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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well let's see here the report you referenced from last February is almost the polar opposite of the one from Nov of this year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...ntp/201511.gif

Did you read the Jeff Masters link?

The amplitude of the jet stream is increasing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You simply won't let reality get in the way of a good rant, will you...



Wow. you really don't get it. The whole "climate change" thing has, in the public eye and in politics, become the proxy for ALL of the above, and for any policy change that tilts towards conservation, resource management, cleanup, sustainability... and away from unrestrained profits.

Because the eggs are all in the one basket, and because people like you have drunk the koolaid about the great AGW con-spirasay ... progress is stalled, including fixing the very things you rail against above.

Climate change is but one of the looming problems, but it is among the looming problems. By so stridently opposing AGW, you're helping block progress, period. Thanks for that.

Exhibit #2 for how you don't get it. First, the issue isn't big oil "paying" for CO2 pollution, it's that the pollution isn't currently priced into the cost of fossil fuels, so the actual costs of mitigation and cleanup are borne by the taxpayers (if the government bothers to do anything). And ... maybe we should stop subsidizing the extraction, processing and sale of coal and oil.

I dunno about Australia, but in some parts of Canada there has been a disposal surcharge when electronics are sold, so yeah, SONY customers are starting to bear the cost of electronics disposal. think this is the case in most of Europe too.

There are 1000 other reasons besides climate change for making the same set of serious changes. Let go of the AGW hobbyhorse and focus on the ones you do feel are important. Seriously.

Ok, so you're advocating that a whole bunch of individually solvable problems should be lumped into one complex problem that has few, if any, practical solutions at present? An approach that results in investing far too much research dollars in the discipline of climate science instead of other relevant fields. I'm not sure I'm the one not getting this. I certainly hope as a computer programmer you don't apply this same methodology to your coding!

You're second point is also nonsensical. Sony aren't paying an environment tax on their products. Have you considered the energy/co2 differential between building an entire Blu-ray player vs a small circuit board, including transportation? Perhaps if they did pay a tax, their products would be more field service friendly. In reference to my first paragraph, perhaps if more research money filtered through to product engineers et al rather then almost exclusively to climate related projects us heretics would be satisfied.








Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[44'cruisingcat]

On our boat we have sandals and ugg boots. We're ready for anything.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, so you're advocating that a whole bunch of individually solvable problems should be lumped into one complex problem that has few, if any, practical solutions at present?

No. I'm saying that the public and political framing of all these problems is at present lumped together with AGW, and is currently all jammed up because of the "debate" over AGW. Which you're helping to sustain.

btw the "individually solvable problems" all have solutions that are 99% aligned with and beneficial to also reducing AGW. So claiming that AGW has no practical solutions is bogus. Remedies to all of the ills you decry will also go a long way towards mitigating AGW.

An approach that results in investing far too much research dollars in the discipline of climate science instead of other relevant fields. I'm not sure I'm the one not getting this.

Ok smart guy: how much is being spent on climate science and how much of that is "wasted"?

You're second point is also nonsensical. Sony aren't paying an environment tax on their products. Have you considered the energy/co2 differential between building an entire Blu-ray player vs a small circuit board, including transportation? Perhaps if they did pay a tax, their products would be more field service friendly.

Fossil fuel producers aren't paying an environmental tax, and they get tax breaks to boot. Who is being nonsensical?

You also don't quite have a handle on the current electronics market or why so much stuff is currently designed to be replaced rather than repaired, but there's not the space here to get into that.

In reference to my first paragraph, perhaps if more research money filtered through to product engineers et al rather then almost exclusively to climate related projects us heretics would be satisfied.

Again: how much is being spent on climate science and how much of that is "wasted", in your opinion? How does your insisting that climate science is wrong help that situation?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No. I'm saying that the public and political framing of all these problems is at present lumped together with AGW, and is currently all jammed up because of the "debate" over AGW. Which you're helping to sustain.

btw the "individually solvable problems" all have solutions that are 99% aligned with and beneficial to also reducing AGW. So claiming that AGW has no practical solutions is bogus. Remedies to all of the ills you decry will also go a long way towards mitigating AGW.

Ok smart guy: how much is being spent on climate science and how much of that is "wasted"?

Fossil fuel producers aren't paying an environmental tax, and they get tax breaks to boot. Who is being nonsensical?

You also don't quite have a handle on the current electronics market or why so much stuff is currently designed to be replaced rather than repaired, but there's not the space here to get into that.

Again: how much is being spent on climate science and how much of that is "wasted", in your opinion? How does your insisting that climate science is wrong help that situation?

Well, you're flat out wrong. If you weren't, climate change debate wouldn't exist and the IPCC wouldn't be pulling the strings.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, you're flat out wrong.

Here's a little box for you to explain briefly and succinctly why I'm wrong:

If therer's any room left, please feel free to explain how much money you think is wasted on climate science, and why it's a waste (besides one TV program that annoyed you). Climate scientists study climate. What should they study instead? the reason clouds sometimes look like animals?

the IPCC wouldn't be pulling the strings

...might work as the next Bond villian. But you'll still need a backstory.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's a little box for you to explain briefly and succinctly why I'm wrong:

You're assuming that a bunch of little problems are best solved by combining them into one big problem

If therer's any room left, please feel free to explain how much money you think is wasted on climate science, and why it's a waste (besides one TV program that annoyed you). Climate scientists study climate. What should they study instead? the reason clouds sometimes look like animals?

See below





...might work as the next Bond villian. But you'll still need a backstory.

M'kay. There are those that think the UN is attempting to form a one world government of un-democratically elected officials and are using the IPCC as the tool to achieve this.

The pro-AGW problem: Increasing CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is leading to increasing global temperatures, increased ocean acidity and a whole heap of other devastating consequences.

The pro-AGW solution: invest billions in research (i.e. Antarctic plankton) and pressure governments to stop their constituents burning coal and oil.

The actual problem: Increasing human population is consuming ever increasingly more natural resources. Existing financial models amplify this problem by relying upon growth financial quarter after financial quarter and promote exploitation and greed and rampant consumerism without consequence.

The actual solution: (in three parts):
1: Switch to new financial models that don't rely on constant growth and that can penalise exploitation whilst limiting profit grabbing greed. This might sound far fetched, but it isn't. Invest in economic science.

2: Without the need to constantly grow economies and reward profiteering, encourage reduced family size. Invest in family planning science.

3: Force all manufacturers to "resource" assess their products. For example a $50 blu-ray player that lasts 3 years before junking to landfill is worse than a $200 unit that lasts 10 years. Tax that $50 dollar unit so it becomes less economical than the $200 one to buy or ban it altogether. Higher prices for long lasting field serviceable goods would have have a dramatic effect on the issue by discouraging the rampant consumer society we now have in the first and, increasingly, third worlds. Invest in resource management science.

Yep, I know it sounds like a loony rave, but better than nuttin'

[Lepke]

Most of you are missing the real cost of global warming. Obama says it's causing terrorism. Be prepared for an attack.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

2: Without the need to constantly grow economies and reward profiteering, encourage reduced family size. Invest in family planning science.

The problems of growing populations is not distinct from AGW.

________________________

There is need to be motivation to have smaller families. I am child free. But I also have a single payer health care system and a good defined benefits pension. I do not need children to look after me in my old age.

All of these stem from living in a developed economy. I know that that economy was built on fossil fuels. I also know that that model is not sustainable on a global basis.

That is why we need to get off fossils fuels and we need to help developing nations find a different path to prosperity. One of the reasons that we need to help is that we have had tariff policies that prevented economic development in those nations.

+++++++

The strongest correlation between family size and anything else is the educational level of the mother.

Let's educate women world-wide.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lepke

Most of you are missing the real cost of global warming. Obama says it's causing terrorism. Be prepared for an attack.

Actually Obama is using the research of others.

For example:

Climate change, human security and violent conflict

Jon Barnetta, , , W. Neil Adgerb

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003

Abstract

Climate change is increasingly been called a ‘security’ problem, and there has been speculation that climate change may increase the risk of violent conflict. This paper integrates three disparate but well-founded bodies of research – on the vulnerability of local places and social groups to climate change, on livelihoods and violent conflict, and the role of the state in development and peacemaking, to offer new insights into the relationships between climate change, human security, and violent conflict. It explains that climate change increasingly undermines human security in the present day, and will increasingly do so in the future, by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods. Climate change is also likely to undermine the capacity of states to provide the opportunities and services that help people to sustain their livelihoods. We argue that in certain circumstances these direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human security may in turn increase the risk of violent conflict. The paper then outlines the broad contours of a research programme to guide empirical investigations into the risks climate change poses to human security and peace.

Please note that this was published before Obama came into office.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The pro-AGW solution: invest billions in research (i.e. Antarctic plankton) and pressure governments to stop their constituents burning coal and oil.

Billions on Antarctic plankton. Really? Show me!

i.e. is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase ‘id est,’ meaning ‘that is.’

[Lake-Effect]

It's killing me that we are so much in agreement about things that should be happening, but you can't see how your opposition to the finding of AGW, based on a largely fabricated but well-sold controversy, is gumming up the works.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're assuming that a bunch of little problems are best solved by combining them into one big problem

For the third time, NO. I'm saying that this is the current public perception, for better or worse, and the public now equates anything green/conservationist/sustainable with climate change. Since it's so fashionable now to scoff at climate change, the whole green spectrum is simultaneously scorned, and it's OK again to buy pickups and SUVs with V8s to get the groceries.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The pro-AGW problem: Increasing CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is leading to increasing global temperatures, increased ocean acidity and a whole heap of other devastating consequences.

Yes. Do you not see this as a problem?

The pro-AGW solution: invest billions in research (i.e. Antarctic plankton) and pressure governments to stop their constituents burning coal and oil.

You keep claiming that, but never back it up. How much do you think is being spent/overspent on climate research?

Reduction in fossil-fuel use is good for a host of other reasons besides AGW.

The actual problem: Increasing human population is consuming ever increasingly more natural resources. Existing financial models amplify this problem by relying upon growth financial quarter after financial quarter and promote exploitation and greed and rampant consumerism without consequence.

I disagree with... none of this. Excess CO2 going into the atmosphere is but one of the specific harms that this causes.

[3 proposals]

Yep, I know it sounds like a loony rave, but better than nuttin'

Once again... I substantially agree.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Billions on Antarctic plankton. Really? Show me!

i.e. is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase ‘id est,’ meaning ‘that is.’

I meant to type E.g as in "for example"

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's killing me that we are so much in agreement about things that should be happening, but you can't see how your opposition to the finding of AGW, based on a largely fabricated but well-sold controversy, is gumming up the works.



For the third time, NO. I'm saying that this is the current public perception, for better or worse, and the public now equates anything green/conservationist/sustainable with climate change. Since it's so fashionable now to scoff at climate change, the whole green spectrum is simultaneously scorned, and it's OK again to buy pickups and SUVs with V8s to get the groceries.



Yes. Do you not see this as a problem?

Yes, but one of the boffins own making. They've let the genie out of the bottle unfortunately

Unfortunately no one equates buying their next iPhone with the problem



You keep claiming that, but never back it up. How much do you think is being spent/overspent on climate research?

Lots?

Reduction in fossil-fuel use is good for a host of other reasons besides AGW.

But won't save humanity if the very doomsayers you proclaim are right, are right



I disagree with... none of this. Excess CO2 going into the atmosphere is but one of the specific harms that this causes.

Once again... I substantially agree.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by conachair

Are you really considering cruising Antarctica in a fibreglass cat?

Yes conachair. I do realize that there is inherent danger of being sliced lengthways by submerged ice cubes. I also know that most in those parts use steel hulls. But steel didn't help the titanic any. Whatever hull one uses you still need to use the utmost caution. I intend to gave forward and sideways sonar and when in the ice cube zone to proceed slowly. Very slowly. I also intend to have at least two pairs of eyes forward ship in the danger zones. I will not be over reliant on technology but I will definitely use it as an aid. For those big ones bobbing up above the water I will have the added safety of a properly tuned radar.

One advantage of being in these waters with fiberglass hulls is that I definitely wont be complacent. That is a lesson learned from the Titanic and a trap you could fall into sailing with steel hull.

I may be completely out of my mind. I may even be convinced to float around in a sardine can with sails. But I am excited about the adventure of sailing in that region in a cat. Sitting aloft the salon at the rooftop helm in my thermal clothes and seeing one of the most beautiful vistas of the frankness of nature eyes can hope to see.

I'm also planning in going Northern waters like the usual such as Caribbean and the Med and for reasons of pure creature comforts I choose to do this in a cat.

I would welcome opinions that would dissuade me from my dream adventure but I'm going to need some convincing. And if my idea is absolutely insane let me know. You may save me from my own madness.