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

[transmitterdan]

NASA has proved all the outer planets and Pluto have significant amounts of methane. It did not get there because lots of dinosaurs died millions of years ago.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

NASA has proved all the outer planets and Pluto have significant amounts of methane. It did not get there because lots of dinosaurs died millions of years ago.

too funny

[Reefmagnet]

If we could somehow extract the gas from Uranus, our problems would be solved.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If we could somehow extract the gas from Uranus, our problems would be solved.

oh too funny

😳 🤔 Wait a minute,

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If we could somehow extract the gas from Uranus, our problems would be solved.

While all the big boy Jovians show only trace amounts, Uranus has clouds of that stuff around it.

[SailOar]

Climate-Driven Water Scarcity Could Hit Economic Growth by Up to 6 Percent in Some Regions, Says World Bank

May, 3 2016 – Water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change, could cost some regions up to 6 percent of their GDP, spur migration, and spark conflict, according to a new World Bank report released today.*

High and Dry: Climate Change, Water and the Economy, says the combined effects of growing populations, rising incomes, and expanding cities will see demand for water rising exponentially, while supply becomes more erratic and uncertain.

Unless action is taken soon, the report says, water will become scarce in regions where it is currently abundant - such as Central Africa and East Asia - and scarcity will greatly worsen in regions where water is already in short supply - such as the Middle East and the Sahel in Africa. These regions could see their growth rates decline by as much as 6 percent of GDP by 2050 due to water related impacts on agriculture, health, and incomes.

The report also warns that reduced freshwater availability and competition from other uses - such as energy and agriculture – could reduce water availability in cities by as much as two thirds by 2050, compared to 2015 levels.

Water insecurity could multiply the risk of conflict, the report adds. Food price spikes caused by droughts can inflame latent conflicts and drive migration. Where economic growth is impacted by rainfall, episodes of droughts and floods have generated waves of migration and spikes in violence within countries, it says.

“Water scarcity is a major threat to economic growth and stability around the world, and climate change is making the problem worse,” said World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. “If countries do not take action to better manage water resources, our analysis shows that some regions with large populations could be living with long periods of negative economic growth. But countries can enact policies now that will help them manage water sustainably for the years ahead.”

The negative impacts of climate change on water could be neutralized with better policy decisions, the report says, with some regions standing to improve their growth rates by up to 6 percent with better water resource management.

“There is a silver lining,” said the report’s author and a World Bank Lead Economist Richard Damania. “When governments respond to water shortages by boosting efficiency and allocating even 25 percent of water to more highly-valued uses, losses decline dramatically and for some regions may even vanish. Improved water stewardship pays high economic dividends.”[...]

Get the full report

Read and share the eBook
Download the full report (PDF)
Executive summary

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

While all the big boy Jovians show only trace amounts, Uranus has clouds of that stuff around it.

Ok, enough with the bathroom humor...

Titan has lakes of methane and ethane. It is even thought to have an ocean that might be organic.

[Exile]

A great question, example and observation, and an excellent answer:

Originally Posted by SailOar

Given that:
1) Most of us are not scientists, and would have a hard time understanding a scientific paper if we did read it;
2) Even non-climate scientists, such as yourself, can't/don't read all the relevant research;
3) Ultimately, the decisions of what to do, or not do, about Climate Change will be made by non-scientists...

What do you suggest as the best way for a non-scientist, with limited time and limited scientific experience, to accurately inform themselves about Climate Change-related data, risks, solutions, and costs, etc?

* * *

However, that conclusion contradicted a number of previous studies that reached the opposite conclusion, leading a number of Antarctic ice scientists to question the method used by NASA to reach their conclusion, such as this article found in the Washington Post.

A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical

So, again, how is a non-scientist supposed to sort this thing out?

* * *

Of course, since this is merely a journalist reporting on a scientific study and not the scientific study itself, we can't be sure what is correct and what is journalistic bias.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Treating everything one reads with an open but skeptical mind. Checking who wrote it and who published it helps to filter out the bias. Besides of this trying not to see everything through the glasses of ones political affiliation or believes is an advantage too. Most participants here are doing this anyway - some don't.

But then some will only see bias on the other side, whomever & whatever they deem that "other side" to be. This one almost had me choking on my coffee given the relentless alarmist "headlines" & articles SailOar has been posting:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Most headlines are BS; at a minimum they are all incomplete. Making hay from any and every headline - the typical AGW-denial position in a nutshell.

And then there are those who only see one side:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's an interesting article Warming Could Boost Carbon Storage in Alaska Forests | Climate Central
Seems that science is still finding more info that is contrary to the MMGW meme .

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you read past the headline?

“The report highlights the incredible changes that are forecast for Alaskan ecosystems including increased wildfires, degradation of permafrost and loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere,” Schuur said.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

According to one permafrost researcher, Jack. Did you read past this one cited scientific forecast that happens to support your position?

"Scientists unaffiliated with the research said the study is inconclusive about the extent to which Alaska’s forests will be able to offset the state’s emissions.

University of Alaska permafrost researcher Vladimir Romanovsky said the models the USGS used in its projections for Alaska’s future carbon storage do not capture the vast uncertainties about how much methane melting permafrost will emit.

It’s possible that temperate forests will fully offset those emissions, “but we can’t tell right now what really will happen,” Romanovsky said.

The USGS model also underestimates the extent of permafrost loss by the end of the century, he said, adding that his research shows two-thirds of the state’s permafrost could be lost by 2100 if human carbon emissions aren’t cut." [emphasis mine]

Newhaul's point was that there were contrary theories/hypotheses/opinions which contradicted the MMGW meme, not that such contrarian views had been proven. It also doesn't undercut the predictions about permafrost loss due to continued warming (assuming this occurs), but points out the uncertainties of predicting the consequences. This is all too obvious when the article is read and fairly evaluated in its entirety, but apparently missed when an agenda other than the science is being pursued.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Yes jack I did and I actually read the entire article before deciding to share it
Have you read the article ? There are some interesting hypothesis written about in it. It also states that much more data is needed to better understand the potential increase of carbon sequestration from an estimated 3.7 million metric tons to an estimated 34 million metric tons per year.more than offsetting the carbon released.[/QUOTE]

A fair reading of what the article actually says, whether it contradicts someone's personal or political agenda or not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But then some will only see bias on the other side, whomever & whatever they deem that "other side" to be. This one almost had me choking on my coffee given the relentless alarmist "headlines" & articles SailOar has been posting:

Sorry about the coffee spittake. I guess that excuses your citing the above out of context.

Sailoar posts the headlines AND the article. ditto for Jack. And they invariably read the actual article, which is not something that can be said for a great many of the anti-AGW cites posted here and on The Thread That Was.

By the way, in the realm of scientific skeptics - yes they exist. Did you know that there are also many scientists who think that the IPCC conclusions and warnings are not strong or dire enough? Maybe this will help you consider that the IPCC message is not some trumped up greenie conspiracy, but could actually be a balanced summary of the breadth of scientific opinions on AGW.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

...But then some will only see bias on the other side, whomever & whatever they deem that "other side" to be. This one almost had me choking on my coffee given the relentless alarmist "headlines" & articles SailOar has been posting:...

It is telling that you (and many others on this thread as well) "choke" on the news articles that I post. Yet it is those news articles of scientific papers, and a few other posts by those who are actual scientists, which are the only genuinely useful input to this thread. Most of the other posts, including most of your posts, are simply non-experts spouting off what they believe. As such they mean little more than the opinion one could obtain from any four year old.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

By the way, in the realm of scientific skeptics - yes they exist. Did you know that there are also many scientists who think that the IPCC conclusions and warnings are not strong or dire enough? Maybe this will help you consider that the IPCC message is not some trumped up greenie conspiracy, but could actually be a balanced summary of the breadth of scientific opinions on AGW.

As soon as I read that I thought two words - "James Hansen". No surprise to see The father of AGW, the Master of hypothetical disaster, the self proclaimed protector of humanity from itself and the King of CC doom and gloom spin is still going strong.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

As soon as I read that I thought two words - "James Hansen". No surprise to see The father of AGW, the Master of hypothetical disaster, the self proclaimed protector of humanity from itself and the King of CC doom and gloom spin is still going strong.

You're doing fine. Here are some more.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
But then some will only see bias on the other side, whomever & whatever they deem that "other side" to be. This one almost had me choking on my coffee given the relentless alarmist "headlines" & articles SailOar has been posting:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:
Most headlines are BS; at a minimum they are all incomplete. Making hay from any and every headline - the typical AGW-denial position in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry about the coffee spittake. I guess that excuses your citing the above out of context.

Not sure what's out of context, but I suppose I could have made the same point by substituting your phrase "the typical AGW-denial position" for the phrase "the typical AGW-proponent position," but that may have been deemed rude at this point. All that aside, the only point I was trying to make was that there is plenty of bias on both sides of this issue as has been demonstrated again & again, and neither side has an exclusive on virtue when it comes to the various sorts of biases that have been exposed. Not being able to recognize this is itself a sure sign of bias.

Sailoar posts the headlines AND the article. ditto for Jack. And they invariably read the actual article, which is not something that can be said for a great many of the anti-AGW cites posted here and on The Thread That Was.

So it's only the skeptics/contrarians who post headlines without reading the articles? And you know this how? So what you're implying is that the failure to read past the headline is the reason they are uninformed and thus skeptics? So simple! If only . . . . So I gather you think Jack read the entire article Newhaul recently posted before responding, but simply missed the other permafrost researcher who was much more circumspect in his predictions of doom & gloom? Did Jack also miss the part of the article about scientists from NOAA & NASA theorizing about a potentially stronger impact on climate from solar variability? Why do you believe only "your" side is not responsible for exaggerations, deceptions, omissions, and distortions?

By the way, in the realm of scientific skeptics - yes they exist. Did you know that there are also many scientists who think that the IPCC conclusions and warnings are not strong or dire enough?

Yes, I was aware of this. Jack has pointed it out a number of times, as does your article. It is entirely plausible and I would only be surprised if it were not true. So the point of your raising this is what again? OK, here we go:

Maybe this will help you consider that the IPCC message is not some trumped up greenie conspiracy, but could actually be a balanced summary of the breadth of scientific opinions on AGW.

I never believed it was "some trumped up green conspiracy," mainly because I don't think the greenie message or its nebulous goals are coherent enough to form the basis of a conspiracy. But I also don't believe "the IPCC message" (whatever that may be) constitutes "a balanced summary of the breadth of scientific opinions on AGW." I believe this is the impression the IPCC wants to convey, and the impression conveyed superficially by its website overview and press releases designed for the non-scientific general public. In other words, its propaganda. I also understand that this is what you and many others believe, and have no problems with such opinions. What I don't believe, however, is that the IPCC is simply an objective, science-based clearinghouse for the latest and most reliable scientific opinions on climate science. I'm certainly not alone with my opinions, so I'd say your best bet would be to get used to it, just like many of us skeptics & contrarians have had to get used to all of the alarmist yet unfounded predictions of doom & gloom.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how difficult it is for many of the AGW advocates to accept and respond objectively to those that don't share their opinions?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It is telling that you (and many others on this thread as well) "choke" on the news articles that I post. Yet it is those news articles of scientific papers, and a few other posts by those who are actual scientists, which are the only genuinely useful input to this thread. Most of the other posts, including most of your posts, are simply non-experts spouting off what they believe. As such they mean little more than the opinion one could obtain from any four year old.

That was cute SailOar, but accusing another poster's opinions to that of a four year-old seems to be exactly what the mods have been trying to warn us about. I sort of pity what I think is probably your sincere but misguided belief that all the articles you have posted are objective & fair representations by journalists of actual peer-reviewed scientific papers, or balanced opinions of a reasonable cross-section of scientists themselves.

You may wish to re-read adoxo's well-stated advice to you on this.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

And you are calling me condescending? Wow...

Please let me address every point in your post

1. Statistical analysis of past data is basic statistics, not very complicated.
2. Models that predict future events are much more complicated.
3. Models that are working perfectly on past data does not necessarily imply that those models can predict future events - And then you have to re-model the model.
4. Back to statistical analysis. Millenia you say? This is not even necessary. The analysis of the last 136 years shows 0.8Deg C raise in temperature. The sum of measurement and calibration errors of thermometers is larger than that.
5. I am a scientist and make my living with research. Although in a different field (Astronomy/Astrophysics). I'm not an expert in climate science and no I'm not even up-to date with the research in this field. (Don't have time to sieve through 20,000 papers)
6. I never took any side in the debate. I only explain methods and results. Sometimes I even comment on it (s.a. 4.)
7. You hit the nail on the head. I am nothing but an very well educated fool.
8. I also agree with you that science is never settled. (Otherwise I would be out of a job).
9. And I agree with the science, but not with the political interpretation. I even consider the IPCC a political and not a scientific organisation (Just look at the name, they don't even hide this fact!)

I hope that cleared this up.

This is getting really interesting.

I suppose we are all educated idiots. The more I come to know the more I realise I don't know. So true education leads ultimately to a point of humility when arriving at the awareness that what you don't understand far exceeds what you do. Hence making you think of yourself as an educated idiot.

We can argue back and forth about the time line adopted for measuring climate fluctuations. I have serious issues concerning the statistical relevance of the time span being used by AGW people. While this is a fundamental issue on this I am happy to kindly disagree without being disagreeable.

On most else of what you have written I congratulate you. I would certainly enjoy discussions on a myriad of scientific notions over drinks at an pier or boat of your choosing.

I wish you well.