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

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

And you are calling me condescending? Wow...

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout
"I agree the analysis is far more complicated than the simpleton high school grade statistics being used by AGW alarmists are using".

Ya right...and she called you condescending. When people have no ground to stand on they will usually attack through fear.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Abnormal Arctic ice season may signal abrupt climate change | Mongabay

Firstly, considering the string of ice free Arctic predictions that have been occurring on a regular basis for the past 20 years, I don't see how this could be termed "abnormal". It seems everyone forgets that the Arctic climate sits on a knife edge where variations to one side freeze water, and to the other thaws ice. It doesn't take a great deal of "climate change" to dramatically change the freeze and thaw rates.

Secondly, a google search on "impacts of an ice free Arctic" produces little more than the usual wishy-washy "could" and "maybe" scenarios. In fact, loss of ice cover allowing oil companies ("big oil") more access to Arctic reserves seems to rank high on the alarmist fear scale.

Not to sound nonchalant about this, but if the Arctic summer ice were to disappear, even for 3 months of the year, is it really that big a deal?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Firstly, considering the string of ice free Arctic predictions that have been occurring on a regular basis for the past 20 years, I don't see how this could be termed "abnormal". It seems everyone forgets that the Arctic climate sits on a knife edge where variations to one side freeze water, and to the other thaws ice. It doesn't take a great deal of "climate change" to dramatically change the freeze and thaw rates.

Secondly, a google search on "impacts of an ice free Arctic" produces little more than the usual wishy-washy "could" and "maybe" scenarios. In fact, loss of ice cover allowing oil companies ("big oil") more access to Arctic reserves seems to rank high on the alarmist fear scale.

Not to sound nonchalant about this, but if the Arctic summer ice were to disappear, even for 3 months of the year, is it really that big a deal?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reef unfortunately I do see a bit of a down side to ice free Arctic ocean in summer. The last time that they say the Arctic was ice free in summer most of the rest of the north part of the planet from about 40° north to about 80° north were covered by sheets of ice up to 2 miles thick took thousands of years to get that thick and it has been melting for about the last 12 to 15 thousand years and it is still melting.

[Lake-Effect]

I see this one is veering towards the ditch already. How are you going to beat the other thread's record if you can't keep even the semblance of civil discourse in place?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Reef unfortunately I do see a bit of a down side to ice free Arctic ocean in summer. The last time that they say the Arctic was ice free in summer most of the rest of the north part of the planet from about 40° north to about 80° north were covered by sheets of ice up to 2 miles thick took thousands of years to get that thick and it has been melting for about the last 12 to 15 thousand years and it is still melting.

And i bet caveman, errr, caveperson fires were to blame for that. Humans have been terra-changing the planet from the moment they first figured out this "how to make a fire" thing.

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

[adoxograph]

@GoingWalkabout. I met with a friend of mine from the Geophysics department for coffee this morning. Actually we were discussing the advantage of the Lagoon 450S over the 450F or the Helia 44 or the Leopard48. I personally think the Leopard should be compared with the Lagoon 52F/S but that's just me. I would love the 52S but I think I settle for a 450S which is easier to handle for my beautiful wife my daughter and myself.

He is not only an avid sailor but also what you would call a climate scientist. When I asked him about the trend over millenia he said only "warming" and had another sip of his coffee. He looked at with this "'nough said" look. When I asked for trends over aeons he said with a big grin on his face: "the dinosaurs would laugh at us if we think its warm now" and continued to tell me that the lower boom of the 450S would be a great advantage. I argued that the flybridge was a great socialising place, while he said the helm position of the 450S would allow contact to people in the cockpit all the time and therefore be as good as the flybridge only safer - especially for people with my sailing skills. I can't repeat what I called him after that comment because I would get banned on CF if I do.

While we were discussing yachts he emailed me the reference to two papers. I want to share those papers with you.

Lisiecki, LE & Raymo, ME 2005, 'A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records', Paleoceanography, vol. 20, no. 1, pp.

and

Zachos, J, Pagani, M, Sloan, L, Thomas, E & Billups, K 2001, 'Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present', Science, vol. 292, no. 5517, pp. 686-93.

They might be behind a paywall. I would not know because I have free university access to any paper.

I don't have time now to read them but I think GoingWalkabout you are better qualified as I am anyway as you have researched the subject more deeply. Would you mind to give us a summary of the findings of those papers? Thanks for that!

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And i bet caveman, errr, caveperson fires were to blame for that. Humans have been terra-changing the planet from the moment they first figured out this "how to make a fire" thing.

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

An astrobiologist would argue that life itself has been terra-changing from the moment it appeared on this planet. Without life this one would be a barren hot planet. Three books I love to this subject.

Morris, SC 2013, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, 1 edition edn, Cambridge University Press;

Rothery, DA, Gilmour, I & Sephton, MA 2011, An Introduction to Astrobiology, 2 edition edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York

Ward, PD & Brownlee, D 2003, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Copernicus, New York.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout
"I agree the analysis is far more complicated than the simpleton high school grade statistics being used by AGW alarmists are using".

Ya right...and she called you condescending. When people have no ground to stand on they will usually attack through fear.

I was surprised as well that she felt she had to resent to insulting me. Her reaction seemed a bit over the top.

In the beginning she said

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

...I say it is asinine to base models over decades when you should be using century and millennia.

But what difference does a thousand or million years make!

A decade is 10 years a century is 100 years a millenium is 1000 years. But she was confusing centuries with millenia and millenium with millions of years or aeons. It is common, that terminology, if used wrongly, is leading to misunderstandings.

I answered her post by explaining in detail the involved terms used by scientists with their corresponding defined time-frames:

Originally Posted by adoxograph

It a common mistake to confuse weather with climate and climate variability with climate change [...]

Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over at least 30 years.

Climate variability describes the way climate elements such as temperature and rainfall depart from the average value in given months, seasons, years, decades or centuries.

[...]

Climate change refers to a statistically-significant trend in climate over many decades. It is superimposed on natural yearly-to-decadal climate variability. This variability can mask or enhance underlying trends.[...]

I really enjoyed debating her until she became verbally abusive. But maybe she finds her way back into a solid factual based debate?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I was surprised as well that she felt she had to resent to insulting me. Her reaction seemed a bit over the top.

In the beginning she said



A decade is 10 years a century is 100 years a millenium is 1000 years. But she was confusing centuries with millenia and millenium with millions of years or aeons. It is common, that terminology, if used wrongly, is leading to misunderstandings.

I answered her post by explaining in detail the involved terms used by scientists with their corresponding defined time-frames:



I really enjoyed debating her until she became verbally abusive. But maybe she finds her way back into a solid factual based debate?

I especially liked your last post to her..."I don't have time now to read them but I think GoingWalkabout you are better qualified as I am anyway as you have researched the subject more deeply. Would you mind to give us a summary of the findings of those papers? Thanks for that!

...cough

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

An astrobiologist would argue that life itself has been terra-changing from the moment it appeared on this planet. Without life this one would be a barren hot planet. Three books I love to this subject.

Morris, SC 2013, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, 1 edition edn, Cambridge University Press;

Rothery, DA, Gilmour, I & Sephton, MA 2011, An Introduction to Astrobiology, 2 edition edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York

Ward, PD & Brownlee, D 2003, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Copernicus, New York.

As the biology dux of my high school senior year, I agree! Forget about CO2, oxygen is the pollutant in the atmosphere when considering what lifeforms as a whole have done to alter atmospheric, and no doubt oceanic, chemistry.


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

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

@GoingWalkabout.[...]

While we were discussing yachts he emailed me the reference to two papers. I want to share those papers with you.

Lisiecki, LE & Raymo, ME 2005, 'A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records', Paleoceanography, vol. 20, no. 1, pp.

and

Zachos, J, Pagani, M, Sloan, L, Thomas, E & Billups, K 2001, 'Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present', Science, vol. 292, no. 5517, pp. 686-93.

They might be behind a paywall. I would not know because I have free university access to any paper.

I don't have time now to read them but I think GoingWalkabout you are better qualified as I am anyway as you have researched the subject more deeply. Would you mind to give us a summary of the findings of those papers? Thanks for that! [...]

'A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records' Cited by 2995

'Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present' Cited by 5560

[SailOar]

Long Overlooked Area of Antarctica Sees Major Ice Loss | Climate Central

[...] Now, new research shows that glaciers in a region of West Antarctica that has received relatively little attention to date have lost a considerable amount of ice. And that ice melt and retreat has been going on for decades, longer than previously thought.

The findings, detailed in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, have implications for understanding the potential sea level rise that the vast icy expanse of Antarctica could unleash as the Earth’s temperature continues to rise.[...]

Several major ice shelves have collapsed in the last two decades, and the speeds of several crucial glaciers, such as Pine Island Glacier, have accelerated. Recent studies suggest some have even reached a point of no return.

All told, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough ice to add 10 to 13 feet to global sea level rise were it all to melt; even an incomplete melt would imperial [sic] low-lying coastal areas around the planet. One sector, the Amundsen Sea Embayment, contains several of the most worrisome glaciers. It alone currently accounts for about 10 percent of sea level rise.

But close behind it is a neighboring area, called the Bellingshausen Sea or the South Antarctica Peninsula. It accounts for about one third of the ice loss from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the Amundsen accounts for nearly half), and a study last year showed its glaciers have sped up considerably since 2009. But it has been relatively little studied, especially compared to the more attention-grabbing parts of the Amundsen.[...]

They found that 65 percent of the coastline had seen grounding line retreat since 1990, while only 7 percent had seen an advance. The total amount of ice lost over the last 40 years is about 390 square miles, an area about the size of Dallas.

The results “show that this whole coastline has been in a state of retreat since records began in the early 1970s,” Bingham said. That contrasts with previous thinking that only certain glaciers, like the Ferrigno Ice Stream, were seeing significant ice loss while the rest were fairly stable.

“The study illustrates that Antarctica is not immune to changes and that some of what we are seeing today started decades ago,” Eric Rignot, a NASA glaciologist who was not involved with the work, said in an email.[...]

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Long Overlooked Area of Antarctica Sees Major Ice Loss | Climate Central

It's like a game of Chinese Whispers...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-3...y-2100/7286782

Antarctica's melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, doubling previous forecasts

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ea-level-rise/

Unexpected Antarctic melt could trigger 2-metre sea level rise

https://www.rt.com/news/343597-antar...ing-sea-level/

Antarctic melting: Coastal cities 'will have 2-3 meter-high sea defenses by end of century'

At a minimum, at least two of those headlines must be BS. Alarmist reporting in a nutshell.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

All that about Antarctic and ice melting and raising sea levels is pure bs. Went through this all before with jack he agreed that the Antarctic ice is actually retaining its volume throughout Antarctica. Some areas are melting however others are gaining in volume . The volume gains are essentially equal to the melt water losses in the other areas for a net sea level change of Nada.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by newhaul

All that about Antarctic and ice melting and raising sea levels is pure bs. Went through this all before with jack he agreed that the Antarctic ice is actually retaining its volume throughout Antarctica. Some areas are melting however others are gaining in volume . The volume gains are essentially equal to the melt water losses in the other areas for a net sea level change of Nada.

You keep telling yourself that

And the Rapture's going to occur in your life time.

Doh I'll go back to just reading

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You keep telling yourself that

And the Rapture's going to occur in your life time.

Doh I'll go back to just reading

Reliable sources is the keyword here. I remember my undergraduate studies. I had one professor, who wrote as a comment to a reference in one of my papers: "Why don't you quote the Bible here instead?" and reduced my mark by 5 points.

Reliable sources are the problem in this particular debate here on CF. Citations and links are usually to mainstream media or to websites obviously biased to one side or the other. I understand that no-one here can't be bothered to check the original papers. Most of them are behind paywalls and who in his right mind would pay 36$ to prove a point on CF?

Reefmagnet hit the nail on the head when he said:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's like a game of Chinese Whispers...

Antarctica's melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, doubling previous forecasts - Science News - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ea-level-rise/

https://www.rt.com/news/343597-antar...ing-sea-level/

[...]

ABC is an OK source, so is New Scientist, but RT? However, all three would get the above comment from my former professor. All of them are not reliable at all, simply because a journalist with basic science background is interpreting a scientific study and is trying to translate the results to a language the general population understands. Of course let's sprinkle a bit of bias and catastrophy over the text because that get's eyeballs on the text. It gets really funny when those sources quoting each other.

And then newhaul adds:

Originally Posted by newhaul

All that about Antarctic and ice melting and raising sea levels is pure bs. Went through this all before with jack he agreed that the Antarctic ice is actually retaining its volume throughout Antarctica. Some areas are melting however others are gaining in volume . The volume gains are essentially equal to the melt water losses in the other areas for a net sea level change of Nada.

referring to a NASA press release which was discussed earlier.

It is obvious that no-one bothers to read the papers. All of the above Media reports written by journalists or the PR department of NASA are interconnected. Now, if anyone would have read the underlying papers he/she would have realised that the ice gain in the Antarctica is primarily in the surrounding sea, the ice loss is mainly over land.

Yes, there is actually a net gain on the mass of the ice in the Antarctica as reported by NASA, but ice in water will not add to the volume (I guess as sailors we all should understand buoyancy) even when it melts. However ice that melts over land does add to the volume if it flows into the sea.

Journalists are filters with their own bias. Those sources are kind of OK but like the Bible far from reliable. If you want a solid base for your argument look for peer reviewed sources, otherwise we have "Valentina Zharkova's global cooling caused by reduced solar activity" all over again.