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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nutritionally Improved Agricultural Crops

Increasing Wheat Grain Protein Quantity and Quality | Yara

Of course these probably don't satisfy your requirements for a link with increased CO2 but they're hard to find because I think aside from you and the authors of the papers you sprout, no one cares.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

One reference to CO2 in the first paper:

Paul MJ, Knight JS, Habash D, Parry MAJ, Lawlor DW, Barnes SA, Loynes A, Gray JC (1995) Reduction in phosphoribulokinase activity by antisense RNA in transgenic tobacco: effect on CO2 assimilation and growth in low irradiance. Plant J 7 535–542

+++++++++++++++++

The second link, a commercial site, deals with fertilizer.

++++++++++++++++

The Free Air Carbon Enhancement program lists scores of papers on the topic.

https://www.bnl.gov/face/faceProgram.asp

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh dear, I can't believe your all still going on about this.

Co2 is rising, but it is unclear if the rise is due to a warming earth with additional out gassing of co2 from the oceans or from people burning fuel( wood, oil gas) or just from destroying the rain forests. Human derived CO2 amounts amounts to only 5% of total world wide CO2. The oceans are a Hugh sink and emitter of Co2.

If you follow the numbers, you will see that if the US and Canada completely stopped ALL human CO2 emissions in their countries, the world wide human co2 concentration would fall from 5% to about 4.5% for a world wide reduction from 0.0398% to 0.0396% A two ten thousands reduction, which BTW, is not actually measurable. That's for a 100% reduction of Co2 emissions in north America, which means no cars, no coal or natural gas fired power plans and no space heating or cooking by fuel, coal or wood.

It's very easy to check those numbers. So why discuss it further. Even if the whole world reduced human Co2 by 20% that would only reduce world Co2 by ~1%, This as human co2 emissions are tiny compared to natural co2 emitters. So a human 20% reduction would reduce co2 from 0.0398% to 0.0394%. I don't see that as having much real effect. I suspect we would need to reduce Co2 by 60-70% to make a true difference and that would kill too many folks.

Perhaps we should talk about anchors and their effect on Co2.

That's some crafty sleight-of hand.

The US, by itself, is generating about one-fifth of the world's annual human CO2 output.



To bring about a reduction in something... you should probably start by, oh, not throwing as much of it in the air, yes? (duh)

The more important point is leadership. We in the west still have (for the moment, anyway) the smarts and the resources to lead the charge, to develop the mitigation strategies and the alternative energy technologies. Oh, and to profit handsomely from it down the road because these will be the big business opportunities of the foreseeable future.

Where's that American exceptionalism I keep hearing about? Was that outsourced too, leaving the US with just some semi-retired engineer liveaboards who have thrown up their hands, given up? (I kid because I love )

[SV THIRD DAY]

Where is the American Exceptionalism....Easy....in not running around screaming the sky is falling when the MMGW Cultists spread a lie....

Some days...Oh I just have to laugh and smile at the Cultists and oh is this one of them!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Where is the American Exceptionalism....Easy....in not running around screaming the sky is falling when the MMGW Cultists spread a lie....

Some days...Oh I just have to laugh and smile at the Cultists and oh is this one of them!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

What part of aerosols did you miss? The cooling effect of aerosols, be they volcanic or industrial, has been known for quite some time.

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take <b>sulfate aerosols</b>, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

Those aerosols also contribute to smog.

[GordMay]

Rich:
You should have read the article you cited, rather than just the headline.

“... But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be ...
... "Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be.
This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study."

➥ Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

I think that the evidence (for AGW) has proved the case to a criminal standard. If not CERTAINLY to a civil standard.
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).

Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal....Y9bX4P1n.dpuf

The questions remaining, are what to do about it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Rich:
You should have read the article you cited, rather than just the headline.

“... But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be ...
... "Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be.
This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study."

➥ Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

I think that the evidence (for AGW) has proved the case to a criminal standard. If not CERTAINLY to a civil standard.
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).

Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). - See more at: The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case - FindLaw

The questions remaining, are what to do about it.

Poor Assumption...I did read the article and it worked GREAT....made me $5 in how fast our MMGWC would post a rebuttal....Mission Accomplished!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Where is the American Exceptionalism....Easy....in not running around screaming the sky is falling when the MMGW Cultists spread a lie....

Some days...Oh I just have to laugh and smile at the Cultists and oh is this one of them!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

You're an exceptional something, for sure.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're an exceptional something, for sure.

"Thank you very little"
Caddyshack

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's some crafty sleight-of hand.

The US, by itself, is generating about one-fifth of the world's annual human CO2 output.



To bring about a reduction in something... you should probably start by, oh, not throwing as much of it in the air, yes? (duh)

The more important point is leadership. We in the west still have (for the moment, anyway) the smarts and the resources to lead the charge, to develop the mitigation strategies and the alternative energy technologies. Oh, and to profit handsomely from it down the road because these will be the big business opportunities of the foreseeable future.

Where's that American exceptionalism I keep hearing about? Was that outsourced too, leaving the US with just some semi-retired engineer liveaboards who have thrown up their hands, given up? (I kid because I love )

Yes the US uses 1/5th or 20% of human fossil fuel derived co2 or ~6 billion tons out of ~35 billion tons co2 generated by fossil fuels. But you have to factor in wood burning heating/cooking into total human co2 which raises the total to 45 billion tons. Factored that way north american co2 is only ~13% of total. It looks larger when you only use Fossil fuel and don't included wood burning which a fair percentage of the worlds population uses.

Mind you that 45 billion tons is only ~5% of total co2. So factored into the total, north american Co2 accounts for 1%. So stopping all north American co2 production would not do much at all.

Oddly enough the US emissions are dropping, mainly due to many power plants switching from coal or oil to natural gas. Natural gas fired plants produce something around 25% the co2 of coal fired plans. So there has been a reduction. Plus look at all the solar and wind coming on line and hybrids and electric cars which don't produce less co2 when powered from a coal fired plant. It's changing.

I don't even own a car and my boat gets well over 80% of it's power via solar (100% for 9 months a year and 50% ish in winter).

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Yes the US uses 1/5th or 20% of human fossil fuel derived co2 or ~6 billion tons out of ~35 billion tons co2 generated by fossil fuels. But you have to factor in wood burning heating/cooking into total human co2 which raises the total to 45 billion tons. Factored that way north american co2 is only ~13% of total. It looks larger when you only use Fossil fuel and don't included wood burning which a fair percentage of the worlds population uses.

Mind you that 45 billion tons is only ~5% of total co2. So factored into the total, north american Co2 accounts for 1%. So stopping all north American co2 production would not do much at all.

Oddly enough the US emissions are dropping, mainly due to many power plants switching from coal or oil to natural gas. Natural gas fired plants produce something around 25% the co2 of coal fired plans. So there has been a reduction. Plus look at all the solar and wind coming on line and hybrids and electric cars which don't produce less co2 when powered from a coal fired plant. It's changing.

I don't even own a car and my boat gets well over 80% of it's power via solar (100% for 9 months a year and 50% ish in winter).

Sailorchick, I think you have earned the title Greenchick. :-)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Yes the US uses 1/5th or 20% of human fossil fuel derived co2 or ~6 billion tons out of ~35 billion tons co2 generated by fossil fuels. But you have to factor in wood burning heating/cooking into total human co2 which raises the total to 45 billion tons. Factored that way north american co2 is only ~13% of total. It looks larger when you only use Fossil fuel and don't included wood burning which a fair percentage of the worlds population uses.

Mind you that 45 billion tons is only ~5% of total co2. So factored into the total, north american Co2 accounts for 1%. So stopping all north American co2 production would not do much at all.

Oddly enough the US emissions are dropping, mainly due to many power plants switching from coal or oil to natural gas. Natural gas fired plants produce something around 25% the co2 of coal fired plans. So there has been a reduction. Plus look at all the solar and wind coming on line and hybrids and electric cars which don't produce less co2 when powered from a coal fired plant. It's changing.

I don't even own a car and my boat gets well over 80% of it's power via solar (100% for 9 months a year and 50% ish in winter).

Wood, charcoal and other biomass-derived fuels deserve special consideration, because the carbon in them came from the atmosphere in the first place. In a perfectly balanced system where 100% of burned biomass is regrown, the net contribution to C02 accumulation from biomass fuels would of course be zero. Where consumption of such fuels is not completely offset by regrowth, then yes there would be a net contribution to CO2 buildup... but still much less than 100%.

(do you really think this hasn't already been factored in?)

My expectations:

As a country climbs the economic ladder, their birth rate drops, and they move onto more efficient cooking and heating. Of course changes in lifestyle also bring new demand for energy.

The key to a lower-carbon future is to provide energy alternatives, tools and guidance that helps developing nations achieve their goals, without making quite as big a mess as we did.

Or we can just pretend AGW's not a thing, I guess...

[GoingWalkabout]

So after all of this we all can agree on some fundamentals.

1. We may have more ice in the Antarctic waters
2. The Northern passage may continue to open up for summer sailing
3. Boaters will still have islands to visit
4. We all should enjoy life on the waters as life on the land is getting more insane by the day
5. If cooling then buy now some extra cold weather clothing
6. If warming just drop down or go up a few latitudes and all will be cool or install a bow to stern AC
7. Finally, solar and more solar

Everything else doesn't really matter. After all what's a couple of degrees up or down amongst friends.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

So after all of this we all can agree on some fundamentals.

1. We may have more ice in the Antarctic waters
2. The Northern passage may continue to open up for summer sailing
3. Boaters will still have islands to visit
4. We all should enjoy life on the waters as life on the land is getting more insane by the day
5. If cooling then buy now some extra cold weather clothing
6. If warming just drop down or go up a few latitudes and all will be cool or install a bow to stern AC
7. Finally, solar and more solar

Everything else doesn't really matter. After all what's a couple of degrees up or down amongst friends.

The irony is that the sky is falling over a 1 degree Celsius average temp rise in 150 years or whatever yet many regions and their inhabitants survive up to 80 degree variations across the seasons. Now that's climate change !

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Fun only gets better....
Nuke Pro: Climate Gate, and a Marxist Scissors Strategy, A brilliant Post from UK News Site

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wood, charcoal and other biomass-derived fuels deserve special consideration, because the carbon in them came from the atmosphere in the first place. In a perfectly balanced system where 100% of burned biomass is regrown, the net contribution to C02 accumulation from biomass fuels would of course be zero.

I have to laugh because where does our MMGWC think that Carbon came from we are burning? All this talk of a perfectly ballanced system but you left off the front end of the scale when that carbon was "sequestered" in the fuel. I love these guys...really do....