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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

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.

We not yet even half way to the minimum. Just you wait.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

...supplemented by these business forays Rules & Fees - Blue Planet Odyssey - Cornell Sailing

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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?

I'd be keen to hear your "plan B" in the case where CO2 levels cannot be (and most likely, will not be) constrained.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd be keen to hear your "plan B" in the case where CO2 levels cannot be (and most likely, will not be) constrained.

I haven't given up on Plan A, yet, and I'm not the one saying we don't need to (or can't) do anything like that... but you are. So... your plan?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...supplemented by these business forays Rules & Fees - Blue Planet Odyssey - Cornell Sailing

It is nice to earn some income doing what you love to do.

BTW what does have do with you original assertion about Cornell?

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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is nice to earn some income doing what you love to do.

BTW what does have do with you original assertion about Cornell?

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

Your asserting arctic ice loss is unequivocally bad and using an open northwest passage duration as an example. I'm saying one of the world's most respected cruising sailors is making lemonade out of lemons.

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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your asserting arctic ice loss is unequivocally bad and using an open northwest passage duration as an example. I'm saying one of the world's most respected cruising sailors is making lemonade out of lemons.

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

Really where did I say that?

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

[Exile]

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.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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?

My comment: "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."

Your response: "Just going 'welp, can't touch oil, we'll have to adapt' . . . ."

Let me know when you'd like to have an adult conversation. Never stated anything about "not touching oil." I'm justifiably dubious but not entirely dismissive about carbon tax schemes -- just don't fully understand how they are supposed to work as previously discussed, mainly because most of the consumption is non-discretionary. I'd like to say there is greater general awareness, at least in the developed world, about conservation, etc., but the reality is that it's dictated more by economics. And as also already discussed, there's China, India, and the developing world. As for the IPCC and Paris accords, even if only half of delfin's estimates on the cost/benefit analysis are correct, it sounds unrealistic and implausible.

So that likely leaves human adaptation to the higher CO2 levels and supposed higher temps that many claim will follow. Beats me what adaptation means L-E, although if it becomes necessary it will certainly become more than "doing nothing." I guess it'll depend on how much predicted gloom & doom actually comes to pass. Did I mention that I'm not a scientist or engineer? You are certainly free to disagree and I'm sure you will, but I don't see the world weaning itself off fossil fuels anytime in the foreseeable future. This has nothing to do with my personal desires or your maintaining virtue, but with reality. Either get over it, explain why my opinion is wrong, or offer alternative solutions. Spending your time on the internet critiquing "non-believers" ain't gonna help, my friend.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I haven't given up on Plan A, yet, and I'm not the one saying we don't need to (or can't) do anything like that... but you are. So... your plan?

At this point I think many of us would love to read what you think "Plan A" is and how it can be implemented.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I haven't given up on Plan A, yet, and I'm not the one saying we don't need to (or can't) do anything like that... but you are. So... your plan?

As I've said already. Adapt. Our cavemen brethren would be proud of how their descendents have adapted to the present hothouse, never mind greenhouse, world. Although they might lament the loss of the mammoth and land bridges. Until introduced to a tasty grain fed beef steak and the Airbus A380, perhaps.

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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your asserting arctic ice loss is unequivocally bad and using an open northwest passage duration as an example. I'm saying one of the world's most respected cruising sailors is making lemonade out of lemons.

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

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really where did I say that?

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

You could simplify the matter by clarifying what your purpose was in posting the updated graph on Arctic sea ice extent, and repeatedly pointing out that the NWP is open. I assumed it was because you are trying to impress upon us that the retreating ice is due to MMGW, but best if others don't have to speculate so often on the meaning of your cursory posts.

What I don't fully understand is how you reconcile MMGW as the principal cause of higher temps and melting ice, with your animated post awhile back (#1168) that shows less than 1.5C of avg. global warming from 1860 to 2016. Unless the science is showing that accelerated warming in the Arctic is a regional phenomenon related to global influences. Unlike the MWP, of course, which the science you rely on deems as a regional phenomenon unrelated to global influences.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really where did I say that?

Reason for the first post above? Are you trying to convey the current state of the northwest passage in a positive or negative light?


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

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

You could simplify the matter by clarifying what your purpose was in posting the updated graph on Arctic sea ice extent, and repeatedly pointing out that the NWP is open. I assumed it was because you are trying to impress upon us that the retreating ice is due to MMGW, but best if others don't have to speculate so often on the meaning of your cursory posts.

What I don't fully understand is how you reconcile MMGW as the principal cause of higher temps and melting ice, with your animated post awhile back (#1168) that shows less than 1.5C of avg. global warming from 1860 to 2016. Unless the science is showing that accelerated warming in the Arctic is a regional phenomenon related to global influences. Unlike the MWP, of course, which the science you rely on deems as a regional phenomenon unrelated to global influences.

If I may comment on your query to JackDale. Yes, Climate Change models do predict that the Arctic will warm faster than the rest of Earth. From an earlier post of mine, and then from NOAA:

[...] In the Atlantic, the northward flow of the ocean’s surface continues all the way to the Arctic. The study used dyes in model simulations to show that seawater that has experienced the most climate change tends to clump up around the North Pole. This is another reason why the Arctic’s ocean and sea ice are bearing the brunt of global warming, while Antarctic waters are largely oblivious.

“The oceans are acting to enhance warming in the Arctic while damping warming around Antarctica,” Armour said. “You can’t directly compare warming at the poles, because it’s occurring on top of very different ocean circulations.”[...]

Future Arctic climate changes: Adaptation and mitigation time scales | NOAA

Abstract
The climate in the Arctic is changing faster than in midlatitudes. This is shown by increased temperatures, loss of summer sea ice, earlier snow melt, impacts on ecosystems, and increased economic access. Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980s. Long-lasting global anthropogenic forcing from carbon dioxide has increased over the previous decades and is anticipated to increase over the next decades. Temperature increases in response to greenhouse gases are amplified in the Arctic through feedback processes associated with shifts in albedo, ocean and land heat storage, and near-surface longwave radiation fluxes. Thus, for the next few decades out to 2040, continuing environmental changes in the Arctic are very likely, and the appropriate response is to plan for adaptation to these changes. For example, it is very likely that the Arctic Ocean will become seasonally nearly sea ice free before 2050 and possibly within a decade or two, which in turn will further increase Arctic temperatures, economic access, and ecological shifts. Mitigation becomes an important option to reduce potential Arctic impacts in the second half of the 21st century. Using the most recent set of climate model projections (CMIP5), multimodel mean temperature projections show an Arctic-wide end of century increase of +13°C in late fall and +5°C in late spring for a business-as-usual emission scenario (RCP8.5) in contrast to +7°C in late fall and +3°C in late spring if civilization follows a mitigation scenario (RCP4.5). Such temperature increases demonstrate the heightened sensitivity of the Arctic to greenhouse gas forcing.

You could also browse through the IPCC report on the Arctic and Antarctic, though it may not be as up to date as the above.

Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Chapter 15: Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic)

[SailOar]

Norway to 'completely ban petrol powered cars by 2025' | Independent

Norway will ban the sale of all fossil fuel-based cars in the next decade, continuing its trend towards becoming one of the most ecologically progressive countries on the planet, according to reports.

Politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have reportedly reached some concrete conclusions about 100 per cent of Norwegian cars running on green energy by 2025.[...]

If passed, it would be particularly significant because a large proportion of Norway's funds rely on the country's petroleum industry.

The report also follows the announcement that Norway will become the first country in the world to commit to zero deforestation.[...]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

My comment: "The reason I believe adaptation 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."

Your response: "Just going 'welp, can't touch oil, we'll have to adapt' . . . ."

Let me know when you'd like to have an adult conversation. Never stated anything about "not touching oil."

You pretty much did. I've highlighted to help you out. Most adult conversations have some measure of logical consistency.

Followed by "Beats me what adaptation means".

Humans, as you might be aware, are the only animal known to have the ability to ponder and discuss the future. You seem to acknowledge a coming problem (with some uncertainty as to degree), but are dismissive of solutions proposed to date. Your only suggestion..."we'll adapt". C'mon chickens, if adaptation is the most viable and realistic option... guide our adaptation.

"Adaptation" + "Beats me what adaptation means" = nothing. You simply want to DO... nothing. How constructive.

(but this is the end goal of most anti-AGW sentiment, so no surprise there)