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

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan
Why is natural gas a fossil fuel on Earth but not on Titan or Europa or several other solar system bodies?


NASA - Scientists Solve the Mystery of Methane in Titan's Atmosphere

Did you actually read that (or was it yet another one of your instances of looking at a Google link, seeing a friendly source like NASA and a headline that matched your preconception)? Want to try again?


1. It's supposition and models. The article clearly negates the Headline claim of "Solved"

"An international team of planetary scientists may have solved the mystery of why the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan, is rich in methane.

Gabriel Tobie of the University of Nantes, France, Jonathan Lunine of The University of Arizona and Christophe Sotin, also of the University of Nantes, describe their model of how Titan's atmosphere evolved in the March 2 issue of Nature"

2. More importantly, it says nothing about the origin of the methane:

"An international team of planetary scientists may have solved the mystery of why the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan, is rich in methane.

Gabriel Tobie of the University of Nantes, France, Jonathan Lunine of The University of Arizona and Christophe Sotin, also of the University of Nantes, describe their model of how Titan's atmosphere evolved in the March 2 issue of Nature"

All it says is that the methane s the result of various outgassings - nothing at all about how it got to where it outgassed from.

[Lake-Effect]

One can rant about something, or one could simply keep looking:
The Mystery of Methane on Mars and Titan - Scientific American

[jackdale]

From the same folks who faked the moon landings

Two key climate change indicators -- global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent -- have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite data.

Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

Five of the first six months of 2016 also set records for the smallest respective monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979, according to analyses developed by scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland. The one exception, March, recorded the second smallest extent for that month.

While these two key climate indicators have broken records in 2016, NASA scientists said it is more significant that global temperature and Arctic sea ice are continuing their decades-long trends of change. Both trends are ultimately driven by rising concentrations of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records | NASA

Time to head for the NWP.

Note to self - talk to the sailing schools about a new adventure. Hawaii this year, next year the NWP.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You linked and quoted the Forbes item; I presume you know their frame of reference. Anyways, your last assertion seems to agree with my point that the quote misrepresents the oil industry's margin relative to other industries. To put it in proper perspective, the Forbes link is a 2011 op-ed from the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, an organization that "advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless." So, y'know...

"So y'know . . ." what exactly?? That Forbes and the Institute for Energy Research are pro-business or pro-FF industry? Okay . . . but how does that impact the larger point that the FF industry's avg. profit margins are not any greater than other large industries, and may in fact be less? I'm sure this fact is news to you given your attraction to rhetoric, but you'd be better off debunking the message than attacking the messenger in this case.

[7/41 = 17% off. slight?]It was a biased op-ed with bad numbers. You can stop defending them. Hype is hype, no?

Yes, hype is indeed hype. How about U.S. consumers pay slightly less than 6x (7/41) more for their gas in state and federal taxes than the oil cos. earn in profit? Or shall we put profits at 9 cents and taxes at 36 cents so we avoid further quibbling and bickering, and call it 4x?? Play it as you wish, but try and avoid combining profits with costs as your graph rather incredibly tried to do.

It was an empty quote designed to enrage the right; clearly it's worked on you. if you don't know where gas tax goes, or if you can't see that taxing gas is a progressive way for the actual users to fund roads... why cite it?

If only such high taxes on gasoline as compared to industry profits were not already so well known then perhaps some might be "enraged." But just because these long-established facts have been unknown to you until now doesn't entitle you to disregard them in forming your consistently uninformed and uneducated opinions.

Equally well known and generally accepted is that taxes on gasoline at least ostensibly go towards maintaining roads. No big revelations there, except calling a flat tax based on consumption "progressive" is like calling a similar tax on baby food "progressive." In either case rich & poor pay the same based on a need, and so the poor pay disproportionately more. That's why they call such taxes regressive, L-E -- just in case you were wondering . . . .

It was Delfin who first took cowardly refuge behind alleged harm to the poor, and I recall you backing him on that. If I'm mistaken about your position re carbon taxes and the poor... I won't bring it up again.

Ol' Delfin still knawin' at ya, huh? "Cowardly refuge??" What are you rantin' about this time? When prices go up on energy, or any other commodity which people need to survive, and whether it's due to higher oil prices or govt. taxation, it necessarily has a disproportionate impact on the poor. Why are you struggling so with this? As for carbon taxes, the claim that they are revenue-neutral for the govt. doesn't mean they won't wind up costing the consumer more at the pump. The primary purpose, after all, is to deter demand. Again, this is like the basic fact you finally and so grudgingly acknowledged, namely that fossil fuels remain essential at this point in time. Why do you insist on arguing about undisputed facts?? Or are you so consumed with simplistic stereotypes that you really believe that those that are concerned with tax policies don't also understand that money is needed to maintain roads??

We're in a period of relative peace [in a world of ever increasing threats], terrorism notwithstanding [terrorism "notwithstanding"???]. Significant deregulation since the 90's up until Tues., Jan. 29, 2009 and thereafter.. US taxes especially on the top tier who contribute the majority of govt. revenues, corporate and personal, are at historic lows [you won't mind if we don't take your word on that one]. Interest rates are no longer shockingly but remain historically low, labour is cheap (bye, unions which no longer benefit workers) , energy is abundant and cheap thank goodness, trade agreements have struck down duties and barriers but not currency manipulations... basically just about everything nothing the US pro-business folks and globalists have wanted has come to pass... and the economy quite predictably sucks. Why?

Under Obama, the extreme, anti-capitalist, anti-growth, ideological Left has somehow come to dominate the Democratic Party, the once proud party of JFK, Truman & Roosevelt. This creates uncertainty and uncertainty is a poor environment to grow a business. Also why record trillions remain on the sidelines rather than being reinvested. Heck, even B. Clinton figured out how to create confidence to grow the economy, but only after taking some guidance -- and agreeing to compromise -- with more economically savvy Repubs along with members of his own party.

(One can't promise lower taxes and less government at every election. You have lower taxes and less government... now do something with them. I got this out of a recent article by David Frum, GW Bush's former speechwriter. Can't find the link, sorry)

So L-E, to avoid further confusion, it's the other conversation (currently starring Jack, Stu & transmitterdam) which involves Mars and other celestial bodies. I'm assuming your comments about lower taxes and less govt. are about what's going on in outer space and not here in the U.S. the past 7-8 years, right??

Enjoying the GOP convention?

Trying to avoid looking, frankly. But it's sorta like an accident on the highway. You know you're not supposed to look and will regret it, but you look anyway. Can't wait for the Dems to finally anoint the "extremely careless" Hillary. Could be our first commander-in-chief who's ineligible under federal law to receive a security clearance. Maybe Bill can stand in for the daily briefing?

[adoxograph]

This thread is cool. Wait long enough and you can recycle earlier posts

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why is natural gas a fossil fuel on Earth but not on Titan or Europa or several other solar system bodies?

Again we have done a full circle here. I want to point to one of my posts.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I was always wondering where CH4 and other hydrocarbons in comets and asteroids are coming from. CH4 is found on Mars in suggesting that it must be replenished all the time. Let me quote a paper I wrote on hydrocarbons found on Mars:

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the same folks who faked the moon landings



2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records | NASA

Time to head for the NWP.

Note to self - talk to the sailing schools about a new adventure. Hawaii this year, next year the NWP.

1.3 degrees compared to the late 19th century, aye? Kind of makes you wonder why things like storms aren't compared to late 19th century records or why rainfall isn't compared to late 19th century records or why Olympic games records aren't baselined to late 19th century ones, or why Doctors don't compare modern health and medical outcome statistics to late 19th century values, or why farmers don't compare current yields to late 19th century values, or why car makers don't compare new features to late 19th century production models or...


I suspect "another hottest year on record" measured in 1/100th's increments although this time it might actually be true thanks to that recent El Nino climate, err, weather anomaly.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

1.3 degrees compared to the late 19th century, aye? Kind of makes you wonder why things like storms aren't compared to late 19th century records or why rainfall isn't compared to late 19th century records or why Olympic games records aren't baselined to late 19th century ones, or why Doctors don't compare modern health and medical outcome statistics to late 19th century values, or why farmers don't compare current yields to late 19th century values, or why car makers don't compare new features to late 19th century production models or...


I suspect "another hottest year on record" measured in 1/100th's increments although this time it might actually be true thanks to that recent El Nino climate, err, weather anomaly.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

And yet the headline reads "Climate Trends." And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012? So even though increasingly hotter temps from MMGW are blamed, sea ice extent is no lower than it was 4 years ago. Or did I miss something?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And yet the headline reads "Climate Trends." And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012? So even though increasingly hotter temps from MMGW are blamed, sea ice extent is no lower than it was 4 years ago. Or did I miss something?

No, you made stuff up.

I never said that.

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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Did you actually read that (or was it yet another one of your instances of looking at a Google link, seeing a friendly source like NASA and a headline that matched your preconception)? Want to try again?


1. It's supposition and models. The article clearly negates the Headline claim of "Solved"

"An international team of planetary scientists may have solved the mystery of why the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan, is rich in methane.

Gabriel Tobie of the University of Nantes, France, Jonathan Lunine of The University of Arizona and Christophe Sotin, also of the University of Nantes, describe their model of how Titan's atmosphere evolved in the March 2 issue of Nature"

2. More importantly, it says nothing about the origin of the methane:

"An international team of planetary scientists may have solved the mystery of why the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan, is rich in methane.

Gabriel Tobie of the University of Nantes, France, Jonathan Lunine of The University of Arizona and Christophe Sotin, also of the University of Nantes, describe their model of how Titan's atmosphere evolved in the March 2 issue of Nature"

All it says is that the methane s the result of various outgassings - nothing at all about how it got to where it outgassed from.

Yes Stu I read the whole thing.

I guess we should send a team to Titan to take core samples. Care to volunteer?

BTW - I have to assume that you do not use weather forecast or gribs because they are all just models as well.

What I love is, that because Titan has methane, folks start jumping onto the abiotic little red wagon (It is not a bandwagon.) My geophysicist and geologist buddies (believe it or not, and they are warmists) here in the Alberta oil patch get the giggles when they hear about that nonsense. One "entrepreneur" lost his shirt (and his business) chasing after that myth.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012? So even though increasingly hotter temps from MMGW are blamed, sea ice extent is no lower than it was 4 years ago. Or did I miss something?

Originally Posted by jackdale

No, you made stuff up.

I never said that.

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

I never said or at least intended to say that you said it. Only that you posted about it. Calm down please. Besides, is being accused of making stuff up my reward for being so through in doing my homework?

Post #2297 from a couple of pages back where you linked to the June 2016 ARCUS report. Under the section titled "Current Conditions:"

"As a result of anomalously mild winter ice conditions combined with warmer than average air temperatures, sea ice in May also reached a new record low . . . .

* * *

However, despite starting out the melt season with significantly less sea ice than observed in 2012, colder than normal conditions for June, linked to lower than normal sea level pressure, (Figures 10 and 11) slowed the ice loss and the ice extent currently is neck-and-neck with that observed in 2012, the year with the record low sea ice extent. As of June 21, 2016, the 2016 sea ice extent is 10.2 million square kilometers, compared to 10.33 in 2012."

https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/june

What I also found incongruous with your ongoing emphasis on warming to explain Arctic sea ice retreat is that this ARCUS report mentions a number of explicitly labeled weather events -- incl. weather-related warming -- to explain the ice loss, but notably doesn't seem to mention CC. I could very well have missed this, so correcting me would be more useful than accusations of making stuff up.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012? So even though increasingly hotter temps from MMGW are blamed, sea ice extent is no lower than it was 4 years ago. Or did I miss something?



I never said or at least intended to say that you said it. Only that you posted about it. Calm down please. Besides, is being accused of making stuff up my reward for being so through in doing my homework?

Post #2297 from a couple of pages back where you linked to the June 2016 ARCUS report. Under the section titled "Current Conditions:"

"As a result of anomalously mild winter ice conditions combined with warmer than average air temperatures, sea ice in May also reached a new record low . . . .

* * *

However, despite starting out the melt season with significantly less sea ice than observed in 2012, colder than normal conditions for June, linked to lower than normal sea level pressure, (Figures 10 and 11) slowed the ice loss and the ice extent currently is neck-and-neck with that observed in 2012, the year with the record low sea ice extent. As of June 21, 2016, the 2016 sea ice extent is 10.2 million square kilometers, compared to 10.33 in 2012."

https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/june

What I also found incongruous with your ongoing emphasis on warming to explain Arctic sea ice retreat is that this ARCUS report mentions a number of explicitly labeled weather events -- incl. weather-related warming -- to explain the ice loss, but notably doesn't seem to mention CC. I could very well have missed this, so correcting me would be more useful than accusations of making stuff up.

Read your own frikkin post.

And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Read your own frikkin post.

My post:

"And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012?"

Your post (citing the 6/16 ARCUS report):

"the ice extent currently is neck-and-neck with that observed in 2012, the year with the record low sea ice extent. As of June 21, 2016, the 2016 sea ice extent is 10.2 million square kilometers, compared to 10.33 in 2012."

What's the problem here, or would you prefer we just guess? Do you prefer to discuss May instead of June? Have things changed since June 21st & now? Do you disagree with the report? Is there not incongruity btwn. this report and other evidence you have provided showing 2016 and not 2012 as the record year?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

My post:

"And didn't we just see, a few posts back and I think from Jack no less, that 2016 sea ice extent equalled 2012?"

Your post (citing the 6/16 ARCUS report):

"the ice extent currently is neck-and-neck with that observed in 2012, the year with the record low sea ice extent. As of June 21, 2016, the 2016 sea ice extent is 10.2 million square kilometers, compared to 10.33 in 2012."

What's the problem here, or would you prefer we just guess? Do you prefer to discuss May instead of June? Have things changed since June 21st & now? Do you disagree with the report? Is there not incongruity btwn. this report and other evidence you have provided showing 2016 and not 2012 as the record year?

So in your math 1,200,000 = 1,330,000. Got it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So in your math 1,200,000 = 1,330,000. Got it.

Not my math but rather ARCUS' conclusion that the difference in the two years is close enough to be deemed -- in their words -- "neck and neck." Is ARCUS making this stuff up too, or might there just be a difference of scientific opinion (or nomenclature possibly) btwn. this source and others you have cited?

[GoingWalkabout]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and i some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in
climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81
degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report
continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * *
* * * * * *
I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.