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

[SailOar]

The Debunking Handbook

[GoingWalkabout]

SailOar. Nice to see your dutiful compliance to spreading dubious hysterical climate alarmism.

As for Ontario. If I were a manufacturer I would move right now all my manufacturing equipment to Mexico. Otherwise look forward to a slow and painful corporate death as you are slaughtered by Chinese competitors. Funny how the Chinese are the biggest polluters yet have no intention of instituting Crap In Trade.

Great to see the central planners taking money from the productive class and redistributing to the indolent and wasteful class.

I've been hearing the nonsense of the rising sea levels for the past 20 years. Please let me know of one east coast Marina that has had to sink longer pilons because of rising water. Total BS.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The Debunking Handbook

Thanks. Perhaps I should read it to help me dealing with the AGW misinformation and out right falsification of research and lies. To many incidents of scientific fraud for any of these alarmist preachers to be taken seriously.

[SailOar]

Climate Change Warming Asian Waters, Altering Monsoon | ABC News

[SailOar]

As peatlands dry out from climate change, wildfire risk increases | CBC

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

SailOar. Nice to see your dutiful compliance to spreading dubious hysterical climate alarmism.

As for Ontario. If I were a manufacturer I would move right now all my manufacturing equipment to Mexico. Otherwise look forward to a slow and painful corporate death as you are slaughtered by Chinese competitors. Funny how the Chinese are the biggest polluters yet have no intention of instituting Crap In Trade.

Great to see the central planners taking money from the productive class and redistributing to the indolent and wasteful class.

I've been hearing the nonsense of the rising sea levels for the past 20 years. Please let me know of one east coast Marina that has had to sink longer pilons because of rising water. Total BS.

Although I just shake my head when people categorize others as hysterical alarmist and the other side calling back with narrow minded deniers, I cannot disagree with your take on one of the biggest polluters there are and the fact you point out of money taken from the productive class to the wasteful class. I assume you mean the people on social services.
But although China is the largest polluter, the US is right behind them. It should be pointed out also that while most of the money is removed from the middle class, the top 3% pay almost no taxes. So to me they are hand in hand with the group you point out.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

SailOar. Nice to see your dutiful compliance to spreading dubious hysterical climate alarmism.

As for Ontario. If I were a manufacturer I would move right now all my manufacturing equipment to Mexico. Otherwise look forward to a slow and painful corporate death as you are slaughtered by Chinese competitors. Funny how the Chinese are the biggest polluters yet have no intention of instituting Crap In Trade.

Great to see the central planners taking money from the productive class and redistributing to the indolent and wasteful class.

I've been hearing the nonsense of the rising sea levels for the past 20 years. Please let me know of one east coast Marina that has had to sink longer pilons because of rising water. Total BS.

China's Xi Jinping Announces Cap-and-Trade Carbon Program | Forbes

[GoingWalkabout]

Now climate scientists are worrying about Global Cooling. Perhaps they read the title of this thread I started.



Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change

The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up.

AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

…

Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today, as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”

Read more: Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change | Science | AAAS

The abstract of the study;

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.

Read more: North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation | Science

Is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowing? Models suggest it should be – but observation based studies have not found evidence of a slowdown.

Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen. From Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous p3774;

… Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/37...-3761-2016.pdf

Naturally most of the climate scientists who make such predictions expect the cooling to occur over a relatively short timescale, before the ice melt forcing which causes the predicted cooling is overwhelmed by our continued sinful emissions of CO2. But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.

[SailOar]

I thought of posting this article a while back, but decided against it for the reason underlined below:

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

[...] Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today, as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”[...]

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Although I just shake my head when people categorize others as hysterical alarmist and the other side calling back with narrow minded deniers, I cannot disagree with your take on one of the biggest polluters there are and the fact you point out of money taken from the productive class to the wasteful class. I assume you mean the people on social services.
But although China is the largest polluter, the US is right behind them. It should be pointed out also that while most of the money is removed from the middle class, the top 3% pay almost no taxes. So to me they are hand in hand with the group you point out.

On this we can agree.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by SailOar

China's Xi Jinping Announces Cap-and-Trade Carbon Program | Forbes

As usual smoke and mirrors from China. In their own wirds, putting a toe in the water. What a joke.

The program builds on a seven-city pilot program that China has developed over the past few years. Many observers note that this follows the typical Chinese path of reform, “crossing the river by feeling the stones,” to use Deng Xiaoping’s apt if oft-quoted phrase.[...]

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I think Walkabout is correct.
I looked at the sun yesterday and its definitely SMALLER! I got up extra early this morning and, yep, sunrise its just a piddler. Tiny.

So I rang NASA and after I reported it they told me: "you're an f'ing ijiot with the brain the size of a Christmas turkeys". Then they hung up on me!!

So its a COVER UP! That's exactly what they would do, isn't it? Hang up on me instead of sending the Space Shuttle up to check my FACTS.
I bet the CIA is in on it TOO!

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!


.

I couldn't stop laughing. Thanks Mark. By the way if you had a brain the size of a turkey you would have one very large fat head. Again thanks for the laughter..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

How very ironic that you should pull up the ACLU piece entitled Joint Statement on Censorship and Science: A Threat to Science, the Constitution, and Democracy -- which I agree with 100%. Here's the first paragraph:

I pulled up that piece in part because it was in fact in response to conduct alleged to have occurred during the Bush administration! Hopefully we're not approaching an LEDZ (L-E Danger Zone) here. My point is that politically motivated censorship is bad news regardless of the players, although partisans can also use bogus cries of "censorship" as a weapon to also try and suppress speech they don't like. As with most issues, calling out intrusions on civil rights is neither simple nor binary. If it was, there wouldn't be as many free speech cases that have made it to the Supreme Court.

Here they are talking about the GW Bush administration's overt attempt to influence various scientific organizations, trying to manipulate the outcome of scientific investigation into Climate Change, simply because a lot of Republicans didn't like what was being discovered.

Well, that's your take on it and I wasn't following it at the time, just like I didn't follow similar complaints we've heard about the previous administration in Canada. But assuming it was as insidious as you allege, then there is no "irony" in raising the same warning flag. The Bill of Rights are designed as a barrier protecting citizens from this very sort of govt. intrusion, and there are plenty of examples of govt. overreach by both political parties in the U.S. throughout its history.

Back to Exxon-Mobil. I suspect that politics is indeed involved in the decision to investigate. And that may not be good. But I don't see that it rises to the level of an attack on the Constitutional Right to free speech. Publicly-held companies don't have a right to mislead shareholders. Sadly, far-right news organizations and talk-show hosts do have the right to mislead the public, and are all too willing to exercise that right.

Well, for starters there is a clear legal disinction (that you seem to begrudgingly recognize) btwn. the rights of private parties to exercise their free speech rights and intrusions on those rights by the govt. The Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with setting limits on how far the govt. can intrude on its citizens, whether it involves speech, religion, law enforcement, search & seizure, rights of criminal deft's, etc. There is obviously plenty of "far-right" and "far-left" speech on the airwaves and cyberspace, and the First Amendment wisely recognizes that what is deemed "misleading" by one side may be considered "factual" by the other. So its remedy is not to enable the govt. to adjudicate and restrict, but rather to encourage more speech from all sides as the best way to ultimately dispel the falsities and reveal the truth. This, of course, is also indispensible in science through the more formalized peer review process. We apparently disagree that there is anything "sad" about allowing speech you or I don't happen to like, regardless of how "extreme" one of us may personally believe it to be.

But if you think that setting up some sort of censorship committee is the better alternative, then I'm sure the Russians, Chinese, and N. Koreans can provide useful guidance. Personally, I prefer the "free marketplace of ideas" envisioned by the Constitution, and don't feel inconvenienced with putting up with all the extra and often useless chatter. In a free society it is the citizens who are responsible for figuring out the truth, not relying on the govt. to tell us which side to believe, but that gets into other issues that have already been discussed.

We do agree that "publicly-held companies don't have a right to mislead shareholders." But neither the govt. nor a private litigant has the right to bring unfounded, legally frivolous lawsuits. It's called "abuse of process" and is itself actionable as a tort (a civil crime, if you will). For Exxon to have misled or defrauded their shareholders here, their scientists would have had to have known about a higher level of danger from fossil fuels than was already accepted by the wider science, and wilfully suppressed that information for the purpose of inflating the value of their stock. Huh?? This is why you always hear the misleading comparison with the tobacco lawsuits. How many scientists or medical practitioners/researchers dispute or have disputed the connection btwn. smoking and cancer/heart disease?? C'mon, climate science is a scientific theory with different levels of certainty depending on which part of it is being considered and which scientist you ask. Put another way, would shares of Exxon have been valued lower if Exxon scientists had (hypothetically) revealed agreement with even your more alarmist opinions on its products' "disastrous" impacts? Unlike tobacco, there is strong, consistent, non-discretionary demand for Exxon's products even though it is widely accepted that, at some level, their products likely harm the environment. Where's the potential for shareholder "fraud" in any of this?

This is just a dangerous attack by the govt. on free speech in an area where it is critical that all credible science opinions be voiced so that accurate knowledge about our climate can progress. And you shouldn't have to be a denier/skeptic/conservative/contrarian to see this as a serious problem. At a minimum, it's just another attempt to label, judge, stereotype, demonize and marginalize those whose opinions differ. Humans seem to have this need to make themselves feel superior by trying to degrade others. Grade school level stuff, or maybe high school.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

[...]We do agree that "publicly-held companies don't have a right to mislead shareholders." But neither the govt. nor a private litigant has the right to bring unfounded, legally frivolous lawsuits. It's called "abuse of process" and is itself actionable as a tort (a civil crime, if you will). For Exxon to have misled or defrauded their shareholders here, their scientists would have had to have known about a higher level of danger from fossil fuels than was already accepted by the wider science, and wilfully suppressed that information for the purpose of inflating the value of their stock. Huh?? This is why you always hear the misleading comparison with the tobacco lawsuits. How many scientists or medical practitioners/researchers dispute or have disputed the connection btwn. smoking and cancer/heart disease?? C'mon, climate science is a scientific theory with different levels of certainty depending on which part of it is being considered and which scientist you ask. Put another way, would shares of Exxon have been valued lower if Exxon scientists had (hypothetically) revealed agreement with even your more alarmist opinions on its products' "disastrous" impacts? Unlike tobacco, there is strong, consistent, non-discretionary demand for Exxon's products even though it is widely accepted that, at some level, their products likely harm the environment. Where's the potential for shareholder "fraud" in any of this? [...]

Peabody Energy Corporation, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 13, 2016.

Coal has become less valuable partly because it has been displaced by cheaper natural gas, and partly because it is coming under increased regulation because mining and using it causes harmful results. The above chart shows what happens to stock prices when the market decides your product isn't so valuable.

In this post it was argued that if the full cost to society of using fossil fuels was deducted from the value of oil companies, it would eat up all of their profits. Makes you want to run right out and buy a few more shares of XOM, doesn't it?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This Is Why Warren Buffet Dumped His Exxon Holding

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

It should be pointed out also that while most of the money is removed from the middle class, the top 3% pay almost no taxes. So to me they are hand in hand with the group you point out.

It's election season in the U.S., so ya gotta be careful what you hear & read. No books on "Debunking" needed, just some undisputed facts from the Tax Policy Institute, a nonpartisan source as reported by the WSJ (also available from the GAO):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-o...8674384http://

When it comes to federal income tax which is the largest source of govt. revenue in the U.S. (about half), the top 20% of income earners pay approx. 80% of all income taxes. The bottom 40% receive more govt. benefits than they pay out in income taxes (often none). The U.S. income tax is also considered more progressive than many other western countries whose VAT taxes on consumption account for a much higher percentage of govt. revenue, but also amount to a much "flatter" tax and are therefore regressive. As the article and its source point out, the numbers above change a bit when you factor in social security & medicare taxes, but the U.S. tax system is highly progressive by most standards.

I suggest you may wish to look elsewhere for the complex reasons why the middle class is losing ground since it does not appear to be as attributable to the rich as popular opinion so often likes to simplistically suggest.