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

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

OK while they are talking about climate warming caused by C02 emissions, scientists are now warning about global cooling. And wait, thats not all. They are saying its because of the change in the activity from the Sun and not because of man made "pollution".

So now we are looking at Global Cooling I am so glad to be preparing for a life aboard a sailboat. I will be able to move to wherever the climate is most favorable and not stuck in some freezing part of the world. :big grin:

"If the World does get cold all over with some places turning to ice do we need to look at Arctic sailing preparations for our sailboats. Just thinking.
A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

Global warming 'is FAKE': Volume of ice caps is INCREASING, claims...
World will start COOLING DOWN in 2017, claims one of planet's top...

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen."

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I, um, need to make it known that I was seriously out of line for the accusations of trolling I fired at GoingWalkabout (above and here). I reacted to a couple of (for me) hot-button words without fully reading and understanding the thread-starter.

My apologies to GW.

Well, if one agrees with this definition,


In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.


then it appears that yes, Lake-Effect, your original evaluation was reasonably accurate. Doesn't hurt to apologize, unless apologies aren't needed....

Of course, none of that makes threads like this useless, or any less perversely amusing. They're oftentimes enlightening, illustrating classic examples of odd psychological behavior like confirmation bias, the Dunning Kruger effect, illusory correlation, logical errors, and yes, even fascist attitudes (It's not happening because I said so), and sometimes even invoke self-examination, which in these 'Me' dominated times seems a good thing....


It's rather interesting that GoingWalkabout says this in their first post:

So now we are looking at Global Cooling I am so glad to be preparing for a life aboard a sailboat. I will be able to move to wherever the climate is most favorable and not stuck in some freezing part of the world. :big grin:

And this in their last:

So are we going to have more or less ice down South. I have a second home in Argentina and am seriously interested in ice accumulation or dissipation in the southern region. And I will be looking at installing insulation either way on my cat. And yes I'm going to be sailing a cat in the far southern waters full of ice blocks.

Should I add 'schizophrenia' to the list...or is this just normal inattentive writing?

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by exMaggieDrum

The species may be somewhat adaptable but individuals (like your grandchildren) may not be. If the food chain dries up there won't be any way to support the billions of people now on the planet. That may be a good thing.

Why would the food chain dry up?

What if our grandchildren choose to live in completely selfproviding arcologies? (Think spaceship, but parked on the surface). What happens to the environment then becomes completely moot.

That's my main argument to the "we must preserve the planet for the sake of our grandchildren" mantra. We have no idea whatsoever what the coming generations will find important, what kind of life they will want. Maybe 200 years from now everybody is living in the matrix. Maybe we already are ...

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The thread was actually dead and over pages ago...

SV THIRD DAY, 11 posts in the last 5 pages? Hate to see what you would do if it was a 'live' thread.....

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Why would the food chain dry up?

What if our grandchildren choose to live in completely selfproviding arcologies? (Think spaceship, but parked on the surface). What happens to the environment then becomes completely moot.

That's my main argument to the "we must preserve the planet for the sake of our grandchildren" mantra. We have no idea whatsoever what the coming generations will find important, what kind of life they will want. Maybe 200 years from now everybody is living in the matrix. Maybe we already are ...

Trust you've heard of Biosphere 2?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen." [/I]

Back to the OP

From the scientist who presented at the National Astronomical Society.
“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” Valentina Zharkova told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.”

Solar scientists such as Mike Lockwood do not agree with you.

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."
Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.
But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

[Group9]

I just wish some of these global warming scientist would turn their crystal balls to weather forecasting and providing an accurate three day forecast!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Group9

I just wish some of these global warming scientist would turn their crystal balls to weather forecasting and providing an accurate three day forecast!

Climate models and weather models are vastly different.

I use NOAA weatherfaxes on a regular basis when I am going offshore. They are very good.

[Lake-Effect]

@jimbunyard - the core of trolling is intent; is the person actually intending to annoy or bait those of an 'opposing' viewpoint, to make them waste time and get further involved in rebuttal/defense, which amuses the troller.

In person, we have many cues besides just the words to determine a person's sincerity and intent. On a forum, the only knowledge we have of a person is the sum total of their written posts.

Contrary to the oft-repeated portrayals of warmistas/cultists/eco-conspirators hurled around here as blinkered conformists who can't brook any disagreement, I do welcome and read genuine counterpoint. Unfortunately, in our annual CF AGW bunfight, there's precious little of it here that's new or valid. Same old disproved crap. And more than a little trolling.

Anyway... GW's initial post might make assumptions that I disagree with, but I was wrong to treat it as a deliberate troll, and I certainly don't have past knowledge of GWs posts to suspect it as one. I was wrong, and have apologized to GW, who has been very gracious about it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climate models and weather models are vastly different..

Of course they are..its like the clairvoyant saying she can't predict the future on Tuesdays and Thursdays...the only days her office is open. It's convenient isn't it that the experts that tell us we must change the way of life, pay more taxes and upend the economy bases on a warming temperature can't tell us with better than a coin toss it it will rain this afternoon. The climate models are no good at the day and week forecasts BUT you can bet your economy on them being right 20, 30, and 50yrs in the future.

But here is an idea, lets look back 10 and 20 yrs and see if their modles back then we're accurate...oops...they were not. They missed the mark dramatically... But trust them, this time Lucy won't pull away the football from Charlie Brown.

Follow the money and Cult of Likability.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But here is an idea, lets look back 10 and 20 yrs and see if their modles back then we're accurate...oops...they were not. They missed the mark dramatically... But trust them, this time Lucy won't pull away the football from Charlie Brown.

OK



Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 - IOPscience

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Follow the money ...

Like Happer and Clemente

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science | Environment | The Guardian

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

While I would love a world with more public transit and less highways and cars, I can not at this time place my hat firmly on the AGW side. It really is not at all clear cut, at least too me, despite all the papers and hype to the contrary. 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. IF it was proven, I and a whole bunch of really bright lads, would be on the AGW side of the fence.

To say because AGW is the rule of the land, smacks more toward dogma. Any theory, must be strong enough to stand, despite claims otherwise. That is Science, not to dogmaly accept something as fact simply because some write that it is so and it's popular.

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.

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.

Lets say we spend a few trillion dollars to remove 10 percent of the AGW co2 component. That would change the AGW co2 from 0.002 to 0.0018 ish or a reduction of 0.0002% Its a pretty small number. But boy the taxes it can generate...

I am with you Sailorchic. There is no doubt that climate change is real, but not quite sold that it's all, or even in any significant proportion, manmade. However, if we want to accept that tenent there are other things to consider besides fossil fuel use and vehicle emissions. According to the FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 2006, "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation."

According to Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, 2009, "Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions."

In addition, about 2/3 of the rainforest has been destroyed to support animal agriculture, 2500 gallons of water are used to produce 1 pound of beef, and according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, "California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitrate pollution in more than 100,000 square miles of polluted groundwater."

Maybe if we want to talk about our "carbon footprint," shortage of resources such as fresh water, pollution from waste runoff, and various other aspects of environmental damage, we ought to at least consider saying "please hold the steak."

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Like Happer and Clemente

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science | Environment | The Guardian

Greenpeace as a source... Nuff said.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

@jimbunyard - the core of trolling is intent; is the person actually intending to annoy or bait those of an 'opposing' viewpoint, to make them waste time and get further involved in rebuttal/defense, which amuses the troller.

In person, we have many cues besides just the words to determine a person's sincerity and intent. On a forum, the only knowledge we have of a person is the sum total of their written posts.

Contrary to the oft-repeated portrayals of warmistas/cultists/eco-conspirators hurled around here as blinkered conformists who can't brook any disagreement, I do welcome and read genuine counterpoint. Unfortunately, in our annual CF AGW bunfight, there's precious little of it here that's new or valid. Same old disproved crap. And more than a little trolling.

Anyway... GW's initial post might make assumptions that I disagree with, but I was wrong to treat it as a deliberate troll, and I certainly don't have past knowledge of GWs posts to suspect it as one. I was wrong, and have apologized to GW, who has been very gracious about it.

Fair enough. Everybody has to make their own opinions. Just wish that some of them were more well-informed.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Greenpeace as a source... Nuff said.

Not quite nuff...

The assertions were verified by the Guardian.

Now it's nuff.