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

[transmitterdan]

Two recent stories about scientific theories and simulations. One says that the human cost will prevent the IPCC goals from being met (and suggests humanity may be better off by not trying). The other suggests that the worry over permafrost thawing resulting in a huge carbon release is probably wrong. It will be a net sink. And the source is a government research team not some oil company hack.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/clima...175&yptr=yahoo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-consequences/

But what may be even more interesting is the publishers of these stories are often accused of one sided reporting on climate change issues.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Reliable sources is the keyword here. I remember my undergraduate studies. I had one professor, who wrote as a comment to a reference in one of my papers: "Why don't you quote the Bible here instead?" and reduced my mark by 5 points.

Reliable sources are the problem in this particular debate here on CF. Citations and links are usually to mainstream media or to websites obviously biased to one side or the other. I understand that no-one here can't be bothered to check the original papers. Most of them are behind paywalls and who in his right mind would pay 36$ to prove a point on CF?

Reefmagnet hit the nail on the head when he said:

ABC is an OK source, so is New Scientist, but RT? However, all three would get the above comment from my former professor. All of them are not reliable at all, simply because a journalist with basic science background is interpreting a scientific study and is trying to translate the results to a language the general population understands. Of course let's sprinkle a bit of bias and catastrophy over the text because that get's eyeballs on the text. It gets really funny when those sources quoting each other.

Given that:
1) Most of us are not scientists, and would have a hard time understanding a scientific paper if we did read it;
2) Even non-climate scientists, such as yourself, can't/don't read all the relevant research;
3) Ultimately, the decisions of what to do, or not do, about Climate Change will be made by non-scientists...

What do you suggest as the best way for a non-scientist, with limited time and limited scientific experience, to accurately inform themselves about Climate Change-related data, risks, solutions, and costs, etc?

And then newhaul adds:

Newhaul's comment was a knee-jerk reaction. I suspect he was referring back to earlier discussions about whether the continental Antarctic ice mass was increasing or decreasing (see below). However, the article I posted had to do with how long the West Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice, and whether the mechanisms holding back ice stream flowage are degrading.

referring to a NASA press release which was discussed earlier.

It is obvious that no-one bothers to read the papers. All of the above Media reports written by journalists or the PR department of NASA are interconnected. Now, if anyone would have read the underlying papers he/she would have realised that the ice gain in the Antarctica is primarily in the surrounding sea, the ice loss is mainly over land.

There is a recent (Oct 2015) report from NASA stating that total continental Antarctic ice mass is increasing.

However, that conclusion contradicted a number of previous studies that reached the opposite conclusion, leading a number of Antarctic ice scientists to question the method used by NASA to reach their conclusion, such as this article found in the Washington Post.

A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical

So, again, how is a non-scientist supposed to sort this thing out?

Yes, there is actually a net gain on the mass of the ice in the Antarctica as reported by NASA, but ice in water will not add to the volume (I guess as sailors we all should understand buoyancy) even when it melts.

Actually, melting ice floating on water can can add to the water volume, if the ice is made from fresh water (or from less-salty salt water), and the water it is floating in is more-salty salt water.

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

Of course, since this is merely a journalist reporting on a scientific study and not the scientific study itself, we can't be sure what is correct and what is journalistic bias.

However ice that melts over land does add to the volume if it flows into the sea.

Journalists are filters with their own bias. Those sources are kind of OK but like the Bible far from reliable. If you want a solid base for your argument look for peer reviewed sources, otherwise we have "Valentina Zharkova's global cooling caused by reduced solar activity" all over again.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Two recent stories about scientific theories and simulations. One says that the human cost will prevent the IPCC goals from being met (and suggests humanity may be better off by not trying). The other suggests that the worry over permafrost thawing resulting in a huge carbon release is probably wrong. It will be a net sink. And the source is a government research team not some oil company hack.

You're the one who made that statement; it did not come from the article:

For those who have been following the climate debate closely, it’s an unexpected conclusion — and one that climate change skeptics and doubters might trumpet as a classic case of an alarmist climate scenario not coming to pass after all. If you dig down into the fine print, though, there remain many uncertainties — and many continuing reasons for concern about what will happen to stored carbon in Alaska and across the frozen north.

“What I don’t want people to think is, everything’s all rosy,” McGuire said. “We’re not saying that.”

First of all, McGuire and Zhu noted in an interview, the study necessarily omitted some carbon sources that are not well understood, such as methane emissions from lakes. Their inclusion could, conceivably, tip the balance back into one where Alaska is adding carbon to the atmosphere, at least when it comes to assessing the state’s carbon balance in the present.

Or as the study puts it: “It is important to recognize that [methane] emissions from lakes have not been considered in this assessment, and it is likely that Alaska would be a source of greenhouse gases under all climate simulations if these emissions were considered in the assessment.”

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-consequences/

But what may be even more interesting is the publishers of these stories are often accused of one sided reporting on climate change issues.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailOar

...Actually, melting ice floating on water can can add to the water volume, if the ice is made from fresh water (or from less-salty salt water), and the water it is floating in is more-salty salt water.

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

Of course, since this is merely a journalist reporting on a scientific study and not the scientific study itself, we can't be sure what is correct and what is journalistic bias.

"The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level"
by: Peter D. Noerdlinger and Kay R. Brower

Full Article available FREE ➥ The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

And ➥ The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

At a minimum, at least two of those headlines must be BS. Alarmist reporting in a nutshell.

Most headlines are BS; at a minimum they are all incomplete. Making hay from any and every headline - the typical AGW-denial position in a nutshell.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Two recent stories about scientific theories and simulations. One says that the human cost will prevent the IPCC goals from being met (and suggests humanity may be better off by not trying). The other suggests that the worry over permafrost thawing resulting in a huge carbon release is probably wrong. It will be a net sink. And the source is a government research team not some oil company hack.

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-consequences/

But what may be even more interesting is the publishers of these stories are often accused of one sided reporting on climate change issues.

The International Energy Agency study, as reported by CNBC, put the cost to "combat climate change" by "decarboniz[ing] the power sector" at $9 trillion to $15.4 trillion over the next 40 years. That's a lot of money, to be sure.

Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

However, that needs to be compared against the cost of doing business as usual. According to an article in The Guardian, which reports of a study conducted by the WORLD BANK, the cost of climate-related disaster by 2050 could be as high as $158 trillion.

Climate change puts 1.3bn people and $158tn at risk, says World Bank

The global community is badly prepared for a rapid increase in climate change-related natural disasters that by 2050 will put 1.3 billion people at risk, according to the World Bank.

Urging better planning of cities before it was too late, a report published on Monday from a Bank-run body that focuses on disaster mitigation, said assets worth $158tn – double the total annual output of the global economy – would be in jeopardy by 2050 without preventative action.

The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery said total damages from disasters had ballooned in recent decades but warned that worse could be in store as a result of a combination of global warming, an expanding population and the vulnerability of people crammed into slums in low-lying, fast-growing cities that are already overcrowded.[...]

The facility’s report cited case studies showing that densely populated coastal cities are sinking at a time when sea levels are rising. It added that the annual cost of natural disasters in 136 coastal cities could increase from $6bn in 2010 to $1tn in 2070.[...]

According to the the facility, disaster risk is affected by three factors. It said these were: hazard – the frequency of potentially dangerous naturally occurring events, such as earthquakes or tropical cyclones; exposure – the size of the population and the economic assets located in hazard-prone areas; and vulnerability – the susceptibility of the exposed elements to the natural hazard.

It added that hazard was increasing due to climate change; exposure was going up because more people were living in hazardous areas and that vulnerability was on the rise because of badly designed and poorly planned housing.[...]

It should be noted that the WORLD BANK report also includes an assessment of the risk of seismic hazards (earthquakes), but I suspect that the costs associated with climate change are much higher than the costs associated with earthquakes.

[newhaul]

Here's an interesting article Warming Could Boost Carbon Storage in Alaska Forests | Climate Central
Seems that science is still finding more info that is contrary to the MMGW meme .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's an interesting article Warming Could Boost Carbon Storage in Alaska Forests | Climate Central
Seems that science is still finding more info that is contrary to the MMGW meme .

Did you read past the headline?

“The report highlights the incredible changes that are forecast for Alaskan ecosystems including increased wildfires, degradation of permafrost and loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere,” Schuur said.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you read past the headline?

“The report highlights the incredible changes that are forecast for Alaskan ecosystems including increased wildfires, degradation of permafrost and loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere,” Schuur said.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app[/QUOTE]

Yes jack I did and I actually read the entire article before deciding to share it
Have you read the article ? There are some interesting hypothesis written about in it. It also states that much more data is needed to better understand the potential increase of carbon sequestration from an estimated 3.7 million metric tons to an estimated 34 million metric tons per year.more than offsetting the carbon released.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It also states that much more data is needed to better understand the potential increase of carbon sequestration from an estimated 3.7 million metric tons to an estimated 34 million metric tons per year.more than offsetting the carbon released.

You know that unless you're proposing to take all those Alaskan trees with their newly sequestered carbon, and stick'em in a dry, sterile mineshaft for eternity... you haven't sequestered squat. The carbon remains in the system, released again when the trees die and rot, or burn, or get harvested, used, then tossed into a dump.

Here's some more data. The massive forests of Canada (you know - that place that's mostly like a huge coast-to-coast Alaska?) - here's what's currently up with them:

Until recently, Canadian forests were a sink, according to the Canadian Forest Service. Living forests absorb carbon dioxide and, through photosynthesis, convert it to biomass. Forest soils also store large amounts of carbon in their organic layer. Deforestation alters the carbon cycle by eliminating trees and disturbing forest soils, releasing the carbon stored in both to the atmosphere. Through increased fires, insect infestation and harvesting, Canadian forests have now become a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.

... but maybe Alaska can do better, and we'll learn from that.

[transmitterdan]

The forests have grown up and burned repeatedly for millennia. Research the massive fire that covered most of the mid North American continent. The smoke was visible in Europe for nearly a decade.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You're the one who made that statement; it did not come from the article:

[I]For those who have been following the climate debate closely, it’s an unexpected conclusion — and one that climate change skeptics and doubters might trumpet as a classic case of an alarmist climate scenario not coming to pass after all. If you dig down into the fine print, though, there remain many uncertainties — and many continuing reasons for concern about what will happen to stored carbon in Alaska and across the frozen north.

Either the science is settled or it isn't...

The inescapable result of this study has to be that thawing permafrost in Alaska isn't the disaster that many feared.

It seems no matter what research is conducted that blunts the doomsday predictions a caveat has to be put in to tell us we're all going to die anyway.

The earth is a system with strong feedback that has maintained conditions hospitable to life for hundreds of thousands of years. If it were not so we would not be here now.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Most headlines are BS; at a minimum they are all incomplete. Making hay from any and every headline - the typical AGW-denial position in a nutshell.

AGW denial, aye? I'm not sure you completely understand what that means. That's a pretty feeble attempt at convolution you tried there.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The forests have grown up and burned repeatedly for millennia. Research the massive fire that covered most of the mid North American continent. The smoke was visible in Europe for nearly a decade.

Bring on warming. When was the last time major fires raged through the wet tropics?


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

...However, that needs to be compared against the cost of doing business as usual. According to an article in The Guardian, which reports of a study conducted by the WORLD BANK, the cost of climate-related disaster by 2050 could be as high as $158 trillion.

The global community is badly prepared for a rapid increase in climate change-related natural disasters that by 2050 will put 1.3 billion people at risk, according to the World Bank.

Urging better planning of cities before it was too late, a report published on Monday from a Bank-run body that focuses on disaster mitigation, said assets worth $158tn – double the total annual output of the global economy – would be in jeopardy by 2050 without preventative action.

The value of assets in jeopardy are not costs.
That is only true if every asset in jeopardy worldwide is destroyed.

ALL property in Florida is currently in jeopardy of cyclones. What has been the cost of cyclones in Florida in the last 10 years?

Typical alarmist doublespeak!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

The value of assets in jeopardy are not costs.
That is only true if every asset in jeopardy worldwide is destroyed.

ALL property in Florida is currently in jeopardy of cyclones. What has been the cost of cyclones in Florida in the last 10 years?

Typical alarmist doublespeak!

Yeah, but they're referring to the disasters of more hurricanes, less but more intense hurricanes, droughts, increased flooding, beetle attacks, increased wildfires, ravaged agriculture and the need to outrun1.3mm per year rising seas.

Most of which are hypothetical.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app