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

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

If you would be one of my students I would most likely send you back to Statistics 100 (or maybe 101 as some of it right). You post shows a lack of understanding of basic statistics. I would say it would be graded with 49-51 out of 100. Or maybe it is a try to confuse the hell out of others for fun?

Reading comprehension can be your friend...not my comment, but a quote from another...who makes a point with subtle humor...I think? Sometimes it's hard to tell on a forum, isn't it Rich?

To everyone else: This thread (as well the closed one) has nothing to do with science.

Time for a new strategy!

Honestly, this thread has become plain stupid and ceased to be fun a while ago.

Has nothing to do with science? Sure it does...it's social science at work. One day this thread will be included in the data for a study of dogma vs. skepticism.

Sorry you aren't amused by the thread any more. Too bad.

Not technical enough...not amusing enough...hmmm...is that a door over there in the corner...????

Sorry you have to go. We haven't developed a coherent policy to fight sea level rise yet, and your contributions would have been helpful.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Nice turn of phrase. I think I can use that:

AGW alarmism is intended to grab headlines, to create chaos and fear that's orders of magnitude greater than the actual risk.

Hard to believe but it's actually getting easier to respond to this type of obvious nonsense. But you shouldn't be too hard on our very own in-house social justice warrior. He did save us, after all, from being misled by all those confusing headlines on conservative media sites. I mean thanks to L-E, we all know that it is MMGW and HFCs and not just refrigerators that are as great a threat to our lives and well-being as terrorism.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

To everyone else: This thread (as well the closed one) has nothing to do with science.

Yeah, I think we've known for awhile now that CF doesn't host scientific threads or blogs, and this one is a bit beyond their usual tolerance even though it is obviously a matter of strong interest to many sailors on here. But surely as a scientist you can find online sources other than sailing forums that more closely match your own interest and professional expertise.

Time for a new strategy!

OK! You are free to critique, of course, but got any concrete suggestions? For better or worse, climate science (or what is represented as such) has been thrust well outside the scientific sphere and is now front & center in the political debate. So how do non-scientists cut through the hype & bias and gain a better understanding of where the actual science stands on MMGW? After all, one of the two major U.S. political parties is officially telling us that the science is certain, we are facing profound if not existential threats to our survival, and that the debate is over. But the other party is telling us it's mostly a scam. And how are laymen able to dismiss one group of scientists in favor of another group of often equally credentialed scientists? By a vote? No, that's for the politicians. As citizens & voters, don't we have an obligation to at least try and figure out the truth?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remar...401.htm

Thank you. Unfortunate that fryewe hadn't simply posted that and expressed his disapproval of what was actually said.

Spin it any way you want, but no matter the headline, Kerry stated that the danger from MMGW was comparable to that from terrorism. This is a common meme we have heard again & again and one I strongly suspect you agree with.

You suspect correctly.

The comparison is laughable

The comparison is apt. Of course, if you disagree, you won't think it's apt. To attempt another comparison, violent crime and cancers from industrial pollutants can both kill someone, so they both need to be addressed.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hard to believe but it's actually getting easier to respond to this type of obvious nonsense. But you shouldn't be too hard on our very own in-house social justice warrior. He did save us, after all, from being misled by all those confusing headlines on conservative media sites. I mean thanks to L-E, we all know that it is MMGW and HFCs and not just refrigerators that are as great a threat to our lives and well-being as terrorism.

Stu, I don't disagree with your revision. There's certainly hype and bias in the pro-side. Of course folks here are calling anything posted here in agreement with AGW as alarmist, which kind of dilutes it.

Exile - nice to see that your hunger for scientific truth continues unabated.

[Reefmagnet]

AGW hypothesis is in it's death throes. Proven by the big three modern poster boys of the movement. One has reverted to being a reactionist hippy in his retirement renown for making dumb statements, one is desperately still trying to peddle the mostly imaginary horrors of warming by making dumb statements (whilst subtlety advertising his books on the subject that in themselves contain lots of dumb statements) and the third, and perhaps wisest, stopped making dumb statements by way of documentaries and instead expends more effort on AGW profiteering.

Note: "dumb" can also be substituted with "false and misleading" in the above context.

Heck, even good 'ol Skeptical Science and their affiliated learning institutions have worked out ways to turn a dollar from the carcass of AGW. Denial 101 anyone?


Onwards and forwards to the next scare, fellas.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Has nothing to do with science? Sure it does...it's social science at work.

I did not think of that one, but you are right. This one has enough material to keep lots of undergraduate psychology/sociology students busy.

Originally Posted by fryewe

One day this thread will be included in the data for a study of dogma vs. skepticism.

It's not dogma vs. scepticism. It's believe vs believe.

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sorry you aren't amused by the thread any more. Too bad.

Apology accepted. But now put your back into it. You can do better than that. I count on you.

Originally Posted by fryewe

Not technical enough...not amusing enough...hmmm...is that a door over there in the corner...????

Sorry you have to go. We haven't developed a coherent policy to fight sea level rise yet, and your contributions would have been helpful.

Don't worry, I'll stick around. This thread is still a nice procrastination tool and a nice training platform to learn the art of trolling from the masters. But I have to admit my first attempt was rather a pathetic fail.

For impact of sea level rise I would ask Australian insurance companies why they are now only reluctantly insuring ocean front properties for example in Byron Bay, while 10 years ago it was not a problem at all. I believe insurance companies are quite good in assessing risks.

Originally Posted by Exile

OK! You are free to critique, of course, but got any concrete suggestions? For better or worse, climate science (or what is represented as such) has been thrust well outside the scientific sphere and is now front & center in the political debate. So how do non-scientists cut through the hype & bias and gain a better understanding of where the actual science stands on MMGW?

The science is clear. Humans have impacted the climate massively. Our activities caused a high amount of energy get trapped in the atmosphere. For example: A total of ~1x10^11t of oil was produced since George Bissell and Edwin L. Drake discovered in the 1850s how to drill an oil well and produce oil on an industrial scale. All oil used since then contained ~4.187x10^21J of energy. Not to mention coal. It would be naive to assume that this activity does not have an impact on the energy contained in the atmosphere. We also changed the albedo of the planet by building cities, roads and knocking down ancient forests, which by the way also impacted the carbon cycle. Right now more carbon is added than it is recycled. It is naive to assume that all of our activities would not impact the climate.

Is it a problem? Not really except that we were stupid enough to build most of our high population centres near the coast and we think we can farm the same land forever. Time to move on.

Originally Posted by Exile

After all, one of the two major U.S. political parties is officially telling us that the science is certain, we are facing profound if not existential threats to our survival, and that the debate is over. But the other party is telling us it's mostly a scam. And how are laymen able to dismiss one group of scientists in favor of another group of often equally credentialed scientists? By a vote? No, that's for the politicians. As citizens & voters, don't we have an obligation to at least try and figure out the truth?

Politicians want you to follow them. Climate change is a good psychological tool to get people polarised (just look at this thread) for whatever political agenda.

Accept that we as a species have had an impact on the climate since we moved down from the trees. Accept that climate long term is unstable and changing. Accept that our cities near the coast are "doomed" in the long run. Accept that there will be technology we don't even know yet that will solve some problems (and most likely creates others).

A reminder: Not so long ago the area of the Great Barrier Reef was dry with large flat coastal plains. This area is at a depth of less than one hundred metres below sea level today.

Like it or not our planet is constantly changing. It is not certain that we as a species will be around forever . Can we do something to terraform Terra as we like it? I think we can at least try.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

For impact of sea level rise I would ask Australian insurance companies why they are now only reluctantly insuring ocean front properties for example in Byron Bay, while 10 years ago it was not a problem at all. I believe insurance companies are quite good in assessing risks.

Re: sea level rise. I had the good fortune to spend a nice relaxing weekend at Magnetic Island, 8 km off the cost from Townsville. And this included a pleasant evening consuming sundowners well into the night aboard a friend's sailing boat anchored within Horseshoe Bay.

But I digress, Magnetic island was part of the mainland 7,500 years ago. It's not like sea level rise is a recent phenomena or anything. Also insurance companies are very good at minimising risks, but are even better at maximising profits. For example, for years I've been quoted annual house insurance well into 5 figures even though our house survived a one in five hundred year flooding event unscathed. The prime reason is because the insurance companies need to recoup earlier payouts, and premiums after a substantial event will reflect this. However, a good many insurance companies now use technology that allows them to quote to the level of specific addresses. Thanks to this new technology our house insurance is now at least 1/3rd of the price it previously was, and 1/7th the cost of the higher quotes.

I mention the above, because if increasing sea level rise were a concern within the insurance industry, ALL coastal (and low altitude vis sea level properties - just like mine, fwiw) would be subject to massively increasing insurance premiums across the board. The clue in your statement above that reinforces this assessment is "ocean front properties". This indicates the prime risk is storm erosion. And since it's trivial to prove that storms have not significantly, if at all, increased in frequency or intensity in this era of AGW, the obvious conclusion to increased insurance risk - assuming it's not about profit - is because new developments are being built in more and more erosion prone locations than ever before as the last bastions of vacant coastal land is snapped up by developers.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...

I mention the above, because if increasing sea level rise were a concern within the insurance industry, ALL coastal (and low altitude vis sea level properties - just like mine, fwiw) would be subject to massively increasing insurance premiums across the board. The clue in your statement above that reinforces this assessment is "ocean front properties". This indicates the prime risk is storm erosion. And since it's trivial to prove that storms have not significantly, if at all, increased in frequency or intensity in this era of AGW, the obvious conclusion to increased insurance risk - assuming it's not about profit - is because new developments are being built in more and more erosion prone locations than ever before as the last bastions of vacant coastal land is snapped up by developers.

The ratio of shoreline retreat rate to sea level rise rate ranges from 110 to 181. Meaning 1cm rise will result in ~1.5m of the beach gone. (Leatherman S., Zhang K. & Douglas B., 2000)

Another angle on erosion you might be interested in is from Prof. Andrew Short (2008). Short is not looking into sea level rise and climate change but like you rather only into erosion and coastal developments with surprising conclusions and interesting historical facts. It is also an interesting read when you want to see when technical solutions for one problem are causing other problems.

[adoxograph]

PS: A colleague here told me that those builders and developers in Australia do not read the Bible:

Matthew 7:24 “... is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 [...] is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

(Sorry in advance if I offended someones religion with that one)

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

PS: A colleague here told me that those builders and developers in Australia do not read the Bible:

This confirms that they are not wise men. I knew it!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

The ratio of shoreline retreat rate to sea level rise rate ranges from 110 to 181. Meaning 1cm rise will result in ~1.5m of the beach gone. (Leatherman S., Zhang K. & Douglas B., 2000)

Another angle on erosion you might be interested in is from Prof. Andrew Short (2008). Short is not looking into sea level rise and climate change but like you rather only into erosion and coastal developments with surprising conclusions and interesting historical facts. It is also an interesting read when you want to see when technical solutions for one problem are causing other problems.

I can't say I'm sold on the shoreline retreat ratio. seems far to high for me based on supposed current sea level increase rates. And i suspect too many local variables e.g. tidal amplification for there not to be significant evidence that this is happening. I've also witnessed first hand how quickly a beach will resume it's pre-erosion state without human help after basically being obliterated by cyclonic swells. As nothing more than a casual observer, it makes me think the local topography, weather patterns and tidal movements have a much greater role in shaping the shoreline. Of course the occasional destruction of coastlines during the odd "super" storm doesn't help those that choose to dwell upon them.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you. Unfortunate that fryewe hadn't simply posted that and expressed his disapproval of what was actually said.

Given the explosion of news outlets these days (on all sides) that are far more insidious and successful in influencing popular opinion based on dubious or mfg. facts, I'm a little surprised you're so focused on a headline that is more obviously designed to attract attention so you then click on the article. And the articles themselves, while making fun of Kerry, also raise awareness of the apparent problem with HFC's. My problem is not an unwillingness to be persuaded that we should find less harmful substitutes for HFC's, but an unwillingness to believe anything that John Kerry says. The wacky headline seems more of just a teaser, but whatever.

You suspect correctly.

An honest answer, and certainly one where we can agree to respectfully disagree.

The comparison is apt. Of course, if you disagree, you won't think it's apt. To attempt another comparison, violent crime and cancers from industrial pollutants can both kill someone, so they both need to be addressed.

Future dangers to humans from MMGW may or may not be realized, but the only thing apt about its comparison to terrorism is yet another useful way of scaring people into believing the most dire MMGW predictions are true. The distinction you're missing or choosing not to recognize is that while terrorism, violent crime, and cancer can, will, and has killed us, nobody has died from MMGW and is unlikely to. Based on where the science seems to be at now anyway. There is evidence but seemingly no strong consensus on a correlation with increased storms, droughts, and crop failures, sea level rise will occur (if at all) gradually, and the most likely predictions on warming coming out of officialdom is 2°C by the end of the century. In the meantime, how many deaths will humans continue to suffer from terrorism, violent crime, and cancer now and in the foreseeable future?? If, like you, public officials believe that MMGW should also be a high priority, they are just blowing their own credibility comparing its future potential harm to these more immediate and also quite terrifying ways to die.

And you blame conservatives, the religious right, and Heartland for distorting the message and encouraging all the doubt?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exile - nice to see that your hunger for scientific truth continues unabated.

Well, scientific truth is a rather unrealistic goal I must say. Maybe I'm just hoping for ruling out some of the more obvious bulls**t. With that more humble goal in mind, we might be making some progress.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

For impact of sea level rise I would ask Australian insurance companies why they are now only reluctantly insuring ocean front properties for example in Byron Bay, while 10 years ago it was not a problem at all. I believe insurance companies are quite good in assessing risks.

I keep reading stuff like this but it seems to beg the question of whether sea level rise, if occurring, is due mainly to AGW or just GW? Why don't we read more comparisons with sea level rise during previous warming cycles where AGW was less of a factor? It's not just for the sake of argument, but goes directly to whether we can actually do something about it.

The science is clear. Humans have impacted the climate massively. Our activities caused a high amount of energy get trapped in the atmosphere. For example: A total of ~1x10^11t of oil was produced since George Bissell and Edwin L. Drake discovered in the 1850s how to drill an oil well and produce oil on an industrial scale. All oil used since then contained ~4.187x10^21J of energy. Not to mention coal. It would be naive to assume that this activity does not have an impact on the energy contained in the atmosphere. We also changed the albedo of the planet by building cities, roads and knocking down ancient forests, which by the way also impacted the carbon cycle. Right now more carbon is added than it is recycled. It is naive to assume that all of our activities would not impact the climate.

There seems to be pretty wide agreement on this one, in & out of the science community.

Is it a problem? Not really except that we were stupid enough to build most of our high population centres near the coast and we think we can farm the same land forever. Time to move on.

Lots of controversy over whether it's a problem, how much of a problem, should we err on the side of caution, what if anything we can do about it, etc. The issue should be focused on these sorts of impacts rather than all the useless moralizing about how we got here. That's just fodder for politicians to agitate, polarize, and thus try and win elections.

Politicians want you to follow them. Climate change is a good psychological tool to get people polarised (just look at this thread) for whatever political agenda.

Agreed.

Accept that we as a species have had an impact on the climate since we moved down from the trees. Accept that climate long term is unstable and changing. Accept that our cities near the coast are "doomed" in the long run. Accept that there will be technology we don't even know yet that will solve some problems (and most likely creates others).

Well said, although I wouldn't necessarily give up on the ability of coastal cities to survive.

A reminder: Not so long ago the area of the Great Barrier Reef was dry with large flat coastal plains. This area is at a depth of less than one hundred metres below sea level today.

Like it or not our planet is constantly changing. It is not certain that we as a species will be around forever . Can we do something to terraform Terra as we like it? I think we can at least try.

Which is why trying to assess the costs of doing so are so important, and not just the monetary costs. As you suggest, the cure might bring more harm than the onset of the disease we're trying to prevent.