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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Meanwhile the nwp is still frozen Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Full resolution map

Originally Posted by newhaul

The north eastern sea route is a no go as well for the near future.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...l-decades-away.

So how's our 'record year' doin'??

(Rich -- how was that one -- grade???)

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

So how's our 'record year' doin'??

(Rich -- how was that one -- grade???)

Bingo...excellent, short, sweet, and cutting by exposing one of the MMGW's Lies.

A-....I love it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rich,
(Almost) everyone knows that the amount of daily CO2 added by fire is a small fraction of the total CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere by other processes.

I bet few outside the scientific/technical world really understand the small percentage of overall atmospheric CO2 that is derived from anthropogenic sources. Could this be because the mouthpieces behind the AGW rhetoric don't want people to know?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...excellent, short, sweet, and cutting by exposing one of the MMGW's Lies.

A-....I love it.

Glad you didn't give me anything higher than an A-. Now I have incentive to try even harder!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Huh? Of course we are changing the composition of the atmosphere and therefore the amount of energy held by the atmosphere and consequently altering the climate. We are setting constantly a new baseline for our "life made" atmospheric equilibrium. Yes that's right, all life does that to an extent. Our impact is just larger than a lets say a bumble bee's, exactly because we know how to harness fire i.e. in combustion engines.

Without life the composition of the atmosphere and the climate would be completely different. However, evolution always adapts to changing conditions. Short term (in my lifetime) a warmer planet is not too bad except if you are living in a poor country, and long-term (aeons) only a problem if you life near the coast and are a warm-blooded mammal, but great if you a cold-blooded reptile.

Saying that, humans have the capacity to form their environment and will develop this capacity in the future even further.

Is this good or bad? Who knows, but actually I don't care, because right now it is an ongoing process with no end point, no goal that can be reached or target that can be met and far too many variables. It is as it is, always in flux, completely out of our control and needs adjustment all the time.

Yes, that's right, we are not in control! All we can do is open the sunroof and the window on our side, fasten the seatbelt and enjoy the ride!

You mean . . . you mean . . . the IPCC has it wrong and . . . and . . . any attempt to spend trillions to abide by the Paris accords to keep temps from going higher than 2 degs. by 2100 would be futile?? SAY IT AIN'T SO . . . .

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

So how's our 'record year' doin'??

Warm in June.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606

Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). June 2016 marks the 40th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last time June global land and ocean temperatures were below average was in 1976 (-0.07°C / -0.13°F). June 2016 tied with March 2015 as the ninth highest monthly temperature departure among all months (1,638) on record. Overall, 14 of the 15 highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred since February 2015, with January 2007 among the 15 highest monthly temperature departures. June 2016 also marks the 378th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last month with temperatures below the 20th century average was December 1984 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Those who subscribe to the cataclysmic manmade climate change theories have no valid basis for making their claims. And almost no climate scientists make such concrete claims. Lots of politicians do however but that's another story.

And here I thought 99% of climate scientists DID in fact make this claim.

[Rich - I think I might be catchin' on, no?]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Speaks for itself. No analysis needed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1210...wide-terrorism

Hmmm . . . kinda like saying "life" kills more people than terrorism. Tell that to people living in Germany & France these days.

Just goes to show that "crap" messaging is obviously not confined to "crap" media sites.

[Reefmagnet]

Forget about all the bloody and devastating wars and conflicts littered throughout history. Apparently it's climate change's fault (maybe)...

Climate change increases risk of armed conflict, war: study

YOU wouldn’t think this one issue could lead to war and armed conflict. But a new report shows a surprising threat to peace.

Scientists have found climate change dramatically increases the chances of war breaking out as heatwaves, drought and other natural disasters help push countries to the edge.
Scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found a statistical link between armed conflict and extreme weather, especially in those nations which are ethnically diverse.
The study found droughts in Syria and Somalia helped contribute to war, while the prolonged drought in Afghanistan might have contributed further to “fuelling ethnic tensions”.
The report found almost one in four wars erupted in ethnically diverse countries had coincided with an environmental disaster.
While admitting the reasons behind armed conflict are often complex, they said such disasters could fuel “smouldering social tensions”.

German researchers conducted a statical analysis of armed conflict outbreaks and climate disasters between 1980 and 2010.
Interestingly the report authors noted a coincidence rate of nine per cent regarding armed-conflict outbreaks during disasters.
However that figure jumped to 23 per cent in countries which were ethnically divided.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

Warm in June.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606

Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). June 2016 marks the 40th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last time June global land and ocean temperatures were below average was in 1976 (-0.07°C / -0.13°F). June 2016 tied with March 2015 as the ninth highest monthly temperature departure among all months (1,638) on record. Overall, 14 of the 15 highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred since February 2015, with January 2007 among the 15 highest monthly temperature departures. June 2016 also marks the 378th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last month with temperatures below the 20th century average was December 1984 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F).

I was referring to Arctic sea ice extent but no matter. Recent above avg. temps would be consistent with a long-term warming trend -- whether natural or man-caused -- or more likely a combo of both.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow.

Getting all inspired from the convention rhetoric this week, are ya?!

1. Forbes did not say that, the head honcho of an oil industry lobby group (who wrote that op-ed in Forbes) said that, and I already linked you to evidence that this claim is not accurate.
   
   Evidence you posted but obviously didn't understand because it was from a specific time frame and the oil co. honcho who Forbes quoted was talking about a long-term average. Already pointed that out -- you ignored it.
   
   
2. I never once said or suggested that "oil co. profits are excessive" or that oil should be subject to a "windfall profits tax" at times when the price of oil and therefore profits are high."
   
   Good! I'm glad you're not following the crowd for once and recognize the futility of higher taxes based on private industry performance in any particular cycle.
   
   This is what I said: it makes sense to introduce new tools such as carbon pricing at a time when oil and gas prices are so low, because a small bump-up at this point is obviously more affordable than when the consumer prices are high. Duh.
   

Assuming you understand what carbon pricing is, and how it would be applied. Otherwise you're just going along with what others tell you is a "solution," albeit in this case one most likely one looking for a problem.

Of course you lay this out after opining
So you claim you don't want ********, but you'll spend pages defending crap articles from crap sites (if they're anti-AGW), and feel comfortable misrepresenting me and others. Basically, you don't want less ********, just a specific flavour of it.

Nope, all ******** tastes pretty bad to me. Again, if you want to be independently informed you have to read past misleading headlines into the substance of an article. Hate to tell ya, but just about every source of "news" these days is biased one way or the other. Nothing we can do about that one except not be so quick to believe or disbelieve it. But I must say all this constipation over The Daily Caller has probably served to increase its readership a bit! Never used to read it but now that you've made such a fuss I find it pretty entertaining actually.

Citizens United makes it possible for any individual or group to spend as much money as they want to get their viewpoint or message across,

Money for getting their viewpoint or message out yes, because that is constitutionally protected speech. Ain't freedom & democracy grand??! But the amts. individuals & groups can give to candidates & parties are still restricted.

without any constraint from election spending laws,

Because it's political speech, and this is more far-reaching, important, and therefore entitled to greater protection than just the process of getting a candidate elected.

and without accountability.

The accountability, by design, comes in the "free marketplace of ideas" as the constitution envisions. (Sorry to offend by using the word "free" so much and now "marketplace."). The idea being that more not less speech is the answer to honest & fair elections. Doesn't always work in an imperfect system, of course, but that's the rationale behind the majority opinion. You should really read the dissent if you'd like to be more persuasive in opposing it. Like you, the Dem functionaries at the convention enjoy using the case as an example of all that's corrupt with the political system, but most don't seem to have read the case either. But then rhetoric doesn't require study, reasoning, or facts.

A simple shell game with some inscrutable nonprofit fronts makes the funders untraceable for all intents and purposes.

You may be right about this. The Court left disclosure requirements in place but I don't know how effective this will be. But hopefully giving all sides the same rights will serve as a check/balance. Besides, it's the constitutionally protected message that the constitution protects, and not necessarily whether it's George Soros or the Koch Bros. who are funding it. The success of the Sanders campaign threw the notion that money in politics is corrupting upside down with its raising close to $200M with an avg. donation of $27. (Yeah, I watched his speech too ).

Your claim that this is somehow making more free speech is hypocritical in light of your recent claim that unions are no longer necessary. (which is why new US factory jobs pay crap and have few benefits). Again, you don't seem to want free speech, you just want freedom for your preferred speech. Nice.

Not sure I said unions are no longer necessary but millions of workers certainly have. Last I read only 7% or so of the private workforce in the U.S. is unionized. I guess all those people can think for themselves, which is exactly why unions are lobbying so hard to make non-union workers pay union dues, and trying to enforce undemocratic secret ballots. Given these numbers, I'd suggest that it's less about unions no longer being necessary and more about them not honestly and effectively representing their membership. As for free speech, Citizens United insures that unions can also spend millions in membership dues (which they do, whether members approve or not) on political speech as a counterweight to the other side.

Of course this might just be your own version of trolling. If so, you should probably start aiming now for brevity and pungency, to keep advancing your game.

That's good advice, but I'm afraid I've screwed up trying to meet Rich's high trolling stds. with this lengthy reply.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Finding, extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuel has killed quite a few. As we speak, a river in Saskatchewan is coping with an oil spill from a pipeline. Air pollution from vehicles kills. God forbid we make any dents in those...

The U.S. & Canada have made bigger dents than most of the world with their safety & emissions stds. By defn. the oil industry is a hazardous one to work in, but so are many other industries that bring the benefits of needed basic resources to the rest of us.

Since you don't acknowledge AGW,

Actually I do, just not to your level of extremism & alarmism.

of course you won't acknowledge the extinctions (oops sorry, not humans, so you won't care),

Huh? How'd you know I was pro-extinction?

crop failures, greater weather extremes, droughts, loss of habitable land that temperature increase will may bring. So I won't mention them. :roll eyes:

Ya gotta watch that, we have a tough crowd here on CF. Remember, one of Jack's nifty, animated black ball lookin' graphs said the planet had warmed 1.5 degs. from 1860 to 2015. And whaddaya bet this was based on the warmest of the various datasets? This is important to remember since we all too often read media reports of "predictions" based on future higher temps which have not occurred but are nevertheless credited with causing problems now.

I blame you for pretending to be scientific when in fact you're just seeking validation for a political point of view.

I would never pretend to be scientific any more than I would pretend to be an astronaut, but I'll discuss your insights about my need for validation with my psychiatrist.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Forget about all the bloody and devastating wars and conflicts littered throughout history. Apparently it's climate change's fault (maybe)...

Climate change increases risk of armed conflict, war: study

Thanks for filling in duringSailOar's absence. This stuff is going from the absurd to the hilarious!

[transmitterdan]

The lunacy of using "statistics" to link climate change to war or death by refrigeration is amazing. Idiotic religious or political views are not mentionable but tenuous links to climate change are all important to the pundits. Simply mind boggling how stupid we have become...

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean . . . you mean . . . the IPCC has it wrong and . . . and . . . any attempt to spend trillions to abide by the Paris accords to keep temps from going higher than 2 degs. by 2100 would be futile?? SAY IT AIN'T SO . . . .

The political question is: What is more cost efficient? Open the sunroof or open the window? But then will either change the road we are on?

Btw. what does the acronym IPCC stand for?

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The lunacy of using "statistics" to link climate change to war or death by refrigeration is amazing. Idiotic religious or political views are not mentionable but tenuous links to climate change are all important to the pundits. Simply mind boggling how stupid we have become...

This is not really stupid (ok the refrigeration thing is - kind of).

I know the study the article refers too. Again this is an example of an overexcited journalist representing a study in a complete wrong context. The study only concludes that conflict arises more often in areas of extreme scarcity with a high ethnic diversity combined with dramatic climate events like draught or flooding.

Keep walking, nothing new to see here. Every history book you can find in your library will confirm that.

It does not matter why the planet is heating up. It does not matter what mankind's contribution to climate change really is. It does not matter whether or not we try to control our climate. We have to deal with the changes and mitigate the consequences. But then again, this is nothing new.

However, the 1,000,000$-question is: Are our politicians qualified and skilled enough to make the right decisions?