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

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf

During the PETM, 56 million years ago, the Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years.

Classic Jack!

The resolution of your 56 million year old proxies is?

How much has the earth warmed/cooled on average in the last 20,000 years?

I refer you to the warming/cooling rates around the three Dryas stadials.

What was the rate of warming in the Younger Dryas?
2 - 6 °C over decades?

How about Heinrich and Dansgaard/Oeschger events?

Using the same resolution as your PETM proxy, do you think they would show up? Do you really think that there was nothing like that in your 20,000 year PETM cherry pick?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Greenhouse Effect and the GHG qualities of CO2 have been understood for close to 200 years. Maybe you missed that part.

"mostly non disputable". Perhaps you missed that part.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Good news for you alarmists

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...d0108ced31a4e2

YOU may not have noticed but our sun has gone as blank as a cue ball. As in, it’s lost its spots.

According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age.

Meteorologist and renowned sun-watcher Paul Dorian raised the alarm*in his latest report, which has sparked a mild panic about an impending*Game of Thrones-style winter not seen since the 17th century.

“For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank,” Mr Dorian says.

“The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.

“At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir. The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020.”

If you’re confused about what a “blank” sun is, below is a picture of what it normally looks like, in all its solar flare-and-blemishes glory.

According to NASA, the sun goes through a natural solar cycle approximately every 11 years. The cycle is marked by the increase and decrease of sunspots — visible as dark blemishes on the sun’s surface, or photosphere. The greatest number of sunspots in any given solar cycle is designated as “solar maximum.” The lowest number is “solar minimum”.

“During Solar Max, huge sunspots and intense solar flares are a daily occurrence. Auroras appear in Florida. Radiation storms knock out satellites. Radio blackouts frustrate CB radio as well. The last such episode took place in the years around 2000-2001,”*the space agency’s website

“During solar minimum, the opposite occurs. Solar flares are almost non-existent while whole weeks go by without a single, tiny sunspot to break the monotony of the blank sun. This is what we are experiencing now.”

Given that the sun is the main driver of all weather and climate, the sinister-sounding “blankness” to which Mr Dorian refers has some experts predicting a “Maunder Minimum” phase similar to one which began in 1645 and which is referred to as the “Little Ice Age”.

The Maunder Minimum, named after solar astronomer Edward Maunder, lasted for a brutal 70 years and was so cold the Thames froze over.

A slightly less intense ice age-like period called the Dalton Minimum — after British Meteorologist John Dalton — arrived decades later and lasted from about 1790 to 1830.

“If history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottommost layer of Earth’s atmosphere — and where we all live,” Mr Dorian says.

Mr Dorian’s findings*back research by professor Valentina Zharkova*of Northumbria University, who warned that a predicted sharp decline in solar activity between 2020 and 2050 was a sign another ice age was coming.

“I am absolutely confident in our research,” Prof Zharkova said.

“It has good mathematical background and reliable data, which has been handled correctly. In fact, our results can be repeated by any researchers with the similar data available in many solar observatories, so they can derive their own evidence of upcoming Maunder Minimum in solar magnetic field and activity.”

And there are other consequences of a sun without spots. Not least for astronauts who face the risk of having their DNA “shattered” by cosmic rays, whose potency surges during periods of solar weakness.

According to Mr Dorian, cosmic rays surge into the inner solar system “with relative ease” during periods of solar minimum.

“Solar wind decreases and sun’s magnetic field weakens during solar minimums making it easier for cosmic rays to reach the Earth,” he explains.

“This is a more dangerous time for astronauts as the increase in potent cosmic rays can easily shatter a strand of human DNA. Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts.

“With sharply lower aerodynamic drag, satellites have less trouble staying in orbit — a good thing. On the other hand, space junk tends to accumulate, making the space around Earth a more dangerous place for astronauts.”

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Good news for you alarmists

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...d0108ced31a4e2



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Too funny. Debunked numerous times.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

a whole lotta other people are happy to just parrot the opinions served up to them daily in steaming piles by DC and others.

Who was it that said, "know thy self"?
Was it the Oracle from the Matrix?

There is no spoon....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Classic Jack!

The resolution of your 56 million year old proxies is?

How much has the earth warmed/cooled on average in the last 20,000 years?

I refer you to the warming/cooling rates around the three Dryas stadials.

What was the rate of warming in the Younger Dryas?
2 - 6 °C over decades?

How about Heinrich and Dansgaard/Oeschger events?

Using the same resolution as your PETM proxy, do you think they would show up? Do you really think that there was nothing like that in your 20,000 year PETM cherry pick?

Stu In school, university and grad school I learned that asking questions is a stupid debate strategy.

Just get it out. Make you frigging point. With references please. Thanks

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stu In school, university and grad school I learned that asking questions is a stupid debate strategy.

Just get it out. Make you frigging point. With references please. Thanks

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Let me help, the presence of a question mark (?) denotes a question, to which, Stu asked 6 of them. Now you may not want to or are incapable of answering said 6 questions, but I also learned from debate class the technique of ignoring the questions, which earns a failing grade.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Classic Jack!

The resolution of your 56 million year old proxies is?

How much has the earth warmed/cooled on average in the last 20,000 years?

I refer you to the warming/cooling rates around the three Dryas stadials.

What was the rate of warming in the Younger Dryas?
2 - 6 °C over decades?

How about Heinrich and Dansgaard/Oeschger events?

Using the same resolution as your PETM proxy, do you think they would show up? Do you really think that there was nothing like that in your 20,000 year PETM cherry pick?

Stu as an afterthought I am going to agree with you. I cherry picked a time period, you cherry picked some time periods. Let's agree to agree with a Dryas expert, Richard Alley

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred."

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's agree to agree with a Dryas expert, Richard Alley

No....
We are not going to agree with a MMGW Cultist.
You can...but the scientific community doesn't care about consensus...it cares about real science not the MMGW Cult.

[fryewe]

I have a question for the smart guys who frequent threads such as this one. I haven't been able to find definitive information by web searching, and...

I've been wondering why,
- with our 21st century technology, and
- massive funding of CO2 studies year to year, and
- a 99 percent consensus of scientists that AGW requires immediate and significant action to limit CO2 emissions, and
- the seeming inability to accurately quantify the problem with models, which
- leads to cynicism and skepticism by those who distrust government and wonder why there is a need to "hide the decline", which
- prevents political consensus for action...

And since CO2 warming effects are simple re-emission of absorbed energy of known wavelengths which can be identified using spectrometry...

...where is the significant effort to quantify the effects of CO2 re-emission of absorbed energy using spectrometric analysis on a global scale. Those emissions can be quantified, and the scattering reactions from the emissions should be able to be measured and characterized in a refined way.

If and when that could be done, models and secondary effects such as temperature changes and sea ice extent would no longer be needed to quantify the effects of CO2. Such measurements would also extract CO2 effects from broader natural effects such as vulcanism.

What am I missing? Is such an effort already in progress, and I'm simply not familiar with the work? Are there results already published that I've not been able to find?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Too funny. Debunked numerous times.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You won't find it too funny when your home is being bulldozed by an advancing glacier in the not too distant future.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I have a question for the smart guys who frequent threads such as this one. I haven't been able to find definitive information by web searching, and...

I've been wondering why,
- with our 21st century technology, and
- massive funding of CO2 studies year to year, and
- a 99 percent consensus of scientists that AGW requires immediate and significant action to limit CO2 emissions, and
- the seeming inability to accurately quantify the problem with models, which
- leads to cynicism and skepticism by those who distrust government and wonder why there is a need to "hide the decline", which
- prevents political consensus for action...

And since CO2 warming effects are simple re-emission of absorbed energy of known wavelengths which can be identified using spectrometry...

...where is the significant effort to quantify the effects of CO2 re-emission of absorbed energy using spectrometric analysis on a global scale. Those emissions can be quantified, and the scattering reactions from the emissions should be able to be measured and characterized in a refined way.

If and when that could be done, models and secondary effects such as temperature changes and sea ice extent would no longer be needed to quantify the effects of CO2. Such measurements would also extract CO2 effects from broader natural effects such as vulcanism.

What am I missing? Is such an effort already in progress, and I'm simply not familiar with the work? Are there results already published that I've not been able to find?

No need for all that fancy pants tech stuff. Night time to day time temperature differential should be decreasing with every passing decade. For the same reason cloudy nights are warmer than cloudless nights, differentially speaking.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[senormechanico]

I[QUOTE=jackdale;2155853]The only thing the DC scoops is poop.[/QUOTE
Speaking of full of poop.....

I'm going to bet I'm going to be the first here.

I'm going to post this, then report my post as a flagrant whatever.
I hope this kills this STUPID THREAD ! That's the best case.
Worst case, I get banned. Whatever.
Maybe I'll join the ranks of Bob Perry who was banned here years ago.

If anyone is interested, take a screenshot of this post before it's removed.

If moderators look at the overall milleau of the thread, they ought to realize it has NOTHING TO DO with sailing in any our lifetimes and is only a click magnet to SELL ADVERTISING !

To all posters here, you're only making money for the website owners.

[senormechanico]

FWIW, I reported myself......

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I have a question for the smart guys who frequent threads such as this one. I haven't been able to find definitive information by web searching, and...

I've been wondering why,
- with our 21st century technology, and
- massive funding of CO2 studies year to year, and
- a 99 percent consensus of scientists that AGW requires immediate and significant action to limit CO2 emissions, and
- the seeming inability to accurately quantify the problem with models, which
- leads to cynicism and skepticism by those who distrust government and wonder why there is a need to "hide the decline", which
- prevents political consensus for action...

And since CO2 warming effects are simple re-emission of absorbed energy of known wavelengths which can be identified using spectrometry...

...where is the significant effort to quantify the effects of CO2 re-emission of absorbed energy using spectrometric analysis on a global scale. Those emissions can be quantified, and the scattering reactions from the emissions should be able to be measured and characterized in a refined way.

If and when that could be done, models and secondary effects such as temperature changes and sea ice extent would no longer be needed to quantify the effects of CO2. Such measurements would also extract CO2 effects from broader natural effects such as vulcanism.

What am I missing? Is such an effort already in progress, and I'm simply not familiar with the work? Are there results already published that I've not been able to find?

A healthy skepticism is necessary in a politics, economics. Cynicism is destructive and divisive.

Your "hide of the decline" is symptomatic of that cynicism. Very few folks have had the inclination to put those three words into the context in which they were made. That is also true of many other quote mined phrases that you see on site like c3headlines.

My grad school education was in studies of the future at the University of Houston Clear Lake. I studied forecasting models and methods, including computer modeling. The point of forecasting is to assist in making decisions. The forecast should point you in a valid direction, accuracy may not be possible, precision is highly suspect. One of the required readings was a series of 10 forecasts of the future of United States that was used to assist in making decisions about the viability of polcy decisions. It was published as Seven Tomorrows. (They dropped three of the forecasts.)

As for the lack of political consensus, that varies from country to country or region to region. In some cases it is the result of way too much corporate control of politicians. In the case of my province it is the fact that our single products economy is unsustainable.

Using carbon isotope analysis we can measure the human contribution to the 40% in atmospheric CO2. We can determine that volcanoes emit less that 1% of the human contribution to CO2. We also know that the net effect of volcanic activity is short-term cooling.

Solar scientists have concluded that the 0.1% variability in solar activity has little to with modern climate change.

Yes this work is published; most of its readership is restricted to academic communities, because it does not follow the journalistic maxim "If it bleeds, it leads." A lot is just plain old intellectual laziness and anti-intellectualism on the part of the general public..