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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

( I still say ice breakers play a larger role than ppl are willing to admit or accept)

I still say you are wrong, so does NSIDC

In total, researchers estimate that the number of icebreakers traversing the Arctic at any given time is usually less than three. So, Meier said, “The actual contribution is miniscule—only one part in a million of the total ice cover.”

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/iceligh...anging-climate

But what do they know? They only study Arctic ice conditions.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I disagree with many conservatives, I am dismissive of the willfully ignorant, regardless of political stripe. Third Day defies categorization.

Not really... negative and confrontational.

[Celestialsailor]

Since we are referencing information from accurate news agencies like the Daily Caller, I thought I would post from an equally accurate news agency which parallels DC quite well...
Weekly World News | Search Results

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It is easy enough to measure the various wavelengths of radiated energy to determine how much energy of each wavelength is retained by CO2 and other atmospheric gases. We don't need a massive world wide sensing net for that. CO2 let's higher frequency wavelengths of energy from the Sun through but absorbs the lower wavelengths that try to escape back into outer space. Were it not for this well known and quantified phenomenon much of the Earth would be like the ice planet Hoth. The heat trapping features of our atmosphere and oceans are responsible for a livable day/night temperature range.

It is also easy enough to measure the atmospheric concentration of CO2. It is rising faster than any time in recent history and is now higher than in many millennia. Therefore the heat trapping capacity of the atmosphere is rising. So the logical expectation is that "average" atmospheric temperature should be always rising. But the challenge in estimating how much it should rise is enormous because there are many other factors besides CO2 that affect the actual measured temperature. So measuring other things such as Arctic sea ice extent which can be done by satellite can tell us something about the temperature trend in that part of the world.

The physics based evidence for AGW is overwhelming for sure. CO2 traps heat and more CO2 traps more heat. The rub is that the vast majority of estimating models predicted a higher average temperature rise than what we have seen to date. But that does not invalidate the fact that rising CO2 levels will cause increased temperatures all other things being equal. It just means that all other things are not equal.

The combined models used in the graphs in the pictures below, from the latest IPCC summary, show that the observed temperatures fit very well the into the modeled temperatures, regionally mostly right in the middle, though (as should be expected) there is some variation. Globally, the observed temperatures are right in the middle of the combined models, which to me would indicate that they are reasonable accurate...





You can see the originals and read the whole assessment here: (Thanks, Exile)

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...rochure_en.pdf

Originally Posted by newhaul

( I still say ice breakers play a larger role than ppl are willing to admit or accept)

Yep, and a lot of people still say, contrary to 2500+ years of observation and subsequent proofs, that the earth is flat...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Another straw man. You successfully beat it to death.

Other GHGs are recognized and H2O is recognized by the IPCC as the predominate one.

CO2 is one of GHGs over which we have some control. The 40% increase over the past 2.5 centuries to directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 has also lead to an increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

A poster wanted to specifically know CO2's contribution. Obviously you have no idea what the specific value is. Ever noticed water vapour is a "runaway" Greenhouse gas on paper?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You really like those straw man don't you? Very few climate scientists said the science is settled.

From the description of the grpah you presented.



The one I presented was from 2013, AR5.

So simplified charts produced for the masses don't need to tell the true story, aye?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you really that naive?

Well, go ahead and explain it for use naive types. You obviously know the answer.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, go ahead and explain it for use naive types. You obviously know the answer.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You really are that naive.

Off the top of my head:

melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, species extinction (maybe us), droughts, extreme weather, crop failures, coastal flooding, glacial retreat, ocean acidifcation,

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You really are that naive.

Off the top of my head:

melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, species extinction (maybe us), droughts, extreme weather, crop failures, coastal flooding, glacial retreat, ocean acidifcation,

So that's an answer? Just about every very single one of those events was occuring prior to the current climate change scare. I'll concede ocean acidification, or more correctly neutralisation, but I suspect no one monitored the pH value that intently prior to the mid 20th century.

You need to try harder.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So that's an answer? Just about every very single one of those events was occuring prior to the current climate change scare. I'll concede ocean acidification, or more correctly neutralisation, but I suspect no one monitored the pH value that intently prior to the mid 20th century.

You need to try harder.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Really

I see a cooling trend in the period leading up to the industrial revolution.



Milankovitch cycles would indicate cooling, solar activity would indicate cooling, but it has been rapidly warming for the past 2.5 centuries as we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known GHG, into the atmosphere.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really

I see a cooling trend in the period leading up to the industrial revolution.



Milankovitch cycles would indicate cooling, solar activity would indicate cooling, but it has been rapidly warming for the past 2.5 centuries as we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known GHG, into the atmosphere.

These guys called to say BS

[AD28]

this thread needs some advice:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

These guys called to say BS

Just as I thought. You get your information from cartoons.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just as I thought. You get your information from cartoons.

I searched and searched but couldn't find an actual photo of the ice age. So I used artistic license.

I'll throw in a free fact to cheer you up...

Why Did the Woolly Mammoth Die Out? Reason Number One: Climate Change

Why Did the Woolly Mammoth Die Out? - National Geographic

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I searched and searched but couldn't find an actual photo of the ice age. So I used artistic license.

I'll throw in a free fact to cheer you up...

Why Did the Woolly Mammoth Die Out? Reason Number One: Climate Change

Why Did the Woolly Mammoth Die Out? - National Geographic

Doesn't count Reef if man or a fossil fuel co. didn't have something to do with it. Probably just a bad weather event.