Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmm, interesting concept. Tell me. Why doesn't your water-cooled car engine
boil after driving up a steep hill for a short while? I mean nothing changes in the cooling system once the thermostat is fully opened?

Of course "something changes" in the cooling system. The coolant temperature increases, which increases the temperature differential between the radiator and the outdoor air temperature, which increases the rate of heat transfer between the engine and the environment. As long as the engine design parameters aren't exceeded the engine can tolerate the increased temperatures.

But if the engine gets too hot for the radiator to keep cool you risk all sorts of problems. Sound familiar?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by SailOar

An analogy:

You have a glass full of ice water. You add a small amount of energy over a period of time and the ice all melts. Or, you remove a small amount of energy over a period of time and the water all freezes.

The energy balance on the earth is like that glass of ice water.

OK, you clearly understand the function of a refrigerator, but what does that have to do with climate change? The net energy flow to the earth has always varied, resulting in variations in climate from much warmer than today, all the way to ice ages with more than a mile(!) of ice where I now sit, and none of these extreme swings were caused by AGW. Since the earths climate has varied so much in the past before an inkling of AGW even existed in Al Gores little brain, how do we determine what is the "optimum" climate that we should aim for, should we collectively decide to "fix" climate change? Keeping in mind these wide variations in climate in our past, is the optimum climate that we should strive for a few degrees warmer than today, or is it a few degrees cooler, or many degrees warmer or cooler, and how did you determine what is the optimum climate?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

This is a most incredible thread. I have tried to read all of it but its voluminous. Its got to be a record.. But no surprise,not one convert to either side. Same as in the middle east. At the very least its an exposition of the human condition. The only thing I can say is its making me consider buying a Rocna. Is that crazy?

Climate-change deniers are in retreat | Washington Post

There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesn’t deny climate change — it’s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

The group, which suffered the highly visible defection of Google because of its global-warming stance and an exodus of other top corporate members, sent letters to Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters instructing them to “remove all false or misleading material” alleging ALEC questions global-warming theory....

The turnabout at ALEC follows an about-face at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian outfit that embraces a description of it as “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

But on Christmas Eve, Justin Haskins, a blogger and editor at Heartland, penned an article for the conservative journal Human Events declaring: “The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it’s true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists.”...

It’s likely no coincidence that the shift is occurring as the Obama administration approaches a June target to finalize rules on power-plant emissions. Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.

More and more conservative officeholders are embracing the “I am not a scientist” agnosticism on climate change rather than skepticism. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and presidential candidates Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio have adopted this response, and Rubio has joined Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley in embracing the less assailable position that U.S. efforts to restrict carbon are pointless without similar efforts across the globe...

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Don C L

At the risk of stoking the fire and flogging a dead horse... ok, whatever you think of climate science and scientists, fine, but haven't we all, especially sailors, who watch the weather constantly, noticed a definite change in the patterns of the jet stream over the last 20 years or so. Haven't we noticed certain unusual weather patterns showing up and staying for quite a while? The recent polar vortex back east and the corresponding static high over the west generating Santa Ana winds even in the winter is an example. The extremes of the loops or meanders (or amplitude as the scientists call it) of the jet have been growing, and it is the SPEED of this change that has scientists who study this concerned. I have noticed it just watching the weather channel for 20 years, and I have no dog in the fight.

But have you considered that if you'd been watching the weather channel for the 20 years before that, you'd also have seen changes that you'd never seen before? Climate has never been static and neither has the location of the jet stream, etc. Where does anyone get the idea that all these things were ever static?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

OK, you clearly understand the function of a refrigerator, but what does that have to do with climate change? The net energy flow to the earth has always varied, resulting in variations in climate from much warmer than today, all the way to ice ages with more than a mile(!) of ice where I now sit, and none of these extreme swings were caused by AGW. Since the earths climate has varied so much in the past before an inkling of AGW even existed in Al Gores little brain, how do we determine what is the "optimum" climate that we should aim for, should we collectively decide to "fix" climate change? Keeping in mind these wide variations in climate in our past, is the optimum climate that we should strive for a few degrees warmer than today, or is it a few degrees cooler, or many degrees warmer or cooler, and how did you determine what is the optimum climate?

Of course you're right; Earth's climate has had wide temperature swings throughout geological history. From hot as hell to iceberg cold.



This chart shows estimated temperatures over the last 1/2 billion years, varying from -10C to +25C from current temps. What is interesting to note is that over the past 10,000 years temperature changes have been within +/- 0.5C of present temperatures.



Remarkably, this time period coincides with the rise of human civilization. Maybe not a coincidence at all!?!

Now, in the last 100 years, temperatures have skyrocketed.



At this point temperatures are not too excessive. Historically they are not outside the "normal" boundaries of the past 10,000 years. What is alarming is the rate of change. It is unprecedented. Furthermore, it is (a) not natural, but man-made; (b) on-going, and not likely to stop anytime in the near future.

And it's not just high temperatures that are cause for alarm, but also the associated sea-level rise, ocean acidification, unpredictable rates of precipitation, etc -- to say nothing of all the other types of environmental degradation that 7 billion plus people are inflicting on the Earth. The changes that are coming our way are not going to wipe out the human race, but it will make life much more difficult. Maybe we are like Goldilocks and don't want things either too hot or too cold, but rather "just right".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

[Kenomac]

April 7th and the local ponds and lakes are still frozen over here in New England.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Just followed the link from the Main Stream Media to the story....but you will notice the attack the messenger game when the MMGW Supreme Leader was caught...ha ha ah

Oh right. I'm afraid to ask what "Main Stream Media".

In truth I cannot quite tell with you where the trolling stops and the seriousness starts. But for the moment, I'm amused by an image of you, with Alex Jones on the battery-powered shortwave, and a big roll of Reynolds Wrap.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But have you considered that if you'd been watching the weather channel for the 20 years before that, you'd also have seen changes that you'd never seen before? Climate has never been static and neither has the location of the jet stream, etc. Where does anyone get the idea that all these things were ever static?

Where do you get the idea that human activity ISN'T materially affecting the planet, including the climate? Of course there's still uncertainty as to the amount or what the total effect will be, but the fact that we ARE having an effect on the climate is indisputable. It's as measurable as the plastic in our oceans.

I'd also ask why everyone still thinks that non-experts can make a better assessment of the climate than experts, but I realize that thousands have invested millions of hours and $billions to create an elaborate myth about corrupt scientists and global eco/soshulist conspiracy, and many of you are deeply invested in this (kind of like Game of Thrones, innit?), so I'm still a tiny bit reluctant to keep pointing this out, but even kids have to let go of fairy-tales at some point.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

April 7th and the local ponds and lakes are still frozen over here in New England.

Come to balmy Rhode Island. We made it all the way to 60f over the weekend. Ice and snow all gone. Woohoo!

Now where did I put that sun cream.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Where do you get the idea that human activity ISN'T materially affecting the planet, including the climate? Of course there's still uncertainty as to the amount or what the total effect will be, but the fact that we ARE having an effect on the climate is indisputable. It's as measurable as the plastic in our oceans.

I'd also ask why everyone still thinks that non-experts can make a better assessment of the climate than experts, but I realize that thousands have invested millions of hours and $billions to create an elaborate myth about corrupt scientists and global eco/soshulist conspiracy, and many of you are deeply invested in this (kind of like Game of Thrones, innit?), so I'm still a tiny bit reluctant to keep pointing this out, but even kids have to let go of fairy-tales at some point.

Round and round and round we go. Considering anthropogenic contribution is around 3 to 4% of CO2 emissions which means such supposed drastic changes must also relate to either increased natural emissions or decreased sequestration, the latter perhaps in part to warming oceans and deforestation, what are practical fixes?

[matureee]

Let's look at this a little differently. As has been pointed out the climate has been very stable for the last 10,000 years, but is probably finely balanced. The biggest threat to mankind has been slipping the other way into an ice age that would threaten over half of the human population.

Global warming removes that threat. Yes it is going to be difficult for the population of Bangladesh, Florida and Holland but the populations of these areas can be absorbed elsewhere. We are looking at disruption with global warming not the disaster an ice age would incur.

So I am looking for a property more than 100ft above sea level with the confidence that the beach is going to get closer and I can get to know my new neighbours that used to live in Bangladesh.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Round and round and round we go. Considering anthropogenic contribution is around 3 to 4% of CO2 emissions which means such supposed drastic changes must also relate to either increased natural emissions or decreased sequestration, the latter perhaps in part to warming oceans and deforestation, what are practical fixes?

Plastic is probably less than a billionth of the amount of suspended particles in the ocean, yet look at the effect it is already having. Our contribution to CO2 is friggin enormous by comparison. How could it not have an effect?

What are the fixes? You guys are spending so much time denying it's a problem worth focusing on that we'll never get to the fixing part. The best we can manage right now is to simply try to moderate fossil fuel consumption and fast-track the search for cleaner and sustainable energy. And the anti-AGW camp (or better stated, the unwitting proxies for the status quo) won't even let us get on with that.

Round and round indeed.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Plastic is probably less than a billionth of the amount of suspended particles in the ocean, yet look at the effect it is already having. Our contribution to CO2 is friggin enormous by comparison. How could it not have an effect?

What are the fixes? You guys are spending so much time denying it's a problem worth focusing on that we'll never get to the fixing part. The best we can manage right now is to simply try to moderate fossil fuel consumption and fast-track the search for cleaner and sustainable energy. And the anti-AGW camp (or better stated, the unwitting proxies for the status quo) won't even let us get on with that.

Round and round indeed.

Fossil fuel is only a small component of the problem. Cement production, for example is a big CO2 emitter. It'll be like trying to stop a freight train Fred Flintstone style. And I'm not sure how the anti-AGW is stopping anything. Anyone is quite within their rights to dispose of their liquid fuel engines and disconnect from the electricity grid without written approval.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The science of SALT was WRONG for so long...yet we are not to question the bogus studies of MMGW. Fool me once, twice and a dozen times on similar fraud/Peer Pressure "science de hour" fool me once...but dramatically change the way the world economy operates...no...thanks.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Mmmmm, BACON with extra salt, ice cream with extra chocolate syrup and a glass or two of wine.
Near 70 years old with 120 over 65 blood pressure and I don't bother to excercise.
Sailing is about it.

Blooey to all the health fanatics !

My late father-in-law had a terrible diet. Few veggies, too much grease and salt. He made it to 82. Of course he spent the last few years of that getting dialysis, and his last 4 months are indescribable.

Bon appetit, senor.

The science around salt was not WRONG. There may be new information to question the amounts in the guidelines, but the fact remains:

There is one area of consensus: Both sides agree that eating too much salt, especially for people with high blood pressure, can be dangerous.

The salt guidelines have resulted in fewer deaths, not more.

But by all means carry on. Pretend that science doing science is evidence that it's just a series of frauds. Hug that conspiracy theory tightly. Time will make fools of us all, so I'm surprised that you've shown your cards so soon.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And I'm not sure how the anti-AGW is stopping anything.

- science BAAAD! scientists LIEEE!
- science/greenie/soshulist conspiracy wants to take away our nice things!
- wind and solar generation will NEVER work! part of conspiracy (see above)
- fracking and tarsands will will give us cheap oil forever! Why you wanna stop fracking and tarsands?


... like that. Look familiar?