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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I suspect I could guess the approximate ball park answer already.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

So using the scientific method, you have formed a hypothesis; now go out and put that hypothesis to the test. Otherwise, it is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So using the scientific method, you have formed a hypothesis; now go out and put that hypothesis to the test. Otherwise, it is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

Is that an assumption or an assertion on your behalf, lol?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I understand that the science is separate however the Montreal protocol ( and I'm just using it as a reference). Had to have been based on the science that cfc's were bad to get the politics to enact the protocol to begin with. Now they need to get he proof that agw mmgw or whatever label you want on it is bad to force the worlds leaders to act.

The ozone hole was caused by chloro-flourocarbon compounds that acted almost like a catalyst when it came to beating up on ozone molecules. Unlike co2 greenhouse theory, this chemical reaction was readily provable and the solution proved simple.

Ironically, somewhat, it was fossil fuels that saved the day.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Gord. You disappoint me. My google-** is strong, too.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my "Google-** requires a starting point.
Give me a hint: which are the ones with "snouts in the trough*", and what exactly does that* mean?

Statements without evidence are just (probably Un/Miss-informed) opinions.
Or
Hitchen’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The ozone hole was caused by chloro-flourocarbon compounds that acted almost like a catalyst when it came to beating up on ozone molecules. Unlike co2 greenhouse theory, this chemical reaction was readily provable and the solution proved simple.

Ironically, somewhat, it was fossil fuels that saved the day.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The "GHG" qualities of CO2 have been known since 1820's. And it can be demonstrated in lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc

How did fossil fuels save the day?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Sorry to disappoint you, but my "Google-** requires a starting point.
Give me a hint: which are the ones with "snouts in the trough*", and what exactly does that* mean?

Statements without evidence are just (probably Un/Miss-informed) opinions.
Or
Hitchen’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Ok. Let's compare dara international with unicef.

Unicef: administration expenses = 2.7%; fund-raising expenses = 7.0%
DARA: administration expenses = 35%; fund raising expenses = 2.0%

You're a smart guy. You know what these numbers mean.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_82455.html#

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...7#.VnMxHB6ua2c

http://resources.daraint.org/corpora...eport_2014.pdf

For the record typical nfp values are 10% administration and 10% fund-raising.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The "GHG" qualities of CO2 have been known since 1820's. And it can be demonstrated in lab.

How did fossil fuels save the day?

Yet climate modelling is as accurate as a bb gun at 500 yards; and go look at the propellant used in most aerosol cans these days. Some modern refrigerants also use these same gases as a component of their formulation.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Unicef: administration expenses = 2.7%; fund-raising expenses = 7.0%
DARA: administration expenses = 35%; fund raising expenses = 2.0%
You're a smart guy. You know what these numbers mean.

I guess I'm not as smart as you give me credit.
Are you saying that efficiency = accuracy; and that an inefficient organization is necessarily wrong?
I'm not denying your assertion; but still don't quite understand what you're claiming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yet climate modelling is as accurate as a bb gun at 500 yards;

Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

References

Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
Manabe and Wetherald 1967
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
De F. Forster et al. 1999
Langematz et al. 2003
Vinnikov and Grody 2003
** et al. 2004
Thompson and Solomon 2005

Nights warm more than days
Arrhenius 1896
Dai et al. 1999
Sherwood et al. 2005

Winter warms more than summer
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
Volodin and Galin 1999
Crozier 2003

Polar amplification
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Polyakov et al. 2001
Holland and Bitz 2003

Arctic warms more than Antarctic
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Doran et al. 2002
Comisa 2003
Turner et al. 2007

Pinatubo effects
Hansen et al. 1992
Hansen et al. 1996
Soden et al. 2002

Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
Rind and Peteet 1985
Farreral et al. 1999
Melanda et al. 2005

Temperature trend versus UAH results
Christy et al. 2003
Santer et al. 2003
Mears and Wentz 2005
Santer et al. 2005
Sherwood et al. 2005

Water vapor feedback from ENSO
Lau et al. 1996
Soden 2000
Dessler and Wong 2009

Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
Fyfe et al. 1999
Kushner et al. 2001
Sexton 2001
Thompson and Solomon 2002

Hadley Cells expand
Quan et al. 2002
** et al. 2006
Hu and ** 2007

Storm tracks move poleward
Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
Yin 2005

Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
Thuburn and Craig 1997
Kushner et al. 2001
Santer et al. 2003
Seidel and Randel 2006

Tropical "super greenhouse effect"
Vonder Haar 1986
Lubin 1994

Constant average relative humidity
Manabe and Wetherall 1967
Minschwaner and Dessler 2004
Soden et al. 2005
Gettelman and ** 2008

[Reefmagnet]

I can successfully predict the sun will come up in the morning, too. Getting the time of sunrise right might be a problem, however.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Y go look at the propellant used in most aerosol cans these days. Some modern refrigerants also use these same gases as a component of their formulation.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Refrigerants

The inert nature of many halons, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC), with the benefits of their being nonflammable and nontoxic, made them good choices as refrigerants, but their stability in the atmosphere and their corresponding global warming potential and ozone depletion potential raised concerns about their usage. In order from the highest to the lowest potential of ozone depletion are Bromochlorofluorocarbon, CFC then HCFC. Though HFC and PFC are non-ozone depleting, many have global warming potentials that are thousands of times greater than CO2. Some other refrigerants such as propane and ammonia are not inert, and are flammable or toxic if released.

Aerosol propellants

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were once often used as propellants, but since the Montreal Protocol came into force in 1989, they have been replaced in nearly every country due to the negative effects CFCs have on Earth's ozone layer. The most common replacements are mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons, typically propane, n-butane and isobutane. Dimethyl ether (DME) and methyl ethyl ether are also used. All these have the disadvantage of being flammable. Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are also used as propellants to deliver foodstuffs (for example, whipped cream and cooking spray). Medicinal aerosols such as asthma inhalers use hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA): either HFA 134a (1,1,1,2,-tetrafluoroethane) or HFA 227 (1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane) or combinations of the two. Manual pump sprays can be used as an alternative to a stored propellant.

(from Wikipedia)

Both contain GHGs.

And your point?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I can successfully predict the sun will come up in the morning, too. Getting the time of sunrise right might be a problem, however.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Sunrise is easy. There are algorithms for that. I also have my Nautical Alamanc, my weatherstation and my GPS programs.

We know the earth is warming and we know why it is warming. The natural cycles would have us cooling, which ain't happening.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sunrise is easy. There are algorithms for that. I also have my Nautical Alamanc, my weatherstation and my GPS programs.

We know the earth is warming and we know why it is warming. The natural cycles would have us cooling, which ain't happening.

I don't dispute that assumption at all, except for the "we know why" claim. For if that is true, why is there still so much climate research being performed at the expense of other deserving humanitarium problems, like people blowing each other up, fer instance?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Refrigerants

The inert nature of many halons, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC), with the benefits of their being nonflammable and nontoxic, made them good choices as refrigerants, but their stability in the atmosphere and their corresponding global warming potential and ozone depletion potential raised concerns about their usage. In order from the highest to the lowest potential of ozone depletion are Bromochlorofluorocarbon, CFC then HCFC. Though HFC and PFC are non-ozone depleting, many have global warming potentials that are thousands of times greater than CO2. Some other refrigerants such as propane and ammonia are not inert, and are flammable or toxic if released.

Aerosol propellants

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were once often used as propellants, but since the Montreal Protocol came into force in 1989, they have been replaced in nearly every country due to the negative effects CFCs have on Earth's ozone layer. The most common replacements are mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons, typically propane, n-butane and isobutane. Dimethyl ether (DME) and methyl ethyl ether are also used. All these have the disadvantage of being flammable. Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are also used as propellants to deliver foodstuffs (for example, whipped cream and cooking spray). Medicinal aerosols such as asthma inhalers use hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA): either HFA 134a (1,1,1,2,-tetrafluoroethane) or HFA 227 (1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane) or combinations of the two. Manual pump sprays can be used as an alternative to a stored propellant.

(from Wikipedia)

Both contain GHGs.

And your point?

You missed the word "most" in my reference to propane and butane propellants and OMG are you advocating co2????

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I guess I'm not as smart as you give me credit.
Are you saying that efficiency = accuracy; and that an inefficient organization is necessarily wrong?
I'm not denying your assertion; but still don't quite understand what you're claiming.

I'm saying 35% admin expenses for a not for profit organisation is high.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app