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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

You don't get it. .

Oh no...to the Contrary we get it.
We get that the folks telling us they know what's going on with CO2, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, etc don't have a model to accurately predict the future. Which is the heart of Science. If you can't model it and predict it...you don't understand it and the only consensus you have is that Government Needs more Tax money and Control over people, in other words Liberal/Progressive Orthodoxy.

Bingo...it really is that easy.

[Reefmagnet]

Jeez, this recalcitrant Antarctica really gets under the skin of alarmist science, doesn't it?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Jeez, this recalcitrant Antarctica really gets under the skin of alarmist science, doesn't it?

If they could Doctor the data to make it fit into their bogus models and get away with it they would...oh wait...they already tried that...ha ha ha

[fryewe]

Occasionally, at least one frequent poster on the AGW threads has suggested that there's no evidence whatsoever that a conspiracy among climate scientists, who have the purest of motivations for their actions, has ever existed. Now there seems to be a smoking gun...

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...0527200127.pdf

...and the subtexts are money, silencing your critics, and avoiding scrutiny by those outside the cabal.

[Celestialsailor]

This is great...a real parallel to the other thread that was shut down. Looking forward to the end. Go guys!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Thanks for your concern, but so far the conversation has been civil, polite and educational. Relax...drink a Pacifico and have a Gina Burger.

[GordMay]

Interesting findings about atmospheric SO2

“... Initially, I think we maybe thought it wasn't working when we got these huge sources in the middle of the Pacific," McLinden recalled.
Those turned out to be volcanoes — the study found 75 of them emitting substantial amounts of sulphur dioxide, despite the fact that they were dormant and not erupting....
... The study found that the dormant volcanoes were emitting almost 30 per cent of the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere (with the rest being man-made), although erupting volcanoes might emit much more ...”

➥ Emissions detected from space reveal big polluters - Technology & Science - CBC News

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Interesting findings about atmospheric SO2...

Yes, but SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and it increases Earth's albedo and therefore is actually cooling the atmosphere. However, it is directly impacting our health as SO2 is hygroscopic, meaning when it is in the atmosphere it reacts with humidity and forms sulphuric and sulphurous aerosol acid and consequently acid rain, which kills plants and animals alike.

[SailOar]

With Arctic Sea Ice Unusually Thin, Scientists Wary of Another Record Melt | Inside Climate News

After this winter's extraordinary Arctic heat wave, summer sea ice extent is likely to drop near—or even below—the record low set in 2012, American and European scientists have reported.

This year's melting continues a steady, decades-long decline in Arctic sea ice, which has accelerated in the 21st century in concert with the surge in carbon dioxide emissions. Satellite measurements, taken since 1979, showed sea ice plummeting to its lowest extent in 2002. That began a string of record or near-record lows, and since then the summer ice extent has never again come close to the long-term (1979-2000) average.

Arctic sea ice is also getting much thinner. This spring, new data from the European Space Agency's CryoSat 2 satellite shows the ice cover stretching across the Arctic Ocean is, on average, 15 percent thinner than it was last year at the same time. Thinner ice is more easily broken by wind and waves and melts more quickly, intensifying concerns about a potential new record low this year.[...]

"The current ice conditions are similar to the spring of 2012," said Marcel Nicolaus, also a sea ice physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute. "In some places, the ice is even thinner," he said, adding that the seasonal fate of the ice will depend on Arctic weather patterns over the next few months. Nicolaus and other climate researchers presented the ice forecast at the European Geosciences Union annual conference in Vienna, Austria in late April.

Nicolaus also discussed the CryoSat data showing that much of the remaining thick, multiyear sea ice is positioned where it will be pushed southward and melt. Once those thicker slabs are gone, there's nothing to prevent the remaining sheets of thinner ice from drifting south and melting, he said.

Sea ice growth was slowed this winter by exceptionally warm temperatures—up to 29 degrees Fahrenheit above normal across parts of the Arctic. Many areas that are usually thick with blocks of old ice in the winter months, such as the Beaufort Gyre off the coast of Alaska, had only sparse cover this year. The result was the lowest sea ice maximum ever recorded in the winter, escalating concerns of dramatic warming in the region.[...]

"We know this past winter has been absurdly warm in the Arctic. I've never seen anything like this year," said Serreze, who has been studying Arctic ice and climate conditions since the early 1980s. "Seasonal projections are very difficult, but I think there are some good indicators out there that it could be one hell of a summer in terms of summer ice loss."[...]

While the researchers continue to fine-tune their projections and calibrate data sets from various satellites, there's no question about the long-term future. Without drastic and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the Arctic will be ice-free for seven months of the year by 2100, according to the IPCC, which warns that the meltdown will not only affect the immediate region, but could fundamentally alter Atlantic Ocean currents, which regulate the climate across much of the northern hemisphere.

.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You must discussing the lifespan of mayflies. It is the closest it has been in 11 years.

Mars Is Closest to Earth in 11 Years on Monday: What to Expect

Mars is APPROXIMATELY the same mass as the Moon, but 100 times farther away so the height of the Martian water tides on the Earth ought to be about 1 million times smaller because tidal gravitational forces vary as the THIRD power of the separation between the bodies.

We are discussing climate change and you are worried about the accuracy of figures. Since when did climate change protagonists worry about the accuracy of figures, I ask.

On the subject of Global Cooling rather than Global Warming, Its being reported that the UK is have the coldest start to summer in recent memory.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I guess you are kidding and confusing weather and climate on purpose to make a point, right?



Only if you are a astrologist



Correction jackdale, Mars is a bit bigger than the Moon. I think you confuse Mars with Mercury, which is about the same size as the Moon.

And the relation of gravity and distance is governed by the inverse square law, not the third power. Don't forget gravity is the dent a mass makes in space-time and not a force per se.



A couple of billion years ago? Are you sure? I might not be completely up to date with the geological reseach but as far as I know we are not talking 100s of feet difference. But the sea level was 300 feet lower.

But the reasons for that are geological and not climate.


You forgot to mention that tidal forces are differential forces and not direct forces. Consider a sphere with radius R, centred at the origin, which is subject to the gravitational force of a point mass m at r_0, where r_0>> R. At a point r=(x, y, z) the specific (per unit mass) tidal force is the difference between the pull of m at r and the pull of m at the origin. Therefore:

F_T(r)=(Gm/[r_0-r]^3)*(r_0-r)-(GM/r_u^3)*r_0

For points along the line joining the centre of the body to the point mass, let's say on the x axis, the above can be written as:

F_T(x)=(GM/(x_0-x)^2)-(Gm/x_0^2) which is approx 2xGm/x_0^3

See, it is pretty obvious that the Moon is the dominant tidal influence on Earth's tides because the fractional difference in its force across the Earth is magnitudes greater than the fractional difference seen i.e. from the Sun. Therefore Mars'influence on the tides can't even be determined (except for the fun of a mental exercise) because the margin of error is too large, and even the Sun's influence is minuscule.

Sitting back now enjoying the show

Hi Adoxograph. Yes I was making a point. It is my observation that climate change measured over 60 or even a 100 years is dealing in fact with weather change. Now if you want to talk about climate change I think we need to be talking in century segments over millennia.

Thanks for putting my mind at ease over Mars. I was seriously wondering if I needed to loosen or tighten my mooring lines.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Sorry cupcake...that would be like throwing a blown out match into a lake.
Keep trying though...even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Climate biggots sure do have a way with words.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Hi Adoxograph. Yes I was making a point. It is my observation that climate change measured over 60 or even a 100 years is dealing in fact with weather change. Now if you want to talk about climate change I think we need to be talking in century segments over millennia.

It a common mistake to confuse weather with climate and climate variability with climate change. It comes all down to understanding the basic of statistics and of course the ability to comprehend the terminology used by climate scientists.

Weather can be highly variable on a daily, weekly, or even yearly basis. Today might be dry with a top temperature of 22 °C. Tomorrow might be wet, with a top of 14 °C. The weather is what you experience each day.

Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over at least 30 years.

Climate variability describes the way climate elements such as temperature and rainfall depart from the average value in given months, seasons, years, decades or centuries. Consecutive summers, for example, will not all be the same, with some cooler and some warmer than the long-term average. Australia’s climate for i.e. is famously variable. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), for example, has a major impact on our rainfall, with El Niño conditions occurring every three to eight years and generally resulting in below average rainfall over much of eastern Australia, while wetter than average conditions can occur during La Niña years.

Climate change refers to a statistically-significant trend in climate over many decades. It is superimposed on natural yearly-to-decadal climate variability. This variability can mask or enhance underlying trends.Climate is said to be stable if the long-term average does not change significantly over time.

However, the data shows climate is changing worldwide. Some places are cooling down, others are getting warmer, but the trend over all data shows that Earth's temperature is heating up.

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Thanks for putting my mind at ease over Mars. I was seriously wondering if I needed to loosen or tighten my mooring lines.

You are welcome. But be careful with your mooring lines if you are moored for aeons . Sea levels are raising but not really because of the influence of celestial bodies.

PS: If everyone would use the above definitions, most of the "misunderstandings" here would disappear. But so would the fun watching this highly dogma and believe driven debate.

[SV THIRD DAY]

How Dare you...

Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

This is the way the Country and World is heading...don't agree with the Power that Be and KaPaw...you are a Criminal worthy of Persecution.

I would be sickened to be on the side of any argument that feels it needs to use such tactics....but will our friends in the MMGW movement cheer or will they stand with Freedom, even if it is the freedom to be wrong in their eyes?

This is a Test...and the results will be felt by you and your Children long after the World has moved away from Carbon based fuels.

[StuM]

I read it too.

Sadly, they are serious. It is clearly NOT satire.

Edit: Oops, this no longer makes sense. It was in reply to Adoxograph's disappeared post that said:

"I read the legislation here. C'mon SV THIRD DAY this is clearly satire."