Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

LOL.

I am simply pointing out that denying something doesn't make it false. Believing in something doesn't make it true. Reality is and what we believe has no impact on that unless we act on our beliefs, whereupon we make a positive impact (cleaning up pollution for example) or a negative impact (polluting even more).

Therefore, if human caused climate change is real, denying it is only making matters worse because we are refusing to try and make a positive change.

Believing in it cannot make it worse.

Hmmmm...

And I am also pointing out that if it is real, then the results will not be good for billions of people.

Not that any of that argument will change anyone's mind. There are many reasons for denying human caused climate change. Most of them emotional or economic, and of course, political. All three of those things are immune to reason.

well said. Eventually

[SailOar]

jwcolby54
Welcome to CruisersForum (and the Great Climate Debate).

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

People believe what they want to believe.

Sadly, if (human caused) global warming is true, believing it is not will not change reality. I say fire up the coal fired power plants and let's test the theory. If it is true, the world dies and a few billion of us with it. If it is false, we can all move on to something else to discuss.

Luckily, my boat will float a little higher when the last ice cap slides off into the ocean. And I can sail in and pillage the half submerged gun stores on the piedmont of NC.

A few billion less people, less strain on the old planet. How can this be a bad thing? Hey, Miami will be underwater, likewise NYC. All good I say.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

This is the point that I start having exceptions with the Global Warming crowd also.

That graph is simplified, but essentially accurate. Now what does that mean?

You imply it's bad that our temperature would rise to the level of 4 millions years ago.

But let's take that a step further. Would would rather have temperatures of 4 million years ago or 100,000 years ago?

Neither. Either extreme would be extremely disruptive to civilization as we now know it. But as a human race we would survive either way.

AND then once you (we, the world) decide on that answer, then the BIG issue is whether we in all our human hubris can actually do anything about it.

By burning gigatons of fossil fuels over the last few centuries we've already done something about it. The question is not whether we have, or can, do something about it. The question is whether we are far-sighted and self-disciplined enough to do something about it?

Look at where most of the world's grain is grown. Another Ice Age would cause starvations on a scale never seen before.

Agreed, at least if it happened quickly. But the natural changes in climate are typically quite slow relative to human lifespans, so natural attrition would relatively painlessly contract the human population while it migrated to the warmer mid and low latitudes. Furthermore, the cooling climate would increase the thickness of the polar and continental icecaps, so ocean levels would drop. Thus the huge coastal population centers would not be threatened by flooding.

On the other hand, if Global Warming continues apace at the breakneck speed as predicted if humans don't make major fuel changes, it will be much harder for current civilization to adapt without major disruptions.

The large urban coastal populations are going to suffer increased flooding.

Agriculture will be stressed by atypical droughts/floods/heatwaves.

Decreased pH levels in the oceans will erode (are eroding) corals and mollusc shells. This will adversely effect the whole ocean food chain.

Many other ecosystems will be stressed because they can't adapt fast enough.

The question is not whether we, or the Earth as a whole, can adapt. We certainly can adapt to higher temperatures. The question is whether the cost of adaptation is more or less expensive than the cost to reduce the changes we are causing to the climate in the first place.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

But let's take that a step further. Would would rather have temperatures of 4 million years ago or 100,000 years ago?

I do not think it is an "either / or" question?

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

• Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
• Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
• The Arctic was ice free.
• Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
• Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

The MWP resulted in wide spread droughts.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

So...you just proved the point that 400ppm isn't a big deal...halarious....it was 400ppm back before humans were here....it is 400ppm now and so what...nada, no significant warming in the last 18yrs...ha ha ha classic....

How much are you getting paid to recruit MMGW Cult members?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not think it is an "either / or" question?



The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

The MWP resulted in wide spread droughts.

And temps were higher, especially at the poles and sea levels were higher.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
The Arctic was ice free.
Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

Guess that throws the whole CO2 link to global temperatures baby out with the bathwater, doesn't it?

Oh wait, that era probably didn't have aerosols or a hole in the ozone layer or something else no doubt.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh wait, that era probably didn't have aerosols or a hole in the ozone layer or something else no doubt.

This isn't a Science issue...it is a Social Feel Good Save the baby Fur seal issue, so talking logic to love or belief doesn't matter. Just gently tell them to get out of our way, sit on the sidelines and cry that the sky is falling while we ignore them and go about living our lives. Until they can vote and elect the House, Senate and President....their crack pot junk science is irrelevant, the child locks are on their car door, so they can't hurt themselves or us that much, other than from laughter.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This isn't a Science issue...it is a Social Feel Good Save the baby Fur seal issue, so talking logic to love or belief doesn't matter. Just gently tell them to get out of our way, sit on the sidelines and cry that the sky is falling while we ignore them and go about living our lives. Until they can vote and elect the House, Senate and President....their crack pot junk science is irrelevant, the child locks are on their car door, so they can't hurt themselves or us that much, other than from laughter.

I'm starting to think you have some sort of pathological need to react like this? Your clearly an intelligent person in other posts but something about Climate and you react like someone once took your ice cream away on a hot day and blamed it in being too hot to have one and ever since you have blamed it on the weather. your clearly the 'fringe' (very small minority) in your beliefs, I don't get your need to be quite offensive in your reactions.

Ps. I'm just interested in seeing this thread pass the 100 pages. Only another four to go

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Ps. I'm just interested in seeing this thread pass the 100 pages. Only another four to go

Just doing my part Amigo...
No one likes a truth teller these days...you either tow the party line or are attacked...bring on the arrows baby. I wear them well.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

On the other hand, if Global Warming continues apace at the breakneck speed as predicted if humans don't make major fuel changes, it will be much harder for current civilization to adapt without major disruptions.

Assumption?

The large urban coastal populations are going to suffer increased flooding.

After 25 years that's still to occur. Anywhere. Assumption?

Agriculture will be stressed by atypical droughts/floods/heatwaves.

Assumption?

Decreased pH levels in the oceans will erode (are eroding) corals and mollusc shells. This will adversely effect the whole ocean food chain.

Ocean PH has dropped by a value of 0.05. Try adjusting your swimming pool PH to this resolution. The ONE recorded instance is pteropods off the west coast of the USA (which might explain your missing herrings ). It's not classified information that shell fish lived during times of significantly higher atmospheric CO2 levels. How do you think they survived (and rate of change is not an answer)? Again an assumption.

Many other ecosystems will be stressed because they can't adapt fast enough.

What is fast enough, exactly? Or is this yet another assumption?

The question is not whether we, or the Earth as a whole, can adapt. We certainly can adapt to higher temperatures. The question is whether the cost of adaptation is more or less expensive than the cost to reduce the changes we are causing to the climate in the first place.

No. The proper question is what other, more immediate, major problems face the world and it's people and which solutions have the better ROI.

You alarmists care about 0.6 degrees celcius and 0.05 ph but care little of other problems facing humanity that are real NOW and require far more immediate solutions.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This isn't a Science issue...it is a Social Feel Good Save the baby Fur seal issue, so talking logic to love or belief doesn't matter. Just gently tell them to get out of our way, sit on the sidelines and cry that the sky is falling while we ignore them and go about living our lives. Until they can vote and elect the House, Senate and President....their crack pot junk science is irrelevant, the child locks are on their car door, so they can't hurt themselves or us that much, other than from laughter.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

No one likes a truth teller these day

Yeah. We noticed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And temps were higher, especially at the poles and sea levels were higher.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.



Guess that throws the whole CO2 link to global temperatures baby out with the bathwater, doesn't it?

Oh wait, that era probably didn't have aerosols or a hole in the ozone layer or something else no doubt.

Nope.

Milankovitch cycles trigger a temperature increase, warming the oceans, releasing CO2 which stimulates a positive feedback loop increasing temperatures and CO2. That cycle as been operating for at least 800,000 years. Then we started adding CO2 all on our own by burning sequestered fossil fuels.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yeah. We noticed.

Notice if you will....
na, Never mind, lets just get this post to 100 pages and then it can end.

I'm living off the Grid and my carbon footprint is lower than yours, so I'm a better person than you....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope.

Milankovitch cycles trigger a temperature increase, warming the oceans, releasing CO2 which stimulates a positive feedback loop increasing temperatures and CO2. That cycle as been operating for at least 800,000 years. Then we started adding CO2 all on our own by burning sequestered fossil fuels.

Yep, saw that coming. Funny how nothing but the "A" in AGW applies today, ain't it?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app