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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

So both nothern and southern ice is in a growing trend, and has been for 3-5 years. This is counter to the AGW models which show continuing ice loss. How does that happen....

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

As the ice grows Albedo increases and less sunlight reaches the earth. No one is talking about sailing the northwest passage now.

Really?

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1800943

Northwest Passage yacht race promises high adventure (and high costs) - North - CBC News

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Nasa is now saying that the sun might have just a bit more to do with climate change then first though. We will know more in a few years when a few more solar probes are launched. Exciting times.

Really? - show me

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

No question that the earth is warmer now then in the last 400 years. But it is not as warm as ~2000 years ago. Yes Co2 concentration has increased by 0.01% in the last 150 years. Some of that increase is due to deforestation and corresponding loss of carbon sinks.

CO2 has increased 40% and using carbon isotopes that increase can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ahh....but as we have seen in the recent Scandal

Sceptics for sale - will fake peer-review as a bonus

"Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret. Happer is due to appear this afternoon as a star witness in Senate hearings called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money being paid to a climate-sceptic think tank."

Read the emails, uneditted and in context here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ors-Trust.html

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The world's population is accelerating out of control;

Next thing you know we'll probably hear the left saying ISIS is "green" by trying to help out with that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The world's population is accelerating out of control;

Nope.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.

Yes of course. 1.1% of 7.5 billion is less than 2.2% of 3 billion. Not.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 has increased 40% and using carbon isotopes that increase can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

LOL, It looks bigger when you say it that way. Actually it's mans contribution to co2 that rose 40%. But that's still just 5% of total co2 concentration today, up from about 3.5% 60 years ago.. Co2 rose from 0.031% of total atmospheric gases in 1950 to 0.0398% this year. A rise of 0.0088% over ~60 years.

But 40% rise sells more paper.

For the population thingy. in 1950 we had ~2.5 billion folks on the planet. Today it's 7.2 billion or a 288% increase (see I can use big numbers too). We have a infestation here. Too many people, breathing out co2.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

It's a good thing that US law makers are trying so hard to get to the truth.

Senate Science Committee hearing challenges "dogma"� of climate science | Ars Technica

Didn't bother to go any further than the sub head. That told me all I needed to know about how objective the article would be:

"Usual suspects accept Sen. Cruz’s invitation to declare the science unsettled."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

LOL, It looks bigger when you say it that way. Actually it's mans contribution to co2 that rose 40%. But that's still just 5% of total co2 concentration today, up from about 3.5% 60 years ago.. Co2 rose from 0.031% of total atmospheric gases in 1950 to 0.0398% this year. A rise of 0.0088% over ~60 years.

But 40% rise sells more paper.

For the population thingy. in 1950 we had ~2.5 billion folks on the planet. Today it's 7.2 billion or a 288% increase (see I can use big numbers too). We have a infestation here. Too many people, breathing out co2.

I would suggest your are trying to minimize a serious threat to human survival.

Human expiration has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels.

I recommend reading It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell to get a handle in carbon isotope analysis.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Didn't bother to go any further than the sub head. That told me all I needed to know about how objective the article would be:

"Usual suspects accept Sen. Cruz’s invitation to declare the science unsettled."

One of the suspects is a skeptic for hire

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1983041

Another was a high school dropout.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

LOL, It looks bigger when you say it that way. Actually it's mans contribution to co2 that rose 40%. But that's still just 5% of total co2 concentration today, up from about 3.5% 60 years ago.. Co2 rose from 0.031% of total atmospheric gases in 1950 to 0.0398% this year. A rise of 0.0088% over ~60 years.

0.0398% / 0.031% = 1.28... an increase of 28% of the TOTAL CO2 concentration, in just 60 years.

This page zooms in a bit, and their graph shows a fairly steady slope, so if we look from 1965 (320ppm) to 2005 (380 ppm), you get an increase of 380/320 = 1.1875 ... an increase of ~ 19% in 40 years

Since we all know AGW is a crock we won't do anything credible to seriously reduce CO2 output, but if some miracle we hold the slope of this line constant... by 2055 we'll have at least .0398% * 1.1875 = 0.0473% CO2. A CO2 concentration that's over 50% higher than 1950, in a period of less than 100 years.

Mmmmm. Toasty.

[CaptChris376]

I am astounded that there is any question that human activities are having a dramatic affect on our planet. You can't burn millions of years of stored carbon, cut down millions of trees and not expect big changes. Did no one notice the historic drought on the west coast of the US that has nearly doubled the price of some foods here?? Or the historic cyclone seasons recently in the Pacific including the strongest cyclone ever recorded to make landfall in Central America. The very significant El Nino that is occurring right now. The rise in ocean acidity. You can debate how much effect we are having or how soon potentially catastrophic changes(some would argue many already) will occur but there is no doubt that we are having an intense effect on our atmosphere, the associated weather patterns and our oceans. Only a fool would think otherwise.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Remove 100% of the CO2 the USA releases annually and what happens...ha ha nothing, that's what....time to find a new scam....game over.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Remove 100% of the CO2 the USA releases annually and what happens...ha ha nothing, that's what....time to find a new scam....game over.

Global warming requires global cooperation. Just like the Clean Air Acts and the Montreal Protocol.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global warming requires global cooperation. Just like the Clean Air Acts and the Montreal Protocol.

Ha ha...let me know how that global corporation dream works out for ya....

Let me translate TAXES....bingo....follow the money.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Human expiration has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels.

Hold that thought.

Human expiration accounts for ~5 percent of the total human co2 emissions. Figure roughly 1 pound of co2 per person per day. Could be as high as 0.9kg per day, but I'll take the conservative estimate.

It's not much per breath, but add 7200 breaths per day x 7 billion happy people x 365 days and you get 1.27 billion tons (short tons) of co2 per year just from human breath. That leaves me breathless.

Back in 1950 when there were only 2.5 billion folks, it was only 456 million tons per year. That's a 548% increase just since 1950.

Put another way 7 billion people emit as much co2 as 500 million cars. Maybe we need a catalytic converter for people... Or train everyone to breath only half as much.

On the plus side, plankton and well all our veggy friends, those of the plant persuasion, love the higher co2 concentrations. Plants grow a tad faster with the higher co2 levels.

So getting the world population down to 1980 levels would do lots to reduce co2 emissions.