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

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW your graph ends in 1875.

BTW it does cover about 45 percent of the 250 year interval you cited (but you knew that).

But go ahead and dismiss it anyway, rather than address what it represents or describe why you think the data shown is unreliable.

Doesn't fit your narrative.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I given [sic] you the references for the CO2 numbers. If you think that [sic] are spurious prove it, do not make snide insinuations.

"Spurious" is generally defined as false, fake, or invalid, but maybe your country has a different definition for it. But this is not what I'm saying. Your posts are often closer to the synonyms provided for "exaggerate," for example overstate, amplify, inflate, overplay, hyperbolize, stretch the truth, lay it on thick, blow out of all proportion . . . you get the idea. And I haven't even resorted to Urban Dictionary yet! Of course, I've used deceitful and deceptive quite a bit too, but that implies a strong dose of willful if not malicious intent, and that's just not nice.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sorry - the last sentence of the second paragraph is a huge straw man.

OK, it must be this one:

And of course you might also discuss, as mr__f did rather effectively I thought, why many but not all in the scientific community believe that this net increase in CO2 concentrations is unable to be absorbed by normal negative feedback mechanisms and is therefore responsible for causing ALL of for that portion of our warming that many scientists believe is attributable to higher concentrations of CO2 acting as a GHG in our atmosphere.

Better? I even used a couple of acronyms for ya. But now that you've successfully distracted us again with your pedantry, maybe you can get back to a couple of the many questions you seem unwilling or unable to answer.

P.S. I don't think "straw man" applies, even though you seem to like to use it a lot. More like I incorrectly worded it the first time and, who knows, maybe the second time too. It happens, but I know you'll correct me.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

But now that you've successfully distracted us again with your pedantry, maybe you can get back to a couple of the many questions you seem unwilling or unable to answer.

P.S. I don't think "straw man" applies, even though you seem to like to use it a lot. More like I incorrectly worded it the first time and, who knows, maybe the second time too. It happens, but I know you'll correct me. [/COLOR]

Teachers don't answer questions. They ask questions of you. And they have all the answers. McGraw-Hill provides them in the Teachers Edition.

Ignoring questions is a method of attempting to control the discourse, avoiding the truth, and covering for gaps in knowledge. Usually used by those with weak arguments or something to hide.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not that I want to participate in this maths debating fest, but this reminds me of the 97% fat free snack. If you're an alarmist then it contains 3% fat; Just like a "40% CO2 increase" that sounds a helluva lot scarier than a "0.0115% atmospheric content increase" when it comes to carbon emissions.

40% is 40%. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 40% since the start of widespread use of fossil fuels. If it wasn't the fossil fuels, kindly explain what it was and why the increased carbon has isotope content consistent with that from fossil fuel.

Going "3% fat is alarmist" or "pfft! 0.0115% atmospheric content increase" is very crude lying with numbers. You think the 'smallness' together with a lack of reference somehow hides their true impact. Exile is innumerate; what's your hangup?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

40% is 40%. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 40% since the start of widespread use of fossil fuels. If it wasn't the fossil fuels, kindly explain what it was and why the increased carbon has isotope content consistent with that from fossil fuel.

Going "pfft! 0.0115% atmospheric content increase" is very crude lying with numbers. Exile is innumerate; what's your hangup?

No, it's not. It's saying the same thing with different reference points.

What's the purpose of you saying it's lying, when it's so obviously not?

A few posts ago you were attempting to correct Exile's characterization of anthropogenic CO2 contributions as 3% (of the total CO2 emissions...natural plus anthropogenic), when you failed to understand his post, and insisted that the correct concentration of atmospheric CO2 was .0400 percent (also correct). Jack repeatedly insists that an equilibrium natural CO2 level of .0285 percent existed before evil man began to burn oil and coal, and the difference is all due to man's actions. The difference is 0.0115 percent.

Who's innumerate? Who's lying?

Your comment reinforces the point reef was making...advantage reef.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

No, it's not. It's saying the same thing with different reference points.

What's the purpose of you saying it's lying, when it's so obviously not?

A few posts ago you were attempting to correct Exile's characterization of anthropogenic CO2 contributions as 3% (of the total CO2 emissions...natural plus anthropogenic), when you failed to understand his post, and insisted that the correct concentration of atmospheric CO2 was .0400 percent (also correct).

Exile said "you'd also compare the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere 250 years ago as compared to the 3% concentration we more or less have now."

Which is obviously WRONG. Of course you used your Jedi mind powers to discern that he was really referring to the percentage of human-activity-produced CO2 in current emissions. I failed to understand? He should learn to write a proposition like an educated adult.

Jack repeatedly insists that an equilibrium natural CO2 level of .0285 percent existed before evil man began to burn oil and coal, and the difference is all due to man's actions. The difference is 0.0115 percent.

Who's innumerate? Who's lying?

You, right there. "The difference is 0.0115 percent", without reference, is misleading. The difference between 285 ppm and 400 ppm is 40%.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"The difference is 0.0115 percent", without reference, is misleading. The difference between 285 ppm and 400 ppm is 40%.

"The difference" has a reference - 100 percent of the absolute value.

Your "difference" is between two values relative to each other.

Differing ways of saying describing the same effect...one emphasizing the minuscule proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the other emphasizing the magnitude of the change in that proportion.

[Exile]

I definitely could have worded my question better but I thought I got the gist of it across. But then L-E consistently seems to miss and/or misconstrue a lot of what posters are trying to say. Nobody "lied" about any numbers because, as fryewe patiently explained, nobody is challenging or disputing the numbers. Between L-E's all too common nastiness and Jack's pedantry, it's little wonder these threads often seem to just spin in place.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Teachers don't answer questions. They ask questions of you. And they have all the answers. McGraw-Hill provides them in the Teachers Edition.

Ignoring questions is a method of attempting to control the discourse, avoiding the truth, and covering for gaps in knowledge. Usually used by those with weak arguments or something to hide.

Most insightful, although he'll probably report you for it whether it's appropriately insightful or not. In my line of work there would be undesirable consequences for using these sorts of tactics, the least of which would be professional reputation. In fact, the best "debate techniques" I've ever seen are when one side is able to embrace the opposing side's best arguments and effectively refute them. Here, by contrast, the opposing arguments are too often simply ignored or obfuscated, or browbeating ensues. A lot of smart people on these CF forums so not what I expected, but fortunately there are many others on both sides of the issue who I have learned a lot from.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What makes you so sure about that?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

What is source of this graph?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What is source of this graph?

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...ecord-in-1809/

http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/iceco...a/law/law.html

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Poor teachers don't answer questions. They ask questions of you. And they have all the answers. McGraw-Hill provides them in the Teachers Edition.

Ignoring questions is a method of attempting to control the discourse, avoiding the truth, and covering for gaps in knowledge. Usually used by those with weak arguments or something to hide.

Fixed it for you.
(A long time ago, I was a high school math teacher for a while.)

Yep, clearly uncomfortable with the Socratic Method - can't get beyond a didactic/pedagogical approach.

The last time I raised the issue of the various forms of dialog employed by the greek philosophers in debate, his only response was a one line insult.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Fixed it for you.
(A long time ago, I was a high school math teacher for a while.)

Yep, clearly uncomfortable with the Socratic Method - can't get beyond a didactic/pedagogical approach.

The last time I raised the issue of the various forms of dialog employed by the greek philosophers in debate, his only response was a one line insult.

Aristotle was less insulting towards the Socratic method, regarding it as "the essence of the scientific method." (Wiki)

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.

[jimbunyard]

Of course, all this talk of carbon dioxide and where-it-comes-from and who's-responsible-for-which-percentage-when is sort of amusing, but it leaves out some of the most salient points.

All energy production technologies (at this point anyway) are ultimately fossil fuel based. We can't mine the materials to fuel the reactors, or manufacture the dams or wind turbines or solar cells without fossil fuel. Nuclear energy (fission at any fate) at the current level of technology has a reserve fuel (uranium) capacity for about 70 years; with improving technology the reserves go up to about 200 years. Solar cell manufacture produces silicon tetrachloride and sulphur hexafluoride (a very potent greenhouse gas), among other toxins. And then there are disposal concerns after the cells lose efficiency...

Certainly, CO2 is a very large problem that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible and with ongoing vigilance. But the real issue is the myopic worldview that the civilization that we've arrived at is constant and sustainable, at the current level of -exploitation-, without careful planning and consideration. Anybody for a real New World Order?

Fossil fuels should be a tool used to get us (Earth's inhabitants) on a trajectory to a sustainable, non-self-destructive path. At the rate we're going, they'll all be used up within 500 years, and there are no technologies in the pipeline to replace them at this point.

So we've used, depending on how one looks at it, 30-40% of the time given to us by fossil fuels for... the industrial revolution, figuring out that natural resources actually are exhaustible, nuclear bombs, medical advances, the automobile, more efficient ways to grow food to feed an exponentially growing, single life form, and then more efficient ways to exterminate the same (along with many others 'collaterally') life form. Way to go homo sapiens. More like homo avari hominis.


For those of you that think 'technology' alone is going to come riding to the rescue, please give me an example of a truly new technological breakthrough in the last 75 years.

[SailOar]

Antarctic ozone hole is shrinking | Boston Globe

Three decades after nations around the world banned environmentally damaging chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosols, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has begun to heal, scientists say.

In a new paper in the journal Science, a MIT-led team of researchers presented evidence that a 1987 international treaty is paying dividends by reducing the chemicals that destroy ozone, a vital layer of the atmosphere that protects life on earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

That accord, known as the Montreal Protocol, led to massive reductions of chlorofluorocarbons, which were commonly used in refrigerators, spray cans, and foams.

While previous studies have shown that ozone in the stratosphere has been repairing itself around the world, the new study shows clear signs of improvements over Antarctica, where cold temperatures and other unique atmospheric conditions have caused the worst depletion of the ozone layer.[...]

The paper follows a 2014 study by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations that predicted the planet’s overall ozone layer would be restored in the 2050s, returning to the stable levels of the 1980s. It takes decades for chlorofluorocarbons to be removed from the atmosphere.

Ozone protects humans from skin cancer and impairments that can cause blindness. The previous study found that the Montreal Protocol will prevent about 2 million cases of skin cancer annually by 2030.

It also found that the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons, which include heat-trapping gases, is helping reduce the impact of climate change. [...]