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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

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?

I haven't missed anything. And yes, greenhouse warming is a theory.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-...o2-experiment/

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I haven't missed anything.

But no answer to the question?

If humans have no part at all, then why is the planet warming so quickly?

Bit unfair, you can't answer that.

[Celestialsailor]

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?

Ok...now you're scarring me. You're starting to sound like Fastbottoms.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... Greenhouse warming is still recognized as a theory...

You are right, it's a theory.

Unfortunately it seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "Theory" and confuse theory with hypothesis. Don't worry it's a common laymen mistake to use theory instead of hypothesis.

Btw. even so called "laws" are nothing but theories. (i.e. Newtons law of gravity was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity).

However the impact of CO2 on increasing temperatures is indeed a theory and not a hypothesis. Therefore it's pretty much settled. But it does not mean that detail of this theory will not change in the future.

The term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis')

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

But no answer to the question?

If humans have no part at all, then why is the planet warming so quickly?

Bit unfair, you can't answer that.

Quick by which baseline?

Originally Posted by adoxograph

You are right, it's a theory. Unfortunately it seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "Theory" and confuse theory with hypothesis. Don't worry it's a common mistake.

I understand the difference between theoretical proof and emperical proof. That's all that is required in this context.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

You are right, it's a theory. Unfortunately it seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "Theory" and confuse theory with hypothesis. Don't worry it's a common mistake.

If all of that were true, then please explain the difference between that and a law. ( ie: such as laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics ). Or they also actually mislabeled.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

If all of that were true, then please explain the difference between that and a law. ( ie: such as laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics ). Or they also actually mislabeled.

Even I can do this one: a scientific law is just a set of relationships discovered and proven so well through observation and experimentation that they can reliably be used in calculations, modelling and prediction.

hey - I was pretty close.

Are all you skeptics as highly qualified as you and Reef?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

If all of that were true, then please explain the difference between that and a law. ( ie: such as laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics ). Or they also actually mislabeled.

See newhaul, you can admit the planet is warming, and even suggest a causal link to co2 ppm yet some alarmist will still try and call you out as a denier. You just gotta roll with the waves.

And then, when you point out that greenhouse warming theory is a theory and not a law, it won't stop someone from telling you you have no clue what a theory is, well, just because. Ironically, i was subtley hinting at something a little different...

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

Based on the above, one might hypothesise that a law is a product of emperical observation. Therefore a possible theory is that maybe biospheric greenhouse warming is perhaps not conclusively supported by emperical observations.

Or something like that.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Even I can do this one: a scientific law is just a set of relationships discovered and proven so well through observation and experimentation that they can reliably be used in calculations, modelling and prediction.

hey - I was pretty close.

Are all you skeptics as highly qualified as you and Reef?

Great definition

Originally Posted by newhaul

If all of that were true, then please explain the difference between that and a law. ( ie: such as laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics ). Or they also actually mislabeled.

Sometimes they are just mislabelled, because we don't know better.

1. A scientific Law is a readily demonstrable fact, that cannot be disproved. i.e. the law of gravity. Sometimes we think we have a law, but only to find out later that is was merely a flawed theory (i.e. gravity). But there is also constant conjunction or "Correlation does not imply causation" (Remember my earlier example that on days where they sell lots of ice-cream more people drown?)

2. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and not found faulty, usually also having been found somewhat useful. i.e. Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity or more recently M.O.N.D all of which more or less explain gravity. Galileo's experiments led to a theory of gravity which was improved on by Newton and this theory led to the law of gravity expressed in a set of equations. However Einstein came along - here comes constant conjunction into play - and the so called law of gravity was reduced to a set of equations which are only good enough at non-relativistic speeds.

3. A scientific hypothesis (and I stress the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory") is an educated guess; it is nothing more than a speculation that can be tested.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...Based on the above, one might hypothesise that a law is a product of emperical observation. Therefore a possible theory is that maybe biospheric greenhouse warming is perhaps not conclusively supported by emperical observations.

Or something like that.

Not necessarily. Empirical observation will not resolve causality. (see the ice-cream example)

[newhaul]

left I'm not going back to quote you but here are a couple of considerations
Many of the people I know of in the fixed income bracket live in homes that are setup with electric heat and to convert to any other form is cost prohibitive . As an aside you do realise that electric heat is the most energy efficient form of heating ( not the cheapest but the most efficient form at 100% efficient)

[GoingWalkabout]

So why aren't sailboat manufacturers providing high tech insulation options on their boats?

I would think with either prospect, of Global Warming or dare I say, Global Cooling, insulation should be the next frontier in boat building. Sitting in the tropics or visiting the penguins in Antarctica would have one think that there would be a lot of interest from boat buyers in effective heat/cold insulation.

The little I have researched so far on this subject has produced some very interesting information. I have come across a synthetic matting type material that is thin but highly insulating. There are also paints type products that are not rubber but have a similar texture that can be applied inside.

Then you have the paint that is now being used on trucks. It can have a 10 to 15 degree effect on temperature I side the truck.

Anyway. I'm still none the wiser what I should be preparing for. Perhaps though some of the energy surrounding this subject could go into how best cope with the one to two degree change over the next few decades.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

... I'm still none the wiser what I should be preparing for. Perhaps though some of the energy surrounding this subject could go into how best cope with the one to two degree change over the next few decades.

Safe bet: As we are in the middle of the Holocene, in a warming period and all data points to warming, you can prepare for tropical and subtropical sailing - but in our lifetime only as long you stay in tropical and subtropical latitudes.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Safe bet: As we are in the middle of the Holocene, in a warming period and all data points to warming, you can prepare for tropical and subtropical sailing - but in our lifetime only as long you stay in tropical and subtropical latitudes.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Quick by which baseline?

Take your pick. The last hundred odd years is a definite spike, why?

No volcanoes, no asteroids. Solar variation doesn't cut it.

You can't answer (you haven't even tried) without adding in human activities, if you look to science anyway.

The question isn't if but how much.

[SailOar]

I think I've discovered why we are not able to resolve our differences about AGW. Wrong Forum!