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

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

So after all of this we all can agree on some fundamentals.

1. We may have more ice in the Antarctic waters
2. The Northern passage may continue to open up for summer sailing
3. Boaters will still have islands to visit
4. We all should enjoy life on the waters as life on the land is getting more insane by the day
5. If cooling then buy now some extra cold weather clothing
6. If warming just drop down or go up a few latitudes and all will be cool or install a bow to stern AC
7. Finally, solar and more solar

Everything else doesn't really matter. After all what's a couple of degrees up or down amongst friends.

Don't know about the rest but NASA says yes to more Antarctic sea ice
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...record-maximum

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I have to laugh because where does our MMGWC think that Carbon came from we are burning? All this talk of a perfectly ballanced system but you left off the front end of the scale when that carbon was "sequestered" in the fuel. I love these guys...really do....

Thank you for the correction.

I did know this; my poorly expressed point was that burning a tree that could grow back in 20 years is a slightly different carbon cycle than burning several millenia's worth of sequestered carbon, that was stored millions of years ago, in like 200 years.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you for the correction.

I did know this; my poorly expressed point was that burning a tree that could grow back in 20 years is a slightly different carbon cycle than burning several millenia's worth of sequestered carbon, that was stored millions of years ago, in like 200 years.

I'm always happy to help Lake.
See if you want to save mother nature, you must look at the entire carbon cycle, not just pick you false timeline to try and show doom.

Next up, we will teach you about water vapor and if you learn that lesson, maybe we can talk about the Sun. You know...the source of our thermal energy.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you for the correction.

I did know this; my poorly expressed point was that burning a tree that could grow back in 20 years is a slightly different carbon cycle than burning several millenia's worth of sequestered carbon, that was stored millions of years ago, in like 200 years.

That of course assumes a tree is planted when one is removed. Oddly we have lost tons (well, ok, more like 350 million acres) of forest and rainforests in the world over the last 20 years, which also reduced carbon sinks, that at least for the short term (~100 years) will not be replanted.

Most of the carbon rise is from the last 60 years when the population bloomed 280%, before 1950 there just was not enough people on the planet to make a difference. So while the temperatures were rising in the 1800's and early 1900's, that warming was not from AGW. Just too few people to make a global difference.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I'm always happy to help Lake.
See if you want to save mother nature, you must look at the entire carbon cycle, not just pick you false timeline to try and show doom.

Next up, we will teach you about water vapor and if you learn that lesson, maybe we can talk about the Sun. You know...the source of our thermal energy.

Thank you also for teaching me about "irrelevant". Like whether coal and oil and came from ancient earth's vegetation or was shipped in from Mars is totally irrelevant to the issue of burning as much of it as we do today. Except of course that no more will be delivered once we run out.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I'm always happy to help Lake.
See if you want to save mother nature, you must look at the entire carbon cycle, not just pick you false timeline to try and show doom.

Next up, we will teach you about water vapor and if you learn that lesson, maybe we can talk about the Sun. You know...the source of our thermal energy.

False timeline?

I think the time period that allowed humanity to flourish, a time period that happened to include unusual stability in climate, is pretty relevant. As in, maybe that stability is something we want to protect as long as we can.

Someday its all gonna go to **** anyways. Sure, you are right. But you're also going to die one day, so, why not just do it now?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you also for teaching me about "irrelevant". Like whether coal and oil and came from ancient earth's vegetation or was shipped in from Mars is totally irrelevant to the issue of burning as much of it as we do today. Except of course that no more will be delivered once we run out.

Unless the abiotic oil proponents are correct

[SV THIRD DAY]

Carbon cycle water cycle...
Yeah those are difficult concepts

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Carbon cycle water cycle...
Yeah those are difficult concepts

Keep at it, you'll pick it up.

You've been surviving on tidbits for days. How would you like some juicy red meat for a change?

Here's something from a link SailOar posted in thread #2:
‘We Need an Energy Miracle’

Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

Gates is on a solo global lobbying campaign to press his species to accomplish something on a scale it has never attempted before. He wants human beings to invent their way out of the coming collision with planetary climate change, accelerating a transition to new forms of energy that might normally take a century or more. To head off a rise in average global temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—the goal set by international agreement—Gates believes that by 2050, wealthy nations like China and the United States, the most prodigious belchers of greenhouse gases, must be adding no more carbon to the skies.

...he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”

...

On why the free market won’t develop new forms of energy fast enough:

Well, there’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems, like “Okay, what do you do with coal ash?” and “How do you guarantee something is safe?” Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

...

If we just have today’s technologies, will the world run the scary climate-change experiment of heating up the atmosphere and seeing what happens? You bet we will.

Me, I'm a jumped-up nobody. A little guy with a little boat and a big mouth. How is it that Bill Gates is on the same page as me about so many aspects of AGW and the way to address it?

Is this the new Al Gore? Should deniers start compiling their little dossier of hate on him too?

Love to hear your take.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Keep at it, you'll pick it up.

You've been surviving on tidbits for days. How would you like some juicy red meat for a change?

Here's something from a link SailOar posted in thread #2:
‘We Need an Energy Miracle’

Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

Gates is on a solo global lobbying campaign to press his species to accomplish something on a scale it has never attempted before. He wants human beings to invent their way out of the coming collision with planetary climate change, accelerating a transition to new forms of energy that might normally take a century or more. To head off a rise in average global temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—the goal set by international agreement—Gates believes that by 2050, wealthy nations like China and the United States, the most prodigious belchers of greenhouse gases, must be adding no more carbon to the skies.

...he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”

...

On why the free market won’t develop new forms of energy fast enough:

Well, there’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems, like “Okay, what do you do with coal ash?” and “How do you guarantee something is safe?” Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

...

If we just have today’s technologies, will the world run the scary climate-change experiment of heating up the atmosphere and seeing what happens? You bet we will.

Me, I'm a jumped-up nobody. A little guy with a little boat and a big mouth. How is it that Bill Gates is on the same page as me about so many aspects of AGW and the way to address it?

Is this the new Al Gore? Should deniers start compiling their little dossier of hate on him too?

Love to hear your take.

Wasn't Bil Gates father a staunch member and activist of the USA Eugenics movement that also had ties with the Nazi Party?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Wasn't Bil Gates father a staunch member and activist of the USA Eugenics movement that also had ties with the Nazi Party?

Answer the question with some real substantive evidence, rather than using innuendo.

BTW This is a classic ad hominem argument.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Is this the new Al Gore? Should deniers start compiling their little dossier of hate on him too?

One of the haters posted right after you.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Wasn't Bil Gates father a staunch member and activist of the USA Eugenics movement that also had ties with the Nazi Party?

IF this was the case, so what ? In the circles that I frequent the sins of the father do not transfer to the son, perhaps this is not the case in your world ??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

IF this was the case, so what ? In the circles that I frequent the sins of the father do not transfer to the son, perhaps this is not the case in your world ??

Actually this one directly names bill and Melinda Gates
» Nazi Money Talks: Is The Bilderberg Group The 4th Reich?

[Reefmagnet]

Bill Gates is a university drop-out who paid the author of cpm a pittance for his OS and morphed it into ms-dos that became successful as a result if IBM's open architecture PC XT. Not content with the leg up that IBM gave him and his fledgling Microsoft, he then went on to screw them over again with by essentially using their OS/2 code from a failed development partnership to form the core of Windows NT. He did write MS Basic, however.

Good and ruthless business man, yes; Philanthropist, yes; Techno-geek, yes; Saver of the environment, who knows?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app