Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How about the range of the Goldilocks world for at least 800,000 years during which time homo sapiens and the food crops that sustain us evolved?

180 - 300 ppm

CO2 levels are technically still at historical lows at present.

The last time we were at current levels was during the Pliocene era - 3,500,000 years ago at which time the earth was much warmer.

Here's the "bigger picture" on average global temperatures (using two separate sources for comparison)





On scales of time greater than our own lifetimes, an unbiased observer may conclude that the present climate is in fact "dangerously" out of trim.

The other interesting point from world temperatures over the millenia is that average global temps do not decrease below 12 deg C or go above 22 deg C. This indicates that Earth has some negative feedback system at both the upper and lower scales that prevents further cooling or warming. The speed of change when climate change occurs, however, suggests a positive feedback and I have read that this feedback is included as a significant component in climate modelling.

Out of interest, here's some critters and plants still kicking today that have well and truly gone through true climate change and come out the other end untarnished:

Critters

• Horseshoe Crab (450 000 000 years)
• Lamprey (360 000 000 years)
• Coelacanth (400 000 000 years)
• Chineses Giant Salamandar (170 000 000 years)
• Tuatara (200 000 000 years)
• Nautilus (500 000 000 years)
• Comb Jellyfish (700 000 000 years)
• Platypus (170 000 000 years)
• Sponge (760 000 000 years)
• Solenodon (76 000 000 years)
• Crocodiles (250 000 000 years)

Plants

• Cycads (230 000 000 years)
• Horsetails (375 000 000 years)
• Sea Lillies (475 000 000)
• Ginkgo (280 000 000 years)
• Dawn Redwood (45 000 000 years)
• Wollemia Pine (120 000 000 years)

As for "the science is settled" argument - well, no, it's not because if it was enthusiastic debates like this over AGW would not be occurring for a start. If there was convincing evidence that warming will actually lead to some kind of planetary catastrophe (waterfront property loss, aside) then I think that we could then declare "the science is settled" and everyone - most importantly those with the power to drive change - would stand up and take very serious notice.

[senormechanico]

Waterfront, and I'm not worried.
And I'm not Alfred E. Neuman.
The tide's not risen to algore levels so we're still breathing air!

Update:
Old pic. We now have a woodshed, no need to schlep wood from the ground.
We use a dock cart to transport our firewood to add to the carbon footprint.
Really civilized.

The solar panels have all been installed on the house as well.
I guess ol' al would say we're carbon neutral.

Life is good.

[senormechanico]

Waterfront, and I'm not worried.
And I'm not Alfred E. Neuman.

Update:
Old 180 degree+ pic. We now have a woodshed, no need to schlep wood from the ground.
We use a dock cart to transport our firewood to add to the carbon footprint. Really civilized. The solar panels have all been installed on the house as well.
I guess ol' al would say we're carbon neutral.

The tide's not risen to algore levels so we're still breathing air!
Life is good.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

CO2 levels are technically still at historical lows at present.

We and the food crops that sustain us evolved in the 180 - 300 ppm atmosphere.

Our food crops do not do well in higher CO2 levels.

In open environments increased CO2 leads to

1) increased predation by pests

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

2) compromised nutritional value in food crops

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13179.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Waterfront, and I'm not worried.
And I'm not Alfred E. Neuman.

You have that bassakwards




You are Alfred E. Neuman.

[senormechanico]

Any more posting here is useless.
I have a saltwaterfront home, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

The people who believe all the BS posted by the ones who get government grants to say what the government wants posted will stop at nothing to believe what they read.

It may be the same for the other side, but I find it quite relative to FOLLOW THE MONEY !!!
algore is worth a ton of money after all his "Chicken Little" bleating.

What all this has to do with sailing is exactly, WHAT?

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thank you, this is a very important point.

As you point out, we (in the west, mostly) expended large amounts of cheap fossil-fuel energy, and left mountains of waste, to get where we are now. This puts the obligation on us - the most wealthy and technically advanced countries - to moderate our own consumption, and to bear the cost of developing better, cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, and subsidizing its use when necessary, so that the developing nations do not have to repeat our mistakes.

We owe them a better ladder.

What mountains of waste? We have put 8 billion people on the planet in the last couple of centuries that has cluttered the place, made our planet a bit untidy in places .......good luck implementing the natural solution to that one. It could get a tad parochial. Population and fossil fuels have created some amazing progress however. We all enjoy our tanks of diesel and our chugging engines.......not saying some of the warmest yachties are hypocritical...never.
We have burnt billions of tons of fossil fuel in the same period yet we have yet to reach 1 part in 2,500 of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Al Gores have had their ticket punched along the way, have made millions and must still have a chuckle at the gullible followers. Looking forward the Al Gores will probably recycle Y2K as Y3K, oldie but a goodie, maybe rerun DDT and Monsanto conspiracies. New generations why nor conspiracy reruns, change the name but keep the same canned laughter.
We will never come close to using up all the fossil fuel the earth has stored from past vegetation. Energy innovation will overtake FF usage. Not solar. Not wind. It will likely be 3rd or 4th generation nuclear or fission. We will probably need to burn the coal in situ to keep up the supply of CO2 needed for agriculture to support 20 billion people in the next 50-100 years.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We and the food crops that sustain us evolved in the 180 - 300 ppm atmosphere.

Our food crops do not do well in higher CO2 levels.

In open environments increased CO2 leads to

1) increased predation by pests

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

2) compromised nutritional value in food crops

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13179.html

CO2 enhances Agriculture. More is better!!
I have a very large bridge in the shape of a coat hanger in a prime Syney inner suburb I would like to sell you........

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We and the food crops that sustain us evolved in the 180 - 300 ppm atmosphere.

Our food crops do not do well in higher CO2 levels.

In open environments increased CO2 leads to

1) increased predation by pests

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

Hmmmm.... a paper with the title "Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects" as a title and I just so know this is going to be a totally unbiased body of work.

Let me quote the first paragraph:
Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a consequence of anthropogenic global change, can profoundly affect the interactions between crop plants and insect pests and may promote yet another form of global change: the rapid establishment of invasive species.

Hang on to the phone. It's only a possibility? No problem, as it's pro-AGW research let's just assume this is fact and will happen.

It also appears some scientists have no problem accepting that a couple of hundred ppm of increased CO2 will bring near climate altering Armageddon, yet the humble Soybean plant or other C3 legume will, errr... possibly be unable to adapt or - heaven help us - be genetically modified to withstand a relentless onslaught from some Japanese beetle. Here's a tip fellas. Don't plant 1000's of acres of the one genetic variant of soybean or any crop in one spot. This is a proven method of minimizing attack from disease and pests.

2) compromised nutritional value in food crops

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13179.html

Ditto.

I find it very difficult to swallow () that ALL of the world's population rely upon their healthy doses of iron and zinc from C3 legumes. In fact, I doubt even 50% of the world's population does, but I'm just making that last number up because I don't know for sure.

[Rustic Charm]

This has been one very humerous read.

There's been some flat earth advocates, moon landing deniers, earth in six days advocates, a self proclaimed greens that can't stand the Greens political party, nuclear fusion dreamers,

About the only representative I didn't see was Elvis is Alive advocates.

A great laugh, thanks all.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

This has been one very humerous read.

There's been some flat earth advocates, moon landing deniers, earth in six days advocates, a self proclaimed greens that can't stand the Greens political party, nuclear fusion dreamers,

About the only representative I didn't see was Elvis is Alive advocates.

A great laugh, thanks all.

Nonsense!

Elvis is long dead. He is gone and that is that. Silly to insinuate otherwise.
Weird what people will say. Unbelievable!

Why cant everyone just leave him alone!

sigh

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why does not one single science academy anywhere in the world dispute the findings of the IPCC?

A very bad example Jackdale. Even scientist cringe when IPCC releases its reports. It is not even a scientific body.....

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by weavis

Nonsense!

Elvis is long dead. He is gone and that is that. Silly to insinuate otherwise.
Weird what people will say. Unbelievable!

Why cant everyone just leave him alone!

sigh

Weavis! You old hound dog. Your looking pretty good considering. I thought I saw you singing in a bar in Puket last year.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Weavis! You old hound dog. Your looking pretty good considering. I thought I saw you singing in a bar in Puket last year.

I have never been to Phuket! I dont even know Phuket is in Thailand! No. As an old salt, who sometimes sings sea shanties, I get no further than Magaluf Mallorca these days, just a boat bum in the Med minding his own beeswax.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

A very bad example Jackdale. Even scientist cringe when IPCC releases its reports. It is not even a scientific body.....

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly endorsing the IPPC."

Looks pretty 'scientific' to me. 'Even scientist'