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

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Tax cheats that have set up their homes or boats to live off the grid without buying power with solar are shirking their social responsibility to pay their fair share of the Electrical Utility Infrastructure by ducking out on the Taxes and Fees the Utility companies charge. Who do these people think they are, want the benefits of society without paying their fair share. To quote a wise Indian Proverb, "You didn't build that yourself, society paid for the police to keep marauding bands of criminals from burning down your factory".

It's high time these free loaders pay their pair...share...hey....wait a minute, I'm one of those freeloaders living off the Utility Grid....never mind. Maybe Pocahontas was right?

Hey rich you just described me to a tee ( wait a minute I paid for every bit of that crap with many years of my life ). See ya on the dark side.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... See ya on the dark side.

You two are already there? Damn...

[SailOar]

Climate change threatens nation’s agriculture | The Japan Times

Dark clouds cast gloom over future domestic food production as global temperatures rise...

[SailOar]

Keeping pace with climate change in crop development | The Herald (Zimbabwe)

In a context of unprecedented climate change and food insecurity, adaptation in agricultural systems is critical in Africa. It is crucial to breed new varieties of staple crops that are adapted to deal with climatic conditions. This work is a key climate adaptation measure and an important part of international research and development programmes. Crops have been specifically developed to be resistant to climate-related stresses like drought. There have been impressive advances in the capabilities of crop-breeding programmes as a result of recent investments...

The study identifies three main options for improving the compatibility between crop development time-scales and those of climatic change.

The first is to speed up the crop development and deployment process...

A second option is to develop crops in a pre-emptive way...

A third option is to look at stringent climate change mitigation...

[conachair]

Interesting paper not long out on ocean heat content... (where most of the extra energy ends up)

OS - Abstract - Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970?2005

[adoxograph]

I'm reading Carl Sagans, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. I have read this fascinating book written by one of my heros several times. It never gets old. Here some quotes fitting especially to this thread (Just to clarify - he is talking about science sceptics):

“The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.”

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

“In the way that scepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the sceptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.”

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I'm reading Carl Sagans, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. I have read this fascinating book written by one of my heros several times. It never gets old. Here some quotes fitting especially to this thread (Just to clarify - he is talking about science sceptics):

An excellent book by a brilliant mind. Another chapter from that book is entitled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection". The following, from that chapter, is a set of "rules" to guide one's critical thinking.

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

An excellent book by a brilliant mind. Another chapter from that book is entitled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection". The following, from that chapter, is a set of "rules" to guide one's critical thinking.

Oh the irony. It burns.

[conachair]

From Neil degrasse tyson on twitter:

"Schools often fail to simultaneously train students how to be skeptical of claims & how to embrace the weight of evidence."

The weight of evidence showing the recent warming is not business as usual is very large indeed.
Where's the evidence/work showing sufficient drivers with no help from additional human released greenhouse gasses?

If anyone actually still thinks humans have no part in it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

With electric heat there is no " do it off peak" .
I have to tip my hat to you for how you dodged my direct question after I directly answered your question . ( And you say epic fail on my part)

Fair point. But there are better choices than electric heat, the stat can be set to 68 F without massive loss of life, proper insulation...

It may surprise (and please) you to know that people of all abilities do kind things for other people quite often, without announcing it on a sailing forum.

So, you really don't know why I called out your fail, it seems. You took two separate parts of my comment and spliced'em together to make something you could attack. Was that entirely necessary? Others have stated that my posts are so awful that there's never a shortage of things to criticize, without needing to make stuff up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I'm reading Carl Sagans, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Very appropriate quotes; there are lessons for all of us there.

The AGW skeptic claim, when you cut through all the anti-scientist/anti-govt BS, boils down to insufficient knowledge- "we don't know enough to be making such dire predictions and pushing such drastic prescriptions".

Accepted... but the answer to insufficient knowledge is to gain more knowledge, no? Going by CF, most 'skeptics' here think climate studies are a boondoggle - a make-work, career-building trough to feast at (as if there aren't thousands of other important climate aspects to be studying besides AGW). And observe the actions of the anti-AGW "institutions" - supposedly set up to counter the biases of the mainstream institutions, yet none have produced superior models or better hypotheses. (that was never their mission, but I digress...)

So... on the skeptic side, the mainstream science 'consensus' is wrong and there's no interest in studying harder, especially on the public dime. Every public announcement is greeted with a sneer. And, of course, less than zero interest in any policy mandates to moderate fossil-fuel use or to incentivize renewables... for any number of reasons besides AGW. Just gimme my Hemi.

Where to from here?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...

It may surprise (and please) you to know that people of all abilities do kind things for other people quite often, without announcing it on a sailing forum.
.

The only reason I stated anything about it was you asked a direct question.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

It is not

I get it! The little girl is Goingwalkabout. The Green house gases are the deniers on this thread...got it!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

From Neil degrasse tyson on twitter:

"Schools often fail to simultaneously train students how to be skeptical of claims & how to embrace the weight of evidence."

The weight of evidence showing the recent warming is not business as usual is very large indeed.
Where's the evidence/work showing sufficient drivers with no help from additional human released greenhouse gasses?

If anyone actually still thinks humans have no part in it.

Oh dear. So misguided. Greenhouse warming is still recognized as a theory, not a law. Nevertheless, just like the relationship with ufo sightings, there does appear to be a link with CO2 atmospheric content and global temperatures.

But the real question is one of consequences. Is a warmer planet better or worse off over all? I'd suggest that regardless of the plethora of meaningless papers that are over seasoned with a sprinkling of "maybes", "coulds" and "ifs" informing us that we're all maybe, possibly, could be doomed, that the empirical evidence is demonstrating somewhat the exact opposite.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh dear. So misguided. Greenhouse warming is still recognized as a theory, not a law. Nevertheless, just like the relationship with ufo sightings, there does appear to be a link with CO2 atmospheric content and global temperatures.

But the real question is one of consequences. Is a warmer planet better or worse off over all? I'd suggest that regardless of the plethora of meaningless papers that are over seasoned with a sprinkling of "maybes", "coulds" and "ifs" informing us that we're all maybe, possibly, could be doomed, that the empirical evidence is demonstrating somewhat the exact opposite.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You seemed to have missed a bit - what's driving the increase in heat content? Forget the doom and gloom you've been reading in the papers, we're talking about science here.

Also, - greenhouse warming is just a theory then, just like quantum mechanics and evolution?