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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - here is some evolving science for you.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0407221445.htm

Seems like climatologists are coming up with new variables for their modeling all the time. Have there been any modifications that are in response to over-estimating warming, or have they all been added due to under-estimating?

Might help people better understand if climate science is merely "evolving," or whether that's a euphemism for it still being "unsettled."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Might help people better understand if climate science is merely "evolving," or whether that's a euphemism for it still being "unsettled."

What is settled:

1. The earth is warming, both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere
   
2. CO2 is a GHG (known for close to 200 years)
   
3. The 40% increase in CO2 since the mid 18th century is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels, a human activity.
   
4. For the entire history available from the Vostok ice cores, CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm
   
5. The last time CO2 was at 400 ppm was 3-5 million years ago.
   
6. Natural cycles do play a part in climate change.
   
7. Human activities has overwhelmed natural cycles.
   
8. Sea levels are rising.
   
9. Weather patterns are changing

.

What is not settled:

1. The exact amount that human activities contribute to climate change.
   
2. The appropriate policies in dealing with anthropogenic climate change.

[jackdale]

Off the referee our provincial squash championships for the rest of the weekend.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

Seems like climatologists are coming up with new variables for their modeling all the time. Have there been any modifications that are in response to over-estimating warming, or have they all been added due to under-estimating?

Might help people better understand if climate science is merely "evolving," or whether that's a euphemism for it still being "unsettled."

What I suspected -- apparently all the adjustments & modifications to the data have been upwards. Seems kinda odd, no?

Jack made a good start on the settled/unsettled list but it's not quite complete. The devil is always in the details. Maybe a few edits will help for the sake of accuracy:

Originally Posted by jackdale

What is settled:

1. The earth is warming, both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, but only one of the two methods for accumulating the raw temperature data suggests a long-term warming trend which may be consistent with human influences. The other method for taking the Earth's temperature -- namely temp readings taken from the atmosphere since 1979 by NASA satellites -- shows a much less significant warming trend that is more consistent with natural, i.e. non-human influences.
   
   
2. CO2 is a GHG (known for close to 200 years) A greenhouse gas -- yes. But not a pollutant. On the contrary, CO2 has always known to be a necessary component for photosynthesis, and is therefore essential to productive plant life, agriculture, and thus our survival. The question is how much is too much, and that question remains unsettled.
   
   
3. The 40% increase in CO2 since the mid 18th century is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels, a human activity, but oddly enough the amount of CO2 added to our atmosphere has not correlated with the rate of overall warming, so whether CO2 is actually harmful or will become so in the future remains unsettled.
   
   
4. For the entire history available from the Vostok ice cores, CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm, to the extent measuring CO2 from ice cores is valid that is. There is scientific debate over that one too, and in any event scientists do not yet know and often disagree on whether CO2 over 300ppm is harmful to humans or other living beings.
   
   
5. The last time CO2 was at 400 ppm was 3-5 million years ago when the Earth had a completely different environment, and plant animal life. There is also no consensus over whether CO2 at 400ppm is harmful (and some who claim it is beneficial), or at what level it may become so.
   
   
6. Natural cycles do play a part in climate change. and of course always have. The Earth's climate has never been stagnant, so the question is whether the changes we're experiencing now exceed some sort of long-term average, of which there is also much disagreement about within the science community.
   
   
7. Human activities has overwhelmed natural cycles, according to a certain faction of climatologists. Others strongly disagree.
   
   
8. Sea levels are rising, according to a certain faction of scientists and a LOT of non-scientist climate change zealots. Sea level is long known to be influenced by a variety of many factors, and it is almost impossible to measure it with any precision.
   
   
9. Weather patterns are changing, according to a certain faction of scientists, a LOT of non-scientist climate change zealots, but oddly enough not by a lot of meteorologists. Much of the reported changes in weather patterns are anecdotal.

.


What is not settled:

1. All of the above.
   
   
2. The exact amount that human activities may contribute to climate change.
   
   
3. The appropriate policies in dealing with anthropogenic climate change which are necessarily dependent on the amount of human influences, and their short and long-term impacts.

[Celestialsailor]

I see we are going to spill over the GW thread onto this one. Three people participating and over 3000 posts...

[newhaul]

The rise of sea levels is not really a rise in sea levels but rather the seabed rising and displacing the water. Think earthquakes. ( the big Indian ocean quake of 2004 ) caused a significant rise happen.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The rise of sea levels is not really a rise in sea levels but rather the seabed rising and displacing the water. Think earthquakes. ( the big Indian ocean quake of 2004 ) caused a significant rise happen.

Both earthquakes and volcanoes are not taken into account in climate effect calculations. Seems pretty until scientific to me. By the way has an one in Miami seen the need of any marina to raise its docks in the past 10 years?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The rise of sea levels is not really a rise in sea levels but rather the seabed rising and displacing the water. Think earthquakes. ( the big Indian ocean quake of 2004 ) caused a significant rise happen.

Interesting, Newhaul. I had not realized that such rises of the seabed were measurable. Maybe only the big ones, but think of all the smaller ones -- probably occurring daily -- that may be influencing sea level on a continuing basis. There's also melting & re-forming of land-based ice causing the unweighting and rising of land masses, melting & re-forming sea ice, and water temps causing expansion/contraction of the water itself. How can the part of all this that is supposedly attributed to MMGW be parceled out & accurately measured?

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Both earthquakes and volcanoes are not taken into account in climate effect calculations. Seems pretty until scientific to me. By the way has an one in Miami seen the need of any marina to raise its docks in the past 10 years?

Volcanic activity produces aerosols which provide a cooling effect, so are frequently used to justify historical temp trends which show more cooling than the modeling had predicted. We are told we should nevertheless rely on the modeling to show long-term MMGW because aerosols only create a "temporary" cooling effect and so the historical data is skewered. OK, but then aerosols are also relied on to help explain, in part, why the sat data shows a significantly cooler temp trend -- the only problem is that the sat data goes back 36 years, so not exactly temporary!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I see we are going to spill over the GW thread onto this one. Three people participating and over 3000 posts...

Nah, I think there's probably more like four now participating over there CS.

[Capt Phil]

Does this mean I should delay my cremation? Phil

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Does this mean I should delay my cremation? Phil

Definitely, and you'll want to stick around a little while longer too. I'm convinced we're only another 1-2,000 posts away from resolving the entire CC debate once and for all.

[Capt Phil]

Well, in that case I'll turn off the gas! Phil

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Interesting, Newhaul. I had not realized that such rises of the seabed were measurable. Maybe only the big ones, but think of all the smaller ones -- probably occurring daily -- that may be influencing sea level on a continuing basis. There's also melting & re-forming of land-based ice causing the unweighting and rising of land masses, melting & re-forming sea ice, and water temps causing expansion/contraction of the water itself. How can the part of all this that is supposedly attributed to MMGW be parceled out & accurately measured?



Volcanic activity produces aerosols which provide a cooling effect, so are frequently used to justify historical temp trends which show more cooling than the modeling had predicted. We are told we should nevertheless rely on the modeling to show long-term MMGW because aerosols only create a "temporary" cooling effect and so the historical data is skewered. OK, but then aerosols are also relied on to help expülain, in part, why the sat data shows a significantly cooler temp trend -- the only problem is that the sat data goes back 36 years, so not exactly temporary!

OK here ya go the earthquake in 2004"in the indie raised sea levels approx 1mm they report. Now that doesn't seem like much but that is 1mm world wide
As far as the volcanoes think sub surface. There is a new Hawaiian island forming and that displaced water has to go somewhere and how about the mid Atlantic ridge.

[jackdale]

Meanwhile

BEIJING—
China will encourage ships flying its flag to take the Northwest Passage via the Arctic Ocean, a route opened up by global warming, to cut travel times between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, a state-run newspaper said on Wednesday.

China is increasingly active in the polar region, becoming one of the biggest mining investors in Greenland and agreeing a free trade deal with Iceland. In 2013, the Arctic Council admitted emerging powers China and India as observers.

Shorter shipping routes across the Arctic Ocean would save Chinese companies time and money. For example, the journey from Shanghai to Hamburg via the Arctic route is 2,800 nautical miles shorter than going by the Suez canal.

China Wants Ships to Use Faster Arctic Route Opened by Global Warming

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile



China Wants Ships to Use Faster Arctic Route Opened by Global Warming

Considerable increase in ice breaking activity to facilitate that happening fo increase coming profits. See its all about t money.