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

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

....and what do you think is causing it, your SUV or the SUN?

Not the Sun Rich. Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this planet would be a frozen wasteland.

As I said before this is basic physics. Earth systems will always try to reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease, as we see right now.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)

where Teq is

((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×108m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×1011m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not existat all.

You see, basic physics is not that complicated. Solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere and the composition of the atmosphere is a major factor.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

China's air pollution could be intensifying storms over the Pacific Ocean and altering weather patterns in North America, according to scientists in the US.

A team from Texas, California and Washington state has found that pollution from Asia, much of it arising in China, is leading to more intense cyclones, increased precipitation and more warm air in the mid-Pacific moving towards the north pole.

According to the team's findings, which were released on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, these changes could ultimately contribute to erratic weather in the US.

The authors used advanced computer models to study interactions between clouds and fine airborne particles known as aerosols, particularly manmade ones such as those emitted from vehicles and coal-fired power plants.

"Our work provides, for the first time to the authors' knowledge, a global multi-scale perspective of the climatic effects of pollution outflows from Asia," says the study's abstract.

Yes, you see this is a global problem. Countries are nothing but borders drawn as arbitrary lines on a map.

Btw. I answered your question a while ago. If we ignore the discussion of the cause for a moment all data points to warming. So prepare for hot parties in the tropics and subtropics

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Ah yes, Karl's fantasy "pause buster" adjusted GISTEMP dataset. It's the only one the alarmists ever quote these days.

And doncha just love the way they so confidently state temperatures in the 1800s to 1/100ths of a degree with nary an error bar in sight. (and yet their regular adjustments to more recent temperatures are frequently an order of magnitude greater than the precision of those century old variations)

I have trouble with this graph too. The early 1930s were exceptionally warm in the USA and Australia, at least, despite being about as geographical separated as two countries can be. And we also know the winter of 1941/42 was exceptionally cold in Russia, and in fact most of Europe, due to war records. Speaking of such, how accurate are temperature records likely to be for vast swathes of the world from 1941 to 1945?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Ridiculous indeed.... just like the 'per capita' argument, the 'fisheries' argument, the 'volcano argument, the 'icebreaker' argument, the 'too small a percentage' argument.....apparently the only thing certain in some peoples minds is that it's someone else's fault.

For instance fishing:

Population of China 1.4 billion

Total fish production, capture and aquaculture 49,467,275 tons
Capture (wild) production 17,053,191
Aquaculture production 32,414,018

while the same US statistics are:

Population 319 million

Total 5,360,579
Wild 4,888,621
Aquaculture 471,958

So an individual in the US consumes .0153 tons of wild fish a year, while an individual in China consumes .0121 tons. Wonder what the comparison to say, I don't know --- beef would be?...

Oh wait, we're talking 'per capita' again, so it doesn't matter.


Obviously a simplistic comparison, but some general conclusions can be drawn by any open-minded individual...

Just one question does your per capita figure in the vast amount of us caught fish that is being exported to the Asian markets? ( think blue fin tuna and Polloc and surimie )

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just one question does your per capita figure in the vast amount of us caught fish that is being exported to the Asian markets? ( think blue fin tuna and Polloc and surimie )

"production, capture and aquaculture" doesn't say anything about how much is consumed in each country.

There are a number of confounding factors which make Jim's comparison meaningless. Here's a few figures that illustrate the problem.

For the US:

https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainabl...global-picture
"Today, up to 90 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, and about half of this is wild-caught."

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/c.../Trade2014.pdf
U.S. imports of edible fishery products in 2014 were valued at $20.2 billion, up 12 percent from 2013. The quantity of edible imports
was 2,523,120 metric tons
...
U.S. exports of edible fishery products of domestic origin in 2014 were 1,491,420 tons valued at $5.3 billion

And for China:

Inside China - The Seafood Trade - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

In 2012, China imported 4.11 billion kilograms (kg) of fish and seafood from the world at a value of C$7.69 billion.

...

In 2012, China led all other countries in terms of both value (C$18.46 billion) and volume (3.76 billion kg) of its fish and seafood exports.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Speaking of such, how accurate are temperature records likely to be for vast swathes of the world from 1941 to 1945?

I'd bet that they are a lot more comprehensive and therefore a more accurate representation of that mythical "global temperature" that the records from the 1880s and 1890s

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just one question does your per capita figure in the vast amount of us caught fish that is being exported to the Asian markets? ( think blue fin tuna and Polloc and surimie )

No...the calculation, made by dividing the amount of fish caught by the number of people in the country, was just meant to be a very simplistic example illustrating the silliness of blaming China for the disappearance of most 'large pelagic fishes', and to underscore Lake Effects point that these problems are a result of everyone's combined over-exploitation of resources.

Originally Posted by StuM

"production, capture and aquaculture" doesn't say anything about how much is consumed in each country.

There are a number of confounding factors which make Jim's comparison meaningless. Here's a few figures that illustrate the problem.

For the US:

https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainabl...global-picture
"Today, up to 90 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, and about half of this is wild-caught."

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/c.../Trade2014.pdf
U.S. imports of edible fishery products in 2014 were valued at $20.2 billion, up 12 percent from 2013. The quantity of edible imports
was 2,523,120 metric tons
...
U.S. exports of edible fishery products of domestic origin in 2014 were 1,491,420 tons valued at $5.3 billion

And for China:

Inside China - The Seafood Trade - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

In 2012, China imported 4.11 billion kilograms (kg) of fish and seafood from the world at a value of C$7.69 billion.

...

In 2012, China led all other countries in terms of both value (C$18.46 billion) and volume (3.76 billion kg) of its fish and seafood exports.

Well I'm in complete agreement that using the word 'consumes' was a faux pas, but just change 'consumes' into either 'uses' or 'catches' (in a figurative sense), and the meaning and intent of the statement is more clear and more accurate. In other words, I'm just using amount caught and respective populations as a proxy indicator of real consumption.

Oddly enough, when actually looking into it instead of just using Wikipedia figures (which turn out to be accurate) to make rough calculations, I came across some actual figures for per capita consumption of fish (wild and aquacultured) and it turns out that the rough calculation is pretty damn close, with China coming in at 32.11 kg/year and the US at 15.27.

The actual figures are 30-60 kg/year for China and 20-30 kg/year for the US, and are shown in figure 30 on page 65 of the report linked to below.


It appears Occam has struck again...


If either of you are interested in reading more on the subject, there is more than you want to know in this report, the 'World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture', available here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...M5dpN0nqxEQ5Vg

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Ah yes, Karl's fantasy "pause buster" adjusted GISTEMP dataset. It's the only one the alarmists ever quote these days.

And doncha just love the way they so confidently state temperatures in the 1800s to 1/100ths of a degree with nary an error bar in sight. (and yet their regular adjustments to more recent temperatures are frequently an order of magnitude greater than the precision of those century old variations)

Plenty there if you look..
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=t...57MPPbIyoJM%3A

Are you really saying nothing's happening and the data's wrong ? (that's what it comes across as )

Very contentious if so...

[SailOar]

NASA Analysis Finds July 2016 is Warmest on Record

July 2016 was the warmest July in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Because the seasonal temperature cycle peaks in July, it means July 2016 also was warmer than any other month on record. July 2016’s temperature was a statistically small 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than previous warm Julys in 2015, 2011 and 2009.

“It wasn’t by the widest of margins, but July 2016 was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “It appears almost a certainty that 2016 also will be the warmest year on record.”

The record warm July continued a streak of 10 consecutive months dating back to October 2015 that have set new monthly high-temperature records. Compared to previous years, the warmer global temperatures last month were most pronounced in the northern hemisphere, particularly near the Arctic region.

[SailOar]

How climate change may affect future Olympic Games | Christian Science Monitor

...Rising temperatures and humidity caused by climate change will make it increasingly difficult to find cities eligible to host the Olympics Summer Games, according to a new study encompassing the broader implications of climate change on the Olympics.

By 2085, only 25 European cities and eight non-European cities will be low-risk enough to host the games, according to a commentary co-authored by UC Berkeley public health professors John Balmes and Kirk Smith, Alistair Woodward of the University of Auckland, and Cindy Chang, the physician in charge of UC Berkeley’s athletic teams and the chief medical officer for Team USA at the 2012 London Olympics published last week in the journal The Lancet...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

How climate change may affect future Olympic Games | Christian Science Monitor

Easy fix. Just hold the "Summer" games in winter. Just like Rio is doing now.

[jimbunyard]

Couldn't help but thinking of my friends and comrades here at CF while watching this episode of QandA. It fairly screams out for someone to ask Mr. Roberts what his definition of 'empirical evidence' actually is...

These 'discussions' always bring to mind a paragraph in the prologue to G.G. Simpsons book 'The Meaning of Evolution', written in 1949, addressing this question of 'evidence'.

"On the other hand, it may seem a serious omission, or a perhaps a a touch of naivete, that a basic philosophical position is taken without notice. It is assumed that a material universe exists and that it corresponds with our perceptions of it. The existence of absolute truth is taken for granted as well as approximation to this truth of the results of repeated observations and experiments. That such observations are debatable is evident from the violence with which they have been debated at various times. In practice, however, we all have to take it either that they are true or that we necessarily proceed as if they were true. Otherwise there is no meaning in science or in any knowledge, or in life itself, and no reason to enquire for such meaning." (my emphasis added)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuRvvKLwtw

[GoingWalkabout]

Let's see. A 1 or 2 degree change over the next decade. Or is that the next century? So troubling. I may have to buy some lighter weight tops. Nah. Want feel the difference.

This Northern hemisphere winter is predicted to be super cold. Record breaking cold in some places. Kind of funny when everyone is worry about a degree or two warmer here and there.

I think the colder winters are going to have more of an effect on sailing. More people heading to the tropics to get away from the cold. More boats at moorings and anchorages etc. I think the very cold winters are going to have more of an impact on the sailing world.

Too bad that South America isn't safer. It would otherwise be a good less crowded escape from the winter cold up north.

Just some deep scientific thoughts on the impact on sailors and what I should be preparing for.

[transmitterdan]

^^ The Farmer's Almanac is not a recognized forecaster of climate (or weather).

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

^^ The Farmer's Almanac is not a recognized forecaster of climate (or weather).

Ohio farmers swear by it. Anyway. It was not the Farmers Almanac that made these forcasts.