Climate Change - what to expect for cruising life

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by myocean

I see from this discussion, Big Oil has done a great job in educating people (probably most of them in the US?) about nobody is causing any climate change.

The fossil fuel lobby, the rabid partisanship of a rigidly bipolar political system, the "exceptionalism" of people who were born on second base, made it to third, and think they hit a triple... these are all factors in this forum's demographic - not all members, of course, but many.

The subject of CC or AGW has always been a magnet here for trolls and zealots. These threads seldom go well, the same people show up to make the same arguments (to my shame, I'm one), they are usually closed or even deleted by the mods, and one or two members often get a forced "time out" away from the forum.

Respectfully, while your question was innocent enough, it was just a bell for feeding time.

To your actual question: the natural variability of weather cycles still obscures the steady shift in climate caused by unnatural warming, so there won't really be any shift to the sailing itself; as before you will obtain the best forecasts before you head out and prepare to suit.

Most people, cruisers included, will see the most impact from economic or political fallout from the effects of climate change. If we finally get our acts together, there will be small economic impacts caused by carbon taxation and costs of mitigation and preparation. If we don't get on the ball... there will be a higher potential for economic chaos, instability, collapse of some weaker governments, mass migrations, famines, conflicts over resources. Some of these might put a crimp on our cruising activities... but most of us will be horizontal or in rocking chairs before this really manifests itself.

Enjoy and cherish your sailing time, and hope that saner heads will soon take the reins.

[Matsubob]

No matter what happens, there is going to be WEATHER! I really get tired of all the alarmists yelling about what has been happening through the centuries! And this is why even this "thread" is already showing signs of the different opinions and attitudes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I try and remain climate change agnostic (purely for my own sanity) but I have always said if you want to know what is REALLY happening then force the insurance companies to cough up their conclusions.

Well, sure, but it's even simpler than that: your insurance rates.

We have also heard that fossil fuel companies secretly already know which way the chips are falling. Their support of confusion and denial is a short-term strategy to make hay (oil?) while the sun shines.

The western auto-makers have also read the tea leaves. Most are shedding workers, closing plants, cancelling vehicles and entire lines. China is aggressively promoting (and producing) electric vehicles, including being current world leaders in electric bus production. When China can mass-produce and export a competitive EV, that's about it for western auto manufacturers and the domination of internal combustion engines.

[Exile]

"The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - George Bernard Shaw (I think -- may have been someone else )

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

"The trouble with this world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - George Bernard Shaw (I think -- may have been someone else )

"Lead, follow, or get outta the way"
- most often attributed to Gen. Patton

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Oh no, say it isn’t so. What will we do? Hopefully, we’ll be able to outrun the rising seas, how many more lizards on lizard island must die?

It will be gradual. Best to have a multihull though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd7rScF8tIs

[mud bug]

Unnatural warming? No data whatsoever to back up that statement. Planet has been around for billions of years with staggering changes in temperature, What caused those? Were they unnatural? N.O. We have maybe 100 years of temp data a majority of which was not collected or recorded to modern standards. Yet some (not all) claim a major shift in temp caused by man is happening without solid data. Ice cores do establish that CO2 levels have changed naturally over time in earths history. We do not know why. What we do know is that temperatures during those periods of higher CO2 did NOT have a corrolating rise in temps. FACTS! So now we are supposed to believe that CO2 is causing an increase in temperature even though that has not happened in the past. Earths atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen. That leaves 1.1% for all of the other gasses present including CO2. Pretty small amount. It's up to you to decide if such a small amount of the total will cause a major temp shift. Keeping in mind that changes in these levels which we don't know they happened have not caused temperature rise. Here is what we do know however. The climate change movement IS TIED to money
by through politics. Carbon taxes etc.. I do ask if possibly taxing the last un taxed thing on earth could be a driving factor. As shown it is a hot issue that spreads fear among the people that don't want to kill the earth. Who wouldn't go along with paying tax to save us all? Think about it, just think about it. Step back and look at who pushed the global warming in the beginning. Al Gore, the self proclaimed inventor of the internet. If we believe him, all of the things he stated in his movie such as massive coastal flooding were supposed to have already happened. Food for thought isn't it. I just hope that a population that is easily led by fear (understandably) can step back and think the issue through with an open mind. Nazi Propagandists knew that if you tell a big lie often enough, it becomes the truth. GO SAILING, LIVE YOUR LIFE, LOVE YOUR FAMILY.

[newhaul]

Everyone knows my stance on this CC bs .
That being said .
Here is the MMGWC motto

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

It will be gradual. Best to have a multihull though.

LOL
Now if we could somehow work into this debate some comments on the best anchor and what kind of gun to have onboard in order to help us survive climate change, this thread would finally be complete!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I try and remain climate change agnostic (purely for my own sanity) but I have always said if you want to know what is REALLY happening then force the insurance companies to cough up their conclusions. These world-wide mega companies are all about the money...they don't give a crap about the politics either way. I would bet they have some of the best balanced predictions on this stuff.

Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy-theory nutter...

Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate
Insurers are at the vanguard of a movement to put a value today on the unpredictable future of a warming planet.

"The effects of the planet’s slow heating are diffuse. Predictions of the fallout are imprecise, and the drivers are debated. But faced with the prospect of a warming planet, the world of business and finance is starting to put a price on climate change...

... Insurers’ most immediate climate peril is water. More heat means more moisture held in the atmosphere and greater precipitation. Melting ice is pushing up sea levels. A 2013 study in the journal Nature projected average flood losses for the world’s 136 biggest coastal cities could rise from $6 billion a year in 2005 to $52 billion a year by 2050 due to increased population and development. When taking climate change and a sea-level rise into account, flood losses could exceed $1 trillion a year by 2050, the study concluded, unless the cities invested about $50 billion annually in adapting...

... Hurricanes historically caused wind damage. But Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas in August 2017, spent weeks absorbing 33 trillion gallons of water, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It dumped more than 60 inches of rain and caused tens of billions of dollars in flood damage.

The probability of a Texas storm dropping about 20 inches of rain was about 1% a year between 1981 and 2000, but will likely increase to 18% a year by 2100, according to a 2017 study by Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science who says changing climate conditions are driving the trend...

... “Coastal flooding will clearly become a bigger issue in the long term,” Swiss Re’s Mr. Schmid says. “We can offer protection for hurricane losses or flood losses or other perils, but if certain coastal areas are so exposed, insurance becomes no longer viable. It becomes even uninsurable.”

More from the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate...y-recalculate/

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

The UN has a website on Climate Change that you might be interested in. Here is a link to one of their reports.

https://unfccc.int/news/climate-chan...-says-pentagon

You lost me at “The UN...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

LOL
Now if we could somehow work into this debate some comments on the best anchor and what kind of gun to have onboard in order to help us survive climate change, this thread would finally be complete!

ok I will try.
What anchor will best handle the " sudden catastrophic" sea level rise?
Wait they all do ok now its called tide. ( which for my local area is some 13 feet per day from low to high.) as of now I carry 4 different ones . All I need is a northhill and my ground tackle will be complete

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

The UN has a website on Climate Change that you might be interested in. Here is a link to one of their reports.

https://unfccc.int/news/climate-chan...-says-pentagon

remember that the U.N.( ipcc) is a political body therefore they have a monetary and political agenda.

[ShellBack89]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

You lost me at “The UN...

For sure! The UN makes the mafia look like Mother Teresa in a 3 piece suit.


To answer the OP's initial question - No change in my cruising plans so now I'm moving along.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate
Insurers are at the vanguard of a movement to put a value today on the unpredictable future of a warming planet.

"The effects of the planet’s slow heating are diffuse. Predictions of the fallout are imprecise, and the drivers are debated. But faced with the prospect of a warming planet, the world of business and finance is starting to put a price on climate change...

... Insurers’ most immediate climate peril is water. More heat means more moisture held in the atmosphere and greater precipitation. Melting ice is pushing up sea levels. A 2013 study in the journal Nature projected average flood losses for the world’s 136 biggest coastal cities could rise from $6 billion a year in 2005 to $52 billion a year by 2050 due to increased population and development. When taking climate change and a sea-level rise into account, flood losses could exceed $1 trillion a year by 2050, the study concluded, unless the cities invested about $50 billion annually in adapting...

... Hurricanes historically caused wind damage. But Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas in August 2017, spent weeks absorbing 33 trillion gallons of water, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It dumped more than 60 inches of rain and caused tens of billions of dollars in flood damage.

The probability of a Texas storm dropping about 20 inches of rain was about 1% a year between 1981 and 2000, but will likely increase to 18% a year by 2100, according to a 2017 study by Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science who says changing climate conditions are driving the trend...

... “Coastal flooding will clearly become a bigger issue in the long term,” Swiss Re’s Mr. Schmid says. “We can offer protection for hurricane losses or flood losses or other perils, but if certain coastal areas are so exposed, insurance becomes no longer viable. It becomes even uninsurable.”

More from the WSJ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate...y-recalculate/

Insurers are doing what any risk-taking industry would do, namely trying to discount the present day value of future potential risks. Same thing stock brokers & investment managers do for a living every day based on ever-conflicting predictions of economists and other financial experts. But is there evidence that insurers may be increasing premiums based on future predictions, or simply based on past events? I'm sure the article is factual, but its interpretation can be misleading.

Speaking of which, I ran across a pretty apt quote about the use of language these days, specifically how nobody with even a scintilla of awareness would ever "deny" that the climate changes:

"Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called 'climate change deniers'? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of 'global warming.' There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one."

The debate within the science centers on how much of the recent warming is attributable to human vs. non-human forces. The sanctimonious crowd doesn't like to hear this for the obvious reason that the less the warming is human caused the less humans can do anything about it. And the partisan crowd doesn't want to hear it because they are less concerned about the environmental issues than they are with a much broader socio-economic agenda. So all we hear is "climate change!" without any mention of what degree humans may actually be causing the planet's warming. Convenient, huh?

So what is it exactly that the naysayers & skeptics are actually accused of "denying?" It only serves to alert the reader that they are dealing with someone who is discussing politics, not actual science. The state of the science speaks for itself if people want to look. There are differences of opinion, mainly when it comes to impacts. The rest of the chatter & demonizing is just politically driven propaganda and therefore obviously biased. It doesn't necessarily make the more alarmist predictions from some scientists any more or less true, but it should be recognized for what it is and discounted accordingly.