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

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was trying SailOar, I really was, on giving this one the benefit of the doubt. Until I got here, that is:

"But because of the CO2 already introduced into the atmosphere by our relentless use of fossil fuels, “we have prevented the next ice age,” which otherwise would have arrived about fifty thousand years from now.

* * *

Indeed, one reason for cutting back on our use of fossil fuels, he argues, is to leave some coal for future generations to burn if they want to prevent a far-off ice age..."

Whoa -- now that's what I would call a climate prediction with some significant hubris!

Yes, Stager definitely stretches the science to its limits, and beyond. But it's interesting to think much further ahead in time than what we normally do.

[SailOar]

Alberta carbon tax legislation passes, marks first stage of climate-change plan | The Star

EDMONTON—Premier Rachel Notley’s government used its majority in the legislature Tuesday to pass legislation that includes a carbon tax and completes the first stage of Alberta’s landmark strategy to combat climate change.

The legislation gives legal teeth to the multibillion-dollar tax that is to take effect Jan. 1 and will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to go green.

It also lowers the small-business tax rate to two per cent from three and establishes an agency to fund energy savings programs.[...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Alberta carbon tax legislation passes, marks first stage of climate-change plan | The Star

I find that new tax a real problem as I'm sure others would.
Quote
The legislation gives legal teeth to the multibillion-dollar tax that is to take effect Jan. 1 and will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to go green.
End quote
The ones that will he most affected are the elderly on fixed income . ( choose food or heating fuel) .

[transmitterdan]

Newhaul,

The poor will qualify for a rebate that will mostly if not totally offset the tax. If done properly (i.e. no wasteful spending) a carbon tax reaps more benefit than it costs for the vast majority of tax payers. We will see how these various plans work. Hopefully good government will prevail. Wishful thinking, I know...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But what is not fair is confining your critique to the skeptics/deniers/contrarians only. What do you think about "MANY of the links posted by some of our ... less rigorous antipro-AGW proponents?" Might be a good test to see if you can get beyond your own bias.

Hah hah. I don't recall you coming down on any of the foamier, spittle-flecked, beyond ridiculous anti-AGW rants that have appeared in these threads. In your defense, they were so patently awful that they needed no rebuttal, so perhaps you were choosing to ignore them as well. But your fawning over delfin's ravings... I don't think you have any cred at the moment for calling out bias.

Never stated the "IPCC is propaganda," only that what they produce for the media and public consumption is closer to propaganda than the state of the science itself. Also never stated that govt. is "baaad," only that uncritical beliefs in its altruism & benevolence are naive and uninformed. But if you truly wish to get your message more accepted, it matters less how bad or good you, I, or others believe these institutions function, and more about how the wider populace perceives them to function. With the state of so much of the science uncertain, the proposed remedies unrealistic, the general polarization of the politics, and the loss of basic govt. credibility in the eyes of so many, the pervasive skepticism surrounding the CC issue should not be surprising.

translation: anti-AGW propaganda has been more effective at creating the appearance of significant doubt, unacheivable solutions, malevolent actors, etc, than IPCC "propaganda" has been at conveying that there's a serious problem we need to address. Well, as I've acknowledged before, congratulations.

It's sort of like complaining about all the posters who don't agree with the proposed remedies coming out of the Paris accord, but then declining to offer alternatives. If it's not installing solar panels or petitioning your govt., then what exactly are you contributing to the cause you hold so dear? Or is it enough to simply complain about the opinions of others?

Hah hah, again. The persistence of that juvenile taunt confirms your intent. And of course your professed acknowledgement of "a problem" that we must "adapt" to, but crickets when asked to describe the adaptations you envision.

How about you tackle your own bias first?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Glad you've stuck around and posted, though. With admirable tact. It's a bit like watching a large man trying to walk through a dark room full of kittens.

More like watching a wise man walk through a dark room full of Hyena's.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hah hah. I don't recall you coming down on any of the foamier, spittle-flecked, beyond ridiculous anti-AGW rants that have appeared in these threads. In your defense, they were so patently awful that they needed no rebuttal, so perhaps you were choosing to ignore them as well. But your fawning over delfin's ravings... I don't think you have any cred at the moment for calling out bias.


translation: anti-AGW propaganda has been more effective at creating the appearance of significant doubt, unacheivable solutions, malevolent actors, etc, than IPCC "propaganda" has been at conveying that there's a serious problem we need to address. Well, as I've acknowledged before, congratulations.

Hah hah, again. The persistence of that juvenile taunt confirms your intent. And of course your professed acknowledgement of "a problem" that we must "adapt" to, but crickets when asked to describe the adaptations you envision.

How about you tackle your own bias first?

Hah hah. I've been pointing out and freely admitting my own bias all along. We all have it, I just have no illusions about how it likely affects my (lay) opinions on the science. It affects all of us differently, of course, but pretending to be "objective" only turns illusions into delusions, and renders you and others (on both sides) incapable of engaging in honest debate. It necessarily then becomes personally frustrating and emotional, and then the name-calling, stereotyping, and simple-minded rationalizations ensue.

Don't think I ever "fawned over delfin's ravings," but I did appreciate his knowledge of the more technical aspects of the science. But unfortunately he was given to frustration and probably too emotionally invested as well. But I equally appreciated mr__f's contributions and learned from him, again because of his technical knowledge and ability to articulate it well. Did you miss my positive responses to mr__f, or is your bias only allowing you to recall my "fawning" over delfin? But it was really the debate (the more civilized parts, that is) btwn. them where some learning occurred for me. Why are you so resistant and at times personally offended by such debate, to the point of wanting threads closed down?

The reason I believe adaption is probably our best option is not because I want to minimize the need for and desirability of reducing fossil fuel consumption, but because it's our only likely option. And adaptation includes technological advancement, of course, whether in the form of alternative energies or other types of mitigation. The reality is that, like it or not, fossil fuels have become essential and ubiquitous throughout our world, and so the only viable solutions are going to have to start from that recognition -- whether that bothers peoples' "sensibilities" or not.

My impression is that you are too entrenched in your narrow world view to understand much of this, but if you really want to help close the serious divide on the CC issue you will first need to educate yourself on where the opposing camp is coming from. But if you still believe the IPCC's lack of credibility is solely attributable to anti-AGW propaganda then you have quite a ways to go.

[jackdale]

Meanwhile back to the OP's concern.



The NWP looks like clear sailing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile back to the OP's concern.



The NWP looks like clear sailing.

Clear sailing through the NWP that looks consistent with other warming trends, including at least one we know about from the earlier part of the 20th century when the NWP was also more accessible. Still an open question how much this particular one is attributable to human influence, namely the increase in CO2. Or has science now resolved the cause of this warming trend, and the ensuing Arctic sea ice retreat, more definitively since your last posting of this graph?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The reason I believe adaption is probably our best option is not because I want to minimize the need for and desirability of reducing fossil fuel consumption, but because it's our only likely option. And adaptation includes technological advancement, of course, whether in the form of alternative energies or other types of mitigation. The reality is that, like it or not, fossil fuels have become essential and ubiquitous throughout our world, and so the only viable solutions are going to have to start from that recognition -- whether that bothers peoples' "sensibilities" or not.

So, tell us more about adaptation, as you see it, and how you think it will be encouraged or fostered. Just going "welp, can't touch oil, we'll have to adapt" is tantamount to doing nothing, otherwise. But that's the plan, right?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Clear sailing through the NWP that looks consistent with other warming trends, including at least one we know about from the earlier part of the 20th century when the NWP was also more accessible. Still an open question how much this particular one is attributable to human influence, namely the increase in CO2. Or has science now resolved the cause of this warming trend, and the ensuing Arctic sea ice retreat, more definitively since your last posting of this graph?

New graph as of yesterday. Check out nsidc for yourself. Antarctic ice is also below the mean

Amundson took 3 years to get through the NWP. Currently many yachts get through in one summer.

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

[jackdale]

For those planning a transit of the NWP, Jimmy Cornell has some good advice.

http://cornellsailing.com/odysseys/d...hwest-passage/

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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For those planning a transit of the NWP, Jimmy Cornell has some good advice.

http://cornellsailing.com/odysseys/d...hwest-passage/

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

Jimmy seems to be making some good coin off the back of global warming. It can't all be bad news.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Jimmy seems to be making some good coin off the back of global warming. It can't all be bad news.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Jimmy makes his coin by publishing great information on route planning. I refer to World Cruising Routes before any passage

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

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The NWP looks like clear sailing.

How can you tell that from a graph of the entire Arctic extent.
Where are the these clear NWP sailing paths? Looks more like 100% concentration @ 2m thickness through the NWP to me.










Note, these are direct links to the images as at 8 Jun. If you view them at a later date, you will see the latest images which may no longer show 100% @ 2m.