Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps if you have a read of the link I posted from 1988 regarding the purpose of the IPCC you'll start to connect the dots.

Shhhhh....let them believe in their MMGW Cult, it keeps them occupied and out of our hair. The Crisis Scientists, NEED something to worry about, it;s now they get their research dollars.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Shhhhh....let them believe in their MMGW Cult, it keeps them occupied and out of our hair. The Crisis Scientists, NEED something to worry about, it;s now they get their research dollars.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Is that a peer reviewed satirical cartoon?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Here's a good one that's really funny:




It's funny because it comes from this totally unbiased publication called the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

Which still manages to spin a "world is warming" yarn because whilst Arctic ice melt is clearly a result of AGW Antarctic ice growth is clearly an anomaly and should be ignored. This is the same logic as the less rain and snow and more rain and snow arguments. :-D

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I've always been a little confused with the Title of this thread.

Was it intended by the OP to refer to 'Antarctic waterways'? Or did the OP actually mean the Arctic waterways of the North Pole?

Yes you are confused.

Antarctic is the topic.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here's a good one that's really funny:




It's funny because it comes from this totally unbiased publication called the Guardian

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Environment | The Guardian

Which still manages to spin a "world is warming" yarn because whilst Arctic ice melt is clearly a result of AGW Antarctic ice growth is clearly an anomaly and should be ignored. This is the same logic as the less rain and snow and more rain and snow arguments. :-D

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That's funny Reefmagnet, because you have used a chart about the Antarctic, not the Arctic. And it's from the Snow and Ice Data Centre.

I don't quite understand why you think that just because Ice in the South is thickening that this somehow proves GW is not happening? Where in other arguments you have completely denied that Arctic ice is NOT thinning or shrinking

You seem a very confused young man.

[Rustic Charm]

Shrinking Antarctic has us skating on thin ice

And here's a news article about the Antarctic ice melting faster than ever before.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here's a good one that's really funny:




It's funny because it comes from this totally unbiased publication called the Guardian

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Environment | The Guardian

Which still manages to spin a "world is warming" yarn because whilst Arctic ice melt is clearly a result of AGW Antarctic ice growth is clearly an anomaly and should be ignored. This is the same logic as the less rain and snow and more rain and snow arguments. :-D

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet, are you even reading what you post. When you posted it I thought 'hey this is contrary to what I had been led to believe' and as it's from a legitimate source, being the Snow and Ice Data Centre, I thought this was worth a definite read. I've just read this article and it's very much supporting a concern that the Antarctic is shrinking, not growing as you seemed to have used the post for.

"The 10 lowest recorded sea ice minimums – i.e. the lowest extent of sea ice in the summer – have all occurred in the past 10 years. This decline is consistent with climate models, every one of which predicts that continued man-made greenhouse gas emissions will eventually cause Arctic summer ice to disappear completely."

It's what is below the line that is the concern. Read the post, before you use it to support denial arguments I'd suggest.

[jwcolby54]

People believe what they want to believe.

Sadly, if (human caused) global warming is true, believing it is not will not change reality. I say fire up the coal fired power plants and let's test the theory. If it is true, the world dies and a few billion of us with it. If it is false, we can all move on to something else to discuss.

Luckily, my boat will float a little higher when the last ice cap slides off into the ocean. And I can sail in and pillage the half submerged gun stores on the piedmont of NC.

A few billion less people, less strain on the old planet. How can this be a bad thing? Hey, Miami will be underwater, likewise NYC. All good I say.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

People believe what they want to believe.

Sadly, if (human caused) global warming is true, believing it is not will not change reality. I say fire up the coal fired power plants and let's test the theory. If it is true, the world dies and a few billion of us with it. If it is false, we can all move on to something else to discuss.

Luckily, my boat will float a little higher when the last ice cap slides off into the ocean. And I can sail in and pillage the half submerged gun stores on the piedmont of NC.

A few billion less people, less strain on the old planet. How can this be a bad thing? Hey, Miami will be underwater, likewise NYC. All good I say.

What a perfunctoriness you are. if your serious, then your a very sad person indeed. or a troll maybe looking for a response

[jwcolby54]

LOL.

I am simply pointing out that denying something doesn't make it false. Believing in something doesn't make it true. Reality is and what we believe has no impact on that unless we act on our beliefs, whereupon we make a positive impact (cleaning up pollution for example) or a negative impact (polluting even more).

Therefore, if human caused climate change is real, denying it is only making matters worse because we are refusing to try and make a positive change.

Believing in it cannot make it worse.

Hmmmm...

And I am also pointing out that if it is real, then the results will not be good for billions of people.

Not that any of that argument will change anyone's mind. There are many reasons for denying human caused climate change. Most of them emotional or economic, and of course, political. All three of those things are immune to reason.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Reefmagnet, are you even reading what you post. When you posted it I thought 'hey this is contrary to what I had been led to believe' and as it's from a legitimate source, being the Snow and Ice Data Centre, I thought this was worth a definite read. I've just read this article and it's very much supporting a concern that the Antarctic is shrinking, not growing as you seemed to have used the post for.

"The 10 lowest recorded sea ice minimums – i.e. the lowest extent of sea ice in the summer – have all occurred in the past 10 years. This decline is consistent with climate models, every one of which predicts that continued man-made greenhouse gas emissions will eventually cause Arctic summer ice to disappear completely."

It's what is below the line that is the concern. Read the post, before you use it to support denial arguments I'd suggest.

Well you should read more carefully what I post. I wasn't making comment other than illustrating an article that shows a chart of increasing Antarctic (yes Antarctic) ice whilst finding every excuse under the sun (lol) to ignore the data. The funny bit is that the body of the story contradicts it's very first sentence.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Shrinking Antarctic has us skating on thin ice

And here's a news article about the Antarctic ice melting faster than ever before.

Can you say "vested interest"?

depends on all the major Antarctic nations committing to long-term funded research tied with long-term logistical infrastructure.

And, why oh why despite all the extensive research do we get a wild variation in number. 130 000 000 000 tons of ice = 130 cubic kilometres which someone should advise the no doubt well meaning professor that the number is allegedly around 350 cubic km's or so according to a couple of recent papers that have been offered up in this thread previously.

Based loosely on my previous maths of those papers, that's around 240 000 years before the ice sheets melt to nothing and that doesn't factor that a good deal of the ice sheets at present don't warm above -14 deg C before even taking thickness into account. Even the doom slayers +6 this century isn't going to unfreeze them any time real soon.

And here's the mandatory classic doom slayers paragraph:

Australia should not stand back and wait for other nations to do the work for us. Our Antarctic claim, frozen under the Antarctic Treaty, is to 44 per cent of the continent. That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Disturbing it is that this guy is at the science coal face and this is the tripe he is proffering up to the man in the street. A little less disturbing is that a scientist uses the phrase "almost unstudied". What the heck is that supposed to mean?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well you should read more carefully what I post. I wasn't making comment other than illustrating an article that shows a chart of increasing Antarctic (yes Antarctic) ice whilst finding every excuse under the sun (lol) to ignore the data. The funny bit is that the body of the story contradicts it's very first sentence.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The graph shows extent, not volume.

Very different things..

Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating



Both poles are melting.

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by SailOar

To lend a bit of perspective to the conversation it might be helpful to see what the temperatures have been in the recent and geological past, and where they are projected to be in the near future.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...d#Overall_view

As can be seen, temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years -- with a bit of a downward drift over the last 1000 years. The worrisome part is the last 100 years, where temperatures have spiked. Current temperatures are the highest they've been in 150,000 years. And some temperature projections for 2100, assuming our continuing to emit CO2 without any self-imposed restrictions, show temperatures at levels not seen on Earth for 4-5 million years.

This is the point that I start having exceptions with the Global Warming crowd also.

That graph is simplified, but essentially accurate. Now what does that mean?

You imply it's bad that our temperature would rise to the level of 4 millions years ago.

But let's take that a step further. Would would rather have temperatures of 4 million years ago or 100,000 years ago?

AND then once you (we, the world) decide on that answer, then the BIG issue is whether we in all our human hubris can actually do anything about it.

Look at where most of the world's grain is grown. Another Ice Age would cause starvations on a scale never seen before.