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

[Delancey]

Something like 250,000 sharks killed everyday to make yummy soup. Climate what? Soon enough no more soup and then we have a real problem on our hands. Dunno about you guys, maybe keep arguing?

While you're distracted I'm gonna get me a second serving.

[Lake-Effect]

With the preponderance of observations continuing to fulfil the predictions of AGW, and most countries and even oil companies beginning to recognise and react (however slowly) to address the issue, I would have thought that even the thickest, most callous, most reality-challenged of the deniers would finally pipe down.

Clearly I was wrong. No matter, it's happened before. I once thought Trump was unelectable.

I used to fear that most deniers would die ignorant of their error; sadly things are unravelling fast enough that they will probably live to see how wrong they've been.

Do carry on, gents. Let the pearls of science-challenged sagacity remain here forever to enlighten all.

[senormechanico]

I propose we rename this "The Jackdale Global Warming or Cooling or Changing Pick One or More Fantasy Thread".

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

I am assuming from your responses that you simply do not believe that mankind has any observable effect on the state of the earth. A somewhat bizarre belief.

Far from it. Mankind has had a very detrimental effect on the state of the earth in many ways. If we had put as much time, effort and funding into solutions to the real problems of pollution, deforestation, over fishing etc,etc as we have into demonising CO2, the world would be a much better place for us and for all lifeforms.

It's just that I have still not seen any real evidence, compelling or otherwise:

A. That CO2 increasing from .03% to .04% of the earth's atmosphere has been detrimental.

B. That global temperatures are anywhere near as sensitive to CO2 concentration as climate models estimate.

C. That current global temperatures are outside of normal variability.

C. That raising CO2 to say a potential .08% would be in any way catastrophic. Or even that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages of such a rise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

It's just that I have still not seen any real evidence, compelling or otherwise

Stu, if you genuinely think that this graph is relevant, that what happened millions of years ago is directly applicable to today, or even the last 100,000 years... I suspect you won't recognize the real evidence.

Originally Posted by StuM

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by StuM

Geologically speaking, we are still in a CO2 deprived environment. Why do you think that is an optimal situation?

I would not call several places on that graph an optimal solution. There were 5 major extinction events on that graph, where a large percentage (up to 96%) of all species alive at the time died out. Climate changes likely played a major factor in most of these, including the K-Pg/K-T extinction (triggered by a major asteroid or comet hitting the Yucatan Peninsula) that killed the dinosaurs.

From what we know of those climates, I would not rate the Precambrian, Paleozoic (especially Carboniferous!), or Mesozoic as times we would want to live. We could not breath Precambrian air. Carboniferous insects were larger than we are. Mesozoic had apex predators that make tigers and great white sharks look like mice. Those species could not live in today's climate.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Far from it. Mankind has had a very detrimental effect on the state of the earth in many ways. If we had put as much time, effort and funding into solutions to the real problems of pollution, deforestation, over fishing etc,etc as we have into demonising CO2, the world would be a much better place for us and for all lifeforms.

It's just that I have still not seen any real evidence, compelling or otherwise:

A. That CO2 increasing from .03% to .04% of the earth's atmosphere has been detrimental.

B. That global temperatures are anywhere near as sensitive to CO2 concentration as climate models estimate.

C. That current global temperatures are outside of normal variability.

C. That raising CO2 to say a potential .08% would be in any way catastrophic. Or even that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages of such a rise.

Spend 26 minutes here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN...wvzVr&index=11

[bustermaw]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your small island is not the globe.

No, my small Island is not the World. I do , however get the impression from most of the posts here that there is indeed a healthy scepticism for the line that the majority believe in global warming.
As I recall, a huge majority also believed that the Emperor had a lovely new suit of clothes

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

I do , however get the impression from most of the posts here that there is indeed a healthy scepticism for the line that the majority believe in global warming.

1. Sailboats, yes; Earth science, erm no. This ain't the place to come for climate science.
2. In science, it doesn't matter what people "believe", it's what is actually going on that counts. Many people don't believe in evolution and natural selection, yet it happened just the same.

btw, I count more anti-AGW trolls here than healthy skeptics. It amuses them to wind up anyone who actually gives a sh!t. I guess cruising is occasionally boring for them.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

1. Sailboats, yes; Earth science, erm no. This ain't the place to come for climate science.
2. In science, it doesn't matter what people "believe", it's what is actually going on that counts. Many people don't believe in evolution and natural selection, yet it happened just the same.

btw, I count more anti-AGW trolls here than healthy skeptics. It amuses them to wind up anyone who actually gives a sh!t. I guess cruising is occasionally boring for them.

Myself I spent a fair amount of time researching the data both for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. Being a engineer or scientist requires a health bit of skepticsisum on any new trend, theory or innovation.

Myself as a poor engineer and not a climate scientist, find that the models used for AGW prediction, have too many assumptions and not enough actual documented data. There is tons of data true. But alas for many parts of the world there are too many areas where the data is at best an approximation and at worst has no basis in reality. Then the use of proxy data (which both sides use), is at best an approximate guesstimate. Proxy data is always suspect.

BTW there really isn't anyone who is a denier that the earth has not gotten warmer over the last 150 years or so. Everyone knows that it has. Even Andrew Watts and company. The only questions is how much of the warming is Anthropogenic. While the warmists say pretty much all of it is. Myself, I feel the answer is not at all so clear cut.

While I remain unconvinceed that AGW is the major driver in climate change, I have since the 70's reduced my carbon foot print. First with bicycle commuting and solar hot water in the 70's through 90's. To today were almost all my power is from solar and I don't even own a car. What has the average warmest done to reduce their carbon footprint.

No question that the world has serious issues with over population, over fishing and way too much pollution. I do my little bit, but see few others making any concerted effort. I suspect that the major driver of all that will suffer a corrective action sometime in the next 30 to 200 years. It will not be pretty.

Meanwhile the band plays on.....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Myself I spent a fair amount of time researching the data both for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. Being a engineer or scientist requires a health bit of skepticsisum on any new trend, theory or innovation.

In all your posts, you've always come across as sincere and thoughtful, so in my book, you're genuinely a healthy skeptic and not a troll. So, thanks for that.

I also have an EE background. I know that I'll never understand everything about anything, but as you know, an engineer should be able to find and apply the the most relevant knowledge to a problem. Likewise I have to have faith that most other educated specialists are going to be as professional and rigorous in their field as I try to be in mine, in order to apply their work. You know how hard engineering societies come down on crooks and incompetents.

A supermajority of the subject matter experts have advised that AGW is a real thing and is likely to cause problems. You probably know as least as many scientists and professors as I do; do you buy the rot that they're likely to be unprofessional, corrupt or greedy? Do you think that climate scientists are more susceptible to corruption, reality-distortion and group-think than the paid PR consultants and shills of the fossil-fuel industries?

What do us two EE's know that most climate scientists don't?

What has the average warmest done to reduce their carbon footprint.
...
I do my little bit, but see few others making any concerted effort.

That is a political and not a scientific stance, like saying that individual charity is enough to handle social ills. And it similarly misses the point that individual action is simply inadequate to the task, and that policy change is required.

You do know that fossil-fuel extraction and consumption is still subsidized with tax breaks and similar incentives, right?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

IDo you think that climate scientists are more susceptible to corruption, reality-distortion and group-think than the paid PR consultants and shills of the fossil-fuel industries?

What do us two EE's know that most climate scientists don't?

You do know that fossil-fuel extraction and consumption is still subsidized with tax breaks and similar incentives, right?

I think most scientists are fair and honest. Mind you Dr. Mann took a few liberties with his hockey stick, and NOAA (Tom Karl and others) may have skipped a wee bit of peer review with their Feb 2015 paper, based on noaa's adjustment of sea surface bouy data, that tried to explain away the pause.

The main issue of course, is that even the most well thought of AGW models, don't actually match observed data trends very well. That in my eye means the model has issues.

BTW, I need to clarify something. I'm not actually an EE. I was licensed as a fire protection engineer. I took that PE test, because everyone else was taking mechanical. I knew fire protection fairly well (wet, dry preaction, halon, co2, etc).

But, I'm mainly mechanical, piping, plumbing, fire with steam, large chilled water plants and CUB design thown in. Plus a side of biopharm design (wifi, CIP, etc) and micro electronics fabs and large hotel casinos (MGM grand, Luxor and The Venetian for example) in Vegas thrown in. I'm oddly, a tad weak in electrical theory, compared to a true licensed EE.

Mind you, I did some circuiting just yesterday for a hotel renovation back east. But I'm not really an EE. I've just stood beside enough of them, that some of the theory rubbed off.

Oh agree that we need to ween off fossil fuels and I am all for being green. (That hippie chick thingy). I'm just not 100% sold that AGW is the major driver of climate change. Yes AGW is partly to blame. But is that 80% or 30% or 10%. A few more years should settle it one way or another.

[GordMay]

A little good news:
Phytoplankton ➥ Climate change may not kill phytoplankton, studies show - Canada - CBC News

➥ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...7-7458edf05427

➥ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...ele.12545/full

➥ http://link.springer.com/article/10....538-015-0126-0

[Herb Miller]

This thread has been interesting and will never settle the "global warming" or "climate change" questions, but maybe someone could help me with the Carbon Dioxide argument. I never entirely understood why it was a bad thing.

Plants seem to thrive in a carbon dioxide rich environment (Global warming: plants may absorb more carbon dioxide than previously thought - Telegraph).
It would seem to me that they would put out more oxygen if they are thriving in a carbon dioxide rich environment. The more oxygen, the better off we are.

It sounds like a pretty well regulated system invented by one smart engineer.

Is this too simplistic?

[undercutter]

After reading this whole thread I firmly believe that everyone who has posted here would willingly improve the entire wasteful polluting situation if they felt that it would not have some significant detrimental effect upon themselves. I also get the impression that some here would undertake any means no matter the consequences to implement policies that would arrive at the expressed their expressed goals.

Unfortunately, this issue is not even on the radar screen of the majority of the population of the world and is only important to the 1st world countries who having admittedly been the biggest historical polluters but are now not in the drivers position to dictate to the the developing world on these policies. This is due to the fact that the economic costs to their citizens in the short run would be extreme and not because they do not have the actual ability to create change world wide without actually dolling out monies to do so.

Carbon Taxes - The implementation of carbon taxes is wholly a domestic function which has no impact on exports for which prices are set on a demand basis in the world market. This means that exported commodities are not subject to these taxes and as such foreign countries (companies) will pay less than domestic companies for these raw products after the implementation of such policies. This in effect puts domestic manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage when competing against foreign manufacturers for export markets. Implementing carbon taxes on raw product exports would place our resource industry at a competitive disadvantage and so this whole gambit is a no win situation albeit we can impose these taxes upon imported finished goods which again raises the costs to our domestic consumers and is politically self defeating because consumers care more about these costs than they do about any potential benefits to the environment.

Domestic governments do nothing about the pollution created in foreign countries that are importing finished goods into their countries. Chinese and Indian manufacturers are some of the worst polluters in the world yet NA, Australian and European governments turn a blind eye. Again, this is because consumers would revolt due to cost increases even though this would have a significant positive impact on the domestic manufacturing industry and in reality the overall economy in every 1st world country. Even though such actions would be entirely justified based on a real belief that there is a significant danger to the environment governments cannot undertake such policies because the domestic populations either do not hold these beliefs or they care more about the effects of such actions today (domestic cost increases) than any long term benefits to the environment.

Western governments are not prepared to stop selling raw resources, ie. coal, oil, etc to foreign countries with poor pollution controls. Again this goes back to the priorities of their own citizens who would not stand for the economic consequences of these actions and which may be fruitless anyway due to the resource glut on the world market which would enable other countries to step in and take up the slack. Collaboration by all the major 1st world countries and a significant part of SA would be required to implement such policies for which there would be little collaboration. This again results in the only other alternative of paying foreign developing countries to enact pollution limits or controls which in effect subsidizes foreign manufacturing.

My views on the issue of global warming are irrelevant as demonstrated by the opinions expressed above. The only time that action will be taken will be when the evidence is overwhelming and significant impacts are already being felt by all the populations of the world and even then when no other factors are of a greater concern. Fortunately history has demonstrated that the species can adapt and that when and if the problem is recognized the best efforts will be undertaken to correct the situation. Having 6 children and 5 grandchildren (so far) who are all environmentally concerned or who will be trained to be so there may be some chance that those actions which may be necessary will be undertaken sooner rather than later.