Climate Change

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I feel much better now that some guy named scoobert cleared this up for me. I'm off to buy a Ford Expedition and trade in my sailboat for a stink pot.

Lol when i was two years old i though if i left the front door on our house open long enough, the yard would warm up. All it did my tan my hide.
And scoobert has a 182IQ and is impervious to BS.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kthoennes

That sounds so enlightened but if you think academics don't get deeply invested in a mindset - well, read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Read it 30 years ago. The science behind AGW is still the best explanation of climate change.

[SailOar]

Arctic methane 'time bomb' could have huge economic costs | BBC

Scientists say that the release of large amounts of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic could have huge economic impacts for the world.

… Previous work has shown that the diminishing ice cover in the East Siberian sea is allowing the waters to warm and the methane to leach out. Scientists have found plumes of the gas up to a kilometre in diameter rising from these waters. In this study, the researchers have attempted to put an economic price on the climate damage that these emissions of methane could cause. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, even though it lasts less than a decade in the atmosphere…

They worked out that this would increase climate impacts such as flooding, sea level rise, damage to agriculture and human health to the tune of $60 trillion…

It is thought that up to 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and 13% of undiscovered oil lie in the [Arctic] waters. Transport companies are looking to send increasing numbers of ships through these fast melting seas. According to Lloyds of London, investment in the Arctic could reach $100bn within ten years. But according to the new work, these benefits would be a fraction of the likely costs of a large scale methane emission. The authors say a release of methane on this scale could bring forward the date when global temperatures increase by 2C by between 15 and 35 years.

"We are looking at a big effect," said Prof Peter Wadhams from the University of Cambridge, "a possibly catastrophic effect on global climate that's a consequence of this extremely fast sea ice retreat that's been happening in recent years…"

[goboatingnow]

And scoobert has a 182IQ and is impervious to BS.

my engine has 300 HP available, most of the time its using about 10!, just like Scoobert.

Dave

[SailOar]

[SailOar]

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) | Arctic nearly free of summer sea ice during first half of 21st century

For scientists studying summer sea ice in the Arctic, it’s not a question of “if” there will be nearly ice-free summers, but “when.” And two scientists say that “when” is sooner than many thought — before 2050 and possibly within the next decade or two…

“Rapid Arctic sea ice loss is probably the most visible indicator of global climate change; it leads to shifts in ecosystems and economic access, and potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere,” said Overland. “Increased physical understanding of rapid Arctic climate shifts and improved models are needed that give a more detailed picture and timing of what to expect so we can better prepare and adapt to such changes. Early loss of Arctic sea ice gives immediacy to the issue of climate change.”

“There is no one perfect way to predict summer sea ice loss in the Arctic,” said Wang. “So we looked at three approaches that result in widely different dates, but all three suggest nearly sea ice-free summers in the Arctic before the middle of this century.”

Overland and Wang emphasized that the term “nearly” ice free is important as some sea ice is expected to remain north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland.

• The “trendsetters” approach uses observed sea ice trends. These data show that the total amount of sea ice decreased rapidly over the previous decade. Using those trends, this approach extrapolates to a nearly sea ice-free Arctic by 2020.
• The “stochasters” approach is based on assuming future multiple, but random in time, large sea ice loss events such as those that occurred in 2007 and 2012. This method estimates it would take several more events to reach a nearly sea ice-free state in the summer. Using the likelihood of such events, this approach suggests a nearly sea ice-free Arctic by about 2030 but with large uncertainty in timing.
• The “modelers” approach is based on using the large collection of global climate model results to predict atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice conditions over time. These models show the earliest possible loss of sea ice to be around 2040 as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and the Arctic warms. But the median timing of sea ice loss in these models is closer to 2060. There are several reasons to consider that this median timing of sea ice loss in these models may be too slow.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by scoobert

So to sum up, climate change is fake, CO2 increases are good for the earth, there is nothing we as people can do to slow, or stop temperature swings. because it will swing back.

In an open environment increased CO2 results in increased predation by pests, thereby reducing crop yields.

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

CO2 and Plant Pests - YouTube

In an enclosed space, like a greenhouse, free of pests, it is plant food.

Of course, nitrogen is also plant food. Dump a whole bunch of that on your lawn and watch what happens.

There are optimal limits for everything. Mother nature may have been telling us something when she kept CO2 levels below 300 ppm for all of the history of homo sapiens.

The survival of humans depends of have a habitat and food sources that are appropriate.

[hpeer]

Wow, I go sailing for a couple of months and this happens,

I'm not going to go through the whole thread, but I assume it is much like this, bickering over science.

FWIW I am personally convinced of man made climate change. It's a lot like becoming an atheist, once you have worked it out for yourself, upon retrospect it seems just SO obvious and you have little desire to argue the matter with believers. I feel no need to convince anyone else, nor do I think I have the ability.

I spend some time in Maritime Canada. There I find very little argument, in fact they bring it up, including my 80+ yo aunt. If you read about exploration 100 years ago you realize how much has changed. It used to be mid July would be early to go through the Straits of Belle Isle and into Battle Harbour. Last summer I went through with no problem in early June, which is now typical. If you need further proof one only needs to look to the Canadian Ice Service historical records.

As to "Why?" There are 9billion of us. Everywhere I go I'm tripping over " consumers." Just look at Google Earth, zoom in and you can start to see great grey dead zones on our beautiful green, blue, and white marble. That is "Civilization."

Cheers

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by SailOar

So, you're saying the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are also part of the vast climate-change conspiracy?!

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Wow, I go sailing for a couple of months and this happens,

I'm not honing to go through the whole thread, but I assume it is much like this, bickering over science.

FWIW I personally convinced of man made climate change. It's a lot like becoming an atheist, once you have worked it out for yourself, upon retrospect it seems just SO obvious and you have little desire to argue the matter with believers. I feel no need to convince anyone else, nor do I think I have the ability.

I spend some time in Maritime Canada. There I find very little argument, in fact they bring it up, including my 80+ yo aunt. If you read about exploration 100 years ago you realize how much has changed. It used to be mid July would be early to go through the Straits of Belle Isle and into Battle Harbour. Last summer I went through with no problem in early June, which is now typical. If you need further proof one only needs to look to the Canadian Ice Service historical records.

... and the Canadians, too!

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by scoobert

scoobert has a 182IQ and is impervious to BS.

...even your own?

[goboatingnow]

what I do find bizarre, is irrespective of your view on climate change, simply denying it , isn't a polluters charter. Pollution is still pollution , irrespective of its effect on CC. WHy do certain elements of anti-climate change simply argue against it , just to morally feel they can drive a SUV etc. Bizarre thinking.

Dave

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sneuman

So, you're saying the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are also part of the vast climate-change conspiracy?!

The graph shows the 2013 sea ice levels are below all averages.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The graph shows the 2013 sea ice levels are below all averages.

SO.. you have to look at trends , not specifics.

Dave

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Krogensailor

"He's also talking about the arrogance of people preaching from the alter of environmentalism. IPAD and IPOD, cell phone has got to got to go too...."

Hey Capt Mike,, I'm in complete agreement with you. Really. It is exactly that arrogance that is the problem. We are so arrogant in that we think we know, one way or the other. We do know some things for sure. We know that there are no trees on Easter Island. We know that there are island nations being engulfed by sea water. There are a number of towns in Alaska that have had to relocate inland. We on the other side of the conversation have no complete idea what is going on. We do, all of us know that something is afoot. What should we do? Everything we can. Is it necessary that the computer we're using right now be made of plastic? Is a 600 hp Cadillac really a good idea? Do we need an electric toothbrush? And a thousand's of other things. We don't have to give up, pretty much anything. We need to do what we do in a closed loop fashion. I can't dig for gold, not find any and leave the hole to dig another. I gotta fill in the first hole, then go dig another. If I make a tire I have to include the whole life of that tire. It can't end up in a trash heap. It has to be collected and made into new tires. And I do practice what I preach. On any given week I don't consume 26,000 gallons of fresh water by not consuming certain food. In many other way's I adjust my life. Now you need not follow my lead. But you must look at your choices and adjust what you can. And as for your embittered statement about my being, "far far ahead on the issue", nothing I have said or inferred put's me far far ahead of anyone. I'm just looking at what is in front of me/us. Just how ** do things have to get before we pick up our own shovel in our own lives and begin working towards a solution? Our temperament's may be different but the bottom line is pretty much the same. We both like George Carlin! One of
the great educator's.

Krogen:

I'm with you on keeping your footprint on earth as small as possible and recycle as much we can. I incorporate that into my life like you. I also am constantly making a personal effort to reduce what Carlin called the "stuff" factor in my life. But, it terms of global warming I don't have the same doom and gloom attitude of some. It's the result of me being voted happiest in High School by my classmates. Something I have not been able to shake off. What can I say I am a glass half full kind of guy. I know the shorelines have changed over the history of the earth and will continue to change as they have for millennia. The question is how fast and how much. The arrogance Carlin speaks of is that today anyone who thinks man can stop it is dreaming. I'm more inclined to to follow the Norwegian saying : "There is no bad weather, just bad clothes". Humans will just need to adapt to whatever the earth chooses to do. Sailors may be better able to do so since we have to adapt often to things like the weather on a much more frequent basis than other people.