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

[GordMay]

Greenland's ice sheet melted twice as fast between 2003 and 2010 as it did from 1900 to 1983, according to the first study of Greenland ice loss over the past century that is based on observations rather than models.
Between 1900 and 2010, meltwater from Greenland boosted the global sea level by 25 millimetres ...

➥ Greenland ice melt speed has doubled - Technology & Science - CBC News

➥ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture16183.html

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...climate change is here now and is killing hundreds of thousands of people just like you and me...

To slightly dampen your hysteria, climate change simply doesn't yet have that much effect on you and me and the vast majority of us on CF. Most of us have some combination of the right skin colour and the right address and the fat bank accounts that will see us through anything short of a meteor strike.

Maybe that's why so many here don't care about climate change. Because their stash is more at risk than their lives.

(From an actuarial point of view, we CFers have very little risk from terrorism too.)

Interesting link though, considering the source. Did you post it ironically or do you think it makes a valid point?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack give this a read and report a synopsis of what they are saying my tablet don't do so good these days ( getting new for xmas
Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead – Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’ | Climate Depot

Newhaul - I get my science directly from scientists, not blogs of political operatives.

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."
Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.
But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

More recently.

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

[chala]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I for 3 years now have been more concerned with global cooling. Both the antarctic and arctic Ice are growing. Antarctic ice is growing both on land and sea. Arctic ice is still not recovered, but it's well on it's way to full recovery.

Quote: News | In Greenland, Another Major Glacier Comes Undone
“It's Zachariae Isstrom, the latest in a string of Greenland glaciers to undergo rapid change in our warming world. A new NASA-funded study published today in the journal Science finds that Zachariae Isstrom broke loose from a glaciologically stable position in 2012 and entered a phase of accelerated retreat. The consequences will be felt for decades to come.”

8 metres plus, Greenland free of ice . The good thing about it, at high tide I will be able to tie the boat to the house.
On the other hand, a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdo...ne_circulation

May leave me high and dry and miles from the sea.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by chala

Quote: News | In Greenland, Another Major Glacier Comes Undone
“It's Zachariae Isstrom, the latest in a string of Greenland glaciers to undergo rapid change in our warming world. A new NASA-funded study published today in the journal Science finds that Zachariae Isstrom broke loose from a glaciologically stable position in 2012 and entered a phase of accelerated retreat. The consequences will be felt for decades to come.”

8 metres plus, Greenland free of ice . The good thing about it, at high tide I will be able to tie the boat to the house.
On the other hand, a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdo...ne_circulation

May leave me high and dry and miles from the sea.

Has anyone stopped to think why Greenland is called Greenland? Didn't it once have forests? And yes things are changing up there. What is not so clear is why and what it means. We also know the ice extant in Antarctica is growing. How much is of serious interest to me. Particularly since as I have said before, it is one of the regions I wish to spend sailing time in.

I am not denying anything. I am questioning however. For me when science stops questioning it ceases to be science. Plain and simple.

Warming or cooling, I do think change is afoot. What it means and what it is caused by is still open for discussion. But as was pointed out in Paris, a 1 to 1.5 degree change over the next 20 to 50 years isn't going to affect my suntan one way or the other. But the rate of growth of the ice in the south may affect where I can sail without the use of an ice breaker.

And no. I am not a troll. But perhaps somewhat foolish for daring to ask questions. If Galileo was around today he would be shaking his head saying to himself how much human nature hasn't changed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Has anyone stopped to think why Greenland is called Greenland? Didn't it once gave forests of trees? And yes things are changing up there. What is not so clear is why and what it means. We also no the the ice extant in Antarctica is growing. How much is of serious interest to me. Particularly since as I have said before, it is one of the regions I wish to spend sailing time in.

I am not denying anything. I am questioning however. For me when science stops questioning it ceases to be science. Plain and simple.

Warming or cooling, I do think change is afoot. What it means and what it is caused by is still open for discussion. But as was pointed out in Paris, a 1 to 1.5 degree change over the 2o to 50 years isn't going to affect my suntan one way or the other. But the rate of growth of the ice in the south may affect where I can sail without the use of an ice breaker.

And no. I am not a troll. But perhaps somewhat foolish for daring to ask questions. If Galileo was around today he would be shaking his head saying to himself how much human nature hasn't changed.

Greenland was named that by Eric the Red as a a marketing ploy.

The 2 Viking settlements were confined to the SW portion.



The rest of Greenland was covered by a 100,000 year old (at least) ice sheet.

[Capt Phil]

At the risk of being attacked as a Neanderthal individual, doesn't climate always change? Frankly, I think that man is a little full of himself to believe he can change climate! Perhaps he might have had a minor impact over the last millennium, but to think he can manage climate is a bit beyond the pale IMO... PHIL

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Has anyone stopped to think why Greenland is called Greenland? Didn't it once have forests? ...

According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland (Grfnland or Gruntland) in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life.
Greenland hasn't had forests in at least 1 million years, and perhaps not even then.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

At the risk of being attacked as a Neanderthal individual, doesn't climate always change? Frankly, I think that man is a little full of himself to believe he can change climate! Perhaps he might have had a minor impact over the last millennium, but to think he can manage climate is a bit beyond the pale IMO... PHIL

Yes, climate always changes.

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That meesed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Frankly, I think that man is a little full of himself to believe he can change climate!

Isn't there more hubris in the position that you are somehow better-suited to make the call than the vast majority of those who dedicate their careers to this field?

This last century, or maybe even just the last few decades, is the first time that we as a species are starting to realize we're on a planet with finite resources and capabilities. It's abundantly clear that we can and will run low on things like fossil fuels and fresh water and arable land and sustainable fisheries and maybe even a friendly climate.

It's kind of being full of oneself to ignore that this is not only possible but imminent if we don't start being better managers of our resources.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland (Grfnland or Gruntland) in an attempt to lure settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life.
Greenland hasn't had forests in at least 1 million years, and perhaps not even then.

Thanks Jackdale and GordMay. Great to know.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

To slightly dampen your hysteria, climate change simply doesn't yet have that much effect on you and me and the vast majority of us on CF. Most of us have some combination of the right skin colour and the right address and the fat bank accounts that will see us through anything short of a meteor strike.

Maybe that's why so many here don't care about climate change. Because their stash is more at risk than their lives.

(From an actuarial point of view, we CFers have very little risk from terrorism too.)

Interesting link though, considering the source. Did you post it ironically or do you think it makes a valid point?

Actually, linkety click through to the source of that hysteria, and their sources of funding for fits and giggles...

http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerabi...r-2012/report/

http://daraint.org/funding-and-support/who-supports-us/

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Isn't there more hubris in the position that you are somehow better-suited to make the call than the vast majority of those who dedicate their careers to this field?

This last century, or maybe even just the last few decades, is the first time that we as a species are starting to realize we're on a planet with finite resources and capabilities. It's abundantly clear that we can and will run low on things like fossil fuels and fresh water and arable land and sustainable fisheries and maybe even a friendly climate.

It's kind of being full of oneself to ignore that this is not only possible but imminent if we don't start being better managers of our resources.

I agree LakeEffect. Personally I'm very concerned with over fishing and the depletion of a very important food source. The loss of water on land is also a huge concern. Particularly the alarming decrease in the water table around the world. The United States is entering a period were up to 70% of crop production could be endangered if the loss of the water table isn't stopped. We should be building more dams for instance and not being so concerned about the displacement of a Beatles or frog. Self preservation is the number one objective of any species.

The unsupportable growth of population without an eye on its environmental impact on a region and country basis is stupid. What to do about it short of letting it self right itself through naturally caused population depletion events, such as famine and disease is hard to come up with politically workable solutions.

I'm for, clean air, clean water, sustainable growth and doing no harm. How we solve issues confronting us is the conundrum.

They say that a committee created the camel. Efficient in many ways but very strange indeed. Government and Committees even if scientists are part of the priblem in my opinion. Look what happened in Paris that everyone is patting themselves on the back about. Completely ignored China and India who are the biggest polluters in the world. And no mention of the Japanese who are the strip manners of the oceans seas leading to ecological disaster.

I will always challenge politicians since from my experience a more corrupt species of people I have not found. I will also question so called scientists who gave up their independence years ago.

It is time for thinking. True problem solving and not money grabbing new tax plans etc. IMHO

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, linkety click through to the source of that hysteria, and their sources of funding for fits and giggles...
Report - DARA
Who supports us - DARA

Which of those funders gave you fits & giggles?

[Reefmagnet]

Climate change is only a "climate crisis" (thanks DARA) when there's dollars to be made.

In this stupid f'd up civilisation where 80% of all manufactured antibiotics are fed to livestock whilst more and more "superbugs" (bacteria resistant to all antibiotics) evolve for no other reason than greed and profit one needs to enquire on the motives behind any cause regardless of it's alleged nobility.

At the end of the day, overpopulation is the root cause of issues that poor old climate gets blamed for. Too much co2? Sure, cars and power generation are bad, m'kay, but cutting down most of the world's forests to provide land for habitation and food production isn't helping things. Making cement isn't helping things either.

Why don't you guys with bees in your bonnets over this issue redirect your efforts to something more tangible. Like the incredible waste of resources found in today's first world societies. You know, like V8 SUV'S purchased primarily by "soccer moms" and manufacturer's that bulk up the packaging yet reduce weight of the cookies or whatever for no other reason then to maximise profit for instance.

Then there's the throw away mentality. Personal experience this week alone, I've had to throw out a perfectly good 4 year old Blu-ray player because 5 cent component failed on a $10 pcb that is unavailable as a spare part. Yesterday my few years old Gerni pressure washer failed because a 10 cent plastic seal inside the pump failed and it is unavailable as a spare. The manufacturer expects you to buy an entire pump/motor for more than the cost of a replacement washer. The interesting thing about the Gerni is that the particular seal has a reputation for failing because it's made on the cheap to maximise corporate profit. Comparatively, I also own an industrial pressure washer that is at least 40 years old that I've rebuilt it a number of times over the years because the makers designed it to be serviceable using off the shelf parts.

Multiply this throw away attitude across billions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of manufacturers and BINGO! There's a big part of the problem right there. Someone mentioned that so called "big oil" should pay for their co2 pollution, yet I don't see Sony or Gerni paying landfill taxes for their products.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app