Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 20-04-2018, 20:21   #541
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,600
Images: 1
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Ask the Military

https://climateandsecurity.org/2018/...tic-seriously/
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 04:52   #542
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 922
unusually warm(ish) in the Arctic, esp Bering Sea

The Bering Sea is typically ice-choked during April. And during a normal year
all the water zones in the above image would be covered with ice.
But this spring, sea ice extent there is at never-before-seen
record low levels. Image source: NASA Worldview.
Arctic Temperature Anomaly for April 2


Arctic Temperature Anomaly for next five day starting April 21


Quote:
Warm winds driving northward over eastern Siberia, on the back side of a high pressure ridge, are delivering yet one more big dose of near or above freezing temperatures to this Arctic region. From the Chukchi Sea through the Bering Strait and on into East Siberia, temperatures range from 10 to 22 degrees Celsius above average. The Bering itself has been mostly swept clean of sea ice — with severe record low ice extent readings for this zone during early April.

Throughout winter, the Bering and Chukchi have received wave after wave of much warmer than normal air from the ocean zone to the south. This tendency for warm air propagating northward through the Pacific is one that is often triggered by La Nina — a periodic pattern of Pacific Equatorial surface water cooling that became a dominant feature of 2018 winter weather. However, globally warmer than normal ocean waters and, in particular, much warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the Northeastern Pacific appear to have greatly enhanced the heat influx.

These warm waters at the middle to northern latitudes have developed a pathway that enhances the northward flow of tropical air masses over the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile La Nina’s Equatorial cooling combines with climate change’s amplified polar warming to slow down the Jet Stream — further enabling this south-to-north heat transfer. As we have seen time and time again, human-forced global warming generated chiefly by fossil fuel burning is developing an atmospheric and oceanic handshake with past understood synoptic trends to produce an out-sized Arctic warming.
https://robertscribbler.com/2018/04/...p-is-underway/
__________________

SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 05:27   #543
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Completely normal. Can't you see the inversely cold area over south-central Canada that balances it all out?

Besides, the economy needs the boost from all those energy sales dollars needed to keep those wussie Canadians warm...
jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 13:47   #544
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,501
Re: unusually warm(ish) in the Arctic, esp Bering Sea

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
The Bering Sea is typically ice-choked during April. And during a normal year
all the water zones in the above image would be covered with ice.
But this spring, sea ice extent there is at never-before-seen
record low levels. Image source: NASA Worldview.
Arctic Temperature Anomaly for April 2


Arctic Temperature Anomaly for next five day starting April 21


https://robertscribbler.com/2018/04/...p-is-underway/
Another illustrative example of facts/data vs. opinion based on the bias of the proponent of an article using climate science to promote a socioeconomic/political agenda. Reminds me of . . . lemme think . . . how about the recent IBD article on nitrogen??

Quote:
Warm winds driving northward over eastern Siberia, on the back side of a high pressure ridge, are delivering yet one more big dose of near or above freezing temperatures to this Arctic region. From the Chukchi Sea through the Bering Strait and on into East Siberia, temperatures range from 10 to 22 degrees Celsius above average. The Bering itself has been mostly swept clean of sea ice — with severe record low ice extent readings for this zone during early April.

Throughout winter, the Bering and Chukchi have received wave after wave of much warmer than normal air from the ocean zone to the south. This tendency for warm air propagating northward through the Pacific is one that is often triggered by La Nina — a periodic pattern of Pacific Equatorial surface water cooling that became a dominant feature of 2018 winter weather. However, globally warmer than normal ocean waters and, in particular, much warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the Northeastern Pacific appear to have greatly enhanced the heat influx.

These warm waters at the middle to northern latitudes have developed a pathway that enhances the northward flow of tropical air masses over the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile La Nina’s Equatorial cooling combines with climate change’s amplified polar warming to slow down the Jet Stream — further enabling this south-to-north heat transfer.
As we have seen time and time again, human-forced global warming generated chiefly by fossil fuel burning is developing an atmospheric and oceanic handshake with past understood synoptic trends to produce an out-sized Arctic warming.

What appear to be valid scientific facts & data in blue; editorializing & opinion in red. But then the source for the latter is a website who's byline is "scribbling for environmental, social and economic justice." Isn't that code for an economic system which is the exact opposite of what publications like IBD espouses? Hopefully you realize that bias is not limited to issues, publications, or organizations you happen to disagree with.

I guess I need to post the historical Arctic sea ice graph yet again. Despite my apparent deficiencies in graph reading skills, I'm seeing that the all-time greatest extent of Arctic ice over the past 10,000 years occurred during the Little Ice Age (16th to the 19th centuries; ending around 1850 according to some). Not much scientific agreement on causes, with theories ranging from "cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Regardless, the data represented by the graph, if correct, undisputedly shows the 20th century having the greatest extent of Arctic sea ice in 10,000 years except for the LIA.

And yet the article you cite -- along with many others -- unequivocally attributes recent Arctic warming over the past few decades, and loss of Arctic sea ice extent over the past few years, to "human-forced global warming generated chiefly by fossil fuel burning." Given the historical record, and in the absence of any additional evidence linking the two, this seems kinda curious to say the least, no?

So based on this 10,000-year, 1,000-year, 20th century, and more recent decadal and yearly data, we read again and again that the "science" attributes very recent trends of warming and sea ice loss directly to AGW. I suppose if contrary facts & analysis do not appear in the NYT, WP, and various advocacy groups pitching "social justice," then they cannot exist, right?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DXYZiI9VQAEm1jw.jpg
Views:	92
Size:	114.8 KB
ID:	168473  
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 13:55   #545
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,501
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Ask them what? About how the military responds to recent changes to the Arctic climate over the past few years, or whether burning fossil fuels and AGW is the primary driver of it? Lots about the former but little if nothing about the latter, at least in the article you cite. Or should we make policy decisions based on Adm. Richardson's comment that "the Arctic ice caps are as small as they’ve been in my lifetime”?? I kinda doubt that the last 10,000 years of data is a top priority for military planning.
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 16:41   #546
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 922
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Exile,
Do you have a link to the study behind this graph that is not behind a paywall?

SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 19:28   #547
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,501
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Exile,
Do you have a link to the study behind this graph that is not behind a paywall?

I don't think the graph came out of the study but was instead Curry's response to comments challenging the accuracy of her tweet. She replied by acknowledging (I think) that it had decreased in recent decades but presented the graph to demonstrate how the last century or so compared with the past 10,000 years. The study itself had to do with the use of biomarkers in an effort to improve this historical data, but I was only able to read the intro & abstract and don't have any links to the rest of the article.

If you find sources which materially dispute the overall accuracy of the graph then by all means present it. I am assuming that it appropriately represents the 'big picture' I posted about, but let me know if you find sources that dispute its accuracy to a significant degree. After all the discussion over years of these threads about Arctic sea ice loss being one of the major indicators of AGW, I was very surprised to stumble on Curry's tweet and see this graph. Or maybe there's something else I'm missing here . . . .
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 19:55   #548
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: unusually warm(ish) in the Arctic, esp Bering Sea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Another illustrative example of facts/data vs. opinion based on the bias of the proponent of an article using climate science to promote a socioeconomic/political agenda. Reminds me of . . . lemme think . . . how about the recent IBD article on nitrogen??


...then the source for the latter is a website who's byline is "scribbling for environmental, social and economic justice." Isn't that code for an economic system which is the exact opposite of what publications like IBD espouses? Hopefully you realize that bias is not limited to issues, publications, or organizations you happen to disagree with.

I guess I need to post the historical Arctic sea ice graph yet again. Despite my apparent deficiencies in graph reading skills, I'm seeing that the all-time greatest extent of Arctic ice over the past 10,000 years occurred during the Little Ice Age (16th to the 19th centuries; ending around 1850 according to some). Not much scientific agreement on causes, with theories ranging from "cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Regardless, the data represented by the graph, if correct, undisputedly shows the 20th century having the greatest extent of Arctic sea ice in 10,000 years except for the LIA.

And yet the article you cite -- along with many others -- unequivocally attributes recent Arctic warming over the past few decades, and loss of Arctic sea ice extent over the past few years, to "human-forced global warming generated chiefly by fossil fuel burning." Given the historical record, and in the absence of any additional evidence linking the two, this seems kinda curious to say the least, no?

So based on this 10,000-year, 1,000-year, 20th century, and more recent decadal and yearly data, we read again and again that the "science" attributes very recent trends of warming and sea ice loss directly to AGW. I suppose if contrary facts & analysis do not appear in the NYT, WP, and various advocacy groups pitching "social justice," then they cannot exist, right?
In order.

The difference is that Scribbler's post reflects the evidence and opinion of the people who are in the best position to make these judgements, based on a large and varied number of data and sources, whereas the IBD article is a mashup of a single study (if I remember correctly) filled with assumptions that were later demonstrated to be incorrect.



So I suppose the 'exact opposite' of "scribbling for environmental, social and economic justice" would be "scribbling for anti-environmental action, anti-social policies and economic injustice."

Seems almost just that IBD and their comrades are defeating themselves with their shortsighted addiction to psuedo-profits (i.e. profits that ignore or hide externalities that turn them effectively into losses); it is unfortunate that they'll likely take the rest of us with them. Virtually every problem faced by humanity and by extension the planet is caused by this addiction.

Sounds like Sailoar is right with calling IBD's position the 'wrong side of the issue' (or however he recently put it).



You might start by reading the title of the posted graph, outlined in red





since it says nothing at all about "the all-time greatest extent of Arctic ice over the past 10,000 years occurred during the Little Ice Age", nor does it "undisputedly show the 20th century having the greatest extent of Arctic sea ice in 10,000 years except for the LIA".

What it does appear to be saying, about the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (a rather small portion of the Arctic Ocean), although it seems rather unclear to me, is that the seasonal variability is rather higher in the last 1500 or so years than it was in the preceding 8500.

Just another example of the problems often encountered when taking a select bit of information out of context and trying to use it to validate a specific claim, especially when the 'selected bit' is an illustration describing part of a complex system of ideas...
jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 20:28   #549
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 160
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
The Military will need more fuel for this task. Warmers please donate cash.
peter57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2018, 21:11   #550
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 3,501
Re: unusually warm(ish) in the Arctic, esp Bering Sea

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
In order.

The difference is that Scribbler's post reflects the evidence and opinion of the people who are in the best position to make these judgements, based on a large and varied number of data and sources, whereas the IBD article is a mashup of a single study (if I remember correctly) filled with assumptions that were later demonstrated to be incorrect.

The evidence yes. The opinion? Please provide citations for your "large and varied number of data and sources" that supports the proposition scribbler appears to be attributing to the "science," namely "as we have seen time and time again, human-forced global warming generated chiefly by fossil fuel burning is developing an atmospheric and oceanic handshake with past understood synoptic trends to produce an out-sized Arctic warming." Perhaps if the bolded "is" was replaced with the words "may be" it would be a more accurate and credible "opinion." Otherwise it appears to be the type of subtle propaganda that all too many people mistake for facts and data.

The IBD article on nitrogen did not make erroneous "assumptions." They inappropriately embellished, in my opinion anyway, the likely impact of the nitrogen study, at least at this point in time. If you had read IBD's response to the critiques prior to posting, you would also know that some of the scientists' critiques had misrepresented what the IBD article actually said. Easy to compare what was actually written to verify and thus form your own opinion. Until then, don't make erroneous assumptions of your own.


So I suppose the 'exact opposite' of "scribbling for environmental, social and economic justice" would be "scribbling for anti-environmental action, anti-social policies and economic injustice."

No, exact opposites would be closer to a more centrally controlled socialist or communist type of economy and govt. as opposed to the type of capitalist, free market (comparatively speaking) system that IBD promotes and that we have in the US today. I wasn't commenting on the pros & cons of either system, merely illustrating that bias exists everywhere and whatever people believe they usually seek out validation of those beliefs.

Seems almost just that IBD and their comrades are defeating themselves with their shortsighted addiction to psuedo-profits (i.e. profits that ignore or hide externalities that turn them effectively into losses); it is unfortunate that they'll likely take the rest of us with them. Virtually every problem faced by humanity and by extension the planet is caused by this addiction.

In your opinion, which has no import to me nor relevance to the discussion. But it does explain your position on CC, whether or not the science supports that position or not.

Sounds like Sailoar is right with calling IBD's position the 'wrong side of the issue' (or however he recently put it).

Your personal politics, sense of morality, need to signal your virtue -- or SailOar's or mine for that matter -- is hardly conducive to a civil discussion on how the recent loss of Arctic sea ice relates to AGW. Besides, nobody cares what either of our personal politics or morality amounts to.

You might start by reading the title of the posted graph, outlined in red





since it says nothing at all about "the all-time greatest extent of Arctic ice over the past 10,000 years occurred during the Little Ice Age", nor does it "undisputedly show the 20th century having the greatest extent of Arctic sea ice in 10,000 years except for the LIA".

Who cares what I say when the comment was made, without qualification, by a credentialed climate scientist and the graph was posted in support of that statement? Read it yourself, along with the comments. https://twitter.com/curryja/status/9...003649?lang=en. Or in your world of high-minded morals and pure politics do scientists suddenly lose their credentials when they don't happen to agree with your opinions?

[/B]
What it does appear to be saying, about the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (a rather small portion of the Arctic Ocean), although it seems rather unclear to me, is that the seasonal variability is rather higher in the last 1500 or so years than it was in the preceding 8500.

Good observation on the graph being expressly limited to certain portions of the Arctic Ocean. But kindly explain if this is material to Dr. Curry's unqualified statement that relies on the graph. What's the historical record from other parts of the Arctic Ocean, does it differ significantly, and if so why? And what about seasonal variability? Is this significant? These aren't rhetorical questions; I honestly do not know.

Just another example of the problems often encountered when taking a select bit of information out of context and trying to use it to validate a specific claim, especially when the 'selected bit' is an illustration describing part of a complex system of ideas...
What specific claim have I tried to validate? For all I know, and the science knows, the past few decades of retreating Arctic ice could signal the start of a long-term cycle which is ultimately shown to be 100% the result of MMGW. Or, as some climate scientists theorize, MMGW could be playing a minor role and sea ice is largely influenced by natural forces. The only point I'm attempting to make, assuming the data underlying the graph is accurate enough to do so, is that before we jump to dramatic conclusions about recent observations going back 4 years or 4 decades, we recognize that the extent of the ice has been at historical highs when compared to a 10,000 year period of time. Again, assuming the data presented is credible.
Exile is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2018, 02:10   #551
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 160
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
You have that absolutely dead wrong.

There is no correlation with sunspots and temperatures. A perfect r =1.0.

A negative correlation would indicate that increasing sunspots would be accompanied by lower temperatures and that deceasing sunspot numbers would be accompanied by higher temperatures.

Therefore your assertion is bogus.

Have you ever taken a course in statistics?

Jack, take a look at what these sun spot scientists have to say.

peter57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2018, 05:42   #552
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 160
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Jack,

Can you see any correlation here of sun spots to temperature.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Carbon14_with_activity_label.png
Views:	20
Size:	47.4 KB
ID:	168499  
peter57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2018, 08:16   #553
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter57 View Post
Jack, take a look at what these sun spot scientists have to say.

Just to save everyone some time, there is nothing whatsoever about earth temperatures being influenced by sunspots.

The only time the earth's climate is even mentioned is in the summary of the seven talks given, from about 1:59:18 to 1:59:37, in which it is suggested that studying the minimum and maximum periods of the sun will help understand the sun's effect on earth.

That is a very long way indeed from saying that the minimum and maximum periods have a greater effect on the earth's climate than that of the greenhouse effect generated by the properties of certain trace gases., which is what Newhaul and others seem to believe.

There is value in watching the video though, especially for those who think that one-line statements along the lines of 'this causes that' make much sense, in that it shows a little of how much data is--processed?-- to begin even just quantifying the current solar minimum to those from the past.
jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2018, 11:11   #554
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 922
Re: Northwest Passage - 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I don't think the graph came out of the study but was instead Curry's response to comments challenging the accuracy of her tweet. She replied by acknowledging (I think) that it had decreased in recent decades but presented the graph to demonstrate how the last century or so compared with the past 10,000 years. The study itself had to do with the use of biomarkers in an effort to improve this historical data, but I was only able to read the intro & abstract and don't have any links to the rest of the article.

If you find sources which materially dispute the overall accuracy of the graph then by all means present it. I am assuming that it appropriately represents the 'big picture' I posted about, but let me know if you find sources that dispute its accuracy to a significant degree. After all the discussion over years of these threads about Arctic sea ice loss being one of the major indicators of AGW, I was very surprised to stumble on Curry's tweet and see this graph. Or maybe there's something else I'm missing here . . . .
I guess I forgot to take my smart-pill this morning, so I'm having trouble understanding what the conflict is all about. Below is the Curry-Stein Arctic Ocean ice cover chart and a global temperature chart, both for about the last 10,000 years. (note that the years-axis is reversed on the two charts) Crudely speaking, it appears to me that when global temperatures are high, ice cover is low; and when global temperatures are low, ice cover is high.

Duh! What am I missing?



SailOar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2018, 11:41   #555
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,410
Re: unusually warm(ish) in the Arctic, esp Bering Sea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
What specific claim have I tried to validate? For all I know, and the science knows, the past few decades of retreating Arctic ice could signal the start of a long-term cycle which is ultimately shown to be 100% the result of MMGW. Or, as some climate scientists theorize, MMGW could be playing a minor role and sea ice is largely influenced by natural forces. The only point I'm attempting to make, assuming the data underlying the graph is accurate enough to do so, is that before we jump to dramatic conclusions about recent observations going back 4 years or 4 decades, we recognize that the extent of the ice has been at historical highs when compared to a 10,000 year period of time. Again, assuming the data presented is credible.
Leaving aside all the previous flailings-about re definitions, morality (though I will say I try hard to be as a-moral as possible, and conversely as ethical as possible [<1x10e8,2100!]) and 'politics', what it appears that both you and Curry are claiming is that the uncertainty (in your minds) about the causes of the current warming warrant it being ignored: that it's not really a problem at all, and that a single, taken out of context graph that doesn't even show what it is presented as showing somehow validates by proxy this non-existent-in-the-real-world uncertainty.

Granted there is some uncertainty in the projections, which to date have been far too conservative, but the uncertainty in the causes is far below what most people would deem prudent to ignore, were it not for the efforts of those who have vested interests in maintaining the facade, such as those behind both Curry and IBD. Like it or not these are matter of record facts that any with an open mind can easily confirm, and have been confirmed multiple times in these threads.


A brief note about 'selective bias', from a previous rant of yours,

"Not much scientific agreement on causes, with theories ranging from "cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Regardless, the data represented by the graph, if correct, undisputedly shows the 20th century having the greatest extent of Arctic sea ice in 10,000 years except for the LIA." (as before, even if correct, it shows nothing of the kind)

which somehow leaves out the rather important part, (when talking about a global phenomena) that the LIA was a localized, sequential event. (which I have specifically mentioned to you personally before).

A slightly more comprehensive excerpt from the introduction, from your same source.


The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population.
__________________

jimbunyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
passage

« Northwest Passage | - »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Northwest Passage Colorado Dreamer Polar Regions 23 19-04-2018 11:12
Crew Wanted: North Sea passage to Shetland- Scotland- june 2018 roda Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 2 16-04-2018 16:30
Time for Northwest - Passage 2018 jackdale Polar Regions 98 26-01-2018 13:42
Crew Wanted: ARC Europe - BVI to Portugal May 2018 to June 2018 jhill82 Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 10-12-2017 06:30
Crew Available: French-Californian sailing couple for east-west passage beginning of January 2018! PerrineNate Crew Positions: Wanted & Available 0 23-11-2017 09:57



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:05.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.