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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

As to the 95% science consensus thingy, that 95% number came from a very small subset (roughly 600) scientists in one report. There are great gobs, dare I say tons of scientists and engineers that do not think AGW is a prime factor in GW. Very smart folks. They oddly don't get air time as it distracts from carbon credits which works much like another tax, and does little, actually nothing to reduce emissions.

So if AGW were cut and dry, why are so many very educated folks not signing aboard the AGW bandwagon. They don't get air time, but they are very much out there.

It is not 95%



Home | James Lawrence Powell

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As you point out, the fossil fuel companies have been backing research into both sides of the question (actually, if you're doing it right, you make the scientific investigations and let the findings inform you, not the other way around). They're not stupid.

Their own most recent findings, coupled with some business foresight, has many of the fossil fuel companies themselves starting to diversify into alternative and renewable energy. They're pretty much accepting the finding of AGW in their planning.

I've seen this interpretation a lot recently, but one does not necessarily follow the other. Energy companies are indeed moving into alternative technologies, but this may not mean that they accept the premise of AGW. There are many reasons why a for-profit company might adapt alternative energy technology. Tax and regulatory policy, public relations, public pressure, reducing pollution, economic sense, anticipation of future technology advances, are some that come to mind.

Keeping this boat-related, the solar panels on VALIS are from BP, originally manufactured by Shell Solar. I installed them about twelve years ago. I don't think the fact that Shell was manufacturing solar panels back then has anything to do with so-called recent acceptance of AGW.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Co2 makes up 0.04 percent (currently) of the atmosphere. The AGW part of that is roughly 5% or 0.002% of the atmosphere. The other 95 ish percent of c02 emissions are 100% natural and not man made.

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That messed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

, but this may not mean that they accept the premise of AGW. .

Some did a long time ago...

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

I've seen this interpretation a lot recently, but one does not necessarily follow the other. Energy companies are indeed moving into alternative technologies, but this may not mean that they accept the premise of AGW. There are many reasons why a for-profit company might adapt alternative energy technology. Tax and regulatory policy, public relations, public pressure, reducing pollution, economic sense, anticipation of future technology advances, are some that come to mind.

Well, of course there is the difference between what they say and what they do. I am taking their actions as sort of a de facto acknowledgement, part of a slow walk towards these new opportunities.

I would very much like to encourage them by removing more of their subsidies and tax breaks. As StuM says, we don't want to be wasting tax dollars.

[alctel]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets

Opps....what happens when the Warming data is faked....

There is just too much money in the MMGW Game to let it go...

I notice you didn't respond to my post of page 2.

This link you provided can't even get the data sets that this guy supposedly used right! It's NOAA, not NASAs datasets he was looking at AND they publicly published the changes in 2011 and why they made them!

And as for the 'the sea levels are not rising!' guy

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

And who is making money off 'climate change'? As said in my previous post there is a very clear money trail from the oil companies and right wing think tanks to funding the climate change denial movement

Or maybe oil companies are funding a massive PR push

This stuff is really scary, and I know it's easier to just put your head in the sand and pretend this thing isn't happening, but it is

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

... Energy companies are indeed moving into alternative technologies, but this may not mean that they accept the premise of AGW ...

As conachair noted (post 244), ExxonMobil, for instance, knew as early as 1981 (or earlier) of climate change; years before it became a public issue.
Exxon researchers even said, in a 1978 internal memo, that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would increase average global temperatures by as much as 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.
Despite this, the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial, and think tanks who attack the scientific consensus, spreading doubt and uncertainty, and perhaps misinforming investors**.
Since then, Exxon has now said that it acknowledges the risk of climate change, and no longer (openly*) funds climate change denial groups.

* A Drexel University study finds that (now) a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funnelled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder.
➥ Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

** The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business. ➥ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sc...tatements.html

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This has been pretty darn successful, because it even has smart people like you nodding in agreement, and accepting the implication that there's some giant global scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Never said there was a conspiracy to suppress the truth. The only question is what is the truth. BTW I have no love for the koch brothers at all.

Like I said before if the data was really rock solid, we all would be singing kumbiya. This has not happened. I question models that use too many assumptions or proxies.

None of the current climate models are in alinement with the measurable climate. They all show continuing ice loss in the arctic and antarctic. Funny thing, arctic ice is half recovered from 2009 lows and Antarctic ice on land and sea is growing. Hutson bay was iced in in July of this year, requiring an ice breaker to break the ice so fuel could be be delivered by ship. Scientists aboard the ice breaker were annoyed that they had to delay the trip to the arctic to study ice loss, just to break the ice in hutson bay in late July. Report was it was the worst ice in 20 years.

So both nothern and southern ice is in a growing trend, and has been for 3-5 years. This is counter to the AGW models which show continuing ice loss. How does that happen....

As the ice grows Albedo increases and less sunlight reaches the earth. No one is talking about sailing the northwest passage now.

Nasa is now saying that the sun might have just a bit more to do with climate change then first though. We will know more in a few years when a few more solar probes are launched. Exciting times.

While the general though it that ice ages happen slowly, Otzi showed that ice can form one year and not leave for a rather long time. Hannibal crossed the alps, because the snow line was 500 meters higher then then it is today.

No question that the earth is warmer now then in the last 400 years. But it is not as warm as ~2000 years ago. Yes Co2 concentration has increased by 0.01% in the last 150 years. Some of that increase is due to deforestation and corresponding loss of carbon sinks.

No question that the world is in trouble. We treat it, like we can go somewhere else. Over fishing, over logging, strip mining, and mountains of trash. I've been doing my part to reduce emissions for over 40 years now, with bicycle commuting solar hot water, etc. Lordy I have over 100K miles on bicycles. Though not much riding these last few years. I'm 100 solar and don't own a car. I'm also not sold on AGW as the prime driver to GW.

Really there is little point to these discussions as those for and against AGW, both believe they are 100% correct. Myself I'm waiting a few more years for a bit more real data. If ice continues to grow, then break out the long johns (thermal underwear). If the northwest passage opens, lets build a tiki bar in Nome.

In any event we all need to sail more (see trying to get this back to a sailing discussion....). Have fun ya'll. I'm out of here.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Myself I'm waiting a few more years for a bit more real data..

Ahh....but as we have seen in the recent Scandal...the MMGW Cultists will just make up and alter the data. Lets cool the historical data to make it look hotter today...they will after all stop at nothing to prove their religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nobody on CF has convinced me that most climate scientists are bad at their jobs, sorry.

Likewise, nobody on CF has convinced me that MMGW is Real and not just the latest Fear Fad like: Peak Oil, The Population Bomb, Global Cooling, The War on Butter, or the War on Women.

So now that we have the facts that NO ONE will change their View by this nice fun but pointless CF thread, the questions has to be asked.

Who is stroking whom's Ego by continuing this BS thread any longer?

Hard Break

PS: I live off the Grid...so I'm a better person than you with my lower carbon footprint...ha ha ha.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Likewise, nobody on CF has convinced me that MMGW is Real and not just the latest Fear Fad like: Peak Oil, The Population Bomb, Global Cooling, The War on Butter, or the War on Women.

Wait.... There's a war on Butter???
Good lord, next somebody will say Bacon is bad for you. Where will it all end.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Wait.... There's a war on Butter???
Good lord, next somebody will say Bacon is bad for you. Where will it all end.

Yep there was a war on butter butter won
The war against butter is over. Butter won - Quartz
And let's talk pig
https://bacontoday.com/top-10-reason...althy-for-you/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Never said there was a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Well, ok, but...

... Really there are many papers writing against AGW, but for some reason, they can not get published as the science journals will not consider them. There is zero funding for research disproving AGW. Why. It's not really proven, though if they say it enough, most will believe it. ...

... tons of scientists and engineers that do not think AGW is a prime factor in GW. Very smart folks. They oddly don't get air time as it distracts from carbon credits which works much like another tax, and does little, actually nothing to reduce emissions.

... So if AGW were cut and dry, why are so many very educated folks not signing aboard the AGW bandwagon. They don't get air time, but they are very much out there.

If not a conspiracy. then what is this unnamed thing suppressing the truth as you see it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Who is stroking whom's Ego by continuing this BS thread any longer?

Could that be... you? You were in this thread well before me with your witty aphorisms.

PS: I live off the Grid...so I'm a better person than you with my lower carbon footprint...ha ha ha.

stroke, stroke, stroke...

[Reefmagnet]

The world's population is accelerating out of control; the distribution of wealth is becoming increasingly lopsided; religious extremists and other nutters are intent on inflicting their beliefs upon us with extreme prejudice; we've created a world of mind numbing reality TV for a throwaway generation.

But temps probably, maybe, could be rising by a degree is the end of the world? Sheesh...

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Foozinator]

It's a good thing that US law makers are trying so hard to get to the truth.

Senate Science Committee hearing challenges "dogma"� of climate science | Ars Technica

EDIT: Fortunately, it's not really as much up to us Americans as we might like to think. It sounds like China and India are going to be much more important, as far as actual "actionable items" are concerned.