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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Hey Reef now that's a good reason to freeze my butt off cruising Poland waters just to catch a glimpse of these majestic animals.

Come see them over here. Why freeze ya butt orf when you can do it in t-shirt and shorts?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Come see them over here. Why freeze ya butt orf when you can do it in t-shirt and shorts?

There is one lil issue its a long way from here to there for a 24 ft islander to go in a couple months

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by newhaul

So intact the earth is a closed system if you feel otherwise please provide anything to prove it is not a closed system. But this still has little to do with sailing in polar waters.

Lets not forget the solar energy flux, which is exterior to the earth. So the earth is not quite a closed system. Well that and 40 tons O dust a day that you mentioned, and the odd iceball with various chemicals and amino acids that after 4 billion ish years the resulting lifeforms discuss why the earth is a closed system. I find that only slightly ironic.

One hours solar energy input, exceeds the yearly human energy use from all sources. Of course, it has not a thing to do with global warming...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

There is one lil issue its a long way from here to there for a 24 ft islander to go in a couple months

Nuttin' goes to windward like a 747 ☺

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nuttin' goes to windward like a 747 ☺

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

True but my home is more comfortable to travel I in/on

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

One hours solar energy input, exceeds the yearly human energy use from all sources. Of course, it has not a thing to do with global warming...

The sun does provide the earth with most of its energy.

The solar energy combined with the GHG qualities of CO2 prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.

Of course the 0.1% variation in solar energy output is no match from the 40% increase in anthropogenic CO2.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The sun does provide the earth with most of its energy.

The solar energy combined with the GHG qualities of CO2 prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.

Of course the 0.1% variation in solar energy output is no match from the 40% increase in anthropogenic CO2.

However all that co2 is not really that much when you consider the actual amount verses other compounds in the atmosphere but without that minor increase we might be talking about dodging icebergs in equatorial waters i instead of cruising in polar regions.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

TOf course the 0.1% variation in solar energy output is no match from the 40% increase in anthropogenic CO2.

Ah but that's visible light. The boys at nasa and others have found that the UV portion of the spectrum, varies by up to a factor of 10. That effects ozone and weather. Plus they are finding even a 0.1% change effects climate.

Yes Co2 has increased from 0.003% to 0.004%,(or 300 PPM to 400 PPM, looks bigger when you use parts per million).

Yes, Most of it due to Anthropomorphic actions, via emissions and clear cutting. Mind you that is 100 times smaller variance then solar output. I know apples and oranges, But if you think 0.1% solar output has no effect, why do you think a 0.001% increase in co2 concentration, is such a big deal.

BTW I'm all for the greenhouse effect. Living on an iceball, would be no fun. No sailing anyway....

[SV THIRD DAY]

when I read that a 0.1% sun change isn't a big deal compared to a 40% change in CO2 I spit my beer out laughing. the order and scale of magnitude clearly isn't understood by our MMGW Poster.

Hilarious..and scary at the same time for the lack of comprehension.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

However all that co2 is not really that much when you consider the actual amount verses other compounds in the atmosphere but without that minor increase we might be talking about dodging icebergs in equatorial waters i instead of cruising in polar regions.

Like ozone, which at 3-10 ppm protects us from UVB?

I do not recalll Cook having to dodge equatorial ice bergs during his explorations at a time when CO2 levels were around 290 ppm.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah but that's visible light. The boys at nasa and others have found that the UV portion of the spectrum, varies by up to a factor of 10. That effects ozone and weather. Plus they are finding even a 0.1% change effects climate.

Yes Co2 has increased from 0.003% to 0.004%,(or 300 PPM to 400 PPM, looks bigger when you use parts per million).

Yes, Most of it due to Anthropomorphic actions, via emissions and clear cutting. Mind you that is 100 times smaller variance then solar output. I know apples and oranges, But if you think 0.1% solar output has no effect, why do you think a 0.001% increase in co2 concentration, is such a big deal.

BTW I'm all for the greenhouse effect. Living on an iceball, would be no fun. No sailing anyway....

Can you please provide a link to your NASA UV and weather source?

UV is the at the other end of the spectrum from IR.



UV does not produce heat energy.

We all like the greenhouse effect. CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm for at least 800,000 years, giving us a Goldilocks world in which we and our food crops evolved and were domesticated.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah but that's visible light. The boys at nasa and others have found that the UV portion of the spectrum, varies by up to a factor of 10. That effects ozone and weather. Plus they are finding even a 0.1% change effects climate.

Yes Co2 has increased from 0.003% to 0.004%,(or 300 PPM to 400 PPM, looks bigger when you use parts per million).

Yes, Most of it due to Anthropomorphic actions, via emissions and clear cutting. Mind you that is 100 times smaller variance then solar output. I know apples and oranges, But if you think 0.1% solar output has no effect, why do you think a 0.001% increase in co2 concentration, is such a big deal.

BTW I'm all for the greenhouse effect. Living on an iceball, would be no fun. No sailing anyway....

Wonder how well one of these would work with a comfortable cabin added on iceboat.org cruising across Antarctica.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Can you please provide a link to your NASA UV and weather source?

UV is the at the other end of the spectrum from IR.



UV does not produce heat energy.

Oh dear sir, I think you missed on that one. Might want to open a collage physics book.

Both IR and UV are energy, both at the same energy flux will cause heating. You can do the same with microwaves which are well north of UV. You could cook with xrays, but I don't recommend it.

To quote Einstein, everything is energy. IR and UV both will excite molecules.

Here's one study for ya: Ground-based observation of solar UV radiation in Japan, Brazil and Chile

and nasa, which you've see before: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

" Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

and nasa, which you've see before: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Yes I have seen it before

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes I have seen it before

That was just one persons option as you know, in the panel discussion which you commented on before too. Others of course said:

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.



For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.


and



Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.