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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

DR. ERIK W. KLEMETTI the man you quoted in the cut and paste you did from the OSU web page

Found him and the original post, to which I will refer in the future.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not draw that conclusion.

Perhaps you and GWA can show me the logic behind your inference..

Reading comprehension and logic are skills that sadly are more and more lacking in this say and age. Over three decades of ever decreasing in the quality of education in the United States in particular has had its effect. I don't mean to be rude jackdale and I am sure you are very smart in your area of expertise. But you are displaying a deficiency in comprehension that is all too common. Sorry.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Deafening by silence IMHO

I have been aware of that for ages. But then I get my science from scientists, not the MSM.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Reading comprehension and logic are skills that sadly are more and more lacking in this say (sic) and age. Over three decades of ever decreasing education in the United States in particular has had its effect.

That may apply to you, not me.

I am a Canadian. Says so right right under my avatar.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Because his vacuous view is not supported by one scientific fact.

Here is a scientific fact for you

Finally, and most damning, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, <b>but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean.</b>This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

You do know the huge particle numbers thrown into the atmosphere from just one land volcano. It makes combustion engine emissions look mild in comparison. But these are never spoken about by the AGW types.

BTW from ERIK KLEMETTI

Volcanoes Are (Still) Not the Cause of Global Warming | WIRED

Volcanic versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide: An Addendum | WIRED

[newhaul]

Antarctic glacier melt not caused by man
Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller


http://news.discovery.com/earth/glob...low-140609.htm

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Antarctic glacier melt not caused by man
Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller


Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below : Discovery News

You really should read what you post. From your second link:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that meltwater from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That may apply to you, not me.

I am a Canadian. Says so right right under my avatar.

Perhaps I should have said North America.

I think this PhD is well skilled in his specific area of expertise. If I wanted to find out more about mineral compositions of magma eruptions he would be a great source. Where he and others get into trouble is when they drift out of the area of their expertise to discuss issues that he so obviously lakes research data in.

On looking at his impressive resume I have no question about his expertise in his defined area of research. I will again point out his research and studies have NOT included thermal submarine transference nor has he presented any data to back up his guess work opinion.

This drifting into an area he is so obviously deficient in is more understood on discovering his environmentalist activism. For instance his resume says the following: 2011- : Member of Denison Campus Sustainability Committee


I will help him and you out with some explicit research on this matter. I will preface that little analytical research data exists but what has been gathered clearly shows a substantial heating effect on the ocean waters surface.



Magma emission rates from shallow submarine eruptions using airborne thermal imaging: https://www.academia.edu/12019257/Ma...hermal_imaging


Thermal images showing heating of ocean surface.

http:////localhost/var/www/apps/conv...%20Fig.ಀ

http:////localhost/var/www/apps/conv...%20Fig.ీ

For the 21 thermal infrared surveys, pixels containing temperatures that exceeded normal seawater temperatures were selected, allowing us to calculate the area of anomalous heating. Fig. 2a shows a thermal infrared image of the seawater surface at the eruption site, takenonNovember112011,afewdaysaftertheonsetofthesu bmarinevolcanicactivity.Aftercomputingtotalseawatervolume sanddepthsof the submarine volcanic cone, Eq. (2) was used to estimate the daily erupted volumes (see Material and methods section).

shows the estimated erupted volumes for the 21 thermalsurveys. The plotted values are just single estimates obtained duringeach survey, and do not represent the total emitted magma volume. Inordertoreconstructthesubmarineeruptive thermalbehaviorand esti-mate the total erupted volume, a graphical interpolation was done be-tween each survey, to obtain the cumulative erupted magma volume(black line in Fig. 6). On this basis we obtained a total erupted volume......



This research is only a small window into the natural causation of sea temperature. Other areas that need more study are the natural warm water flows and their trajectory variability and what causes bring about this variability or changes in warmer water oceanic flows.

Too bad so many scientists have been corrupted by socio-political dogma to the point it is now more difficult to find unbiased scientific papers.

I am not for once discounting warmer water temperatures may be the result of AGW. I just haven't seen the proof. Just theorizing. I do know that since motor vehicle emissions have been constrained by Government regulation we have seen a welcome decrease on smog (airborne particles) particularly in Western cities. This is a great thing. Cleaner air, cleaner water, sustainability of food and fresh water resources are incredibly important. What I question is the overtaking of science by Politicians to achieve ends that have nothing to do with sound science. Ends such as income redistribution. Including geo political biases inherent in policy that sees unrestrained emissions by one country while the West shuts down businesses and inexpensive sources of energy. I find it disturbing that no one sees how regressive an impact that the neo-science politicians are having on the poor in advanced western countries. Seems to be OK to transfer productive advantage to the East while causing hardship on the poor in the West. And all this hardship for questionable environmental outcomes given that the largest emitters are allowed to continue unimpeded. It is my view that the West should be concerning itself on increasing clean water supplies (dams). Control the strip fishing of the oceans by guess who, countries in the East. And yes continue with the adoption of alternative energy including solar and nuclear. All within a rational and socially responsible way. Ideologues have no place in science and invariably produce negative unthought-of consequences.

And in conclusion, I still hold with suspicion of AGW because of the fluffy science and see that natural phenomenon such as solar and volcanic effects are under researched in relation to both long term global and weather changes.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You really should read what you post. From your second link:

Remember that time I estimated about 6000 years or so until the ice sheets of Antarctica would be gone based upon numbers given in an peer reviewed (alarmist) paper on ice melt? In succinct recount, most of the continent is too cold to allow glaciers to "haemorrhage" unless they are warmed from below by seawater or another thermal source. It's an entirely different mechanism to what happens in the Arctic.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Remember that time I estimated about 6000 years or so until the ice sheets of Antarctica would be gone based upon numbers given in an peer reviewed (alarmist) paper on ice melt? In succinct recount, most of the continent is too cold to allow glaciers to "haemorrhage" unless they are warmed from below by seawater or another thermal source. It's an entirely different mechanism to what happens in the Arctic.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

6000 years? That's not scary. This is scary:

Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century | ScienceNordic

9000 billion tons in a century! Scaaarrrryyyy!

Well actually 9000 billions tons in 115 years but what's 15% between friends

Wow, that's roughly 9,000 cubic kilometers.
.
.
.
.
So how much ice is contained in the Greenland ice sheet?
Estimates vary, but somewhere around 3 million cubic kilometers

So in 115 years it's lost about 0.3% or 0.0026% per annum.

Or to put it another way, there is still 99.7% of what was there in 1900 when the Earth had just pulled itself out of the Little Ice Age.

Oh dear, if the trend continues, it will all be gone in another 38,000 years give or take a millennium.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You really should read what you post. From your second link:

Yes jack I did read that before I linked to the report. My point was that the melt of the glaciers is not man induced. Also I previously linked to a report that showed the extent of ice building on the Antarctic glaciers that negates that melt water adding to the sea level .

[newhaul]

Just because you will ask for it here it is
Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Remember that time I estimated about 6000 years or so until the ice sheets of Antarctica would be gone based upon numbers given in an peer reviewed (alarmist) paper on ice melt? In succinct recount, most of the continent is too cold to allow glaciers to "haemorrhage" unless they are warmed from below by seawater or another thermal source. It's an entirely different mechanism to what happens in the Arctic.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well said reefmagnet. The melting of the western ice in Antarctica is directly the result of underwater volcanic activity. More evidence of nature having a greater effect than the AGW crowd dare to admit. Real facts are hard to take when it messes with your hypothesis. I think we should star a new scientific movement and call it NGC, Natural Global Change.

Have a wonderful 2016,
Chaya

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just because you will ask for it here it is
Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

Fascinating newhaul. Looks like we shouldn't be throwing away our cold weather gear anytime soon.