Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

perhaps we should make cell phones that last 10 years - not two, and stop selling fruit and vegetables in ridiculous amounts of styrofoam packaging.

Making things last longer is a good idea. It seems the opposite is recently true as the older something is, the longer it seems to last.

As for fruit and vegetables, it's a consumer choice you can make. If you cannot buy any not in packaging, then either move somewhere else or start growing it. I seem to get my fruit and vegetables without any packaging, but in stupid countries like US and NZ, they put a sticker on it which compromises the perfection of what it was.

Originally Posted by tcpip95

Hello Mr. deepFrz.

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't know where Exon is. I live in Florida. Is Exon nearby?

What is the panic you are referring to?

I read that florida banned the phrases "climate change" "gloibal warming" and "sea level rise" from any government officials.

The sea ice in the arctic is melting and this does not change sea level.

The sea level has risen 7 inches in 150 years from glaciers melting, not sea ice.

Greenland is melting. This is proven, and the rate is quickly accelerating. The way things stand, florida will be mostly underwater... soon.

But maybe not, as enough fresh water quickly dumped into the sea can stop the gulf stream and cause europe to freeze making sea level drop hundreds of feet, for a while.

No one can predict what will happen, but we do know there is no way to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere and at these higher levels are certain to change things significantly from how they were and what humans are adapted for.

[tp12]

These massive holes appearing in Russia are raising a few eyebrows, for example. The gist of that is the permafrost is melting and releasing LARGE bubbles of gas ... there was one site I read saying that people in one of the towns near one saw a huge light ... implying an explosion.

That permafrost has never melted in living memory to my knowledge

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

Like the entire renewable energy sector. Money should be going there instead of into fossil fuels, there's quite a bit of money invested fossil fuels

Wind and solar and to an extent hydro is only good for peak generation loads. For base loads the only practical non fossil fuel option at present is nuclear. Geothermal holds promise but not sure it's ready for prime time yet especially on our island.

And since Mr Fusions haven't been invented yet, even though they're supposed to have been by now, there's still the issue of trains, planes and automobiles.

Who's running around like chicken little? Saying that there needs to be a redirection of funds and some sensible government policy is far from that.

Alleged climate scientists looking for ongoing research grants, for one.

I'm not about drama or attention grabbing, I want some sensible and long reaching policy and economic changes that will make a real difference.

That won't happen until there's some real tangible economic benefit over the current status quo. The Solar Bonus Scheme shoulda, coulda, woulda... but didn't.

So you'll be voting green at the next federal election?

I aint that green those guys do wanna send us back to the stone age

[RaymondR]

along with the "tweaking" of data to obtain a desired result (remember Climategate?) is just plain dumb

In Australia it's called "homogenization" of data and apparently they have been "homogenizing" previous hot spells out of the historical data so that new records for the "hottest year on record" are now produced. Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Wind and solar and to an extent hydro is only good for peak generation loads. For base loads the only practical non fossil fuel option at present is nuclear. Geothermal holds promise but not sure it's ready for prime time yet especially on our island.

Nuclear is a limited resource. The total energy stored in known reserves of nuclear are a small fraction of the known reserves of fossil fuels.

Why do we have "base loads"? For example, consider running the heavy loads at peak production times instead. Run you washing machine when the sun is up, not down. It makes no difference as the end result is the same.

This sounds like having an engine. What a ridiculous way to travel when if you just wait for a while the wind will be back and you can move again. So you spend a few more hours in the sea which makes absolutely no difference from waiting at anchor.

And since Mr Fusions haven't been invented yet, even though they're supposed to have been by now, there's still the issue of trains, planes and automobiles.

Which could all be eliminated with the introduction cable cars.

jet planes should not be an allowed form of transport. People moving around so fast and spreading all kinds of diseases around the world in less than 24 hours. Why don't we have special highways for race cars so people (who can afford to) can drive 300km/h ?

I aint that green those guys do wanna send us back to the stone age

This excuse is invalid because no one is suggesting abandoning technology. The suggestion is to stop pumping co2 into the air which is completely different.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Nuclear is a limited resource. The total energy stored in known reserves of nuclear are a small fraction of the known reserves of fossil fuels.

Why do we have "base loads"? For example, consider running the heavy loads at peak production times instead. Run you washing machine when the sun is up, not down. It makes no difference as the end result is the same.

This sounds like having an engine. What a ridiculous way to travel when if you just wait for a while the wind will be back and you can move again. So you spend a few more hours in the sea which makes absolutely no difference from waiting at anchor.


Which could all be eliminated with the introduction cable cars.

jet planes should not be an allowed form of transport. People moving around so fast and spreading all kinds of diseases around the world in less than 24 hours. Why don't we have special highways for race cars so people (who can afford to) can drive 300km/h ?


This excuse is invalid because no one is suggesting abandoning technology. The suggestion is to stop pumping co2 into the air which is completely different.

So you're proposing that Mr Wong and his hundreds of thousands of fellow workers restrict themselves to manufacturing your new iPhone only during wind gusts and sunny days? That's not going to happen. Any idea how much energy is required in the total manufacture of that device you're using to access this site?

Ditto for transporting goods under sail, not flying and using cable cars. In a perfect world we'd have distributed and interlinked wind, solar and tidal power generation all over the globe. Unfortunately, until the human race can learn to live in peace and harmony, that, too, is not going to happen.

Abandoning fossil fuels won't send us back to the stone age, but it will send us back to a hybrid eighteenth century.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Nuclear is a limited resource. The total energy stored in known reserves of nuclear are a small fraction of the known reserves of fossil fuels.

Alexandra why make stuff up?. With fast neutron or breeder reactor technology there is, for all practical purposes, unlimited energy >5 billion years worth at 1983 consumption rates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

[Catalysis]

boat alexander:
While I agree that we should all conserve where we can it is important to recognize that CO2 levels will naturally come down if we let the carbon cycle perform as it was intended.

When CO2 levels rise plants, trees in particular, grow faster and healthier and convert the CO2 into carbon(wood) and oxygen.

A huge problem is manmade interference by the ethanol lobby who strangely (and wrongly) keep pushing ethanol in fuel. This is madness because the energy density of ethanol is far lower than virgin gasoline resulting in lower mpg which requires more gallons for a given trip.

But it gets much worse because farmers (aided by politicians) are incentivized to plant more and more grain crops. To increase yield they put more and more ammonia based fertilizer in the ground - guess where the ammonia comes from (oil and natural gas).

Compounding this madness is the fact that the gain crops don't have the CO2 uptake that trees have and ammonia laden soils can't hold as much CO2 making the cycle worse.

We have got to recognize this ethanol scam for what it is - politically made and supported for political reasons.

Perhaps we should start a campaign called "If you can eat it you should" and stop turning food into fuel.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Doesn't really jibe overall with the facts.

The Bay of Whales, is located at the red square.

Looks pretty much ice free on the day before they 'supposedly' made their furthest southerly excursion.

Of course I realize that University of Bremen and Wikipedia are in cahoots with the Polish sailors on the Selma, in an effort to 'promulgate the scam'...

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Catalysis

boat alexander:
While I agree that we should all conserve where we can it is important to recognize that CO2 levels will naturally come down if we let the carbon cycle perform as it was intended.

When CO2 levels rise plants, trees in particular, grow faster and healthier and convert the CO2 into carbon(wood) and oxygen.

Yes, and when the trees in the forest fall and decay the CO2 is released again into the air. The co2 levels do not come down so easily. Further, we continue to deforest the planet, and every year there are less and less trees.

The only way for the co2 levels to come down is for the trees to fall and become buried.. or like in the case of oil, but this doesn't happen usually. Further, even if we cut the trees and buried them, we cannot expect to just grow more trees in that same place because the nutrients (what is in ash after wood burns) are no longer available.

A huge problem is manmade interference by the ethanol lobby who strangely (and wrongly) keep pushing ethanol in fuel. This is madness because the energy density of ethanol is far lower than virgin gasoline resulting in lower mpg which requires more gallons for a given trip.

ethanol has a higher octane (108 vs 89), so you must modify the engine to have a higher compression and then it cannot run on gasoline anymore to fully benefit. Blending it at 10% is completely stupid, it should be 100% if at all. As you can see the scam goes both ways and really it's nothing to do with promoting alternative fuel that is the cover the real intention is to consume more oil.

The great plains are actually being mined. This area had the deepest topsoil in the world over 20 feet and now it's half gone already. It won't be long before this region becomes a desert.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Alexandra why make stuff up?. With fast neutron or breeder reactor technology there is, for all practical purposes, unlimited energy >5 billion years worth at 1983 consumption rates.


Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the current nuclear power plants yes, but maybe you are right the breeder reactors can produce 100 times the power from the same fuel.

There are a few problems:

1. Why aren't they doing this already? I suspect it's not economical? In that case, solar power is already cheaper than conventional nuclear and going to be a lot cheaper than any breeder reactor.

2. Nuclear power is something once spent we cannot replace. It's incredibly wasteful to just turn into steam. Why don't you burn good hardwood in an open fire to cook? Radioactive matter may be our ticket to reaching the stars and moving outward from this planet, and to allow it to be used to power stuff that is completely stupid like air conditioning is terrible.

[LekiM]

OK - I usually don't touch this stuff with a 10-foot pole.
Why? Because it always turns into a pot-luck dinner with the same bitter dishes.

If I may: Here is a simple, minimum set of basic info that will inform about 95% of all you need to know about 'global warming'. You'll note, none comes from the normal sources, or any reputable blog. If you find the time to make simple sense out of these three topics, then you might sit back, cross your arms, knit your brow, and maybe say, "I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole". Then? You could get out on the water.

1) Laws of thermodynamics
2) Wein's Law
3) Any layperson's introduction to the work of Ed Lorenz.

BTW - no insults or jabs intended. It's just frustrating from my particular position. Apologies. Y'all be safe.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

With the current nuclear power plants yes, but maybe you are right the breeder reactors can produce 100 times the power from the same fuel.

There are a few problems:

1. Why aren't they doing this already? I suspect it's not economical? In that case, solar power is already cheaper than conventional nuclear and going to be a lot cheaper than any breeder reactor.

2. Nuclear power is something once spent we cannot replace. It's incredibly wasteful to just turn into steam. Why don't you burn good hardwood in an open fire to cook? Radioactive matter may be our ticket to reaching the stars and moving outward from this planet, and to allow it to be used to power stuff that is completely stupid like air conditioning is terrible.

Please consider that the earth condensed from star dust about 4 billion years ago. I'm at a loss to find the words to comment on the above.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok well North America to be pedantic about it. I'm over every single weather anomaly that occurs as being associated with "global warming". No matter if it's too hot, too cold, drought, flood or tempest it's that darn global warming's fault. Apparently the natural climate, unlike the weather, must be static and never change.

But on the subject of hottest years on record (of which every year just about seems to be) here's an interesting chart from a reputable source:



Now, I'm an ignorant layman, but this just screams "heat island effect". Also, the differential between cooling and heating trends to the left of Antartica there says "local anomaly" as in the same "local anomaly" that some climate scientists describe as the cause of the medieval warming period and little ice age that allows them to discount these climate "blips" in recent climate history.

Anyway, I think it's great that the Northwest Passage is opening up in summer on a regular basis. I'd really like to sail that area one day.

Take up your beef with Jimmy Cornell:

"

Although some people still refuse to take notice of what scientists and meteorologists have been saying for many years, weather patterns are changing and there is no longer any excuse for not taking these warnings seriously. This affects sailors on small boats perhaps more than anyone else, so these warnings should be heeded and we should be even more cautious than in the past."

Climate change – Jimmy Cornell's personal view - Cornell Sailing Events & Publications

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

On February 13, a yachting crew from Poland sailed its 67-foot sloop, Selma, to a latitude in Antarctica's Bay of Whales that's traditionally frozen solid, and only navigable by icebreaker. It was a hundred miles farther south than anyone had ever taken a sailboat. Temperatures hovered around zero degrees Fahrenheit (it's the height of summer in the south pole) as the crew took turns hacking a heavy layer of frost that coated the ship's deck and rails. A storm briefly sent twenty-foot waves in their path, but the surface was calm when Selma finally ran out of sea. "We touched the ice of the Antarctic," skipper Piotr Kuniar told Radio Poland. "We cannot sail any further."

Read more: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways - MensJournal.com
Follow us: @mensjournal on Twitter | MensJournal on Facebook

To get a perspective on global warming I suggest people go to either pole in winter.........

[jtsailjt]

[/QUOTE]

There are a few problems:

1. Why aren't they doing this already? I suspect it's not economical? In that case, solar power is already cheaper than conventional nuclear and going to be a lot cheaper than any breeder reactor.

2. Nuclear power is something once spent we cannot replace. It's incredibly wasteful to just turn into steam. Why don't you burn good hardwood in an open fire to cook? Radioactive matter may be our ticket to reaching the stars and moving outward from this planet, and to allow it to be used to power stuff that is completely stupid like air conditioning is terrible.[/QUOTE]

The only reason conventional nuclear isn't cheaper in the US is all the government mandated hoops that must be jumped through to get a new plant permitted online. The technology itself is well developed and simple and inexpensive. Another critically important characteristic of nuclear is that it's dependable, whereas solar only produces power part of the time. There's really no comparison. I love the solar panels on my boat but a pocket sized nuclear reactor would be even nicer!

I don't want a ticket to reach the stars, I like it here just fine. And I don't particularly like air conditioning, except when I feel hot and sweaty and it's 95 degrees out without a breath of air moving, then it's about the only thing that can make me feel comfortable. In those conditions, turning on the air conditioning doesn't seem stupid at all.