Climate Change

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing cyclically for billions of years. You used to be able to grow grapes in Greenland and 1,000 years after that you could walk across the Hudson River on ice floes, neither of which conditions exist today. I don't need a UN panel to tell me that.

The reason why the UN IPCC is derided by many is because much of the data they used has been shown to have been jiggered, and the predictions made by their computer models have been shown to be false. That's probably why the nomenclature has shifted to "Climate Change", which everyone agrees happens from "Global Warming" that the data no longer supports.

If you really want to understand why there are so many skeptics on this subject, please spend a moment reconciling this article from Think Progress (left wing promoter of global warming)

Scientists Predicted A Decade Ago Arctic Ice Loss Would Worsen Western Droughts. Is That Happening Already? | ThinkProgress

with the below graph showing the extent of Arctic ice formation this winter. If you have difficulty reconciling the opinions expressed in the first article with the data in the second, you'll understand that skeptics base their skepticism not on a rejection of science they don't want to believe in, but rather based on the data that shows the science they disagree with to be highly suspect.

OK, so your chart shows the amount of ICE COVER GAIN. it says nothing about the loss of ice in total. It is hardly surprising that once the ice has melted in the summer exposing vast expanses of open water that there will be a significant re freeze in the winter. To present it as a refutation of the arctic ice melt or warming is a gross misinterpretation of the data at best. Lies, damn lies, and statistics....as the saying goes.

Over the past decade nearly all of the old thick multi year ice has been lost. that was thick, dense and nearly salt free. There are satellite animations showing how this ice has been pumping down out of the Fram Straight (east Greenland coast) and leaving the Arctic a chnged place. Neat stuff.

During the winters this old ice is replaced with thin, new, salty ice.. Yes the COVER is restored but not the volume. It is sort of like having a skim of ice on a bucket of water vs. a solid block of frozen water in the bucket. They both have the same COVER BUT they are not the same thing. Sorry, not a real good analogy, but you can get where I'm going.

Below is today's report from the Canadian Ice Service of ice COVER, not the rebound gain.Their site is at Environment Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Current Ice Conditions and Forecasts

From this it should be pretty clear to the most casual observer that things are changing, fast.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Wrong

I don't suppose the nuclear plants leaking radioactive water into the sea will have any affect on the quality of life in Japan, eh? A perfect illustration of why nuclear energy is not the best solution. When we planning our energy future, it is folly to gauge which energy resource should be used simply on energy potential and cost. Renewable energy options may be more costly at the moment in terms of infrastructure and development - but in terms of quality of life and affect on our environment most renewable options win hands down.

As a practical matter, no, it will have almost no effect on quality of life in Japan.

That said, building a nuke on the shoreline of a country known for its tsunamis was stupid, as are the regulations that ensure that the only types of nukes that you can economically build are massive. When you have a problem with those, the problems are also massive. For the (hopefully) future of nuclear, small pebble bed reactors that are self extinguishing are the answer, IMHO. This is worth a read, since it looks like China will lead the way in developing a technology that should exist everywhere in the US, but doesn't because of, well, you know why...

Wired 12.09: Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Jimmie Cornell's new sailing directions book was inspired, at least in part, by climate changes. ... Another very interesting resource is Dr. Jennfer Francis, from Rutgers Institute of Marine and Coastal Science.

Thanks hpeer, I'll definitely watch and read.

BTW, it's unfortunate to see this thread circling back, but I guess it's inevitable . Delfin, it's not hard to understand why there are so many skeptics in the public sphere. As some have said, just follow the money ... all the way back to those who benefit the most from the status-quo. You are spreading nonsense. The IPCC data has not been "jiggered." It is not "derided by many," at least not many actual climate researchers. If there is criticism, it comes in the form of the IPCC Assessment Reports being too optimistic.

Did you actually follow the data back to your winter ice graph purportedly showing how there's no decline? Here's what they actually say about the data:

"Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left) ... Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences."

BTW, the source of this misleading graph turns out to be Willard Anthony Watts, the author of the blog Watts Up With That. Watts is a well-known denier. His "work" has long been shown to be garbage. Just do a little research.

The science of climate change is complex (sorry if that bothers you). The consensus so far is clearly and overwhelmingly indicating that the planet is undergoing rapid climate change due, in some part, to human civilization. That does not mean it is Certain, or True. It just means the process of science clearly pointing in this direction. This issues will continue to be studied, but for those who take science seriously, there are very negative implications for humanity if the findings continue to be supported. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

,......


That said, if we can put some money and research into the more advanced nuclear plants - I would be all for it. I would consider myself pretty green in terms of political and social beliefs - yet if you cut through all the BS and fear mongering surrounding Nuclear Power it does seem to be the intermediary solution to buy us the time we need for real solutions.

I seem to recall that's some French scientists have developed a system for my they could take the nuclear waste, and process it into a glass, which would solve the problem of leaching. In addition, is my understanding that the current Canadian Candu reactors have a technology that makes nuclear power much safer then it has been an older generation units.

I too think nuclear power has not been looked at enough. After all, the French run virtually the whole country on nuclear power, and as far as I'm aware, they've had no accidents there.

I am less concerned with Peak Oil and even climate change than I am with all the other undeniably human wrought catastrophes such as over fishing, over farming, the loss of arable land to bio-diesel production, worldwide issues with collapsing bee colonies, acidification of the sea, the potential loss of the Atlantic thermal current due to the rapid change in salinity levels from melting ice...

My only interaction with someone who actually was a climatologist, was a professor at the University of Limerick who was a friend of my cousin in Ireland. His great concern was the Atlantic Thermal current and as he advised in our conversation, that if it flips we would have a change in climate that would be noticeable within a 3 year span. the conversation was about 10 years ago, and at that time he concurred with other findings that were published in the scientific literature. He was not a radical Greenie by any means, however did the express real concerns on the directions that climate change had manifested itself. I found the discussion very enlightening.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by avb3

I too think nuclear power has not been looked at enough. After all, the French run virtually the whole country on nuclear power, and as far as I'm aware, they've had no accidents there.

85%?

Of course the Nuclear Power Plants are state owned - I have nothing against the Private Sector making money out of stuff , but some things are simply too important to be passed over to the Private Sector.......even if a price is paid on cost - but to balance that out a State does not need to make the same return on Capital, indeed it can even afford to lose money .

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

Also, to bring this thread back to the actual sailing bit...

Climate change has made some defo impacts on cruising in the Indian Ocean. The windows for safe crossings during the inter monsoon periods from Thailand to Galle have shrink dramatically over the last 10 years...

If you ask a climate change scientist his opinion about his he will probably say tat you shouldn't confuse climate with weather. A lot that is attributed to climate change is easily explained by local variability.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by mausgras

I just cannot understand people who readily accept scientific thought and discovery when it produces something they like but reject that same process as "undocumented dogmatic opinion" when it concludes something they don't like.

Rejecting science when it doesn't fit a political agenda is rather widespread. Witness the Green's stance on GMO's or nuclear energy, or socialists rejection of basic economics. It's not just some parts of the right...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

85%?

Of course the Nuclear Power Plants are state owned - I have nothing against the Private Sector making money out of stuff , but some things are simply too important to be passed over to the Private Sector.......even if a price is paid on cost - but to balance that out a State does not need to make the same return on Capital, indeed it can even afford to lose money .

I beg to differ. Some things are far to important to be left to the government. There's a reason why we don't let the government produce our food.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Wrong

I don't suppose the nuclear plants leaking radioactive water into the sea will have any affect on the quality of life in Japan, eh?

The radioactive water that leaks in to the sea will not negatively affect quality of life in Japan. Just do the math. Even if the full stock of radioisotopes present in Fukushima would be dispersed in the ocean the effect would be negligible.
Greenpeace induced paranoia however might indeed have a huge negative effect, just as it had in Chernobyl.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Rejecting science when it doesn't fit a political agenda is rather widespread. Witness the Green's stance on GMO's or nuclear energy, or socialists rejection of basic economics. It's not just some parts of the right...

Ralph Nader and hotdogs!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Rejecting science when it doesn't fit a political agenda is rather widespread. Witness the Green's stance on GMO's or nuclear energy, or socialists rejection of basic economics. It's not just some parts of the right...

Absolutely

[goboatingnow]

Its really its sad and bordering on the idiotic , for certain contributors to start this nonsense about socialism and greenies , etc etc. it really cheapens the debate , attempts to dehumanise certain s groups and is devoid of any facts

A classic is the post on sea ice , what relevant is " old ice" not the ice that reforms very year. Old ice in the Arctic has virtually disappeared.

The YouTube of professor Francis is a very clear summation , watch it

Simply saying it snowed in some place indicate AGW isn't happening is nonsense.

The scientific community has switched to climate change , because what is happening is that AGW is causing climate change. Nobody is arguing AGW anymore , what people are now looking is the extent and timing of CC.

As Bloomberg said " its global warming , stupid "

The amount of hydrocarbons is not the issue. Its irrelevant how much we have , its burning it thats bad.

Really foaming at the mouth , Ayn Rand types really need to try and look a little deeper. We're in enough trouble because of these types already.

Haters will always hate , leave off denigrating socialism , greenies , etc. sure at the edges many are just as extreme , but that's not the point. AGW is real , what ww have to do now is figure out the effects and what can be done to mitigate then

By the way , I've no truck with the reduce the population nonsense , elitist utterly elitist.

I loved the quip about Green and wealth distribution. Wow real foam on stuff there. , adds zero to the debate

Dave

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Its really its sad and bordering on the idiotic , for certain contributors to start this nonsense about socialism and greenies , etc etc. it really cheapens the debate , attempts to dehumanise certain s groups and is devoid of any facts

Dave

I am sorry to disagree Dave, only an environmentalist would feel dehumanized when his gospel is challenged. In this Country there is strong media bias along with organized environmentalists attempting to force expensive rules and regulations onto the general public. There are groups who wish nothing better than to see all carbon fuels eliminated while believing they are saving Mother Earth. Because their radical goal is not achievable, they next attempt to substitute raising the cost of all fuels under the guise of goodness. Consider the EPA's fines on oil companies for not using unavailable cellulosic ethanol. If they can make carbon fuels too expensive, carbon fuels will become unaffordable thereby forcing constraints on usage through economics .

Even though windpower costs today range between 3-4 times that of gas fired electrical power generation it is looked as a salvation to environmentalist. But those costs are fictitious because government subsidies are not considered. For every watt generated by wind, there must be a comparable backup via generator waiting for when the wind is not there.

Cost does mean something to me! Cost does mean something to my tenants who presently have great difficulty paying for food and clothing. Sure, maybe government should provide free housing, free food, free clothing, free everything while today it borrows over 40 cents on every buck it spends. And even with fiats, that should mean something. Yes, the elites have no financial worries. Costs be damned, full spending ahead.

I am old enough to remember how socialist countries failed and wise enough to know that history does repeat itself. I for one do not want our Country to suffer the ravages history witnessed in eastern Europe not many years ago.

There are formidable obstacles to controlling nature's atmosphere, both related to nature itself and to forcing such control onto hundreds of millions of poor and impoverished world peoples. In the king's vernacular, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN GUY! OH and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was ahead of its times.

Foggysail

[hpeer]

Foggy, I think you missed the entire fleet, not just the boat, when responding to go boating now.

Or maybe you were just trying to illustrate his point?

But really, if you follow the money it leads NOT to scientific research but to the group I tried to point out in the Six Americas study i referenced before. They are: well off, older, white, male, homeowners. These are the deniers. These are the folks that we elect to congress. These are our top tier businessmen. This makes sense because they are the ones invested in the status quo and those that have the financial resources.

A particularly nasty example was the Heartland Institute, whose Unabomber billboard lost they funding. The story is interesting because it exposes some of the more contentious donors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba.../#.UhFyeMu9KSM

I'm sorry guy, but your post has no credibility, it is all opinion, there are no substantiated facts.

You know, In general I really like the folks here on CF, yourself included. I find that although the odd post agitates me,or makes me angry, the same poster will then make some very civil response or offer some helpful advice. So I try hard to be civil in response.

But I also try to keep them based on verifiable reality and with some content of value.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I'm sorry guy, but your post has no credibility, it is all opinion, there are no substantiated facts.

Which statements are incorrect? The cost of windpower? EPA fining oil companies for not using cellulosic ethanol? Environmentalists goals/desires to minimize carbon fuel usage? Eastern Europe under socialism during the 1930s-60s? History repeating itself?

Was it something about Ayn Rand's "who is John Galt?" but maybe you did not read the book.