the gloom and doom is true because the cost is just too high. And then when we don't all die what will the Hoxers say?

I thought the art of trolling involved carefully-crafted, subtle provocations, but the above is kind of slap-dash. Is anti-AGW sniping actually some sort of compulsion with you?

I ask out of concern.

[SV THIRD DAY]

No see, I've learned who the MMGW cultists are, how they operate and how they think. Sometimes the best way to bring down the tallest man in the room is with a small marble rolled out on the floor so that when the proud lifting their chin up high and unable to see the marble will step on it and come crashing down.

You can't debate someone's religion with data and facts...it is a waste of time and since MMGW is indeed a religion and not a science, you have to know how best to deal with them.

Marble....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You can't debate someone's religion with data and facts.

You must have read that somewhere, because I don't recall you ever coming into this with real facts or data.

... 2 marbles. Watch your step.

[model 10]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I used to fear that most deniers would die ignorant of their error; sadly things are unravelling fast enough that they will probably live to see how wrong they've been.
.

This is what I secretly hope for. If things would just get moving a little faster, I might live long enough to see something really amazing happen. How many humans have lived through some great earth event? Sadly with the way things go I fear that I am too old. I wouldn't want to hear about the millions of dead people either.
My favorite event would be the reversal of the magnetic field.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, why would you publicly oppose the finding of AGW when you essentially share the same goals? In the public's eye it seems that all the ecology/sustainability eggs are in the climate-change basket, and for as long as the debate over AGW can be sustained, significant progress towards those goals has successfully been stifled.

While I would love a world with more public transit and less highways and cars, I can not at this time place my hat firmly on the AGW side. It really is not at all clear cut, at least too me, despite all the papers and hype to the contrary. Really there are many papers writing against AGW, but for some reason, they can not get published as the science journals will not consider them. There is zero funding for research disproving AGW. Why. It's not really proven, though if they say it enough, most will believe it. IF it was proven, I and a whole bunch of really bright lads, would be on the AGW side of the fence.

To say because AGW is the rule of the land, smacks more toward dogma. Any theory, must be strong enough to stand, despite claims otherwise. That is Science, not to dogmaly accept something as fact simply because some write that it is so and it's popular.

As to the 95% science consensus thingy, that 95% number came from a very small subset (roughly 600) scientists in one report. There are great gobs, dare I say tons of scientists and engineers that do not think AGW is a prime factor in GW. Very smart folks. They oddly don't get air time as it distracts from carbon credits which works much like another tax, and does little, actually nothing to reduce emissions.

So if AGW were cut and dry, why are so many very educated folks not signing aboard the AGW bandwagon. They don't get air time, but they are very much out there.

Co2 makes up 0.04 percent (currently) of the atmosphere. The AGW part of that is roughly 5% or 0.002% of the atmosphere. The other 95 ish percent of c02 emissions are 100% natural and not man made.

Lets say we spend a few trillion dollars to remove 10 percent of the AGW co2 component. That would change the AGW co2 from 0.002 to 0.0018 ish or a reduction of 0.0002% Its a pretty small number. But boy the taxes it can generate...

The very good news no matter which side of the fence one sits, more solar, more wind, etc comes on line year after year. That to me is a good thing.

Myself I beleve that man does influence climate to a small degree but its not a major driver in GW. Even if we (and by we, I mean everyone) completely stopped driving cars and using electric power tomorrow, that in itself would do nothing to stop GW. It's not statistically significant.

[newhaul]

Water vapor from aircraft contrails seems to have more of an affect on global teeratures than the co2 emissions. Based on a study done in the days after sept 11 2001
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html
David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

While I would love a world with more public transit and less highways and cars, I can not at this time place my hat firmly on the AGW side.
...
Myself I beleve that man does influence climate to a small degree but its not a major driver in GW. Even if we (and by we, I mean everyone) completely stopped driving cars and using electric power tomorrow, that in itself would do nothing to stop GW. It's not statistically significant.

+1

I would just add that I believe that mankind's influence on climate to whatever degree stems more from actions other than adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Things like deforestation, strip mining, urbanisation, misuse of water resources etc, etc have a noticeable effect on local/regional climatic conditions. Unfortunately, such changes are almost invariably blamed on "durdy carbon pollution" and lumped into the global records rather than investigating the real causes.
(Just one example, how many temperature data points are now taken next to concrete runways and in jet exhaust paths at major airports that weren't there 50 years ago? )

I also believe that any anthropogenic climate change pales into insignificance compared to the other harm that we are doing to the planet.

If we had spent only a fraction of the money that has been squandered on research into and politicizing of "anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change" over the last 20 years in solving these real problems, the world would be a far better place for everyone.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Really there are many papers writing against AGW, but for some reason, they can not get published as the science journals will not consider them. There is zero funding for research disproving AGW. Why. It's not really proven, though if they say it enough, most will believe it. IF it was proven, I and a whole bunch of really bright lads, would be on the AGW side of the fence.

Wow. I fear you've drunk the koolaid.

Zero funding?? Anti-AGW research has been lavishly, feverishly funded by the fossil-fuel industries and friends. Like the tobacco industry in the face of cancer findings, these groups created and funded their own "institutions" when the real institutions wouldn't deliver the results they wanted. The bulk of anti-AGW "scientific" findings simply don't stand up on their own. So the anti-AGW message has been disseminated through other channels.

This has been pretty darn successful, because it even has smart people like you nodding in agreement, and accepting the implication that there's some giant global scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Originally Posted by StuM

Things like deforestation, strip mining, urbanisation, misuse of water resources etc, etc have a noticeable effect on local/regional climatic conditions. Unfortunately, such changes are almost invariably blamed on "durdy carbon pollution" and lumped into the global records rather than investigating the real causes.

almost invariably blamed on "durdy carbon pollution" ...In what world is that true?? All of the above are well understood as contributors to climate problems as well as serious problems in their own right. geez.

All climate scientists should simply retire, I guess. We don't have any climate problems that a self-selected group of clever, practical sailors can't sort out.

If we had spent only a fraction of the money that has been squandered on research into and politicizing of "anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change" over the last 20 years in solving these real problems, the world would be a far better place for everyone.

("Squandered" on research? we are talking about science, right?)

Might as well hammer home your argument by telling us how much has been "squandered on research into and politicizing of 'anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change' over the last 20 years". For contrast, tell us how much was or wasn't spent on solving these real problems.

Helluva strawman you got there, Stu.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. I fear you've drunk the koolaid.

Pot, meet kettle.

Zero funding?? Anti-AGW research has been lavishly, feverishly funded by the fossil-fuel industries and friends.

Same old unsupported allegation again.
Do you have any evidence to support this contention?
In comparison to the billions per year that the US Govt alone spends on "climate change research", as itemised earlier, any fossil fuel funding pales into insignificance - to say nothing of the fact that those same fossil fuel industries put funding into both sides of the debate.

Like the tobacco industry in the face of cancer findings, these groups created and funded their own "institutions" when the real institutions wouldn't deliver the results they wanted.

Same old "just like the tobacco industry" canard. This is getting monotonous. Care to name a few of these "institutions" and provide evidence that they were funded by "these groups" ?


The bulk of anti-AGW "scientific" findings simply don't stand up on their own.
Evidence of this?

So the anti-AGW message has been disseminated through other channels.

This has been pretty darn successful, because it even has smart people like you nodding in agreement, and accepting the implication that there's some giant global scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.



almost invariably blamed on "durdy carbon pollution" ...In what world is that true?? All of the above are well understood as contributors to climate problems as well as serious problems in their own right. geez.

In this world. Show me any adjustments to any termperature records which actually compensate for these effects

All climate scientists should simply retire, I guess. We don't have any climate problems that a self-selected group of clever, practical sailors can't sort out.

The last comment isn't deserving of a reasoned response.

[Lake-Effect]

I'll sample just a couple from your buffet of responses:

Originally Posted by StuM

The bulk of anti-AGW "scientific" findings simply don't stand up on their own.
Evidence of this?

The simple fact that there's not really that many credible, vetted published papers that seriously challenge the findings of AGW? Or is the conspiracy idea more plausible to you?

Originally Posted by StuM

Zero funding?? Anti-AGW research has been lavishly, feverishly funded by the fossil-fuel industries and friends.

Same old unsupported allegation again.
Do you have any evidence to support this contention?
In comparison to the billions per year that the US Govt alone spends on "climate change research", as itemised earlier, any fossil fuel funding pales into insignificance - to say nothing of the fact that those same fossil fuel industries put funding into both sides of the debate.

Like the tobacco industry in the face of cancer findings, these groups created and funded their own "institutions" when the real institutions wouldn't deliver the results they wanted.

Same old "just like the tobacco industry" canard. This is getting monotonous. Care to name a few of these "institutions" and provide evidence that they were funded by "these groups" ?.

I won't embarrass you by naming them.

As you point out, the fossil fuel companies have been backing research into both sides of the question (actually, if you're doing it right, you make the scientific investigations and let the findings inform you, not the other way around). They're not stupid.

Their own most recent findings, coupled with some business foresight, has many of the fossil fuel companies themselves starting to diversify into alternative and renewable energy. They're pretty much accepting the finding of AGW in their planning.

Denial has pretty much succeeded in buying them more time and shielding them from taking drastic, profit-blocking action, but I think they're moving on. I'm sure they're grateful for your support.

Originally Posted by StuM

All climate scientists should simply retire, I guess. We don't have any climate problems that a self-selected group of clever, practical sailors can't sort out.

The last comment isn't deserving of a reasoned response.

You clearly rate your skills in reviewing climate data higher than those actually in the field. I wish you'd all get together, put your smarts to use and fix stuff.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

The bulk of anti-AGW "scientific" findings simply don't stand up on their own.
Evidence of this?

If it's nothing to do with green house gases then do you have a link to any science which explains the drivers behind the extremely rapid recent global temperature increase which does stand up?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Pot, meet kettle.

I realize that this is meant to imply that I also have been persuased to my pro AGW views by some non-scientific motivator or political agenda.

So let me lay it bare. Here's the core of my belief in the matter of AGW:

• I believe that the scientific process is the best system for building knowledge and is the most resistant to human biases and outside interference
• I believe that the majority of scientists in the climate field are good practitioners of the scientific process.

From this, it seems to me that the best people to advise us on climate... are climate scientists.

Full stop.

Nobody on CF has convinced me that most climate scientists are bad at their jobs, sorry.

[lesterbutch]

I am a scientist, (not a climate scientist), I am a biological oceanographer. One of those people who study the effects of a changing environment on its biological inhabitants. I am actually retired, but most of these changes are slow so it has not changed much in the last 3 years. That said changes are occuring that are disturbing. a major change is generally anything that alters salinity. Oceanic organisms, particularly microscopic ones are very intolerant to change. I don't know if you are familiar with the food pyramid but if it collapses those of us at the apex have a long way to fall. And, like it or not we are totally at the mercy of those on the bottom of the pyramid! Climate change can kill ya! Melting glaciers can change salinity, destroying the little critters at the base, BAD!

[senormechanico]

"Oceanic organisms, particularly microscopic ones are very intolerant to change."

So are a lot of people, MSM and politicians especially!