There is no Planet B

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

But at what price?

depends entirely on how bad the politicians want to screw the average consumer.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ad hoc studies unsurp the IPCC. M'kay.

I would not call those scientists ad hoc. They are pretty heavy hitters.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

But at what price?

Whatever the customer is willing to pay and whatever a producer is willing to accept. Plus whatever tax each jurisdiction decides is warranted. But there will still be lots of oil in the ground when the last oil burning device is decommissioned.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes because 1900's technology was that accurate

Your graph went back further.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would not call those scientists ad hoc. They are pretty heavy hitters.

Is ad-hoc an acronym for non peer reviewed?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your graph went back further.

My graph doesn't show levels to a resolution 0.0001 of a metre.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Whatever the customer is willing to pay and whatever a producer is willing to accept. Plus whatever tax each jurisdiction decides is warranted. But there will still be lots of oil in the ground when the last oil burning device is decommissioned.

I hope you're right.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Is ad-hoc an acronym for non peer reviewed?

Nature is peer-reviewed and is one of the most respected science journals on the planet.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My graph doesn't show levels to a resolution 0.0001 of a metre.

Your lacks precision.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your lacks precision.

Tide gauges didn't cut the mustard in the Neolithic

[SailOar]

Two sea level studies have some good news, bad news

One of the most shocking climate science studies in recent years came in 2016. That study, from David Pollard at Penn State and Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, showed that adding a couple physical processes to their model of the Antarctic ice sheets caused it to produce significantly more sea level rise this century. In their simulation, shrinking Antarctic glaciers raised sea level by a full meter by 2100......

A newly published study led by Tamsin Edwards at King’s College London ....... found that the selection process hinged strongly on the estimate of sea level rise from Antarctic ice in the mid-Pliocene 3 million years ago—one of the comparison scenarios.

.... the new study shows that the most common result is lower than the average result shown in the original study.....The most common result with the ice cliff process is about 45 centimeters (assuming no greenhouse gas emissions reductions). Without the new ice cliff physics, the most common result is about 15 centimeters—which is still higher than the estimated range given in the last IPCC report.

A second study published at the same time .....builds off similar modeling work to study the effects of all that melting ice pouring into the oceans.....

Two results jumped out. First, the meltwater had a significant impact on Antarctica, causing even more glacial ice to melt. ..... This feedback process raises the total sea level rise contribution of Greenland and Antarctica from 16 centimeters to 25 centimeters.

Second, Greenland’s meltwater had a larger effect on the climate than expected. Around Greenland, the Atlantic Ocean also mixes shallow and deep water—a key piece of the conveyor-belt-like circulation of the Atlantic. .......

The change actually reduces the average global temperature by about 0.3° Celsius, but more importantly, it greatly increases the year-to-year variability of air and ocean temperatures in the region.....

So much for the recently-made assertion that no good news is ever reported.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Two sea level studies have some good news, bad news


So much for the recently-made assertion that no good news is ever reported.

then there is this more recent study by Nick Golledge, a climate scientist at the Antarctic Research Center of the University of Victoria, Wellington,

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com...-melt-less-bad

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

then there is this more recent study by Nick Golledge, a climate scientist at the Antarctic Research Center of the University of Victoria, Wellington,

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com...-melt-less-bad

Not sure how it could be a "more recent study" when it is reporting the exact same two studies. But then reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not sure how it could be a "more recent study" when it is reporting the exact same two studies. But then reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

well not exactly you really should read what you post .

Your study was done by some others in the USA
That study, from David Pollard at Penn State and Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Whether or not you believe in man made global warming, you must be careful using the number of grants, studies, etc. as proof of anything, other than people go where the money is.



The contemporary history of carbon as a greenhouse gas started in the seventies. Margaret Thatcher wanted to prevent the coal miner's unions from damaging the country's economy, and needed a way to justify a push to nuclear power. Her government started to award grants to research this. Anyone who wanted a grant for anything would use global warming to get their grant. What are the feeding habits of squirrels, as affected by global warming? I am not exaggerating. A recent study by the American Geophysical Union just said that squirrels and beavers release 200 time more greenhouse gases than they did one hundred years ago through their eating and waste.


The big bang theory is a great example of this. For some time the Big Bang was the primary and almost universally accepted theory. If you didn't believe in it you were considered a lunatic. Now however there are a few different but valid theories and the mainstream scientists are much more willing to consider them. The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.

Exactly. The politicization of any issue distorts it. The money, prestige, and notoriety in climate science comes from trying to increase the level of certainty between fossil fuel emissions and global warming. The more alarmist the conclusions are, the better it sells for the media, and the more it benefits politicians. On its own, it doesn't prove that scientists are corrupt, conspiratorial, or greedy, or that AGW is more or less certain, only that the preponderance of the evidence that is being produced supports the AGW position. This imbalance doesn't on its own prove the evidence suspect, but it does distort what the public is hearing.

[Fbfisher]

Wow, after several years, 99 pages and 1,483 posts you’ve not settled the argument. My question is, why haven’t the mods moved this conversation from the “general sailing forum” to a more appropriate forum, given that most mentions of sailing ended on page 1?

Cheers!

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by Redreuben

I’ve always liked carbon tax as a solution it lets the market and the innovators find solutions.
It doesn’t have to be a sting, it can be revenue neutral by a corresponding drop in income tax, introduce it at a base rate that is not too shocking and increase it by 1% per annum until it bites.
Of course it would be utopia if everyone did it but punitive import duties would level the field. You guys are well experienced in this field.
As mentioned way back, stopping subsidies to fossil fuels is common sense and while your at it stop tipping subsidies down the throats of agriculture and you might stop the obesity epidemic while your at it. [emoji14]

Here in Australia a progressive Labor government brought in a carbon tax. The sky didn't fall in, the economy kept growing and emissions fell steadily. A couple of years later a conservative climate change denying government scrapped the tax. Since then electricity prices have increased hugely through the government's sheer incompetence and emissions have started climbing again.

A carbon tax is the best free market mechanism for reducing emissions.