Northwest Passage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hey,

This isn't about MY pro-change goals. I'll be fine, regardless. If I could actually fix the world (or MY world), I would have already done it.

.

.

I've been on better than usual behaviour in this particular thread because most of the usual trolls/propagandists are absent, and it has been rather civil. You have helped raise the tone a bit.

.

sorry but I have to say you are not being truthful on doing what you can personally. You don't feel that individuals can change anything you are rather waiting on government to do it for you.

Yes you have been nicer than usual . Jack is not here to help you close the thread down because it challenges your views of the climate issue.

Back to the topic of the thread as of today the nwp is still full of fast sea ice making it impassable for now . We are waiting for new reports on specific regions ( should be posted tomorrow) . Meanwhile here is the general overview .

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...ation-map.html

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry but I have to say you are not being truthful on doing what you can personally. You don't feel that individuals can change anything you are rather waiting on government to do it for you.

That's of course a misrepresentation of my position. For starters you don't even know what I do or don't do personally.

Second, I do acknowledge that personal actions are important. But mainly in numbers. If others, including leaders, persist in denying or downplaying the problems, then you won't get enough individual action to matter.

Finally, the biggest problems are systemic - the attitudes and behaviours of nations, governments, companies. Individual action won't make a dent in that, it requires consensus and policy.

Yes you have been nicer than usual . Jack is not here to help you close the thread down because it challenges your views of the climate issue.

Very little in these threads has ever challenged me. My patience, or faith in mankind, maybe.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's of course a misrepresentation of my position. For starters you don't even know what I do or don't do personally.

Second, I do acknowledge that personal actions are important. But mainly in numbers. If others, including leaders, persist in denying or downplaying the problems, then you won't get enough individual action to matter.

Finally, the biggest problems are systemic - the attitudes and behaviours of nations, governments, companies. Individual action won't make a dent in that, it requires consensus and policy.



.

actually you have made it clear many times across the various threads what your personal feelings and contributions are and aren't

Second you have many times said that individual action is basically useless and won't make a dent. ( I feel otherwise ) ( an avalanche begins with a single snowflake and all that Zen stuff)
as to your last item see my prior paragraph .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Very little in these threads has ever challenged me. My patience, or faith in mankind, maybe.

Singularity's insights & explanations explain why this is so better than probably anything else I've read. Not whether these threads are challenging or mankind is unworthy of much faith, but rather why you think so. But then his insights also quite effectively explain why I'm responding.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Singularity's insights & explanations explain why this is so better than probably anything else I've read. Not whether these threads are challenging or mankind is unworthy of much faith, but rather why you think so. But then his insights also quite effectively explain why I'm responding.

It's your right to believe all that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's your right to believe all that.

I think you may have missed the point, or maybe I just didn't articulate it well. I wasn't directly criticizing your comments about not being challenged by these threads or your lack of faith in mankind (more than a touch of hubris here but whatever). I was also not referencing Singularity's insights as any sort of alternative explanation for why the mainstream CC view shouldn't be adhered to. I was only pointing out that there are always reasons other than the merits or demerits of an issue itself which drives people to believe the way they do, along with the intensity of how they opt to pursue those beliefs. Singularity isn't taking sides here, and we don't know if he even takes a side or finds it necessary to do so. But his insights do offer explanations for why otherwise well-intended & reasonable people often see issues so differently, and why those differences often feel so threatening. IOW, these are insights into the nature of humankind, and are not confined to any particular issue, political belief, or categories of people. But the interesting thing, for me anyway, is that these insights do suggest a potential avenue for common ground, since it means there are motivations in play that are innate to all of us, whether we are even cognizant of them or not. Recognizing this could therefore improve patience & understanding, since it provides an alternative to the usual assignment of disparaging character traits & distasteful motivations that normally disrupt these conversations.

Then again, for many people it's often easier -- and feels better -- to simply demonize, categorize, and claim moral superiority. Unfortunately, another all-too-common feature of human behavior, and one which I believe is all too often brandished by people who profess allegiance to environmental issues. In reality, however, it often only serves to defeat the cooperation needed to actually accomplish anything.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was only pointing out that there are always reasons other than the merits or demerits of an issue itself which drives people to believe the way they do.

...these insights do suggest a potential avenue for common ground, since it means there are motivations in play that are innate to all of us, whether we are even cognizant of them or not.

Understood, but this isn't anchors or ROW rules or relish vs mayo. There ARE some things genuinely worth getting intense about; I think AGW would qualify and the other looming problems we seem to not be addressing.

And you'll have to take my word for this; I'm not a neurotic looking for something to obsess about. I'm not all over the Internet picking similar fights. Just here on CF(AGW and other eco-topics), and I've already said why. I wouldn't be looking for something else to fret over if AGW wasn't a thing. I'm much happier obsessing over: tacks, overtaking other boats, and finding perfect sunsets.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

volcanoes do show up in the historical records . Update of your data may be in order

According to the USGS, human emissions of CO2 are 100x the amount from volcanos. Not even a blip.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

Of course a very very large eruption might be measurable. What might be confusing you is it is speculated that a large eruption that effects the earth’s temperature by aerosols would change the atmospheric CO2 level because colder temperatures increase the uptake of CO2 by the oceans. Conversely, warmer temperatures will increase the outgassing of the oceans which is yet another positive feedback mechanism associated with warming.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

According to the USGS, human emissions of CO2 are 100x the amount from volcanos. Not even a blip.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

Of course a very very large eruption might be measurable. What might be confusing you is it is speculated that a large eruption that effects the earth’s temperature by aerosols would change the atmospheric CO2 level because colder temperatures increase the uptake of CO2 by the oceans. Conversely, warmer temperatures will increase the outgassing of the oceans which is yet another positive feedback mechanism associated with warming.

Not disputing, but I thought the cooling from aerosols was the result of their acting as a filter which reduces the amount of solar reaching the earth.

[AllenRbrts]

That is correct the effect is via filtering, but that cooling will lower the CO2 in the atmosphere. Just as warming the atmosphere will increase CO2. Perversely, it is thought that coal burning is slowing the impact of CO2 increases because of the aerosols generated. However the effect is considered to be significantly less than the impact of the CO2 generated by coal burning.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

That is correct the effect is via filtering, but that cooling will lower the CO2 in the atmosphere. Just as warming the atmosphere will increase CO2. Perversely, it is thought that coal burning is slowing the impact of CO2 increases because of the aerosols generated. However the effect is considered to be significantly less than the impact of the CO2 generated by coal burning.

Forgot that we were talking about CO2 levels and not warming/cooling specifically. This seems to be a common problem around here, namely a direct, linear connection between added CO2 and added warming is all too often simply assumed. Maybe you can put a finer point on exactly what science has "known" in this regard for the past 100 years? This is another one of those comments we often hear that gives people the impression that the science is "settled."

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Forgot that we were talking about CO2 levels and not warming/cooling specifically. This seems to be a common problem around here, namely a direct, linear connection between added CO2 and added warming is all too often simply assumed. Maybe you can put a finer point on exactly what science has "known" in this regard for the past 100 years? This is another one of those comments we often hear that gives people the impression that the science is "settled."

You're on the money there. Have you ever noticed that the effects of increasing C02 in a gas that simulates past and future atmospheric compositions cannot be demonstrated in a lab experiment? That's significant because if AGW theory is to be believed, that should be easily accomplished.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're on the money there. Have you ever noticed that the effects of increasing C02 in a gas that simulates past and future atmospheric compositions cannot be demonstrated in a lab experiment? That's significant because if AGW theory is to be believed, that should be easily accomplished.

One would think so. Which planet were you planning to experiment on?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Understood, but this isn't anchors or ROW rules or relish vs mayo. There ARE some things genuinely worth getting intense about; I think AGW would qualify and the other looming problems we seem to not be addressing.

You think it qualifies but others may not, whether you think it should for them or not. Based on the weight of the evidence, I'm absolutely fine with what you believe about CC. The problem I have is your intolerance for what others may believe.

How about microplastics? Haven't seen much intensity from you over on that eco-thread. Kinda odd since unlike CC, there's no question who's causing it, or that it is doing harm, or that it is sure to worsen. But also unlike CC, it seems there are realistic remedies which are in reach. But maybe that's the problem -- too much common ground means there's nobody to get angry at? Nobody to accuse of not caring, of moral inferiority, of being poor examples of mankind? How about those who believe that banning plastic straws at Starbucks is a foolish policy since any public awareness that may be achieved would be outweighed by the loss of support from too many people who share the same goals, but have lost patience & confidence with knee-jerk environmental policies that do little more than make people feel good? I'd say there are respectable arguments for banning straws on both sides that are worth considering, but are those who desire the same ends but disagree with your preferred means also worthy of your anger & scorn?

And you'll have to take my word for this; I'm not a neurotic looking for something to obsess about. I'm not all over the Internet picking similar fights. Just here on CF(AGW and other eco-topics), and I've already said why. I wouldn't be looking for something else to fret over if AGW wasn't a thing. I'm much happier obsessing over: tacks, overtaking other boats, and finding perfect sunsets.

I do take your word for this, but you're still not clicking onto Singularity's main points. To cite a couple of his examples, people with gambling addictions, or people who are obsessed with repeatedly making sure all the doors & windows are locked, aren't "looking" for something to obsess about either. But they may be looking for something like religion or a close substitute to absolve them of their guilt. And like religion, absolute, unquestioning devotion to mainstream CC theory requires little if any personal sacrifice, or even inconvenience, to have oneself "absolved." Just getting other people to "believe" like you do -- whether they're reducing their carbon footprint or not -- is apparently enough.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're on the money there. Have you ever noticed that the effects of increasing C02 in a gas that simulates past and future atmospheric compositions cannot be demonstrated in a lab experiment? That's significant because if AGW theory is to be believed, that should be easily accomplished.

it would if the atmosphere were a simple glass roofed greenhouse .

Except its not if is an open dynamic system that doesn't behave like the models say it should.

This is actually quite interesting to see
The areas that are currently seeing with well above average temperatures are showing lower co2 than other areas that are below normal temps with higher co2 ppm.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...115.175,55.345

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/anal...019072418&fh=6