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

[GoingWalkabout]

The country that brought us the Salem Witch trials has a political party (Democrats) who have just made it official party policy to prosecute and criminalize global Global Warming denial.

If I lived in Salem at the time of the witch trials I would get rid of my black cat and bake free bread for the local vicar.

George Orwell gave us a glimpse into the world to come. The climate fascists are delivering the nightmare.

The world is becoming a very dangerous place. I for one vote in favor of going sailing... and having a plan to go sailing until such time the winds of mass madness have blown away from our lands.

Funny how in Salem it was puritan's who escaped religious persecution to find a new home of liberty used that freedom and liberty to murder and deny the freedom, life and liberty of others. We now see the stage being set for the new climate sceptic witch trials to begin.

Fear mixed with ignorance supported by those in power make for a powerful concoction that poisons the mind of the people.

Time to hide my black cat and go sailing I think.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Cliff's notes on carbon isotopes.

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

I remember this one now, and reading it again was a good refresher on the mainstream theory re: isotopes. Thank you. But isn't this a Cliff's Notes version of the "Caped Climate Crusader" (Mandia) article on isotopes that Stu recently critiqued? Also, and as discussed the first time you cited this Powell article, the jump from explaining how we know the increase in CO2 has been anthropogenic to "Humans are causing global warming. Case closed." seems a stretch. But I assume this is the same Powell that stretched the "consensus" from 97 to 99%?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Cliff's notes on carbon isotopes.

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

Another previously-posted argument for why the increase in CO2 must be from burning fossil fuels:

Anthropogenic CO2? | Skeptical Science

The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

[each point is discussed further in the linked article]

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The country that brought us the Salem Witch trials has a political party (Democrats) who have just made it official party policy to prosecute and criminalize global Global Warming denial...

Unless you can provide a link to an official Democrat policy website stating such, then NO THEY DIDN'T.

[SailOar]

World could warm by massive 10C if all fossil fuels are burned | The Guardian

The planet would warm by searing 10C if all fossil fuels are burned, according to a new study, leaving some regions uninhabitable and wreaking profound damage on human health, food supplies and the global economy.

The Arctic, already warming fast today, would heat up even more – 20C by 2300 – the new research into the extreme scenario found.[...]

The new work, published in Nature Climate Change, considers the impact of emitting 5tn tonnes of carbon emissions. This is the lower-end estimate of burning all fossil fuels currently known about, though not including future finds or those made available by new extraction technologies.[...]

The warming caused by burning all fossil fuels would also have enormous impact on rainfall. The new research shows rainfall falling by two-thirds over parts of central America and north Africa and by half over parts of Australia, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and the Amazon.

Thomas Frölicher, at ETH Zürich in Switzerland and not involved in the new work, said: “Given that current trends in fossil fuel emissions would result in temperatures above [the 2C Paris] target, policymakers need to have a clear view of what is at stake both on decadal and centennial timescales if no meaningful climate policies are put in place. The unregulated exploitation of fossil fuel resources could result in significant, more profound climate change.”

[Rustic Charm]

Do you guys realise that on average a satellite falls out of orbit and plummets to earth every ten days

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Of course we could quibble all day about what "truly new" means, but how about...

...plastics
...microcircuitry
...AI
...superconductors
...microsurgery and laser surgery
...transplant medicine
...led lighting
...gps navigation
...robotic warehousing
...digital computers
...CAT and MRI scans

Rather than argue about what is new and what is not, a more apt use of time would be taking a broad look at the differences in the lives of average people over your seventy five year interval...1940 to 1975.

In 1940, the average person in my area of the US had...
...no refrigeration
...no indoor plumbing
...water from shallow wells using hand pumps
...no home electricity
...no automobile
...homeopathic medicine
...few foods other than homegrown

Changes from that time to now could not have been made without fossil fuels.

Greenists would have us go back to that time.

Let them go back alone.

I'll put my money on human ingenuity.

No need to quibble at all. I asked for a 'truly new' technological breakthrough (good or bad) since 1941.

Your response was:

...plastics
Date of invention unsure, plastics have been around for thousands of years, the first 'modern'
plastic dates to 1907.

...microcircuitry
Miniaturization of a technology that is 150+ years old doesn't fit under the heading of 'breakthough' to me. but if you say so...

...AI
You've got to be kidding. A glorified Magic 8 ball is not intelligent. Siri, Watson, Cortana...Jeopardy and chess playing machines only demonstrate the intelligence of their designers...any higher life-form (evolved in the last 400 million years) has a higher intellectual ability.

...superconductors
When they figure out one that works at room temperature, I might be willing to give you credit for them, depending on the uses to which they're put...

...microsurgery and laser surgery
See number 2 above, though surgery has been around, like plastics, for thousands of years

...transplant medicine
To address this inclusion pragmatically and objectively is too cruel, even for me...

...led lighting
The LED was invented in 1927.

...gps navigation
A composite technology, combining the portolan (marine chart); late 13th century, the compass; early 13th century, classical mechanics; late 17th century, radio; mid 19th century, and rocketry; old school, 13th century; modern, 1926

...robotic warehousing
????

...digital computers
Agreed, to a point.

...CAT and MRI scans
This has to fall under the 'you've got to be kidding' category, for the technology's general misuse, misinterpretation of results and the fact that they are based on 100+ year old technologies.

At least you didn't include PSIDs (personal stupidity inducing devices, i.e. 'smart phones')


But, so we can stop quibbling, let's look at 'the differences in the lives of average people over your seventy five year interval...1940 to 1975' (?).

"In 1940, the average person in my area of the US had..."

...no refrigeration
And, as you're a living testament to, they didn't starve.

...no indoor plumbing
And slop jars and outhouses served them well.

...water from shallow wells using hand pumps
Which worked equally well.

...no home electricity
A convenience, not a necessity.

...no automobile
Ditto

...homeopathic medicine
Believe you're confusing this with 'homegrown' medicine. Homeopathic medicine is mostly a pseudo-scientific form of ignorance, while many 'home remedies' are well known to be valuable forms of treatment when so called 'professional help' is unavailable.

...few foods other than homegrown
Oh for the good old days --when one knew what one was eating, and the costs involved in producing it.


That one likes something, or something makes something else more easily accomplished, doesn't necessarily make it better or even good. Addiction is a well known affliction...

It's also interesting to note that in the US, one, if not the, leading cause of death is visiting the hospital.

For a more complete understanding of some of the 'benefits' you list above, might I suggest you look at research on the decline of stature (actual physical height) of the population in the United State since the turn of the 20th century, as compared to more egalitarian societies. (Stature is a good, easily measured general proxy for the health and well being of a population.)


I'm glad that you agree with me that fossil fuels have made a huge difference in the trajectory-to-date of humankind.

At best, the statement 'Greenists would have us go back to that time.' is silly, ignorant and inflammatory. At worst, it ignores the fact that environmentally aware people want to do the most they can to obtain a reasonable quality of life for as many as possible and are also aware that a free-market, winner takes all strategy (a nature-mimicking system, by the way) is not the best solution for the problems induced and faced by an exponentially growing population on a finite planet. One thing's for sure, nature will make the adjustment one way or the other...

While it's very noble of you to bet on human ingenuity, given the record so far, it seems a bit odd. The reason I asked the question with a date specified was to illustrate one of the reasons why the reliance on technology alone (especially a non-existent one) for the solution to the 'energy problem' is folly. Technologically 'revolutionary' developments don't happen in a vacuum, their relevance is predicated on their incorporation into society. Hence the common phenomenon of delay between invention and 'revolutionary effect'. The first printing technology was invented roughly 3800 years ago, but was forgotten until the middle of the 15th century, 2700 years later!

Obviously technology will play a role in the future advancements --and setbacks--of human civilization and, by extension, those of the rest of the planet. The somewhat parochial view that technology will solve more problems that it generates is one that should to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The best we could hope for is simultaneous techno-socio-politico-revolutionary change as quickly as possible. Maybe the 400-500 years of fossil fuels we have left will be enough to get us over the hump. If not, whether one likes it or not, it's back to a (probably healthier) natural lifestyle where people live within their (and their worlds') means and do mostly physical labor to survive and prosper.

[SailOar]

Black Carbon and Warming: It’s Worse than We Thought | Yale's Environment 360

It rises from the chimneys of mansions and from simple hut stoves. It rises from forest fires and the tail pipes of diesel-fueled trucks rolling down the highway, and from brick kilns and ocean liners and gas flares. Every day, from every occupied continent, a curtain of soot rises into the sky.

What soot does once it reaches the atmosphere has long been a hard question to answer. It’s not that scientists don’t know anything about the physics and chemistry of atmospheric soot. Just the opposite: it does so many things that it’s hard to know what they add up to.

To get a clear sense of soot — which is known to scientists as black carbon — an international team of 31 atmospheric scientists has worked for the past four years to analyze all the data they could. This week, they published a 232-page report in the Journal of Geophysical Research. “It’s an important assessment of where we stand now,” says Veerabhadran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution for Oceanography, an expert on atmospheric chemistry who was not involved in the study.

The big result that jumps off the page is that black carbon plays a much bigger role in global warming than many scientists previously thought. According to the new analysis, it is second only to carbon dioxide in the amount of heat it traps in the atmosphere. The new estimate of black carbon’s heat-trapping power is about twice that made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.[...]

Along the way, black carbon exerts all sorts of influences, some of which help warm the atmosphere and some of which cool it. When sunlight strikes black carbon, its dark hue causes it to heat up, something like the way a black tar roof gets hot on a sunny day. When black carbon falls on ice and snow, it smudges their bright white reflective surfaces. As a result, less sunlight bounces back out to space, leading to more warming.[...]

If black carbon heats up the layer of the atmosphere where clouds are forming, for example, they will evaporate. They can no longer reflect sunlight back into space, and so the soot-laced clouds end up warming the atmosphere. But black carbon that hangs above low-lying stratocumulus clouds has a different effect. It stabilizes the layer of air on top of the clouds, promoting their growth. It just so happens that thick stratocumulus clouds are like shields, blocking incoming sunlight. As a result, black carbon also ends up cooling the planet.[...]

[SailOar]

What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts | Pew Research Center

1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem...

2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change...

3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years...

4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns...

5) Most people in the countries we surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.

6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary...

7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines...

[SailOar]

A vegetarian world would be healthier, cooler and richer | Reuters

By eating less meat and more fruit and vegetables, the world could avoid several million deaths per year by 2050, cut planet-warming emissions substantially, and save billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs and climate damage, researchers said.

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, is the first to estimate both the health and climate change impacts of a global move toward a more plant-based diet, they said.[...]

Adopting a diet in line with the global guidelines could avoid 5.1 million deaths per year by 2050, while 8.1 million fewer people would die in a world of vegans who do not consume animal products, including eggs and milk.

When it comes to climate change, following dietary recommendations would cut food-related emissions by 29 percent, adopting vegetarian diets would cut them by 63 percent and vegan diets by 70 percent.

Dietary shifts could produce savings of $700 billion to $1,000 billion per year on healthcare, unpaid care and lost working days, while the economic benefit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions could be as much as $570 billion, the study said.[...]

The researchers found that three-quarters of all benefits would occur in developing countries, although the per capita impacts of dietary change would be greatest in developed nations, due to higher rates of meat consumption and obesity.

The economic value of health improvements could be comparable with, and possibly larger than, the value of the avoided damage from climate change, they added.[...]

see also:
Plant-Based Diets in Climate Change Mitigation and Resource Conservation | Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Do you guys realise that on average a satellite falls out of orbit and plummets to earth every ten days

And most of them end up in the South Pacific.

Where do old satellites go when they die? :: NASA Space Place

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

No need to quibble at all. I asked for a 'truly new' technological breakthrough (good or bad) since 1941.

Your response was:

...plastics
Date of invention unsure, plastics have been around for thousands of years, the first 'modern'
plastic dates to 1907.

...microcircuitry
Miniaturization of a technology that is 150+ years old doesn't fit under the heading of 'breakthough' to me. but if you say so...

...AI
You've got to be kidding. A glorified Magic 8 ball is not intelligent. Siri, Watson, Cortana...Jeopardy and chess playing machines only demonstrate the intelligence of their designers...any higher life-form (evolved in the last 400 million years) has a higher intellectual ability.

...superconductors
When they figure out one that works at room temperature, I might be willing to give you credit for them, depending on the uses to which they're put...

...microsurgery and laser surgery
See number 2 above, though surgery has been around, like plastics, for thousands of years

...transplant medicine
To address this inclusion pragmatically and objectively is too cruel, even for me...

...led lighting
The LED was invented in 1927.

...gps navigation
A composite technology, combining the portolan (marine chart); late 13th century, the compass; early 13th century, classical mechanics; late 17th century, radio; mid 19th century, and rocketry; old school, 13th century; modern, 1926

...robotic warehousing
????

...digital computers
Agreed, to a point.

...CAT and MRI scans
This has to fall under the 'you've got to be kidding' category, for the technology's general misuse, misinterpretation of results and the fact that they are based on 100+ year old technologies.

At least you didn't include PSIDs (personal stupidity inducing devices, i.e. 'smart phones')


But, so we can stop quibbling, let's look at 'the differences in the lives of average people over your seventy five year interval...1940 to 1975' (?).

"In 1940, the average person in my area of the US had..."

...no refrigeration
And, as you're a living testament to, they didn't starve.

...no indoor plumbing
And slop jars and outhouses served them well.

...water from shallow wells using hand pumps
Which worked equally well.

...no home electricity
A convenience, not a necessity.

...no automobile
Ditto

...homeopathic medicine
Believe you're confusing this with 'homegrown' medicine. Homeopathic medicine is mostly a pseudo-scientific form of ignorance, while many 'home remedies' are well known to be valuable forms of treatment when so called 'professional help' is unavailable.

...few foods other than homegrown
Oh for the good old days --when one knew what one was eating, and the costs involved in producing it.


That one likes something, or something makes something else more easily accomplished, doesn't necessarily make it better or even good. Addiction is a well known affliction...

It's also interesting to note that in the US, one, if not the, leading cause of death is visiting the hospital.

For a more complete understanding of some of the 'benefits' you list above, might I suggest you look at research on the decline of stature (actual physical height) of the population in the United State since the turn of the 20th century, as compared to more egalitarian societies. (Stature is a good, easily measured general proxy for the health and well being of a population.)


I'm glad that you agree with me that fossil fuels have made a huge difference in the trajectory-to-date of humankind.

At best, the statement 'Greenists would have us go back to that time.' is silly, ignorant and inflammatory. At worst, it ignores the fact that environmentally aware people want to do the most they can to obtain a reasonable quality of life for as many as possible and are also aware that a free-market, winner takes all strategy (a nature-mimicking system, by the way) is not the best solution for the problems induced and faced by an exponentially growing population on a finite planet. One thing's for sure, nature will make the adjustment one way or the other...

While it's very noble of you to bet on human ingenuity, given the record so far, it seems a bit odd. The reason I asked the question with a date specified was to illustrate one of the reasons why the reliance on technology alone (especially a non-existent one) for the solution to the 'energy problem' is folly. Technologically 'revolutionary' developments don't happen in a vacuum, their relevance is predicated on their incorporation into society. Hence the common phenomenon of delay between invention and 'revolutionary effect'. The first printing technology was invented roughly 3800 years ago, but was forgotten until the middle of the 15th century, 2700 years later!

Obviously technology will play a role in the future advancements --and setbacks--of human civilization and, by extension, those of the rest of the planet. The somewhat parochial view that technology will solve more problems that it generates is one that should to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The best we could hope for is simultaneous techno-socio-politico-revolutionary change as quickly as possible. Maybe the 400-500 years of fossil fuels we have left will be enough to get us over the hump. If not, whether one likes it or not, it's back to a (probably healthier) natural lifestyle where people live within their (and their worlds') means and do mostly physical labor to survive and prosper.

That is the most absolutely delusional argument against technology I've ever read. Great insight into the mind of alarmists which appear to work in a binary mode. Everything must either be black or white, there can be no shades of grey. No such thing as evolving tech. By the above logic a car is just an extension of the first skid pulled by an ox.

Anyhoo, two things straight off the bat since 1941.

1) Laser. Originally invented with no practical application, it is now used in many thousands of areas.
2) Internet. If writing is considered the greatest invention of the human race (which it is), the internet will one day be recognised as the second greatest invention.

There will be thousands more, no doubt. Most technological inventions don't make headlines. They just meld into our lives. Not that it matters, but most of what we depend on today is a product of the industrial revolution.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unless you can provide a link to an official Democrat policy website stating such, then NO THEY DIDN'T.

It was added to the party platform this year. You can look for the link yourself. Hint: use google or bing or yahoo, etc.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The country that brought us the Salem Witch trials has a political party (Democrats) who have just made it official party policy to prosecute and criminalize global Global Warming denial.

What was really said in the draft policy:

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

https://demconvention.com/wp-content...AFT-7.1.16.pdf

You are safe.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unless you can provide a link to an official Democrat policy website stating such, then NO THEY DIDN'T.

Just for starters:


Back in April, a group of mostly Democratic (there was one independent) attorneys general announced they were going to be targeting any companies that denied climate change. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Democratic Party has adopted this far left tactic in the final draft of their official platform.
“The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent,” reads part of the platform on climate change and clean energy.
This seems like something Attorney General Loretta Lynch would gladly take up, as she’s already admitted the department is looking into the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change deniers.
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in March.
Some state attorneys general have already launched investigations of ExxonMobil for their position on climate change, while others have demanded records from prominent conservative and libertarian think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
Looks like it’s time to say goodbye to free speech.


Democratic Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Climate Change Skeptics - Leah Barkoukis



Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.


https://demconvention.com/news/democ...ing-concludes/