Climate Change - what to expect for cruising life

[newhaul]

The fact is the arctic sea ice is growing again and the planet is cooling. Say what you want but I have been correct so far.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Rorzech

I'm sure many of us saw the news of the 17 alligators in a frozen pond with their snouts sticking out of the ice frozen in place just breathing. They all survived also ! This may have been South Carolina or Florida, but when is the last time we heard of alligators frozen in the ice. What were you's sayin about Global warming again ? Oh yeah, Right . You now call it Climate Change !Well it was 51 below zero Fahrenheit last night and I've never seen -50 F in this city in all my life ! Didn't Climate expert Al Gore predict there would be NO ICE at the Poles by 2013 ! And our children were not to even know what snow is ? What ever happened to pile of baloney ? The Top Scientist Harold Lewis of University of LA just resigned because he can no longer support the trillion dollar SCAM of global warming. This man is and was chair of more boards than you could shake a stick at. He is the Expert of all Experts. What he say's , you can take home to the bank. If he say's Global warming is a scam then it is a scam. And I have his 4 page report proving that it is a scam. So trust him that it is a scam when he say's it is ! All the scientist's out there fudging the numbers are doing it on purpose for the sake of keeping their jobs and keeping the billions in funding that's being provided by the Elites perpetuating this scam ! So wake up all you brainwashed suckers and smell the coffee !

post the report from him please or at least email it to me Rnewby1 hotmail

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

obviously you didn't actually read my post or even look at the dmi page. .

The blue line at the top is the freezing point aka 0℃ and and during the entire melt season the temperature is / was below average. Yes for most of the year the temperature was marginally above the average . However it was still well below the freezing point.



Try again.

I did read your post and I did look at the link. Your point has been the climate is cooling. I thought it was odd for you to post a link which showed the temperature in the arctic last year was significantly above the average (not marginally). The fact of the temperature most times being below zero is not very relevant, the graphic clearly shows the arctic was above average last year and in most of the recent years. Warmer arctic means less ice even if the warming is below the freezing point.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I did read your post and I did look at the link. Your point has been the climate is cooling. I thought it was odd for you to post a link which showed the temperature in the arctic last year was significantly above the average (not marginally). The fact of the temperature most times being below zero is not very relevant, the graphic clearly shows the arctic was above average last year and in most of the recent years. Warmer arctic means less ice even if the warming is below the freezing point.
Attachment 184594

actually incorrect the slightly warmer air which is still well below freezing will hold more moisture which ends up as more snow. You really don't have as much of the data or a solid grasp thereof. As you think you do my friend .
One question when did they start taking satellite pictures of the arctic sea ice?

[transmitterdan]

How does it follow that warmer temps but still below freezing automatically means less ice? I am not aware of a hard and fast correlation between temps and ice extent. What mechanism demands such a relationship?

[Buzzman]

As usual, people without the ability to differentiate make assumptions based on "beliefs", and then accuse others of doing the same.

If you *choose* to believe that the "science of global warming and climate change" is a fraud, then you are a "denier". Call yourself a sceptic/skeptic if you wish, but the very definition of a 'denier' is that they don't accept provable, known, accepted facts.

To whit, the Holocaust argument. It happened. If you disagree you are a 'denier'. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The same 'principle' is used to describe the 'deniers' of AGW.

The science is in. There is no 'conspiracy'. It's not a 'theory' - now - the priniciples of the initial 'scientific theorem' have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by multiple studies in multiple countries in multiple fields:-

Human burning of fossil fuels has released such CO2 quantities over such a short (geological) time frame that cannot be absorbed by natural systems and so are building up in the atmosphere, and thus causing the global temps to increase.

This has been now clearly demonstrated to be affecting the icecaps.

How much and how quickly this will/may lead to "total meltdown of all ice" (or some fraction thereof) is the ONLY space where doubt still exists. Until it is much further down the track (ie: potentially very bad) we won't / can't *know* for certain.

Hence the 'models' that attempt to predict this and other potential scenarios (such as lowland flooding) in order that we humans can make some sense of the situation and decide whether (or not) we *choose* to do anything about it.

Local, State, Federal and international government bodies, as 'managers' of our human existence, are charged with preventing disasters from occuring (where they can) and mitigating against them (where they can't).

It's what governments OUGHT to be doing.

In this case, AGW, while we / they all accept AGW is occurring, what's causing it, CO2 emissions, the extent to which we *might* be able to prevent a "worst-case scenario" differs widely.

For all / any of them / us knows, the worst case scenario (50m sea level rise in the event of total icecap melt) may in fact be offset by other mechanisms - in some places - such as the isostatic lift mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

So while arctic / antarctic regions covered in ice may lift up as the mass of ice reduces (and thereby experience little or no inundation), other areas such as Pacific islands bedded on ocean-floor corals and rock may be badly affected. This is already happening in some of our Pacific neighbours, where the 'lens' that keeps freshwater in the ground and sea water in the sea, is breaking down to to a small rise in average sea levels. Desal may keep them going for a while, but it's not a longer term solution. They will need to relocate. To where?

So it is clear that the "differential effect" will vary from place to place and, as such, may affect what sailors do in some places, or may affect some places we can or can't go.

But I think it's pertinent at this point in the debate to point out that the emissions of CFCs which were damaging the ozone layer and potentially leading to possibly catastrophic outcomes for life on earth HAVE been mitigated by the actions taken by the planets' peoples since the signing of the Montreal Protocol back in 1987. Thirty years later....

.... the ozone hole is getting smaller, potential for disaster decreasing - win/win for us and the planet.

My point is with CFCs we *chose* to act, and act decisively, and that action has now been seen to have worked and prevented the 'worst case scenario' outlined at the time by the 'models'.

So, potentially, if we act NOW on climate change, we could see a similar result, and the worst case scenarios may not occur.

So we can 'choose' to act, and reduce the effects of AGM and CC, or we can sit back and watch, and wait, until it's too late, and we're all f*****d.

Personally, I like the idea of prevention of the worst case scenario - not because I personally am likely to even be around to BE affected, but because there are those who cannot prevent it happening, nor themselves do anything to mitigate against the effects once they are or have occurred.

And as the Pacific islands, Indian ocean islands, and many other coastal communities where cruisers like to roam today will be affected to some degree or other, then I think it's almost inevitable that 'cruising' per se will be affected if we choose to do nothing.

But the boats will still float. Anchors will still set (or not). Winds will still blow (although maybe not quite where and when or at the same velocities as today). So we'll adapt.

But if anything like the sea level rises predicted does occur, the transmigration of affected peoples will be like nothing we've ever seen. We'll be like human wildebeests, with masses, if not whole nations of people, migrating to pastures greener. And less damp.

Don't reckon Trump will have any problem getting his wall built then....

Damn glad I'm not Bangladeshi, or Maldivian, or Tongan..... etc etc

But if sea levels get above a 20m rise, my lil 'ol house might finally get a water view.

Alas, it's unlikely even my children will be around to see that - if it should happen - but my grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Yeah, probably.

Hopefully, by then, they can afford to buy their own Floaties.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

How does it follow that warmer temps but still below freezing automatically means less ice? I am not aware of a hard and fast correlation between temps and ice extent. What mechanism demands such a relationship?

[1] The decline of Arctic sea ice is one of the most visible signs of climate change over the past several decades. Arctic sea ice area shows large interannual variability due to the numerous factors, but on longer time scales the total sea ice area is approximately linearly related to Arctic surface air temperature in models and observations

https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016709

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

[1] The decline of Arctic sea ice is one of the most visible signs of climate change over the past several decades. Arctic sea ice area shows large interannual variability due to the numerous factors, but on longer time scales the total sea ice area is approximately linearly related to Arctic surface air temperature in models and observations

https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016709

before the advent of the MMGWC the sea ice was ( and btw still is ) cyclical.
Here's the graph showing from 1925 through 1975.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yeah, I guess it was time for you to put that out again.

1) You installed solar on your home and business. Truly - awesome. It would be great if you would tell the story, what choices you made, what worked/what didn't, how your energy bills changed, etc.

2) Being a business, of course you got tax writedowns and deductions. And given the time-frame, no doubt there were solar incentive programs, rebates, surplus buyback etc. Programs that were fought for by people like me.

Yep, socialism works pretty good for the 'rich'...works even better for the rich.

...like getting a loan for groceries. Skip to 2:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sld27PfAF3M

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

As usual, people without the ability to differentiate make assumptions based on "beliefs", and then accuse others of doing the same.

If you *choose* to believe that the "science of global warming and climate change" is a fraud, then you are a "denier". Call yourself a sceptic/skeptic if you wish, but the very definition of a 'denier' is that they don't accept provable, known, accepted facts.

To whit, the Holocaust argument. It happened. If you disagree you are a 'denier'. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The same 'principle' is used to describe the 'deniers' of AGW.

The science is in. There is no 'conspiracy'. It's not a 'theory' - now - the priniciples of the initial 'scientific theorem' have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by multiple studies in multiple countries in multiple fields:-

Human burning of fossil fuels has released such CO2 quantities over such a short (geological) time frame that cannot be absorbed by natural systems and so are building up in the atmosphere, and thus causing the global temps to increase.

This has been now clearly demonstrated to be affecting the icecaps.

How much and how quickly this will/may lead to "total meltdown of all ice" (or some fraction thereof) is the ONLY space where doubt still exists. Until it is much further down the track (ie: potentially very bad) we won't / can't *know* for certain.

Hence the 'models' that attempt to predict this and other potential scenarios (such as lowland flooding) in order that we humans can make some sense of the situation and decide whether (or not) we *choose* to do anything about it.

Local, State, Federal and international government bodies, as 'managers' of our human existence, are charged with preventing disasters from occuring (where they can) and mitigating against them (where they can't).

It's what governments OUGHT to be doing.

In this case, AGW, while we / they all accept AGW is occurring, what's causing it, CO2 emissions, the extent to which we *might* be able to prevent a "worst-case scenario" differs widely.

For all / any of them / us knows, the worst case scenario (50m sea level rise in the event of total icecap melt) may in fact be offset by other mechanisms - in some places - such as the isostatic lift mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

So while arctic / antarctic regions covered in ice may lift up as the mass of ice reduces (and thereby experience little or no inundation), other areas such as Pacific islands bedded on ocean-floor corals and rock may be badly affected. This is already happening in some of our Pacific neighbours, where the 'lens' that keeps freshwater in the ground and sea water in the sea, is breaking down to to a small rise in average sea levels. Desal may keep them going for a while, but it's not a longer term solution. They will need to relocate. To where?

So it is clear that the "differential effect" will vary from place to place and, as such, may affect what sailors do in some places, or may affect some places we can or can't go.

But I think it's pertinent at this point in the debate to point out that the emissions of CFCs which were damaging the ozone layer and potentially leading to possibly catastrophic outcomes for life on earth HAVE been mitigated by the actions taken by the planets' peoples since the signing of the Montreal Protocol back in 1987. Thirty years later....

.... the ozone hole is getting smaller, potential for disaster decreasing - win/win for us and the planet.

My point is with CFCs we *chose* to act, and act decisively, and that action has now been seen to have worked and prevented the 'worst case scenario' outlined at the time by the 'models'.

So, potentially, if we act NOW on climate change, we could see a similar result, and the worst case scenarios may not occur.

So we can 'choose' to act, and reduce the effects of AGM and CC, or we can sit back and watch, and wait, until it's too late, and we're all f*****d.

Personally, I like the idea of prevention of the worst case scenario - not because I personally am likely to even be around to BE affected, but because there are those who cannot prevent it happening, nor themselves do anything to mitigate against the effects once they are or have occurred.

And as the Pacific islands, Indian ocean islands, and many other coastal communities where cruisers like to roam today will be affected to some degree or other, then I think it's almost inevitable that 'cruising' per se will be affected if we choose to do nothing.

But the boats will still float. Anchors will still set (or not). Winds will still blow (although maybe not quite where and when or at the same velocities as today). So we'll adapt.

But if anything like the sea level rises predicted does occur, the transmigration of affected peoples will be like nothing we've ever seen. We'll be like human wildebeests, with masses, if not whole nations of people, migrating to pastures greener. And less damp.

Don't reckon Trump will have any problem getting his wall built then....

Damn glad I'm not Bangladeshi, or Maldivian, or Tongan..... etc etc

But if sea levels get above a 20m rise, my lil 'ol house might finally get a water view.

Alas, it's unlikely even my children will be around to see that - if it should happen - but my grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Yeah, probably.

Hopefully, by then, they can afford to buy their own Floaties.

Obviously your very passionate in your beliefs.



Compare climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers. Check.
Declare a theory to be "not a theory". Check.
Wanting this generation to take responsibility for a future generation by essentially denying that future generation of the same opportunities this generation has had. Check.


As a matter of interest, do you own any fossil fuel burning machines? Because if you do, you're just yet another "Do as I say, not as I do" type. We already have an excess of those in this discussion.

[Orson]

How do skeptics and advocates of AGW (man-made climate change) really debate - productively?

I think this recent thread at Judith Curry's blog (the resigned prof of climatology at Georgia Tech).

The subject may indeed sound arcane:"Reconstructing a Dataset of Observed Global Temperatures 1950 to 2016 From Human and Natural Influences."

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/03/r...ral-influences

And the results find 98% of the data support AGW. That's a conclusion providing analytical support consistent with the IPCCs claims.

But look, if you will, into the comments: a debate develops between "Javier" (an academic geologist with paleoclimate expertise and publishing who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons), and "frankclimate" and others.

The latter insist that single variable reductionism in the IPCC way is sensible and "Javier is pursuing 'unicorn farts.' Javier argues that sudden climate events skew colder during the Holocene Era (roughly the past 10 to 12,000 years). There are no sudden warming events in the record, followed by a slow return to a new temperature state, but there are up to 10 in the record going suddenly cold, then slowly warming, including the Little Ice Age before the 19th C., yielding to warming and a highly active sun during the 20th C.

It is this latter fact that sets the proper context for the current rage over increasing man-released CO2 and AGW, he says, against the convention that solar variability is just too small to affect climate But modern instruments have not, until currently, observed and measured the effects of slower solar winds on the earth's climate.

And then, Javier lets forth this capper: slower solar winds results in measurably faster spin in the earth! But roughly a half second a day. And to Javier, not bent on invoking a single variable to explain changing climate, this proves that natural cycles are meaningful to us, today.

Here's the key chart from a 2010 paper in Geophysical Research Letters I(a standard journal):



Javier explains:

The obvious explanation is that it affects wind patterns in the atmosphere so much as to change the Atmosphere Angular Momentum. And the zonal/meridional wind balance controls how much heat is moved through the latitudinal temperature gradient, particularly in winter.

How many W/m² equivalents is that change? Well, if I were to change the speed of rotation of the Earth, as Superman did in a movie, I bet I would need quite a lot of energy. Yet the Sun appears to do it when it is less active (notice the scale).

The unknown unknowns that can kill your pet theory [of a single causal variable like CO2] are huge, but you are not happy that someone tries to show you where some of them are.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/03/r...comment-887581

What happens to launch such changes in weather? To change the motion of the earth itself? How do weather patterns change? How much more and less water enters the atmosphere, reaching higher to change the planet's angular momentum?

These questions, once answered, will definitively kill the "control knob" of the climate theory currently running rampant over CO2.

[Alan Mighty]

(borrowing the words of she-who-cannot-be-named):

Is this thread just elaborate, postmodern performance art?

[Wdlfbio]

When the climate changes, we will visit the new neat places that didn’t exists thousands of years ago and stop going to places that change in ways we don’t like. Pineapples, coconuts, and bananas will grow further from the equator.

[Orson]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

[1] The decline of Arctic sea ice is one of the most visible signs of climate change over the past several decades. Arctic sea ice area shows large interannual variability due to the numerous factors, but on longer time scales the total sea ice area is approximately linearly related to Arctic surface air temperature in models and observations

https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016709

Linear...REALLY?

Wrong. Arctic ice coverage is cyclical, and because of the unique horseshoe shape, surrounded by great landmasses on three sides, wind - together with Atlantic ocean currents - is the largest component in explaining ice coverage variability.

For example, consider what the weather satellite NIMBUS shows us about sea ice in the decades before 1978: even when the climate was colder than in the decades since, variability in the Arctic as well as Antarctic ice is the rule. SEE this 6 minute video on the recovery of this satellite data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvGIE1y3cXA

Arctic ice - far from being like "the canary in the coal mine," which it was back in the old days when miners suffocated when exposed to natural methane gas leaks - is simply the myth that persists despite facts showing the opposite reality.

Here is a couple of hydrologist's recent look at the issue:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/w...ea-ice-trends/

One pull-quote:

Summary

-After re-calibrating the pre-satellite data, it now transpires that Arctic sea ice has alternated between periods of sea ice retreat and growth. The satellite record coincidentally began at the end of one of the sea ice growth periods. This has led to people mistakenly thinking the post-1978 sea ice retreat is unusual.

-The results from new sea ice proxies taken from ocean sediment cores suggest that Arctic sea ice extent has varied substantially over the last 10,000 years. They also suggest that Arctic sea ice extent was actually less before the Bronze Age than it is today.

-The current Global Climate Models are unable to reproduce the observed Arctic sea ice changes since 1901, and they seem to drastically underestimate the natural sea ice variability

[Emphasis added.]

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Yep, socialism works pretty good for the 'rich'...works even better for the rich.

...like getting a loan for groceries. Skip to 2:40.

Yep you’re absolutely right, it’s us “rich” working registered nurses that are hoarding all the solar panels, money and keeping the masses in check as we walk to work each day.