Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Notice the word "may" in one of the titles. The other, pdf, has a word count of 4 "may" and 9 "could" words that relate to whatever hypothesis it is trying to push.

But, back on track. I'm on lunch and about to start rowing with the other slaves. Are you suggesting that pollution is good for AGW because it produces cooling aerosols or are you suggesting it's bad because it produces warming CO2?

Science tends to be very conservative. They seldom will make a statement that is 100% certain.

You might know the expression "You cannot so just one thing."

Aerosols, be they industrial, volcanic, whatever have a cooling effect. Krakatoa, Pinatubo are good examples of short term cooling. Industrial aerosols are not a one time event and they also a have a cooling effect. They also create smog which is not good. The Clean Air Acts around the world helped contribute the post 70's warming. But they did make the air healthier.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I'm laughing that this thread still exists.

I can't keep up with the link. People are posting quicker than I can read the links both for an against, for and against GW.
One observation is the science is far from settled....

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I think the idea is that we are wanting to see action 'now' before it gets irreversible, which many scientists feel it might already be. No one claims to know 100% the future, but the current picture is not good. And what was shown in the film ICE CHASERS was evidence of that. It's not 80 000 years that we have, not even in my maths which I admit has never been very good.

Most people I think, you included I'm sure, want to ensure a future for our children and our grandchildren and I want them to be able to sail to some of the places I could. The end of the world is not being broadcast, but it's certainly headed to great future difficulties. Difficulties which my children and their children will be struggling through. Whilst I'm sceptical about whether that's fixable. Morally I believe we need to do everything possible now to slow, prevent or fix it.

You want to see action now to attempt to stop climate from changing, even though it's ALWAYS been changing and ALWAYS will change. Of course I want to ensure a future for our children and I want them to be able to sail wherever seems nice to THEM in THEIR time, NOT necessarily to the same places where I sailed. I think that's a big mistake that AGW alarmist make, clinging to the assumption that a particular snapshot in time is how things "should be" forever. You say you doubt that it's fixable but then you say that "morally" we need to attempt to fix it. What if it's not even a problem and you've spent billions attempting to "fix" it, unnecessarily impoverishing millions in your "morally" motivated crusade? Does that make ANY sense? Shouldn't we ensure that a problem really exists before we commit huge resources to a probably vain attempt to fix that problem? If significant warming happens, some islands will become uninhabitable and some beachfront houses will get wet, but northern growing seasons will be increased as some now fertile southern lands become too hot to farm on, and my land in Maine will probably become much more valuable. The point is that there would be pluses and minuses, depending on where you live and what your idea of a "perfect" climate to live in is, but that's been going on forever and humans have always managed to adapt, and I'm confident we'll continue to.

The climate should be studied carefully, not "fixed" before we even understand how it all works or what the perfect climate that our attempts at "fixing" it should be striving for.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by dpddj

I'm a firm believer that global warming is caused by al gore opening his hypocritical mouth, having a mansion the size of Rhode Island and transporting his pompous a** all around the world in his private jet.
At the same time laughing all the way to the bank.

That, plus that huge orb 149,597,870.7 kilometers (92,955,887.6 miles) away from Earth also has something to do with it.

FYI, the snow Alaska missed out on is sitting in my backyard.

"Believers" without evidence are a dime a dozen. Go to any corner church.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You want to see action now to attempt to stop climate from changing, even though it's ALWAYS been changing and ALWAYS will change. no, not to stop it changing, but to stop the extremes to which it's changing. I've posted a link below of the extremes that we are looking at in just two to three decades.

Of course I want to ensure a future for our children and I want them to be able to sail wherever seems nice to THEM in THEIR time, NOT necessarily to the same places where I sailed. I think that's a big mistake that AGW alarmist make, clinging to the assumption that a particular snapshot in time is how things "should be" forever.

this seems quite selfish to me. It's as if you simply don't care that some of the worlds most vulnerable and impoverished now, are going to be homeless and some even stateless.

You say you doubt that it's fixable but then you say that "morally" we need to attempt to fix it. What if it's not even a problem and you've spent billions attempting to "fix" it, unnecessarily impoverishing millions in your "morally" motivated crusade? Does that make ANY sense?

given the evidence, it makes perfect sense. 97% of the worlds climate scientists, the ones with credibility, agree this is now 95% certain. That's pretty damn good odds. Your claiming that by 'acting now' it will impoverish millions? Why will it? How will it? The cost is a pittance compared to what the USA spends on starting wars.

Shouldn't we ensure that a problem really exists before we commit huge resources to a probably vain attempt to fix that problem?

as I indicated before, it's about preventing it from becoming too bad, too extreem.

If significant warming happens, it's already happening. The evidence is quite clear on tha. some islands will become uninhabitable and some beachfront houses will get wet, but northern growing seasons will be increased as some now fertile southern lands become too hot to farm on, and my land in Maine will probably become much more valuable. The point is that there would be pluses and minuses, depending on where you live and what your idea of a "perfect" climate to live in is, but that's been going on forever and humans have always managed to adapt, and I'm confident we'll continue to. yes as an affluent westerner you will be right. That's what matters

The climate should be studied carefully, not "fixed" before we even understand how it all works or what the perfect climate that our attempts at "fixing" it should be striving for.

if you fully appreciated the problem I don't think you would say that.

IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon budget | Environment | The Guardian

I'm guessing, but I'm thinking that except with laymen like on CF arguing the case, the issue of the urgency will well and truly be concluded with in the next five years. The U.S. has just announced significant action to reduce emissions because they couldn't continue to deny what is becoming obvious. Plenty of debate in CF but when you look outside CF there is really very little if ANY credible debate. 'Credible' is the emphasis.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

if you fully appreciated the problem I don't think you would say that.

IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon budget | Environment | The Guardian

I'm guessing, but I'm thinking that except with laymen like on CF arguing the case, the issue of the urgency will well and truly be concluded with in the next five years. The U.S. has just announced significant action to reduce emissions because they couldn't continue to deny what is becoming obvious. Plenty of debate in CF but when you look outside CF there is really very little if ANY credible debate. 'Credible' is the emphasis.

Obama's comments at the G20 last year re reducing greenhouse gasses in USA was a tad cute. The baseline for reductions was pre Global Financial Crisis (GFC) I think the baseline mentioned was 2002. The GFC created a large drop in energy use in USA in addition there has been a significant shift, like most western countries, of manufacturing to China. Most significant is the shift from electricity generation from coal to Fracked Gas resulting in a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Effectively the USA has come close to achieving its emission reduction goals already by the actions above. As with politicians they tend to say what people want to hear. Obama is no different.

China and USA will continue to be growing energy users and what fuel is used will depend on price and availability. So called renewable energy, solar and wind, will continue to be bit players in the energy markets. The old technologies of solar and wind suffer from 3 major problems. Firstly their generation is intermittent ( relying on availability of wind and sun). Secondly they both are yet to resolve the energy storage and transport problems. Thirdly neither wind or solar can supply reliable, consistent baseload power.
China and USA energy requirements for the foreseeable future will be nuclear and fossil based. Coal will continue to be the backbone of electricity production in the developing world for many decades to come. As they say coal is king.

[jtsailjt]

It's really impossible to discuss this with people like you because apparently only YOU decide who the "credible" scientists are and that any opinions in opposition to them are not credible. It's like saying you know they're right because they're right, end of discussion. I suppose you can "win" every argument that way, at least in your own mind. Except that very few of their doomsday predictions based on "science" have even approached turning out to be true. If they keep it up long enough, eventually even you will have to wonder if they really know what they're talking about as well as they claim to know.

We've been hearing about rising oceans making people homeless, stateless, etc. for decades and it just hasn't happened any more than it ever has, but you're still throwing that out to justify saying that those who aren't alarmed enough about AGW are "selfish." But again, populations living along the shore within a few feet of sea level have been more affected than others by weather and high tides and changes in sea level forever, and that will always be the case. Maybe the more useful lesson to be learned is that it's not smart to plan to live long term a foot above sea level, NOT that we need to have a worldwide carbon tax. Is it really any more "selfish" of me to say that I'd like the climate where I live to be just a little warmer than it is for some other folks to say they'd like their climate to get a little cooler or to stay just how it was last year? How is one preference "selfish" and the other not?

given the evidence, it makes perfect sense. 97% of the worlds climate scientists, the ones with credibility, agree this is now 95% certain. That's pretty damn good odds. Your claiming that by 'acting now' it will impoverish millions? Why will it? How will it? The cost is a pittance compared to what the USA spends on starting wars.

We in the first world are all relatively wealthy in large part because of the things cheap energy has bought us. If a worldwide carbon tax is levied to combat AGW, energy for everyone will get much more expensive. I won't like it but can probably handle that and maybe you can too, but there are many millions of folks who would really like for their children to have some of the nice things (adequate food, shelter, education, medicine) that cheap energy has allowed you and I to take for granted. Also, the cost of providing cheap energy to many millions, as we pay more for our energy, is NOT a pittance. That's a cheap shot at the USA that has NOTHING at all to do with this subject, but if you're from Australia or NZ, try to remember that if it were not for the USA's willingness to fight wars to help others who are too weak to help themselves, you'd be speaking Japanese right now...you're welcome.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

We in the first world are all relatively wealthy in large part because of the things cheap energy has bought us. If a worldwide carbon tax is levied to combat AGW, energy for everyone will get much more expensive. I won't like it but can probably handle that and maybe you can too, but there are many millions of folks who would really like for their children to have some of the nice things (adequate food, shelter, education, medicine) that cheap energy has allowed you and I to take for granted.

Ding ding ding....give that man a Cigar!
MMGW Cultists from the First World WANT to keep the 2nd and 3rd World populations poor and their population rates down. That is their exact stated goals. EcoColonialism replaces the old school, take over their Country by gun Colonialism.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ding ding ding....give that man a Cigar!
MMGW Cultists from the First World WANT to keep the 2nd and 3rd World populations poor and their population rates down. That is their exact stated goals. EcoColonialism replaces the old school, take over their Country by gun Colonialism.

Actually , if you look at carbon trading etc , that exactly the opposite, i.e. an attempt to create price differentials to allow developing countries more room to pollute then developed western ones. Carbon trading is somewhat of a nonsense , but its an attempt to realise what you said

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You want to see action now to attempt to stop climate from changing, even though it's ALWAYS been changing and ALWAYS will change.

climate change isn't the issue, the rate of change is and whats driving that increased rate of change

Of course I want to ensure a future for our children and I want them to be able to sail wherever seems nice to THEM in THEIR time, NOT necessarily to the same places where I sailed. I think that's a big mistake that AGW alarmist make, clinging to the assumption that a particular snapshot in time is how things "should be" forever

.

AGW ( and its change not warming really) , recognise the climate is changing and its not fixed, nor was it ever, see my first point

The key is to ensure that your children or maybe their children , can actually sail ANYWHERE in the future

You say you doubt that it's fixable but then you say that "morally" we need to attempt to fix it. What if it's not even a problem and you've spent billions attempting to "fix" it, unnecessarily impoverishing millions in your "morally" motivated crusade? Does that make ANY sense? Shouldn't we ensure that a problem really exists before we commit huge resources to a probably vain attempt to fix that problem?

Just like smokers denied cancer for years , so do deniers. all respected science in this area says that increased rate of change is occurring, there are disagreements over what the outcomes might be.

If we wait ( as we in fact will) until the changes are upon us, it of course will eb way sway too late. Thats the issue.

If significant warming happens, some islands will become uninhabitable and some beachfront houses will get wet, but northern growing seasons will be increased as some now fertile southern lands become too hot to farm on, and my land in Maine will probably become much more valuable. The point is that there would be pluses and minuses, depending on where you live and what your idea of a "perfect" climate to live in is, but that's been going on forever and humans have always managed to adapt, and I'm confident we'll continue to

.

humans are here a short while and their ability to adapt has never really been tested . part of the current increased changes in global climate are as a result of the last 100 years of mans activity , we are potentially creating significant change in a short period of time, again we have no experience to judge our survival

The climate should be studied carefully, not "fixed" before we even understand how it all works or what the perfect climate that our attempts at "fixing" it should be striving for.

it has and is studied extremely carefully and the scientists in this field are reasonably single voiced.

but hey you're all right , Jack
dave

[tp12]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

but if you're from Australia or NZ, try to remember that if it were not for the USA's willingness to fight wars to help others who are too weak to help themselves, you'd be speaking Japanese right now...you're welcome.

Wow. Just, wow. That is unspeakable arrogance and completely denigrates the role we've (I'm an ex-Aussie soldier) played in a lot of conflict around the globe. I'd suggest you don't know much about military history and, quite frankly, you could go do one on yourself champ.

We're seeing weather events are getting more severe, we're seeing the Russian permafrost melt, cyclone/typhoon seasons getting longer ... but hey, there's no climate change....

I'm continually amazed at man's capacity to be self serving.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by tp12

Wow. Just, wow. That is unspeakable arrogance and completely denigrates the role we've (I'm an ex-Aussie soldier) played in a lot of conflict around the globe. I'd suggest you don't know much about military history and, quite frankly, you could go do one on yourself champ.

We're seeing weather events are getting more severe, we're seeing the Russian permafrost melt, cyclone/typhoon seasons getting longer ... but hey, there's no climate change....

I'm continually amazed at man's capacity to be self serving.

dont sweat it . its because of them , we are all speaking english, it seems , I mean Russian is such a nice language ......

remember nobody died in several world wars except Americans ........

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Just like smokers denied cancer for years , so do deniers.

For the Heartland Institute climate science is as settled as tobacco science.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For the Heartland Institute climate science is as settled as tobacco science.

Na...I like the anecdotal example of the "settled science" of how eating fat was bad for you, which has now been debunked. We can both play the anecdotal game, can't we.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Na...I like the anecdotal example of the "settled science" of how eating fat was bad for you, which has now been debunked. We can both play the anecdotal game, can't we.

There are limits to just about everything. Vitamin is fat soluble, that is why it is added to milk.

Selenium, an essential trace element in our diet, starts to become toxic at 400 ppm.