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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

But the question still remains. Should I be preparing for arctic like sailing conditions because of global cooling?

It was a troll as a thread-starter, it's still one now.

btw, it's never bad to insulate when you can. It makes both heating and cooling more efficient.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Can we please get back to talking about sailing?

We (including you) were never talking about sailing/cruising in this thread. But I agree this particular topic is not useful here. Yet the mods permit it, so...

[Lake-Effect]

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris has just wrapped up with 195 countries signing onto an accord.

Top level details of the accord

Questions for sailorchic and anyone else who professes to be green but is doubtful of AGW:

1. Please review the elements in the accord. try to ignore any mentions of climate or warming or AGW. Focus simply on the actions in the agreement. which do you like, which do you dislike, and why.
2. Pretend for a moment that the issue of climate change/AGW doesn't exist, it's not percieved as a looming problem. So this event is just the UN Conference for Reducing Pollution and Maximizing Fossil Fuel Reserves for Future Generations. Same question: how do you feel about the accord now, are the provisions justified for reasons not to do with the climate, do you think they will be effective and appropriate?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris has just wrapped up with 195 countries signing onto an accord.

Top level details of the accord

PARIS AGREEMENT - COP21
The final text of the draft agreement commits countries to keeping global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" and strives to limit it to 1.5 C, with the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050.
➥ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

[BHI_Guy]

"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 above from Udacha illustrates the pointlessness of these discussions. While I am happy Udacha graduated from HS, I graduated with a BS in engineering way back before global warming was a football in the culture wars, and his lack of understanding of the scientific method is made clear from the above quote.

Would Udacha board an airliner to fly somewhere? Probably. How do we know it is possible for objects like large heavy Boeing 737s to fly, despite common sense that says large heavy things should drop out of the sky? Scientific method. Same way we know that CO2 and other gases are warming the atmosphere, oceans, and Earth.

Too bad some people are so wedded to their beliefs that they refuse to think. All the people who believe real extra hard in the "hoax" that is global warming will have to think of ways to explain their present positions in 10, 20 etc years.

[SV THIRD DAY]

But what is so funny is that with your BS in engineering you failed to ask the MMGW Cultists why their predictions based on their scripture (models) didnt come to pass. You say the deniers will have to answer for their sins in 20 or 30 yrs time...hey...what about the measurable sins of the MMGW Cultists, when their scripture failed them?

As scientist that has actually measured CO2 for a living...you MMGW Cultists crack me up...great entertainment at parties.

[BHI_Guy]

Let's talk in ten years. And I doubt you are are a scientist, Third Day.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris has just wrapped up with 195 countries signing onto an accord.

Top level details of the accord

Questions for sailorchic and anyone else who professes to be green but is doubtful of AGW:

1. Please review the elements in the accord. try to ignore any mentions of climate or warming or AGW. Focus simply on the actions in the agreement. which do you like, which do you dislike, and why.
2. Pretend for a moment that the issue of climate change/AGW doesn't exist, it's not percieved as a looming problem. So this event is just the UN Conference for Reducing Pollution and Maximizing Fossil Fuel Reserves for Future Generations. Same question: how do you feel about the accord now, are the provisions justified for reasons not to do with the climate, do you think they will be effective and appropriate?

Based on that article, it has nothing conceptually that I can would disagree with.

As for "actions in the agreement", based purely on your article I have to say:

1. Temperature increase. The hubris of thinking that they can "hold the increase..." with this piece of paper. They still need to understand the message of Cnut"

2. Preservation of forests. Nothing new here. "Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework ". No new commitments at all.

3. Bearing the cost. Typical politispeak. This binds no one to anything. And what precisely is this "climate finance" they speak of?

4. Transparency. Yep, we are not going to do anything new and have no clearly defined objectives , but we will set up yet another UN body to monitor what we are doing.

5. "Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible,..." Yet more politispeak. No binding targets for anyone. i.e. no practical outcome.

6. "Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change,..."
It's taken them 21 COPs to finally come up with this nebulous recognition statement? Again, it's just politispeak with no practical outcome.

And THAT took two weeks and 50,000 people?

It's a toothless piece of paper and the only practical outcome is yet another UN monitoring body.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Scientist with US Patents in pollution control....that's how retired the first time.
You never know what a self described Cruising Bozo has up his sleeve.

Who here has given a presentation at an international air pollution control conference?
Opps....I have....

Back to enjoying the entertainment.

[BHI_Guy]

Like I said in first post - nobody can convince anyone who is a true believer. Why are you willing to fly on airliners, Third Day?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

PARIS AGREEMENT - COP21
The final text of the draft agreement commits countries to keeping global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" and strives to limit it to 1.5 C, with the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050.
➥ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

Thanks for that link.

I've now read the full draft agreement and my comments above stand.

Lots of idealism. Zero practical binding agreements to do anything specific.

UNFCCC COP 21 Paris France - 2015 Paris Climate Conference
"In 2015 COP21, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, will, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, "

IOW - total fail

[newhaul]

Now curently I can't read PDF files ( won't open on this tablet) IMO the agreement seems great on the surface. However a question for anyone that can/has read the proposal. Who pays for all the elements and the inspections ( if there are any) to ensure the signors are actually doing what they agreed to do?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Why fly on airplanes....easy because the enginering models that say they will not fall out of the sky actually accurately predicts measurable reality. The MMGW Cult models however fail to pass the "testing" phase that is needed to conform an hypothesis. We are talking 8th grade scienticif method methodology here really.

Science doesn't care what you believe...it cares about what you measure and prove by way of predictive models. Predictive is the key to real science. Will the plane fly or will the earth warm as CO2 levels rise? The first we can predict and test, the latter we can't, or have not yet been able to do.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was a troll as a thread-starter, it's still one now.

btw, it's never bad to insulate when you can. It makes both heating and cooling more efficient.



We (including you) were never talking about sailing/cruising in this thread. But I agree this particular topic is not useful here. Yet the mods permit it, so...

Do people from Canada normally have fascist tendencies? Perhaps there are some uncomfortable truths being said that make you very upset so you want to stop everyone from talking. I would ask, who indeed is being a troll?

Now please tell me how a discussion about weather and climate has no relevance to sailors. I'm all ears.

No I am not a troll. I have not instigated argument or insult like you have just done. This discussion has been very civil even amongst people that have strongly held views. What is offensive is someone such as yourself trying to shut down civilized discussion and tell adults they can't any longer discuss the weather.

I have a lot more I could say to you but like I have already said, you are the one who is the troll.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by StuM

It's a toothless piece of paper and the only practical outcome is yet another UN monitoring body.

But they all got to party first class and chow down of Foie Gras at their taxpayer's expense which was most likely their motivating factor in the first place.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

This discussion has been very civil even amongst people that have strongly held views. What is offensive is someone such as yourself trying to shut down civilized discussion and tell adults they can't any longer discuss the weather..

Once you get the concept that the belief in MMGW is a Religion rather than Science you will see how challenging it brings out the radical jihadist in the true believers: Go on personal attacks, Fire professors, sack meteorologist, it is all acceptable in the name of Gia. They even use religious terms such as "Denier" to label the heretics that don't believe. Back when I was in the air pollution control field, I saw these people and were their peers and right away it became obvious to me that it was their belief system driving them, not science, so I got out before I was crucified upside down for the crime of blasphemy.