Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Because when the cycle returns to a climate phase like the '60s and '70s cooling period, they will again see drought similar to that disastrous period.
And an even worse possibility: if conditions were to return to your beloved "pre-industrial climate", we need to look at the even worse, long duration droughts which the region experienced during the LIA.

Stu - the 60's / 70's cooling was the result of increased industrial aerosols, nothing natural about that. The LIA has been linked to volcanic aerosols.

Droughts were common during the MWP. Read Brian Fagan, The Great Warming.

I just want to stabilize the climate by ceasing to dump waste CO2 into the atmosphere.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm willing to bet that 2018 will be significantly colder than 2015 and 2016 and hence the crop duration by their reasoning will be longer.

Out of what orifice did you pull that prediction?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just want to stabilize the climate...

It's nice to have fantasies...

As long as we're having dreams, why not make everywhere like San Diego or the south of France, or Normandy...

...and get rid of those awfully cold places, and those awfully hot places, and those awfully dry places, and those awfully wet places?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

It's nice to have fantasies...

As long as we're having dreams, why not make everywhere like San Diego or the south of France, or Normandy...

...and get rid of those awfully cold places, and those awfully hot places, and those awfully dry places, and those awfully wet places?

You know full well that is not what I meant. Or maybe you don't.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You know full well that is not what I meant.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

So, you don't want to stabilize climate? Then tell us what you mean...

When dealing with global phenomena, stability overall means that changes in one place in one direction require changes in another in a different direction in order to maintain global stability. If you want stability in Alberta, but don't want stability in the desert Southwest US but would rather see it wetter or cooler, then where would you change things in order to have "system" equilibrium? Would you support a desire for stability that would deny the residents of the desert Southwest a wetter, cooler climate if it could be provided?

Why not break your habit of silence on hard questions that don't have talking point links somewhere in your net library and answer a question directly for a change?

[Exile]

Well, here's what you wrote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just want to stabilize the climate by ceasing to dump waste CO2 into the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by fryewe

It's nice to have fantasies...

Originally Posted by jackdale

You know full well that is not what I meant. Or maybe you don't.

So what did you mean? I understand that, perhaps like L-E, you would like to abolish fossil fuel consumption or at least significantly curtail it. But how do you propose to accomplish this? And if this worthy goal in your mind is unattainable, then how does adaptation not become the only realistic course of action? In other words, how is your "remedy" not a mere fantasy as fryewe points out?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe you could segway yourself more productively by re-posting those numbers showing the costs vs. benefits of remedial actions as published by Paris and/or the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Speaking of misrepresenting...

I guess my recollection was right and you didn't post any numbers after all. But feel free to correct me, whatever it was you posted that you feel was relevant.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

...ceasing to dump waste CO2...

Typical mischaracterization...

CO2 is a product of chemical reactions...not a "waste" or excess compound, but a natural result of natural, physical processes;

CO2 is not being "dumped." It is released into the atmosphere to be processed in the many other natural reactions in which it is a reactant rather than a product; and finally,

the phrase suggests some type of illicit or immoral action is being taken by nefarious actors...perhaps punishable under RICO statute?

These types of deliberate mischaracterizations are partially responsible for widespread skepticism. Real science doesn't need emotional newspeak claptrap to win arguments.

[StuM]

From Dr Patrick Moore - co-founder of Greenpeace:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...-emissions.pdf

Executive Summary:
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too oftenignored in the current discussions about climate change policy.

All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere.

As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.

It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.

The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.

Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.

The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just want to stabilize the climate by ceasing to dump waste CO2 into the atmosphere.

Wonderful - no more glacials, no more Holocene Climate Optimums, no more LIAs. All by turning the magic CO2 control knob.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Out of what orifice did you pull that prediction?

Historical precedent based on ENSO patterns.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

From Dr Patrick Moore - co-founder of Greenpeace:


[/I]

Too funny. Patrick Moore begged join the Greenpeace crew one year after it was founded.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Wonderful - no more glacials, no more Holocene Climate Optimums, no more LIAs. All by turning the magic CO2 control knob.

Reductio ad absurdum. From the absurd.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

From Dr Patrick Moore - co-founder of Greenpeace:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...-emissions.pdf

Executive Summary:
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too oftenignored in the current discussions about climate change policy.

All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere.

As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.

It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.

The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.

Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.

The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.

Moore was never a founding member of Greenpeace, though he was an early member. Moore is best described as an expert for hire. You pay him, he will speak on your behalf. He's done this over forrestation, nuclear and pesticides. If he had the opportunity he would have spoken on behalf of the Tobacco industry too.

During March 2015 in an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+ in September 2014, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Paul Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, and ended the interview.[52][53] The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens.[54][55][56] This interview is an excerpt from multi-award winning "Transgenic Wars", an investigation by Paul Moreira on GM-crop and the devastating effects of glyphosate, the Monsanto produced herbicide.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Reductio ad absurdum. From the absurd.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

If it was good enough for Plato, Socrates, Aristotles and Pythagoras to use in their arguments, it's good enough for me.

Are you insinuating that Reductio ad absurdum is not a valid logical argument?