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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I wasn't arguing crops are more productive in a warming climate. I was showing that yield has increased in sync with warming despite Jackdale's claims that food cops somehow should suffer.

We are 166 years along the path of this 'calamity', after all.

So 166 years of actual recorded evidence of little or no connection btwn. crop productivity and GW. As opposed to theoretical evidence of a potential harm from increased CO2 for which technology will be unable to respond to, namely this:

Originally Posted by jackdale

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.

Which proves or demonstrates what??

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

Originally Posted by jackdale

Increased food production is associated with increased use of irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer; none of which is sustainable.

Maybe or maybe not. I bet there were also people around 166 years ago who claimed a similar level of certainty.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:

1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

Where's the evidence that's happening now? It should be if you believe all the doomsday scenarios.

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

Yields, on some grains at least, have increased ~8 fold since the turn of the last century. Are today's crops less nutritious than those of 1900?

Our food crops evolved in much lower CO2 levels.

Which means they'll really kick into gear as their supply of a primary building block material becomes more abundant.

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

On the subject of mechanization, Sailor's previously posted chart appears to demonstrate the effect of modern techniques on crop farming yields.



HOWEVER, worst case since just the 1960's is nearly a doubling of yield. If you don't think CO2 levels or increased warmth has made any contribution to that increase, you should leave your what if world of "what if's" and observe the real for a change. For example Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses produced by your very own government...

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.


For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Forests are carbon sinks.

Forests aren't carbon sinks, they're carbon stores. In a mature forest, as in any mature ecosystem, just as much carbon is released through exhalation and decay as is absorbed due to growth.

Yes, if you plant a forest, it will absorb carbon as it grows and builds biomass. But as it reaches maturity, growth will slow, decay will increase, and net carbon absorption will decrease, eventually teaching zero when the ecosystem reaches equilibrium.

The only parts of the ecosystem that actually removes carbon from the biosphere is oceanic plankton, much of which falls to the deeps, and humans cutting trees to build structures that are protected from decay.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Exile

More like bickering btwn. the left and reality.

I would have to disagree. I am Canadian by birth, so I never grew up with the 2 party system (although entertaining to watch). It's more like the left wears rose colored glasses while the right wears brown. I'm just sayin.

[salticrak]

[QUOTE=jackdale;

Our food crops evolved in much lower CO2 levels.

++++++++++++++[/QUOTE]
I really don't know what to say....

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Well on 2nd thought...there is the bickering between the left and the right...

Which is exactly why this thread should not have been allowed in the FIRST PLACE !



GO SAILING, PEOPLE !

[Exile]

Are you angry? You seem angry. What's all the consternation about? Aren't "progressives" supposed to be tolerant and respectful of diverse points of view?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[COLOR=Black]
Nice tap-dance, but doesn't counter my point that given how low fossil-fuel pricing currently is, there's ample room to start pricing in carbon, and still be below a price that everyone found affordable just a few years ago.

You mean the $4-plus/gal. gas that "everyone" found so affordable? "Everyone" in your world must be an affluent lot. If demand has not significantly INCREASED on account of lower prices, then why would you continue to believe that demand would be DECREASED due to higher prices? Never mind yet another obviously futile attempt at this . . . . Jack cited evidence claiming to show that some sort of carbon tax scheme has "worked" in B.C. So see what you can do in Toronto and kindly report back to us. Maybe you can start a carpooling trend or a run on Prius cars, saving the world one carbon-emitting motorist at a time . . . .

It's disgusting as usual to try to take shelter behind the poor. If you cared about the poor, you'd support them properly and make it possible for those who want to work to actually make a living. Those who would actually be hurt by carbon pricing are the companies in and around fossil fuel; removal of subsidies and a carbon tax are impediments to increased consumption and fatter profits.

Whoa, you are angry. Apparently frustrated too. And that means we digress back into labels, stereotypes, and faulty assumptions about strangers on an internet forum. Not good, not good at all. Without getting into another round of virtue signaling, let's just say my background & profession enable me to do more for the poor than I suspect you might do . . . for the environment?? Now how exactly does the carbon tax scheme in B.C. hurt the fossil fuel cos. and not the consumer? Right, I get it -- lowered demand. And round & round we go . . . .

You consider that the stock market is "the rest of the world"? There's your blinders, then. Those guys can't see more than 5 quarters ahead.

I see that stock market wisdom is another one of your many areas of expertise.

Once again, you demonstrate that you won't recognize what's been done to date, and you confirm that if a body is not saying exactly what you want them to say, you will work overtime to find reasons to ignore their findings.

Wrong. I "accept" the findings of the IPCC in the same way that Jack "accepts" the findings of the UAH satellite temp data -- with skepticism. And I would accept the findings of an objective, apolitical, science-based body that properly recognizes and deals with credible dissent by scientists on scientific issues.

Just about every credible scientific institution or oganization has endorsed the finding of AGW and the need to react to it; the total of the above [scientific institutions or organizations] who [have registered their opposition may] still [be] zero. Admit it, there is no earthly assembly of experts whose opinion you would accept. You can stop pretending that such a body could ever exist for you.

Your clairvoyance about the professional opinions of climate scientists, the stock market, macroeconomics, and now my own personal opinions about poor people and "experts" is nothing short of remarkable. And this isn't the first time you've demonstrated such uncanny knowledge & insight. I see you have adopted Jack's little red herring asserting unanimity of scientific "institutions & organizations." Too bad the scientists themselves who perform work at those institutions & organizations don't share such cohesion. Or do we need to resurrect that Wiki site listing all their names and positions on "the finding of AGW" I found for you way back when?

It's in common use. Hardly more pejorative than your gov't climate conspiracy theories, Obama's a socialist, etc.

My mistake for using Webster's and New Oxford when I need help with my vocabulary. I'll have to remember to add Urban Dictionary to my reference sources. Just curious, but is this a "hipster" thing? I'm not that old, but old enough to have missed all that, thankfully. Got your Fedora hat yet?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I would have to disagree. I am Canadian by birth, so I never grew up with the 2 party system (although entertaining to watch). It's more like the left wears rose colored glasses while the right wears brown. I'm just sayin.

More like embarrassing to watch, at least this year.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Which is exactly why this thread should not have been allowed in the FIRST PLACE !



GO SAILING, PEOPLE !

Originally Posted by Exile

More like embarrassing to watch, at least this year.

Amen brother!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean the $4-plus/gal. gas that "everyone" found so affordable?

What are you currently paying for gas right now? If a ridiculously high 20% carbon surcharge appeared tomorrow, do tell us by how much the resulting gas price would still be below $4 a gallon.

If demand has not significantly INCREASED on account of lower prices, then why would you continue to believe that demand would be DECREASED due to higher prices?

You messed this up before. Again, what is the biggest automotive segment in the US right now? (hint: -cough-hemi-cough-). And you already know that even before cheap natural gas, US coal use was in decline because of disincentives.

I "accept" the findings of the IPCC in the same way that Jack "accepts" the findings of the UAH satellite temp data -- with skepticism. And I would accept the findings of an objective, apolitical, science-based body that properly recognizes and deals with credible dissent by scientists on scientific issues.

Bull. It's very clear now that you've decided that AGW isn't something you're prepared to acknowledge, much less mitigate, and there isn't any grouping of scientific minds that could shift you off of that position.

And it's clearer what "adaptation" means to you; your financial advisor will simply rebalance your portfolio.

[jackdale]

Do I need to post Milton Friedman ' thoughts again?

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What are you currently paying for gas right now?

AAA Gas Prices

The rest of your post sounds like another emotionally charged rant. Take a deep breath and try again. Or better yet, go sailing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do I need to post Milton Friedman ' thoughts again?

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Sure. But it might be more effective if you add a couple of lines explaining how it relates to the CC issue, carbon tax, or whatever point you are trying to get across. Otherwise your devoted audience is all too often left guessing at the punch line.

[weavis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by senormechanico View Post
Which is exactly why this thread should not have been allowed in the FIRST PLACE !

GO SAILING, PEOPLE !


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile
More like embarrassing to watch, at least this year.
Amen brother!

Remember that it is us, the members who choose to write on subjects WE choose to write on.

Mods, oh yeah, like me, we just moderate the naughty bits and close the threads when it gets to be a fight.... other than that, this is your board and sometimes we have to put up with other peoples thoughts.

Hey! there is an ignore button.

[SailOar]

95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution | The Guardian

The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law recently published a report summarizing a survey of economists with climate expertise. The report was a follow-up and expansion of a similar survey conducted in 2009 by the same institute. The key finding: there’s a strong consensus among climate economics experts that we should put a price on carbon pollution to curb the expensive costs of climate change.

The survey participants included economists who have published papers related to climate change “in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed economics or environmental economics journal since 1994.” Overall, 365 participants completed the survey, which established the consensus of expert climate economists on a number of important questions.

Carbon pollution cuts are needed regardless of what other countries do

In the 2009 version of the survey, the respondents were asked under what conditions the United States should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 57% answered that the US should cut its emissions no matter what actions other countries take, while another 38% said that American emissions cuts would be warranted if many or all other countries commit to reducing theirs (as just happened in the Paris international negotiations).

In the 2015 survey, the number of expert economists saying that the US should cut its emissions no matter what rose to 77%. A further 18% said that if other countries agree to cut their emissions, the US should follow suit. In other words, there is a 95% consensus among expert climate economists that the US should follow through with its pledges to cut carbon pollution in the wake of the Paris international climate negotiations, and more than three out of four agreed that the US should take action to curb global warming no matter what.[...]