Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

First of all, congrats on snagging #3000. A t-shirt is being printed and will be forwarded ASAP.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack and other GW Zealots,

Who decided that pre industrial CO2 levels and climate temps were ideal and why? Personally, and I also speak for all plant life... I prefer a warmer climate and my plant buddies prefer higher CO2 levels.

We're 'zealots'.... How about we just have an appreciation for what science is, the scientific process, and the sort of people who actually do it?

Let me flip the question - who decided that it's ok to mess with the CO2 levels without regard to the consequences? Especially now that we're becoming aware of the likely consequences.

You can if you wish move to a warmer clime, and dump as much CO2 as you want on YOUR plants.

Don't we get a vote in this debate?

If we agree that science is, at heart, the search for truth and understanding... well you don't vote on truth and understanding. Reality isn't a bill brought up in Congress.

Of course you get to vote on whether to accept, challenge or ignore the science, or what to do about it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack that's an idea but I have no idea how to submit the hypothesis to the appropriate people. I'm an engineer not a scientist.

Here are some general ideas on the numbers. An ice breaker escorting will leave a broken swath of sea ice approximately 300 meters wide. By about 5 km or a bit more. Multiplied by the number of ice breakers that are active on a given day . ThAt could add up to lots of now open sea that will absorb solar radiation verses the reflection that would have happened if not for the icebreakers.

Really?



Please explain how an ice breaker leaves a path much wide than its beam?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack and other GW Zealots,

Who decided that pre industrial CO2 levels and climate temps were ideal and why? Personally, and I also speak for all plant life... I prefer a warmer climate and my plant buddies prefer higher CO2 levels.

Don't we get a vote in this debate?

Ken

Mother nature voted.

CO2 levels have never exceeded 300 ppm for the past 800,000 year until the we started dumping trillions of tonnes sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.



Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:
1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
doi:10.1038/nature13179

Our food crops evolved in much lower CO2 levels.

[newhaul]

Jimbunyard ok I'm not going to quote your post I'm just going to say in all fairness the Russian fleet as of now only has 11 nuke powered breakers but you are missing one significant item the Russians aren't the only ones with icebreakers in the Arctic there are literally hundreds of ice breakers currentlyactive on the planet( active doesn't mean currently deployed just capable of putting to sea) so let's use your estimated 38 sq miles open per day times 250 icebreakers. ( and that is a low estimate). Now we are at 9600 sq miles per day . That gets to be significant rather quickly
As to the IPCC well we have been thru that quagmire before. Lastly I have yet to see any government supported entity to release a report of any kind that actually causes loss of profits for the big bussines types.

[The Garbone]

That ice core chart and its use in this argument I find symptomatic of this issue.

On the surface it looks quite authoritative but giving thought I tend to see it as suspect. It is too tidy, too definitive, as if they had one variable and just plugged in the second, not that they developed the two data sets independently and shockingly they line up. I smell a hose.




Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mother nature voted.

CO2 levels have never exceeded 300 ppm for the past 800,000 year until the we started dumping trillions of tonnes sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.



Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:
1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
doi:10.1038/nature13179

Our food crops evolved in much lower CO2 levels.

I didn't realize that life including humans has only existed on earth for 800,000 years?

Or... Have you been off picking cherries again?

[Simonsays]

newhaul, i don't want to stop people making a fool of themselfs but...

an icebreaker does not melt ice, it crushes ice. do i need to explain the difference?

your numbers on total icebreakers does not take their classification into account.
only PC1 and PC2 icebreakers can operate in multiyear ice. PC is Polar Class. You can look up the number of operable vessels in those 2 classes yourself. hint: it's not 250. the USCG has a total of 3.

google your own question.
it has been asked before.

[Reefmagnet]

Crikey. Imagine if the industrial revolution had never happened. We'd all be sitting around shivering in our bloomers writing letters to each other bemoaning the destruction of the environment caused by horse farts and poo.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Crikey. Imagine if the industrial revolution had never happened. We'd all be sitting around shivering in our bloomers writing letters to each other bemoaning the destruction of the environment caused by horse farts and poo.

Well... the industrial revolution happened, the 20th century happened, the space age happened, the internet happened, and the sustainable-energy revolution will happen. It might happen a bit faster if people would stop pretending there's no need to move forward.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well... the industrial revolution happened, the 20th century happened, the space age happened, the internet happened, and the sustainable-energy revolution will happen. It might happen a bit faster if people would stop pretending there's no need to move forward.

Lobby your politicians harder.. fewer wars may be a good start..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

fewer wars may be a good start

I can't disagree.

[boatman61]

A question from an ignorant Luddite..
Are CO2 levels actually increasing.. or are Oxygen levels falling.. thus creating a false impression..??

[Reefmagnet]

C02 is measured in parts per million so is definitely increasing. Oxygen would be decreasing as well, but only by a tiny amount compared to the overall percentage in the atmosphere.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

C02 is measured in parts per million so is definitely increasing. Oxygen would be decreasing as well, but only by a tiny amount compared to the overall percentage in the atmosphere.

Seems O2 is measured the same way.. according to CDIAC... interesting reading..
Of course this estimate does not include oxygen depletion caused by explosives etc used in gynormous quantities in modern warfare over the last 100 years..

Trends

Oxygen concentrations are currently declining at roughly 19 per meg per year, or about 4 ppm per year. One "per meg" indicates one molecule out of 1,000,000 oxygen molecules, or roughly one molecule in 4.8 million molecules of air.

Oxygen Depletion

We are occasionally reminded that fossil fuel burning is depleting atmospheric oxygen at a rate of almost 1000 tons per second. There are about 32 million seconds in a year, so that somewhere around 30 billion tons of O2 are being converted to CO2 annually. There are about 1,200,000 billion metric tons of O2 in the atmosphere, so we can keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate for 40,000 years before we run out of oxygen. By then, all of the world's fossil fuel supply will have long since been exhausted. For a more complete, but less detailed, discussion of this topic see Et tu 02 by Wallace Broecker.

If we take the worlds supply of fossil fuel to be 10,000 billion metric tons of carbon, as per Carbon Cycling and Climate and we oxidize all of it we would get about 37,000 billion metric tons of CO2, and about 27,000 billion metric tons of O2 would have been consumed. Some additional O2 would have also been consumed by oxidation of hydrogen in the (hydrocarbon) fuel, so that roughly 38,000 billion metric tons of oxygen would have been consumed. This is about 3.3 percent of the atmosphere's oxygen. Such a loss would be equivalent to increasing your elevation from sea level to about 330 meters, or about 1100 feet.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

newhaul, i don't want to stop people making a fool of themselfs but...

an icebreaker does not melt ice, it crushes ice. do i need to explain the difference?

your numbers on total icebreakers does not take their classification into account.
only PC1 and PC2 icebreakers can operate in multiyear ice. PC is Polar Class. You can look up the number of operable vessels in those 2 classes yourself. hint: it's not 250. the USCG has a total of 3.

google your own question.
it has been asked before.

Actually the USCG only has two at present the uscg pillar star was decommissioned three years ago. However there are many in operation in the world . I know how icebreakers work.and they don't crush ice they actually fracture it into smaller pieces and force some to submerge under the existing sheet or push it up onto the surfaceof the sheet in a similar fashion the how techtonic plates work to form non volcanic mountain ranges or volcanoes. The answer was not actually answered but glossed over by governmental agencies.