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

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by lesterbutch

I am a scientist, (not a climate scientist), I am a biological oceanographer. One of those people who study the effects of a changing environment on its biological inhabitants. I am actually retired, but most of these changes are slow so it has not changed much in the last 3 years. That said changes are occuring that are disturbing. a major change is generally anything that alters salinity. Oceanic organisms, particularly microscopic ones are very intolerant to change. I don't know if you are familiar with the food pyramid but if it collapses those of us at the apex have a long way to fall. And, like it or not we are totally at the mercy of those on the bottom of the pyramid! Climate change can kill ya! Melting glaciers can change salinity, destroying the little critters at the base, BAD!

Humans are very adaptable. The proof is all around us. So whereas I believe that bad things kan indeed happen, we are very good at dealing with bad things....

[exMaggieDrum]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Humans are very adaptable. The proof is all around us. So whereas I believe that bad things kan indeed happen, we are very good at dealing with bad things....

The species may be somewhat adaptable but individuals (like your grandchildren) may not be. If the food chain dries up there won't be any way to support the billions of people now on the planet. That may be a good thing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Humans are very adaptable. The proof is all around us. So whereas I believe that bad things kan indeed happen, we are very good at dealing with bad things....

IMO humans are not very adaptable they are rather very good at adaptation of their local environment to suit their needs and wants without considering the eventual conciquences of those adaptations.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Based on that alone, I would expect the "info" component of their infotainment to have been somewhat more informative.

That film is apparently a student project from the Mason Gross School of the Arts (Rutgers), so I don't think there was any NSF funding spent on it, other than feeding the kids onsite...

Honestly... I haven't seen it, but I'm guessing the film is mostly reality-tv/science-porn, where they're more interested in pretty shots and day-to-day drama than genuine scientific exposition/documentary. All broadcast channels including nature ones are struggling to find or make enough content to fill the day without endless reruns.

You guys need to stop hating on science and scientists, and hate harder on the media.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That film is apparently a student project from the Mason Gross School of the Arts (Rutgers), so I don't think there was any NSF funding spent on it, other than feeding the kids onsite...

“ Antarctica: Beyond the Ice”, a documentary film produced by the Rutgers Film Bureau at the Rutgers Center for Digital Filmmaking, funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), partners the film bureau with the Rutgers Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences.
➥ Antarctic science documentary is also a teaching tool for aspiring film students

[0urh]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I did form an opinion. A bunch of gas guzzling research grant fuelled climate scientists enjoyed a jolly good time in the Antarctic whilst adding sfa to the pool of knowledge.

Yeah, and what about the 40,000 (yes, 40 thousand) at the Paris Climate Conference thing. Did they all offset the carbon emissions getting and being there!! I don't think so! So good of them to save the planet for us

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by 0urh

Yeah, and what about the 40,000 (yes, 40 thousand) at the Paris Climate Conference thing. Did they all offset the carbon emissions getting and being there!! I don't think so! So good of them to save the planet for us

I disagree.

However large Paris' carbon footprint is, it will presumably be dwarfed by the reduction in carbon emissions that the leaders hope to sign.

In fact, all the travel for all the people to and from Paris equals about 22 seconds of global CO2 emissions (some of which would have occurred in any case - scheduled flights, seat filled or not). Add in two weeks of hotels, taxis, espressos, pastries, and wine toasts, and you can probably tack on another half second or so.

[senormechanico]

I think we ought to have a little levity thrown in here.

Climate Depot | A project of CFACT

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I think we ought to have a little levity thrown in here.

Agreed. Let's lighten the mood a little.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I disagree.

However large Paris' carbon footprint is, it will presumably be dwarfed by the reduction in carbon emissions that the leaders hope to sign.

In fact, all the travel for all the people to and from Paris equals about 22 seconds of global CO2 emissions (some of which would have occurred in any case - scheduled flights, seat filled or not). Add in two weeks of hotels, taxis, espressos, pastries, and wine toasts, and you can probably tack on another half second or so.

Noted

[four winds]

They have a booth at the conference to pay to offset the carbon emmisions for the attendees. About a dollar US.

[senormechanico]

Two quotes to remember:


"We must remember, with compassion, that fully half the people in this world are below average."

And,

“Don't confuse me with facts. I have already made up my mind.”

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

SNIP

Nasa is now saying that the sun might have just a bit more to do with climate change then first though. We will know more in a few years when a few more solar probes are launched. Exciting times.

SNIP

Something a lot of old school solar scientists have been saying for quite some time. Of interest is research in Japan (think it is called the land of the rising sun or something like that) has indicated there is a lot more oxygen on the sun that there is suppose to be. Unless you understand why measured oxygen on the sun differing from predicted oxygen on the sun is significant you really need to get up to speed on this.

Here is a clue. H,He,C,N,O

It explains how that big yellow thing in the sky produces energy and how the amount of energy produced varies. Since the energy from that big yellow thing accounts almost all the energy that warms the earth understanding how it varies may help explain how temperature on the earth varies.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Something a lot of old school solar scientists have been saying for quite some time. Of interest is research in Japan (think it is called the land of the rising sun or something like that) has indicated there is a lot more oxygen on the sun that there is suppose to be. Unless you understand why measured oxygen on the sun differing from predicted oxygen on the sun is significant you really need to get up to speed on this.

Here is a clue. H,He,C,N,O

It explains how that big yellow thing in the sky produces energy and how the amount of energy produced varies. Since the energy from that big yellow thing accounts almost all the energy that warms the earth understanding how it varies may help explain how temperature on the earth varies.

It's measured only from the outer layer of the convection zone. We can assume convection zone to be quite uniform in this regard but we can only theorize if this is the case in the radiative zone and even less in the core of the sun. So far we have a long wait before the sun turns into a nova and starts to produce oxygen in significant amounts. Anyway the original gas cloud which the solar system was formed from must have had some heavier elements, if not we wouldn't be here.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by tomfl

It explains how that big yellow thing in the sky produces energy and how the amount of energy produced varies. Since the energy from that big yellow thing accounts almost all the energy that warms the earth understanding how it varies may help explain how temperature on the earth varies.

Solar variability is about 0.1% - which explains about 10% of climate change.