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

[hydrodane]

Originally Posted by holtjp

Depressing. We used to be a nation that valued science. We had a good run in the century where that was the case. Now it looks like an all too big a slice of our populace has simply lumped scientists into that disgraced group of politicians, teachers, athletes, judges, police officers, doctors, lawyers, and journalists. Of course, it could just be that the average age of a sailor is somewhere north of 70 so few of us will have to live with the consequences. Frick the kids...

Yes, we are still that nation, but the values have changed..for better or for worse, is a judgement made by the person.

I would consider that the "scientific community" has indeed fallen out of favor as a result of many consequences.

a. there is an abundance of evidence that science persons have conspired to secretly protect very important and profound technologies..by selling this technology to nation states, and big corpo....

example: prism, nsa, and major tech companies that are complicit in using cutting edge computing technologies in order to spy...these same technologies could be used for far greater economic and social purposes, but they will never be revealed and as such those applications will take a back seat to the national security interest...it is a serious paradox created and supported by a central super power government..the people gain nothing..this is not the spirit of science and discovery...it actually makes the world less safe, if you consider the opportunity cost issues

b. there are many nation state sponsored "studies" that have been debunked by proper peer review...and some of these are related to the careful selective data points and selective analysis metrics that were intentionally used to develop the "narrative". What independent peer review and proper media and press coverage has done has revealed there is a political and economic interest in developing this narrative. The problem this creates of course, is again, a misstrust in scientific "studies"...particularly those supported by nation state funding. It has been a conflict of interest, and it served no good outcomes for the future of pure science..which should be apolitical, objective, thorough, AND WILLING to concede mistakes were made and then correct them. Now what you find is that the global warming, climate change, has become a widespread embarrassing and stark reminded that there are scientists who are willing to produce any data, or analysis for top dollar and political interest. Reasonably well educated citizens have been very disappointed with this development, mostly because it creates a "general" misstrust of science. Isolating "bad scientists" and "bad programs" should be the highest priority for the various scientific communities to restore the confidence and the ambition of young people to get involved. Unfortunately, it is too early to tell, how this will turn out over time, but one gets the general opinion, that left unchecked, there will be less legitimate science to back up government programs...rather just the opposite...a political goal, requiring the scientific community to destroy its credibility by developing any data or analysis to give such political agenda the proper "legitimacy".

c. Education regression. My view is that in general the average american student it not properly challenged in high school, and very nearly the same at undergraduate. Society is producing fewer minds that have the tools and the academic experience to understand complex math and science. I believe we have been experiencing what I call the "entertainment era"....Yes, scientific discoveries have also taken place in interesting ways...but the gap I believe has increased. It is natural consequence of a rapidly accelerating complex technological set of leaps..combined with a educational development that can only been viewed as regressive, taken as a whole. The entertain generation Z, combined with an every growing gap in understanding AND INTEREST...results naturally as a form of "fear"....and rejection...it leaves a gap that is often filled with conspiracy, hearsay, gossip, and what does a kardashian have to say kind of media "talk"

Let me give a prime example of how america's generation Z entertainment era conducts its affairs:

Recently SETH MCFARLANE performed the duty of master of ceremonies and was the opening speaker for the 2016 Breakthrough Prizes, which awards $21.9 million to those working in mathematics, life sciences, and physics.

The "breakthrough prize" is quite an honor, and it does well to award legitimate science people who have performed at the highest level. It is similar (but not nearly as specific) as the Nobel Prize, or the Fields Medal honor.

But...what the eff is SETH MCFARLANE doing there..this is the idiot who created FAMILY GUY....?

I know I am ranting...I hope some of you understand my point here...what is taking place is literally the dumbing down of an entire generation...where television producers actually influence and contrive the science community..It would be entertaining and funny is there was a generation more engaged in the serious work of science..but the fact is, most viewers, the youth, will only remember the few jokes from a television producer at one of the most prestigious award ceremonies for leading key ground breakers in science this year.

What can we do about it?

I have a few ideas...

1. teach your children *(and yourself!) how to apply mathematics to solve everyday problems...geometry..

2. associate yourself with people who challenge status quo, and look for better solutions..rather than the plug and play, throwaway..don't fixit generation of consumer entertainment wankers.

[Liam Wald]

Personally I am not going to because I don't think that I will live more than another 30 years or so. But I would say yes, if you think that you will live another 200-300 years it might be prudent to start getting ready now.

[Udacha]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

Sources?

Post #69

[hydrodane]

Originally Posted by dazbys

It doesn't really matter if you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not. It's simple really:

- what's the worst case if we do nothing and it is a real thing
- what's the worst case if we do nothing, and it wasn't a real thing
- what's the worst case if we try to do something, and it is a real thing
- what's the worst case if we try to do something, and it's not a real thing.

So, of all these combinations, the very worst case is do nothing, and experience real global warming consequences. Even if we do something, and can't change the catastrophic course of events, at least we've mitigated impact. If we spend billions, and nothing happens, at least the world is a nicer place to live.

I am going to challenge some of the "simple" thinking here:

1. you have not provided ALL of the possibilities in your "combinations"...One, that comes to mind is this: what is the BEST case, if "we" ...and the you can fill in the rest of this statement/narrative with whatever you choose.

the emphasis being on "we"...how to you get the combined entire population of the earth to cooperate as a "we"....and even if we agree that it is not necessary to get everyone to cooperate, then what precisely is that "break even" point?

2. nicer place to live. I am not sure you even understand the very bold statement you have made here. For example, when you suggest it will be nicer, what actually do you mean by this.."nicer air quality, less pollutants"...I get that...but have you actually considered what the "cost" is for the entire process of a complete global power overhaul. You do realize this will require much cost..

3. I concede that there are better power alternatives that burning fossil fuel, but its cheap..and its cheaper than any other..the cost point for almost all alternative power sources is rather steep....That is a fact. At the small and the large scale, implementing solar, wind, wave, thermo, radio, etc...the cost is enormous...and its quite a fragile system unless you build a seriously large amount of overlapping and redundant systems....and it does not end there..there is the overhaul of the entire electric grid, at the large and the small scale, auto, planes, trains, buses, trucks, and just about very single consumable materials and the factories that make them. the massive amount of energy required to provide this additional shift from current power sources to the alternatives is rarely discussed..but it is enormous and will take generations to complete..that is a fact.

4. the other problem is a consequence of human nature in the large scale...nations compete..and they war..let me give an example: lets say, the US makes a decision to go with alternative fuel, what implications does this have for his national security posture with respect to other super powers, who decide it is not in their own national security interest to follow suit. it could well end up being a situation where cheap OIL/fuel *(even as dirty and "un-nice" as we might agree it is) becomes the means to determine the rest of the world economy..of which the US has decided not to participate in lieu of chasing down "nice"...

Here is what I see: the US will lead the technology to develop alternate power for locations where oil/fuel are too expensive, or where specific fuel sources are more efficient that drilling/shipping/producing oil. But those are going to be far and few between..because, again, oil if cheap..and everything..and I mean every single thing we do, is based on oil. all of it..including that last few key strokes from my keyboard, data, leaving my point to yours and all points in between, consuming its own amount of energy...from the moment the entire infrastructure was created to now, and the future, there are in fact few energy dependent systems that can be easily and efficiently shifted from a oil based power infrastructrure to anything else.

I am not saying it isn't appropriate to give it a shot..but the argument is alot like nuclear disarmament...we can all agree it is a smart and intelligent idea..but it's a competitive world...and in fact, there are no "first takers"...seems everyone is waiting for the other guy to do it. And that makes sense in game theory, if you understand the cost to competition and cost outright...

How will I know alternative power to oil fuel is legitimate as a cost argument...

when "WE ALL" can agree and take the action at the same time...as mentioned before...you conditional questions above require a leap of faith, that frankly I don't see anyone taking up.

[Udacha]

Here is an interesting "fact" When I was in High School way back in the 70s we were being taught that we were going into an Ice Age because of burning a hole in the ozone. To get a proper analysis you need to go back 1000s of years and 10,000s and 100,000s of years. In my case in just a few decades the planet went from "going" into an Ice Age to "going" into a meltdown. I take a grain of salt with ANY climate predictions. Either they were lying to me then or lying to me now or maybe both

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Udacha

Here is an interesting "fact" When I was in High School way back in the 70s we were being taught that we were going into an Ice Age because of burning a hole in the ozone. To get a proper analysis you need to go back 1000s of years and 10,000s and 100,000s of years. In my case in just a few decades the planet went from "going" into an Ice Age to "going" into a meltdown. I take a grain of salt with ANY climate predictions. Either they were lying to me then or lying to me now or maybe both

The interesting thing is that for the two diametrically opposite problems, the "experts" came up with exactly the same solutions:

More government and UN control, "pollution taxes", curb the use of fossil fuels, de-industrialisation, population reduction etc, etc.

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by Udacha

Here is an interesting "fact" When I was in High School way back in the 70s we were being taught that we were going into an Ice Age because of burning a hole in the ozone. To get a proper analysis you need to go back 1000s of years and 10,000s and 100,000s of years. In my case in just a few decades the planet went from "going" into an Ice Age to "going" into a meltdown. I take a grain of salt with ANY climate predictions. Either they were lying to me then or lying to me now or maybe both

It is especially interesting because ozone depletion is principally related to UV damage, with only a minor cooling effect.

[jwcolby54]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Stu...
You do realize that you are trying to talk a Christian into becoming a Muslim don't you...or vice versa. You should just give up and relax...they voted in Paris to make the CO2 reductions Voluntary...ha ha ha....game over...now onto real issues.

Like what tune are we going to fiddle while Rome burns!

[Curious Sailor]

I love global warming discussions.. Always heat up... No pun.. Lol..

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by holtjp

Depressing. We used to be a nation that valued science. We had a good run in the century where that was the case. Now it looks like an all too big a slice of our populace has simply lumped scientists into that disgraced group of politicians, teachers, athletes, judges, police officers, doctors, lawyers, and journalists. Of course, it could just be that the average age of a sailor is somewhere north of 70 so few of us will have to live with the consequences. Frick the kids...

I love science. I am a scientist who has more than a few patents to my name. What you need to do is study the influence of politics on science throughout history. I will further add that you like so many believers consider all that comes from the mouth of a scientist is fact even though it is an hypotheses or theory.

Just because a person questions the hypothesis of some scientists doesn't make them anti science. What is anti science is accepting theory without question. It is the rigor of questioning scientific theory that aids in developing scientific knowledge. And I would also say that all science needs to be questioned constantly as data points change and new information can and does so readily make previous held science obsolete.

On this point I remember in the days of printed text books that by the time a lot of science text books came off the printing press they were in fact obsolete because new science discovery had changed so much of what was previously held.

Holding onto so called "science" as an unmovable and unchangeable set of beliefs is the most unscientific approach any intelligent person could take. Questioning and questioning again is the foundation of good science. Not as we are seeing today, a science of belief with the believers holding onto to their positions as if they were religious unchangeable dogma.

The new scientific dogmatists are for me far more scarier than the threat of the Bahamas disappearing under water in the next decade. Which of course is an absurdity but if I told the unthinking masses that it was based on science they would of course "believe"

There are scientists that have differing data points and conclusions to that which is offered by the Government (read political) funded hacks at University's and not so independent institutes.

What is needed is an open mind with a healthy level of skepticism to wade through the data contradictions and extrapolated opinions dressed as "scientific fact"

All of this brings me to the point. Owning a boat and learning how to make passage is the best thing a person can do. Because, heat up or cool down you will always be able to find the best place to enjoy life. :-)

Chaya

Chaya

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Stu...
You do realize that you are trying to talk a Christian into becoming a Muslim don't you...or vice versa. You should just give up and relax...they voted in Paris to make the CO2 reductions Voluntary...ha ha ha....game over...now onto real issues.

That whole Paris thing was so all the politicians could get a Paris vacation on the taxpayer's dime. One big scam after another... propagated on a scam in the first place.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by StuM

The interesting thing is that for the two diametrically opposite problems, the "experts" came up with exactly the same solutions:

More government and UN control, "pollution taxes", curb the use of fossil fuels, de-industrialisation, population reduction etc, etc.

"Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste"...where have I heard that???

[Curious Sailor]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I love science. I am a scientist who has more than a few patents to my name. What you need to do is study the influence of politics on science throughout history. I will further add that you like so many believers consider all that comes from the mouth of a scientist is fact even though it is an hypotheses or theory.

Just because a person questions the hypothesis of some scientists doesn't make them anti science. What is anti science is accepting theory without question. It is the rigor of questioning scientific theory that aids in developing scientific knowledge. And I would also say that all science needs to be questioned constantly as data points change and new information can and does so readily make previous held science obsolete.

On this point I remember in the days of printed text books that by the time a lot of science text books came off the printing press they were in fact obsolete because new science discovery had changed so much of what was previously held.

Holding onto so called "science" as an unmovable and unchangeable set of beliefs is the most unscientific approach any intelligent person could take. Questioning and questioning again is the foundation of good science. Not as we are seeing today, a science of belief with the believers holding onto to their positions as if they were religious unchangeable dogma.

The new scientific dogmatists are for me far more scarier than the threat of the Bahamas disappearing under water in the next decade. Which of course is an absurdity but if I told the unthinking masses that it was based on science they would of course "believe"

There are scientists that have differing data points and conclusions to that which is offered by the Government (read political) funded hacks at University's and not so independent institutes.

What is needed is an open mind with a healthy level of skepticism to wade through the data contradictions and extrapolated opinions dressed as "scientific fact"

All of this brings me to the point. Owning a boat and learning how to make passage is the best thing a person can do. Because, heat up or cool down you will always be able to find the best place to enjoy life. :-)

Chaya

Chaya

Awesome response! Thank you Chaya!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

That whole Paris thing was so all the politicians could get a Paris vacation on the taxpayer's dime. One big scam after another... propagated on a scam in the first place.

Not just the pollies. It's all the other bludgers getting a free* ride. Most of them are unelected:

"The conference is expected to attract close to 50,000 participants including 25,000 official delegates from government, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society."



*free if you ignore their carbon footprints

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by StuM

Foozinator,

I'm probably wasting my time here, but just for laughs - you might like to try downloading and reading the PDF book here:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Downloaded. Not sure when I'll get to reading it, but, believe it or not, I am open to logical and rational discourse.