Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

Very perceptive comments. Your para. that I bolded may help explain why at least half the populace is skeptical. Not so much on the largely undisputed fact that humans have had an impact, but that humans have the ability to impact to such an extent as to cause the catastrophic consequences that a smaller percentage of the scientific community predicts.

Your last para. strongly suggests that this is not an area given to monolithic conclusions that only support one side. While such scientific certainty exists establishing the connection btwn. lung cancer and smoking, for e.g., it is more difficult to believe that similarly hard & fast conclusions made in the complex realm of climate science are not driven by ideology. If the skeptics are wrong and the science is as certain as its proponents have been saying all along, then that should ultimately carry the day like it did to overcome the tobacco cos.' attempts to suppress scientific evidence of the harm from smoking. Attempting to silence or obscure the contrary evidence with respect to CC is extremely short-sighted imho, and has and will backfire.

Well I hope I'm being polite by agreeing with you that the bolded paragraph is one reason for skepticism, but in my opinion, and in my readings, it certainly seems that a larger percentage of qualified people that I trust (because they've been correct before) are very worried, and they far outnumber those that are not worried. It also seems that a lot of the worry is because of the uncertainty of the possible human impacts...

And we agree again in the importance of legitimate skepticism and dissent in keeping the science sharp (though the negative consequences for fudging data or experimental results, and the inherent natural competition between scientists, are by themselves generally enough to keep the scientists honest). At issue for me (and seems to me, for you also) is the false skepticism driven by ideology, misunderstanding and ignorance (willful or otherwise). As you imply, the science will (and if one is diligent, does) speak for itself...

"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened." Charles Darwin, 1871

And with that, I'm out. Nothing personal...I'm sure you catch my drift...

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Anthropogenic global warming if it is happening , is the fault of the people that eat a vegetarian diet
Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment | Science | News | The Independent

Well...if you're going to use a coo coo rag like the Independent...try these guys also. Very close reporting techniques.

Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Well...if you're going to use a coo coo rag like the Independent...try these guys also. Very close reporting techniques.

Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News

I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit really

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit really

Me too...

[SailOar]

Rising carbon dioxide levels reduce protein in crucial pollen source for bees | Science Daily

Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have reduced protein in goldenrod pollen, a key late-season food source for North American bees, a Purdue University study shows.

Researchers found that the overall protein concentration of goldenrod pollen fell about one-third from the onset of the Industrial Revolution to the beginning of the 21st century.

Previous studies have shown that increases in carbon dioxide can lower the nutritional value of plants such as wheat and rice -- staple crops for much of the global human population -- but this study is the first to examine the effects of rising CO2 on the diet of bees.

"Bee food is less nutritious than it used to be," said Jeffrey Dukes, study co-author and professor of forestry and natural resources and biological sciences. "Our findings also suggest that the quality of pollen will continue to decline into the future. That's not great news for bees."[...]

A 2-year controlled field experiment that exposed goldenrod to a gradient of carbon dioxide levels from 280 to 500 ppm showed strikingly similar decreases in pollen protein, Dukes said.

"These data provide an urgent and compelling case for establishing CO2 sensitivity of pollen protein for other floral species," the researchers concluded in their study.[...]

The researchers noted, however, that this study only assessed pollen protein levels and did not look at the impact of protein reductions on bee health and populations.

"Our work suggests there is a strong possibility that decreases in pollen protein could contribute to declines in bee health, but we haven't yet made that final link," said Dukes, who is also director of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center housed in Discovery Park.[...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Rising carbon dioxide levels reduce protein in crucial pollen source for bees | Science Daily

Interesting research however this has nothing to do with cruising in Arctic or Antarctic waters . Except for possible issues with the quality of mead that some drink with dinner.

[lesterbutch]

According to an article I read some years ago, you will have to take my word for it, I can't remember the source. One of, if not the, leading cause of rising levels of cabonacious gases in the atmosphere is, "COWS BURPING"! Good grief, I was a farmer, and I was taken aback when I read it!😂😂

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Interesting research however this has nothing to do with cruising in Arctic or Antarctic waters . Except for possible issues with the quality of mead that some drink with dinner.

He thinks he's still in the other thread

[SailOar]

Crisis in the Cryosphere | Scientific American

The global climate agreement reached in Paris late in 2015, which sets specific targets nations will aim for in limiting emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse, was widely and justly regarded as a diplomatic triumph.

But the accord never mentions the cryosphere, the frigid regions that include the planet’s polar ice caps; ice fields; mountain glaciers; and permafrost, or perennially frozen soil. Even if the emission-reduction targets are met, it won’t be enough prevent the cryosphere from thawing, tipping us into the sort of climate the world hasn’t seen in 30-50 million years, and certainly not since humans have existed.[...]

Models project that 30-70% of the world’s permafrost will thaw this century to a depth of about ten feet. Dr. Sue Natali, a colleague of Dr. Holmes at Woods Hole commented, “It’s going to be a slow release, not an explosion, and it’ll be faster after 2100.” “Once permafrost thaws,” she noted, “there’s no action we can take to stop the release of carbon,” she warned. Unlike temperature changes, cryosphere processes are typically irreversible.

Dr. Natali’s concern is underscored by a recent article in Nature Geoscience showing that the permafrost covering up to two-thirds of the terrestrial Arctic is degrading rapidly, causing major landscape and hydrology changes.

Meanwhile, a new survey of 98 permafrost experts in Environmental Research Letters indicates that we can’t count on the growth of new plants in the Arctic to offset permafrost carbon releases by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, as some researchers had optimistically theorized. Instead, the permafrost region will become a source of extra carbon in the atmosphere by 2100, no matter what warming scenario the world follows.

On the bright side, the survey concluded that up to 85% of the permafrost-region carbon releases associated with a business-as-usual emissions scenario could be avoided, if net global emissions peaked within a decade or so, reached zero by around 2070, and became negative by 2100.[...]

.

[SailOar]

Crisis in the Cryosphere, Part 2 | Scientific American

Thawing permafrost is not the only grave problem with Earth’s cryosphere. Ice sheets, especially the massive Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), have discrete temperature thresholds at which near-total loss of ice becomes unstoppable. These two highly vulnerable sheets are now both losing mass much faster than the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted just a few years ago.

Tipping Points Near for Polar Ice Sheets

A recent report called Thresholds and Closing Windows: Risks of Irreversible Cryosphere Climate Change” by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI), reveals that some portions of these ice sheets may have already begun irreversible melting at today’s elevated global temperature of about 1°C above the pre-industrial average. Things would obviously be worse at the 1.5 ° to 2° aspirational targets set by the December Paris climate accords. And they’d be even worse at the 2.7 ° to 3.5° increase that its current pledges would produce if completely fulfilled—something that a voluntary agreement cannot guarantee.

Research cited by ICCI scientists suggests that somewhere between 1° to 4° above the pre-industrial level, the irreversible melting of Greenland will begin, with 1.6° as the likeliest tipping point.[...]

Once warming seawater melts the submerged toe of a glacier that was solidly grounded on bedrock or wedged behind a seafloor ridge, it is only a matter of time before the glacier behind the ice dam flows into the sea. Likewise, according to Max Holmes, senior climate scientist at Woods Hole Research Center, when the surface of the Greenland ice cap shrinks enough that its surface is at lower elevation where air temperatures are warmer, a positive melting-and-warming feedback cycle takes over, and eventually nearly all of the Greenland ice sheet may melt away. [...]

A new study recently published online in Nature by David Pollard, a paleoclimatologist at Pennsylvania State University, and Rob DeConto, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist, agrees that global emissions in just the next few decades could cause irreversible melting in Antarctica that would commit the world to a sea level rise of more than a meter by 2100 and more than 15 meters by 2500.[...]

At the projected 2.7° to 3.5° global temperature increase projected as a result of the emission-reduction pledges made last December at the global climate accord in Paris, all summer sea ice will disappear once temperatures approach 3°, a condition that has never occurred in modern human existence, according to ICCI.

The complete loss of summer sea ice will have significant impacts on the world’s weather, ecosystems, and economy. Greater instability in the jet stream, less stable polar fronts, and more extreme weather in mid-latitudes are expected. Ice-dependent marine food chains and ecosystems may collapse, and traditional Arctic cultures will be devastated.[...]

According to estimates by a number of national academies of science, allowing the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to rise from its current 407 ppm (as of April 2016) to 450 ppm would be accompanied an overall drop in ocean pH of 0.2 units, causing widespread disruption to marine ecosystems and food webs. The most recent data available show the annual concentration is rising at 3 ppm.

Climate experts who have modeled the Paris pledges have concluded that these allowed emissions would result in an ocean pH of 7.8-7.95. While the atmosphere can recover from an excess of carbon dioxide in a 1,000 years or less, once the oceans are acidified, they will require tens to hundreds of thousands of years to recover, through buffering from the gradual weathering of rocks.[...]

[Kenomac]

Looks like you guys and gals found a new home on this thread.

I thought you'd decided to take a summer break.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by StuM

But that "waste" came from the Earth in the first place (unless it was brought in by extra-terrestrials) - so it's actually re-cycling.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Closed loop system....
I learned something about that in Biology Class.

This is for anybody who casually read the quoted posts and absent-mindedly nodded in agreement: Both posts are the product of lazy thinking.

First, the "waste" did not come "from the Earth in the first place;" is was synthesized in industrial labs and chemical factories. Nobody in his right mind would consider plastic or epoxy as coming "from Earth in the first place."

Now take the case of the greenhouse gas effect. Human beings are digging miles below the planet's surface to extract combustible materials that would not naturally be burned with exhaust gasses released into the atmosphere. Nobody in his right mind would consider the Earth's atmosphere to be a closed system.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jwing

This is for anybody who casually read the quoted posts and absent-mindedly nodded in agreement: Both posts are the product of lazy thinking.

First, the "waste" did not come "from the Earth in the first place;" is was synthesized in industrial labs and chemical factories. Nobody in his right mind would consider plastic or epoxy as coming "from Earth in the first place."

Now take the case of the greenhouse gas effect. Human beings are digging miles below the planet's surface to extract combustible materials that would not naturally be burned with exhaust gasses released into the atmosphere. Nobody in his right mind would consider the Earth's atmosphere to be a closed system.

Well that statement is not quite correct. The materials that plastic and epoxies as well as all other things on the planet did intact come from the planet ( discounting the minor addition of solar dust) . So intact the earth is a closed system if you feel otherwise please provide anything to prove it is not a closed system. But this still has little to do with sailing in polar waters.

[Reefmagnet]

2016 NSW whale watching season | Wild About Whales | NSW National Parks

Australia's East Coast Humpback whales have started arriving reasonably early in the season this year. Since they have no clue about global warming, one might assume that things are getting a little chilly down there. When compared with the Arctic, I'm reminded of "swings and roundabouts".

https://www.environment.gov.au/resou...tern-australia

The exact timing of the migration period can vary from year to year depending on water temperature, sea ice, predation risk, prey abundance and the location of their feeding ground. The majority of humpbacks in Australian waters migrate north from June to August, and back towards the Southern Ocean from September to November. Groups of young males typically lead the migration while pregnant cows and cow-calf pairs bring up the rear. Adult breeding animals form the bulk of the migration in the middle stages.

I guess this is why polar bears are the global warming canaries...
Look Out! There Are Whales About | Boat Gold Coast

“From a low of about 500 humpbacks travelling up our coast in the mid 1960s, we now have more than 20,000 making the journey from Antarctica each year to breed, calve, and enjoy the warmer waters,” Dr Miles said.

[newhaul]

Hey Reef now that's a good reason to freeze my butt off cruising Poland waters just to catch a glimpse of these majestic animals.