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

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

The value of assets in jeopardy are not costs.
That is only true if every asset in jeopardy worldwide is destroyed.

ALL property in Florida is currently in jeopardy of cyclones. What has been the cost of cyclones in Florida in the last 10 years?

Typical alarmist doublespeak!

Ok, let's say the World Bank massively overestimated the cost by an unrealistic 10Xs. So losses are only $16 trillion instead of $158 trillion. $16 trillion is still almost 2X the $9 trillion that transmitterdan's article mentioned for converting to a carbon-free energy system.

Typical denier dumbspeak!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ok, let's say the World Bank overestimated the cost by an unrealistic 10Xs. So it is only $16 trillion instead of $158 trillion. $16 trillion is still almost 2X the $9 trillion that transmitterdan's article mentioned for converting to a carbon-free energy system.

Typical denier dumbspeak!

So you really think that 10% of the world's "assets in jeopardy" are about to be destroyed? Just think about that for a few minutes.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

AGW denial, aye? I'm not sure you completely understand what that means. That's a pretty feeble attempt at convolution you tried there.

Bring on warming. When was the last time major fires raged through the wet tropics?

Do you really think we should take someone as clueless as you seriously?

Indonesia's forest fires: everything you need to know | The Guardian

11 November 2015
Where are the fires?

As satellite data of the fire hotspots shows, forest fires have affected the length and breadth of Indonesia. Among the worst hit areas are southern Kalimantan (Borneo) and western Sumatra. The fires have been raging since July, with efforts to extinguish them hampered by seasonal dry conditions exacerbated by the El Nino effect. As well as Indonesia, the acrid haze from the fires is engulfing neighbouring Malaysia and Singapore and has reached as far as southern Thailand.

What is the damage?

The most obvious damage is to the forest where the fires are occurring. Indonesia’s tropical forests represent some of the most diverse habitats on the planet. The current fire outbreak adds to decades of existing deforestation by palm oil, timber and other agribusiness operators, further imperilling endangered species such as the orangutan. [...]

Financial damage to the region’s economy is still being counted, but the Indonesian government’s own estimates suggest it could be as high as $47bn, a huge blow to the country’s economy. A World Bank study [there we go again, listening to that unreliable World Bank ] on forest fires last year in Riau province estimated that they caused $935m of losses relating to lost agricultural productivity and trade. [...]

.




see also:
Vast Amazon wildfire destroys forest in Brazil and threatens uncontacted tribe

Massive wildfire rips through Congo rainforest – is logging to blame?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Do you really think we should take someone as clueless as you seriously?

Indonesia's forest fires: everything you need to know | The Guardian

.




see also:
Vast Amazon wildfire destroys forest in Brazil and threatens uncontacted tribe

Massive wildfire rips through Congo rainforest – is logging to blame?

First and foremost, you've just made a derogatory attack on another poster that risks getting this thread shut down.

Secondly, dig deeper into the cause of the Indonesian fires, for example...

What is causing the fires?

Forest fires have become a seasonal phenomenon in Indonesia. At the root of the problem is the practice of forest clearance known as slash and burn, where land is set on fire as a cheaper way to clear it for new planting. Peat soil, which characterises much of the affected areas, is highly flammable, causing localised fires to spread and making them difficult to stop.

Not climate change. You might want to extend your cut and paste talents to read, cut and paste.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

First and foremost, you've just made a derogatory attack on another poster that risks getting this thread shut down.

Secondly, dig deeper into the cause of the Indonesian fires, for example...
Not climate change. You might want to extend your cut and paste talents to read, cut and paste.

I didn't say that tropical forest fires were caused by climate change. I was presenting a substantiated counter example to your unsubstantiated assertion that wet tropical forests don't/can't burn.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by SailOar

[...] What do you suggest as the best way for a non-scientist, with limited time and limited scientific experience, to accurately inform themselves about Climate Change-related data, risks, solutions, and costs, etc?[...]

Treating everything one reads with an open but skeptical mind. Checking who wrote it and who published it helps to filter out the bias. Besides of this trying not to see everything through the glasses of ones political affiliation or believes is an advantage too. Most participants here are doing this anyway - some don't.

I'm at least for now ...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I didn't say that tropical forest fires were caused by climate change. I was presenting a substantiated counter example to your unsubstantiated assertion that wet tropical forests don't/can't burn.

Then your argument is null and void.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The forests have grown up and burned repeatedly for millennia. Research the massive fire that covered most of the mid North American continent. The smoke was visible in Europe for nearly a decade.

Exactly my point. Forests by themselves don't sequester significant amounts of carbon, it's constantly recycled.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exactly my point. Forests by themselves don't sequester significant amounts of carbon, it's constantly recycled.

OK then explain this if plants don't sequester carbon for long periods then where did all the coal that everyone is complaining about adding co2 come from and where did all the petrolium come from?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK then explain this if plants don't sequester carbon for long periods then where did all the coal that everyone is complaining about adding co2 come from and where did all the petrolium come from?

The VERY SLOW accumulation of trapped plant material over MILLIONS of years... sequestered the carbon that we are now burning through in a few hundred years, yes. Point to you.

Wanna guess what percentage of the Alaskan forest biomass will get locked away, vs just continuing in the dance of the carbon cycle?

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK then explain this if plants don't sequester carbon for long periods then where did all the coal that everyone is complaining about adding co2 come from and where did all the petrolium come from?

I was always wondering where CH4 and other hydrocarbons in comets and asteroids are coming from. CH4 is found on Mars in suggesting that it must be replenished all the time. Let me quote a paper I wrote on hydrocarbons found on Mars:

Originally Posted by MySelf

CH4 one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen, which is at room temperature colourless, odorless and in its gaseous state has a lifespan of about 8.4 years in Earths atmosphere (CO2 > 100 years!).

Methane can form in natural processes like Methanogenesis, which is the last process in decomposition of biomass where microbes (Methanogens), produce methane as a result microbial metabolism (Thauer 1998). Methanogenesis happens all the time in our as well as other animals’ digestive tracks, especially ruminants where methanogens, digest the cellulose into usable material. Without these microorganisms, animals such as cows would not be able to consume grass. An average cow emits around 250 liters CH4 every day.

Some humans produce gas which contains about 10% methane, but don’t let us go there (Miller, et al. 1982). Plants also emit CH4 but it is not clear if the methane is produced by the plant itself or mere the result of extracting the gas bound in the ground and transporting it up to the leafs where it gets released (Kepler F; et al. 2006)

Methanogens occur also in anoxic environments, underground, causal to the degradation of organic matter. Landfill, sediment at the bottom of lakes or oceans or residual organic matter formed into sedimentary rocks are also forms of natural CH4 production.

Another natural process to form CH4 is known as Serpentinization a non-biological process where water, carbon dioxide, and the mineral olivine, a solid solution between forsterite and fayalite (Fe,Mg)2SiO4. The reaction producing methane from olivine can be written as: Forsterite + Fayalite + Water + Carbonic acid → Serpentine + Magnetite + Methane , or:

18 Mg2SiO4 + 6 Fe2SiO4 + 26 H2O + CO2 → 12 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 4 Fe3O4 + CH4

The significance of the CH4 finds in Mars atmosphere was that besides Methane released from Mars permafrost soils only the above processes are known to be a possible source of the gas in Mars’ atmosphere.

Oze & Sharma (2005) worked from the assumption that Serpentinization based on Mars olivine are the main source of the methane, but the source of the gas could also be biological processes. This was exiting news because methane has a very short lifespan. Detectable quantities need to be replenished all the time.

References

Kepler F.; et al., 2006, Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions, Nature, 439 (7073), 187

Miller T.L., Wolin M.J., de Macario E.C., Macario A.J., 1982, Isolation of Methanobrevibacter smithii from human feces. Appl Environ Microbiol, 43(1), 227

Thauer R. K., 1998, Biochemistry of Methanogenesis: a Tribute to Marjory Stephenson, Microbiology, 144, 2377

Oze C.; Sharma M., 2005, Have olivine, will gas: Serpentinization and the abiogenic production of methane on Mars, Geophysical Research Letters 32 (10), L10203

And then I want to point to James G. Speight (2006), The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, Fourth Edition, Chemical Industries 114 (4, ilustraded ed.), CRC Press, p. 50, ISBN 9780849390678,

However, it is now generally accepted, but not conclusively proven, that petroleum formation predominantly arises from the decay of organic matter in the earth. (...) Nevertheless, alternative abiotic theories should not be dismissed until it can be conclusively established that petroleum formation is due to one particular aspect of geochemistry.

(bold font added by me)

An interesting overview of abiotic oil, including arguments for and against it, can be found here: http://www.petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The VERY SLOW accumulation of trapped plant material over MILLIONS of years... sequestered the carbon that we are now burning through in a few hundred years, yes. Point to you.

Wanna guess what percentage of the Alaskan forest biomass will get locked away, vs just continuing in the dance of the carbon cycle?

Nope I dont do guessing games and any statement as to what percentage isn't sequestered is just a guessing game won't know until it has happened and by then I will be fish bait so I really don't care .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Nope I dont do guessing games and any statement as to what percentage isn't sequestered is just a guessing game won't know until it has happened and by then I will be fish bait so I really don't care .

well, considering your point hangs on just how much carbon is actually going to be sequestered by these forests, and that it is measurable (and has probably been measured to some extent)... ok, I guess.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I was always wondering where CH4 and other hydrocarbons in comets and asteroids are coming from. CH4 is found on Mars in suggesting that it must be replenished all the time. CH4 one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen, which is at room temperature colourless, odorless and in its gaseous state has a lifespan of about 8.4 years in Earths atmosphere (CO2 > 100 years!).

Methane can form in natural processes like Methanogenesis, which is the last process in decomposition of biomass where microbes (Methanogens), produce methane as a result microbial metabolism (Thauer 1998). Methanogenesis happens all the time in our as well as other animals’ digestive tracks, especially ruminants where methanogens, digest the cellulose into usable material. Without these microorganisms, animals such as cows would not be able to consume grass. An average cow emits around 250 liters CH4 every day.

Some humans produce gas which contains about 10% methane, but don’t let us go there (Miller, et al. 1982). Plants also emit CH4 but it is not clear if the methane is produced by the plant itself or mere the result of extracting the gas bound in the ground and transporting it up to the leafs where it gets released (Kepler F; et al. 2006)

Methanogens occur also in anoxic environments, underground, causal to the degradation of organic matter. Landfill, sediment at the bottom of lakes or oceans or residual organic matter formed into sedimentary rocks are also forms of natural CH4 production.

Another natural process to form CH4 is known as Serpentinization a non-biological process where water, carbon dioxide, and the mineral olivine, a solid solution between forsterite and fayalite (Fe,Mg)2SiO4. The reaction producing methane from olivine can be written as: Forsterite + Fayalite + Water + Carbonic acid → Serpentine + Magnetite + Methane , or:

18 Mg2SiO4 + 6 Fe2SiO4 + 26 H2O + CO2 → 12 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 4 Fe3O4 + CH4

The significance of the CH4 finds in Mars atmosphere was that besides Methane released from Mars permafrost soils only the above processes are known to be a possible source of the gas in Mars’ atmosphere.

Oze & Sharma (2005) worked from the assumption that Serpentinization based on Mars olivine are the main source of the methane, but the source of the gas could also be biological processes. This was exiting news because methane has a very short lifespan. Detectable quantities need to be replenished all the time.

And then I want to point to James G. Speight (2006), The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum, Fourth Edition, Chemical Industries 114 (4, ilustraded ed.), CRC Press, p. 50, ISBN 9780849390678,



(bold font added by me)

An interesting overview of abiotic oil plus arguments for and against it can be found here: Petroleum - Formation - Abiotic Oil Formation

Interesting that from the 16th century until recently this was suppressed. Thank you for this tidbit .

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Interesting that from the 16th century until recently this was suppressed. Thank you for this tidbit .

There are many compounds of organic hydrocarbons on comets. Remember ESA's Rosetta and the little Philae who was landing on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? Well, Philae detected 16 organic compounds comprising numerous carbon and nitrogen-rich compounds, including four compounds – methyl isocyanate, acetone, propionaldehyde and acetamide etc. Those compounds are abiotic.