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

[Exile]

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

What would be relevant here is if the science knows or can theorize whether the current ice retreat is unprecedented, at least since humans have been around. At a minimum, the science seems to agree that there are many factors other than temperature, but the debate lies in how much of it is human-caused via higher temps. There is evidence that overall avg. global warming has been less than 1.5° since 1860, but is apparently higher in the polar regions (thanks SailOar). But 18° higher on avg. in the Arctic as one of SailOar's articles stated??

Since you follow Judith Curry's blog, I thought you might have some insight on this, namely the degree of scientific certainty that Arctic sea ice melt is predominantly a result of human-caused higher temps as opposed to wind, currents, surrounding land formations, etc., as theorized by Curry & others? To that end, your recent posts imply that this level of ice melt/retreat is unprecedented. Highly relevant it seems. True or false, if you know?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Unless I'm not seeing this correctly there seems to be very limited melting of sea ice throughout the archipelago over the last several days
Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - 10 day animation map

The ice clears from west to east. The west is pretty clear.

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

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The ice clears from west to east. The west is pretty clear.

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

I guess I'm missing something . The site I linked to that you gave me seems to show more melt happening east of the archipelagos not to the west of them. With no apreciable melt actually in them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I guess I'm missing something . The site I linked to that you gave me seems to show more melt happening east of the archipelagos not to the west of them. With no apreciable melt actually in them.

Read the legend. Blue is less than 1/10 covered.

NSIDC shows at least 3 SD below the mean.

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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's curious how you can dismiss everything BUT "adaptation", yet don't acknowledge what it might entail.

I'm not surprised you're not personally feeling more "comfortable" with my opinions, but that doesn't justify the continued mischaracterizations. The more intelligent and conscientious response would be to tell me what realistic alternatives you have to adaptation. If it's the fantasy proposals from Paris, then we'll just have to respectfully disagree. I would certainly support more nuclear, am hopeful but realistic about improved efficiencies & lower costs for solar, wind, thermal, and hydro, and am confident about the development of future technologies. This applies whether the theory of MMGW pans out or not. As I've already said, what adaptation entails depends entirely on how much certainty there is on potential changes to the climate that are likely to manifest. Thus far none of the alarmist predictions have been borne out, and the state of the current modeling technology used for anticipating the future looks flawed.

I've offered my opinion -- I knew you wouldn't like it but there ya go. Since you are one of the most vociferous proponents for "doing something" but have thus far offered "nothing" as far as proposals or action, I'd suggest it's your turn. Should you bestow upon us with an actual answer rather than more gamesmanship, I have some stock predictions I'd like some advice from you on as well.

Since you haven't apparently grasped that the largest consumption of fossil-fuel energy is by the industrial, transport and commercial sectors, not individual consumers, your dismissal of carbon pricing mechanisms is not exactly persuasive.

Elaboration needed please. The industrial/commercial sectors have less discretion on their fossil fuel consumption than the individual consumer sector. So taxes at the wellhead/source for them necessarily raise costs for all the goods & services they produce. Even if "green checks/"refunds" are issued as offsets, how does this reduce consumption/emissions? Please explain.

Dismissing everything + proposing nothing = doing nothing.

Suggestions? Do you have an example I could follow? I like Newhaul's approach of living on the boat, but would prefer a warmer part of the world. Shall I find an add'l bin to further separate my recyclables? Drive a Prius? Put a groovy green bumper sticker on it in the hopes of influencing others with my virtue? How about silencing my skepticism so the debate becomes less frustrating for you? Yesterday I heard Hillary also "saying" we have to "do something about CC" but proposing nothing. Do you think just voting for her and putting her campaign logo on my motorcycle would be enough?

See above. Whenever you're ready. Engage.

I'm ready, all ears, keyboard set. While I've objected to Jack's, SailOar's, and others' approaches at times, there's no question they've contributed to these threads. Thus far you've struck me as the most vociferous complainer about other peoples' posts, yet have contributed the least with your own. Or is loudly criticizing others' opinions your one & only "contribution" to your obviously very personal & emotional cause?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

What would be relevant here is if the science knows or can theorize whether the current ice retreat is unprecedented, at least since humans have been around. At a minimum, the science seems to agree that there are many factors other than temperature, but the debate lies in how much of it is human-caused via higher temps. There is evidence that overall avg. global warming has been less than 1.5° since 1860, but is apparently higher in the polar regions (thanks SailOar). But 18° higher on avg. in the Arctic as one of SailOar's articles stated??

Since you follow Judith Curry's blog, I thought you might have some insight on this, namely the degree of scientific certainty that Arctic sea ice melt is predominantly a result of human-caused higher temps as opposed to wind, currents, surrounding land formations, etc., as theorized by Curry & others? To that end, your recent posts imply that this level of ice melt/retreat is unprecedented. Highly relevant it seems. True or false, if you know?

I have previously posted that wind, especially the Arctic gyre, is a factor in the distibution of Artcic sea ice. But wind does not melt sea ice, temperature increases do. Arctic sea ice volumes continue to decline. http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/piomas/

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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I would certainly support more nuclear, am hopeful but realistic about improved efficiencies & lower costs for solar, wind, thermal, and hydro, and am confident about the development of future technologies.

. So, what measures would you approve of to foster such advances?

As I've already said, what adaptation entails depends entirely on how much certainty there is on potential changes to the climate that are likely to manifest.

It depends as much or more on willingness to act based on reasonable forecasts. How certain is certain? When we hit or exceed the predicted temps through inaction?

The industrial/commercial sectors have less discretion on their fossil fuel consumption than the individual consumer sector. So taxes at the wellhead/source for them necessarily raise costs for all the goods & services they produce. Even if "green checks/"refunds" are issued as offsets, how does this reduce consumption/emissions? Please explain.

I would think it's Capitalism 101, industry changing their energy mix to seek the lowest overall cost, which means a shift from fossil-fuel. For a report on one functioning program, consider this. The various carbon-reduction proposals are well covered on the Internet, if you're still curious.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Read the legend. Blue is less than 1/10 covered.

NSIDC shows at least 3 SD below the mean.

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

Yes jack I got that however also white is 10/10 or 100% ie: solid ice.
Grey is 80% to 90 % and so on.
The biggest problem is that all the ice sites are different in their reported ice coverage. Personally that makes me suspect of all of their reported ice coverage.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have previously posted that wind, especially the Arctic gyre, is a factor in the distibution of Artcic sea ice. But wind does not melt sea ice, temperature increases do. Arctic sea ice volumes continue to decline. http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/piomas/

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

I'm no meteorological expert but, using El Nino as an example, I'd be very surprised if wind patterns - both short and long term - had no effect on ice. Ditto for ocean currents.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You miss the point. There's being REACTIVE, which is... moving inland, fighting over dwindling resources, pollution masks, etc... and there's being PROACTIVE, which is to act now to minimize future harm, plan for changes, build reserves...

Humans will adapt to voluntarily modifying some destructive behaviours, and humans will also adapt to the worse mess that will occur if we do nothing. I know which situation I'd prefer to leave for our descendents.

You know, it is possible to take "proactive" steps to conserve the environment in addition to adapting to it's changing state. It's very simplistic thinking to believe otherwise.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You know, it is possible to take "proactive" steps to conserve the environment in addition to adapting to it's changing state. It's very simplistic thinking to believe otherwise.

Exactly. Thank you.

What proactive steps do you think we should be taking?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exactly. Thank you.

What proactive steps do you think we should be taking?

Beats me.














Or maybe...

Drive a smaller car; live in a smaller house; telecommute; recycle; design stuff with the objective to last longer rather than cheapness to make; teach people that last year's model still works the same this year; discourage the throw away society; restrict consumerism; avoid products with excessive packaging; avoid drinking bottled water in regions with potable water supplies; respect the environment in general; try and breed less.

For starters.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have previously posted that wind, especially the Arctic gyre, is a factor in the distibution of Artcic sea ice. But wind does not melt sea ice, temperature increases do. Arctic sea ice volumes continue to decline. Arctic Sea Ice: PIOMAS

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

This answers nothing, but par for the course I guess. You are simply repeating the mainstream IPCC position, which is that temp increases caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing higher temps, those temps are inflated in the Arctic, and so melting sea ice is therefore direct evidence of MMGW.

All well & good, but the counter to this from Curry & others -- as I understand it that is -- acknowledges the influence of MMGW, but believes that natural forces are the dominant influence. I learned this from a much more causal reading of JC's blog than you have stated you are engaged in.

It also answers nothing about contrary theories on the cause of the warming itself. If this level of ice melt had also occurred in the past, and certainly if it had occurred prior to the industrial revolution, such evidence could potentially confirm or dispel the mainstream position. Perhaps this historical evidence doesn't exist, except anecdotally from historical accounts of attempts to navigate the NWP. Either way, it seems kind of silly not to analyze this phenonemom without referencing dissenting views from reputable members of the scientific community.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. So, what measures would you approve of to foster such advances?

Lots of questions from a guy who repeatedly acts as if he already knows all the answers. For starters, I would approve of YOU paying higher taxes & utility bills so that YOUR govt. could transfer more of YOUR money to the economically unviable solar & wind industries. Such public monies should go into research & development if anywhere, not to be transferred from one private source to another, especially when such recipients often have political influence and donate campaign dollars. That's called personal enrichment funded by taxpayers as opposed to publicly-supported technological research.

It depends as much or more on willingness to act based on reasonable forecasts. How certain is certain? When we hit or exceed the predicted temps through inaction?

When such forecasts are in fact based on scientific facts, or based on scientific theories that have a sufficient degree of scientific certainty. And they are communicated to us by credible politicians based on conclusions reached by objective scientific institutions.

I would think it's Capitalism 101, industry changing their energy mix to seek the lowest overall cost, which means a shift from fossil-fuel. For a report on one functioning program, consider this. The various carbon-reduction proposals are well covered on the Internet, if you're still curious.

You would think . . . . That would be Economics 101, btw. And that discipline tells us that, thus far, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels for industry at any reasonable level of taxation. It requires massive govt subsidies, which means higher societal costs and resulting lower stds. of living. The technology has yet to arrive, and the justification has yet to be convincing.

The article on B.C. you linked to is the same one I think Jack already referred us to a couple of times now. Not sure it's about industry consumption, and not a lot of specifics mentioned so hard to judge. It reads more like a govt. marketing brochure than an objective economic analysis. Reading such materials with a bit more independent if not critical thinking can often help when confronted by such marketing/self-congratulatory material.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Beats me.














Or maybe...

Drive a smaller car; live in a smaller house; telecommute; recycle; design stuff with the objective to last longer rather than cheapness to make; teach people that last year's model still works the same this year; discourage the throw away society; restrict consumerism; avoid products with excessive packaging; avoid drinking bottled water in regions with potable water supplies; respect the environment in general; try and breed less.

For starters.

Looking forward to reading L-E's list. Given his enthusiasm, I'm sure it's right on his fingertips.