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

[SailOar]

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You could simplify the matter by clarifying what your purpose was in posting the updated graph on Arctic sea ice extent, and repeatedly pointing out that the NWP is open. I assumed it was because you are trying to impress upon us that the retreating ice is due to MMGW, but best if others don't have to speculate so often on the meaning of your cursory posts.

What I don't fully understand is how you reconcile MMGW as the principal cause of higher temps and melting ice, with your animated post awhile back (#1168) that shows less than 1.5C of avg. global warming from 1860 to 2016. Unless the science is showing that accelerated warming in the Arctic is a regional phenomenon related to global influences. Unlike the MWP, of course, which the science you rely on deems as a regional phenomenon unrelated to global influences.

Read the topic at hand. That is purpose of posting the extent of the ice.

The Arctic is warming faster that other regions. That is what the observed data say.

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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Reason for the first post above? Are you trying to convey the current state of the northwest passage in a positive or negative light?


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

I am not making any value judgement in that post. Are there some postives ? Yes and my postings on the Nordic Orion have included some.

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

[Capt Phil]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
The reason I believe adaption is probably our best option is not because I want to minimize the need for and desirability of reducing fossil fuel consumption, but because it's our only likely option. And adaptation includes technological advancement, of course, whether in the form of alternative energies or other types of mitigation. The reality is that, like it or not, fossil fuels have become essential and ubiquitous throughout our world, and so the only viable solutions are going to have to start from that recognition -- whether that bothers peoples' "sensibilities" or not.



My comment: "The reason I believe adaption is probably our best option is not because I want to minimize the need for and desirability of reducing fossil fuel consumption, but because it's our only likely option."

Your response: "Just going 'welp, can't touch oil, we'll have to adapt' . . . ."

Let me know when you'd like to have an adult conversation. Never stated anything about "not touching oil." I'm justifiably dubious but not entirely dismissive about carbon tax schemes -- just don't fully understand how they are supposed to work as previously discussed, mainly because most of the consumption is non-discretionary. I'd like to say there is greater general awareness, at least in the developed world, about conservation, etc., but the reality is that it's dictated more by economics. And as also already discussed, there's China, India, and the developing world. As for the IPCC and Paris accords, even if only half of delfin's estimates on the cost/benefit analysis are correct, it sounds unrealistic and implausible.

So that likely leaves human adaptation to the higher CO2 levels and supposed higher temps that many claim will follow. Beats me what adaptation means L-E, although if it becomes necessary it will certainly become more than "doing nothing." I guess it'll depend on how much predicted gloom & doom actually comes to pass. Did I mention that I'm not a scientist or engineer? You are certainly free to disagree and I'm sure you will, but I don't see the world weaning itself off fossil fuels anytime in the foreseeable future. This has nothing to do with my personal desires or your maintaining virtue, but with reality. Either get over it, explain why my opinion is wrong, or offer alternative solutions. Spending your time on the internet critiquing "non-believers" ain't gonna help, my friend.

I am overwhelmed at the knowledge and acumen demonstrated in these posts, much of which I don't understand.
Having no cogent position on the topic, I sure won't comment further but find there are enough kernels of interest that I try and read all of them.
If it isn't asking too much, would you folks mind dumbing down your posts so Neanderthals like me can understand at least some of that which you all are so skillfully debating? Cheers, Phil

[SailOar]

Can Oregano Fight Cow Belches — And Climate Change? | NPR

Cows are notoriously gassy creatures. Globally, more than a third of methane generated by human activity comes from livestock farming, a good deal of it in the form of bovine belching (yes, belching — not the other end). This is a serious problem, given that methane is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.

Enter a Danish research team that is testing out one potential solution in the form of an unassuming herb: oregano.

"Oregano has essential oils with a mild antimicrobial called carvacrol, which can kill some of the bacteria in the cow's rumen that produce methane," explains Kai Grevsen, a senior researcher at Aarhus University who specializes in crop science. "Of course, you can't kill all of the bacteria, or the cow would die." [...]

Grevsen says another major difference is that his team will use "Greek oregano," which has a significantly higher concentration of belch-suppressing essential oil than oregano used in earlier research. They hope this oregano feed could reduce methane emissions by up to 25 percent.

"A cow loses a lot of energy in releasing all this methane," explains Grevsen. "By blocking the bacteria, the energy that doesn't get lost can be used by the cow to produce more milk."

There is also the question of what this will taste like. Grevsen hasn't tried any oregano-milk — yet — but he assures that those earlier studies found no hints of pizza or spaghetti in the final product. He says there is even some evidence that oregano changes the composition of fatty acids, creating a better-quality milk. Whether that remains true with the "turbo-powered" oregano is yet to be taste-tested.
[...]

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

As I've said already. Adapt. Our cavemen brethren would be proud of how their descendents have adapted to the present hothouse, never mind greenhouse, world. Although they might lament the loss of the mammoth and land bridges. Until introduced to a tasty grain fed beef steak and the Airbus A380, perhaps.

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

That is not adaptation, it is conspicuous consumption, which is of course the root of the problem. Ok for a population of a billion, unsustainable and unrealistic for one of 7-10 billion. Or are you suggesting what Newhaul (and others here) seem to fear, some sort of liberal 'New World Order' population control?

The funny thing about this talk of adaptation is that it is going on now, mostly in forms that are not conducive to or indicative of what most would call 'pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for all'.

If ya'll are ready and willing to adapt, don't complain when the consequences are not what you'd like. And keep in mind that those consequences are almost certainly going to be more widespread as time goes by. We'll let you be the judges of if they're to be deemed 'good or bad'... though most likely it will be your children and their children who place the blame or praise on their preceding generations...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That is not adaptation, it is conspicuous consumption, which is of course the root of the problem. Ok for a population of a billion, unsustainable and unrealistic for one of 7-10 billion. Or are you suggesting what Newhaul (and others here) seem to fear, some sort of liberal 'New World Order' population control?

The funny thing about this talk of adaptation is that it is going on now, mostly in forms that are not conducive to or indicative of what most would call 'pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for all'.

If ya'll are ready and willing to adapt, don't complain when the consequences are not what you'd like. And keep in mind that those consequences are almost certainly going to be more widespread as time goes by. We'll let you be the judges of if they're to be deemed 'good or bad'... though most likely it will be your children and their children who place the blame or praise on their preceding generations...

You miss the point. That point being that generations adapt to the environment they live within. In fact some might say that this forms the basis for climate change alarmism, whereby the fear of deviation from the current climate exists because the perception is that it is somehow "ideal" when, arguably, in reality it is merely "familiar".

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You miss the point. That point being that generations adapt to the environment they live within.

You miss the point. There's being REACTIVE, which is... moving inland, fighting over dwindling resources, pollution masks, etc... and there's being PROACTIVE, which is to act now to minimize future harm, plan for changes, build reserves...

Humans will adapt to voluntarily modifying some destructive behaviours, and humans will also adapt to the worse mess that will occur if we do nothing. I know which situation I'd prefer to leave for our descendents.

[Exile]

It's interesting how whenever the rather broad, amorphous concept of "adaptation" is suggested -- not as necessarily the most desirable but as the only practical alternative -- it brings out such consternation. I'm sure all the moralizing feels good -- especially to those who have made it obvious that they are doing nothing personally to reduce their own consumption -- but "conspicuous consumption" by those relative few in the developed world who can afford it has little to do with the overall "problem." (as compared to the explosion of growth in the developing world, for example).

Awhile back in the other thread someone posted a graph which showed how fossil fuel consumption closely tracked the rate of worldwide economic growth, which is why oil prices are so closely followed by other markets, central banks, and national govts. Like it or not, we have all inherited a system where fossil fuels are the lifeblood of human civilization, which is also why price doesn't have the same impact on demand as those who advocate for carbon taxes apparently believe. Instead, prices are low largely because of increased supply while demand continues to increase, albeit more moderately these days given slower economic growth. It's not a question of our good intentions or how much we wish things to be different, but simply how the world works now and for the foreseeable future.

More affluent people who have the means to "consume conspicuously" will be largely unaffected by carbon taxes or other schemes to increase the costs of fossil fuels. If efficiently managed, carbon taxes might slow some discretionary consumption in certain areas (like B.C. according to Jack), but aren't likely to make any appreciable difference except in the naive minds of those who believe their local commuter trains are "carbon-neutral" because they are powered by "free energy from the wind." Or in the minds of those who know better but are good at producing this sort of propaganda, of course.

It's all too easy to accuse others who perhaps better understand these undisputed facts of using them as an excuse "to do nothing," when the reality is that continued moralizing and advocating for completely unrealistic "remedies" have already and will continue to do more harm to any "pro-AGW" goal (whatever they may be) than any good. So have at it, keep preaching, but don't blame anyone else for your ongoing frustration.

In the meantime, I'll remain skeptical but not closed-minded about the (hopefully) evolving science, but continue to recycle my trash, ride my mx around as much as possible, use wood to supplement heat for my home so as to decrease my propane consumption, contemplate the costs/benefits of installing solar panels, but have no self-indulgent delusions about any of it helping anything on the planet except my household budget. The only chance of meaningful solutions is when more people become willing to engage in objective, honest, apolitical & realistic problem-solving.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Can Oregano Fight Cow Belches — And Climate Change? | NPR

A fine example of how the solutions lie in improved technology!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I am overwhelmed at the knowledge and acumen demonstrated in these posts, much of which I don't understand.
Having no cogent position on the topic, I sure won't comment further but find there are enough kernels of interest that I try and read all of them.
If it isn't asking too much, would you folks mind dumbing down your posts so Neanderthals like me can understand at least some of that which you all are so skillfully debating? Cheers, Phil

Not sure you're being complementary or facetious here, Cap!? Jack has often -- and quite justifiably I should add -- accused some of my postings as being "word salads." But I also share your lack of understanding when it comes to some of the more science-related posts, especially when adoxo starts citing math formulas . . . .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

A fine example of how the solutions lie in improved technology!

The technological imperative strikes again.

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

[newhaul]

Unless I'm not seeing this correctly there seems to be very limited melting of sea ice throughout the archipelago over the last several days
Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - 10 day animation map

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The technological imperative strikes again.

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

The huge GHG contribution of belching livestock specifically & agriculture generally is astounding. Don't doubt the stats, just find the % much higher than I would have ever imagined.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's interesting how whenever the rather broad, amorphous concept of "adaptation" is suggested -- not as necessarily the most desirable but as the only practical alternative -- it brings out such consternation. I'm sure all the moralizing feels good -- especially to those who have made it obvious that they are doing nothing personally to reduce their own consumption -- [] but "conspicuous consumption" by those relative few in the developed world who can afford it has little to do with the overall "problem." (as compared to the explosion of growth in the developing world, for example).

Awhile back in the other thread someone posted a graph which showed how fossil fuel consumption closely tracked the rate of worldwide economic growth, which is why oil prices are so closely followed by other markets, central banks, and national govts. Like it or not, we have all inherited a system where fossil fuels are the lifeblood of human civilization, which is also why price doesn't have the same impact on demand as those who advocate for carbon taxes apparently believe. Instead, prices are low largely because of increased supply while demand continues to increase, albeit more moderately these days given slower economic growth. It's not a question of our good intentions or how much we wish things to be different, but simply how the world works now and for the foreseeable future.

More affluent people who have the means to "consume conspicuously" will be largely unaffected by carbon taxes or other schemes to increase the costs of fossil fuels. If efficiently managed, carbon taxes might slow some discretionary consumption in certain areas (like B.C. according to Jack), but aren't likely to make any appreciable difference except in the naive minds of those who believe their local commuter trains are "carbon-neutral" because they are powered by "free energy from the wind." Or in the minds of those who know better but are good at producing this sort of propaganda, of course.

It's curious how you can dismiss everything BUT "adaptation", yet don't acknowledge what it might entail.

Since you haven't apparently grasped that the largest consumption of fossil-fuel energy is by the industrial, transport and commercial sectors, not individual consumers, your dismissal of carbon pricing mechanisms is not exactly persuasive.

It's all too easy to accuse others who perhaps better understand these undisputed facts of using them as an excuse "to do nothing," when the reality is that continued moralizing and advocating for completely unrealistic "remedies" have already and will continue to do more harm to any "pro-AGW" goal (whatever they may be) than any good. So have at it, keep preaching, but don't blame anyone else for your ongoing frustration.

Dismissing everything + proposing nothing = doing nothing.

The only chance of meaningful solutions is when more people become willing to engage in objective, honest, apolitical & realistic problem-solving.

See above. Whenever you're ready. Engage.