US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

YES! progress my way would be all the cruisers to have the competence and patience to sail engine-free. Forgetting the environmental implications, this would be a huge benefit for so many other reasons.

Sorry but not giving up my diesel engine . Do you sail completely engineless?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

My questions was not really aimed at you...
I understand the absorption wavelengths CO2 and water, do you?? Attached is the comparison.
Attachment 253673
As for the CO2 band being saturated. Have a look at the measured emission from the earth. The notch at 600 is the CO2 absorption band. Water is strong greenhouse gas and unfortunately as CO2 warms the atmosphere, it can hold more water which increases the temperature further... This is an example of a positive feedback.
Attachment 253674
Does that look saturated?? Not even close. Likewise your comment about the "minor amount" from mankind. Most people would not dismiss a near doubling of the key greenhouse gas as a minor amount.

The key to all life on the planet.
Do you need a better easier to read graphic?
I shall provide .

[jackdale]

For the "saturation" discussion.

https://youtu.be/TVBDMeuHq_U

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry didn't understand what specificly you were refer8ng to .



By stable I should have said a consistent rising slope then the big drop in the middle that is not explained but removes the prior rise then it continues on the same slope , looks like a copy of the lower set.

Ok so you may already know this but for those who don’t a control chart is used to monitor a process. Doesn’t matter how simple or complex the process.
A control chart is used to show if a process in acting within expected bounds or if the process is varying or heading out of bounds. Eg the process is broken.
They are used to determine if the process needs correction.
They are typically used in manufacturing but also to examine any data sets.

Does that help?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The key to all life on the planet.
Do you need a better easier to read graphic?
I shall provide .

Do you think that water vapor is uniformly distributed through the atmosphere? It is not. As you get higher in the atmosphere, it is too cold for water vapor to exist, but CO2 is still there which absorbs heat radiated from below. As for saturation, as energy is absorbed by molecules, it doesn't disappear. It is re-radiated in all directions. Some downward which causes surface heating, but also upwards which other layers of the atmosphere will absorb and re-radiate. It is this pinball like effect that occurs which is not shown on your graphic. It never gets saturated, it gets absorbed higher and higher in the atmosphere. Here is a picture of the measured vs simulated emission from the surface at the top of the atmosphere. They are intentionally offset so you can compare. Notice the chunk taken out by CO2, it is not saturated. This is from late 60s, so no new science here. It was also for the military to perfect heat seeking missiles... not grant seeking climate scientists.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Do you think that water vapor is uniformly distributed through the atmosphere? It is not. As you get higher in the atmosphere, it is too cold for water vapor to exist, but CO2 is still there which absorbs heat radiated from below.

My standard link for those who do not understand that CO2 is a driver and H2O is an amplifier.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Do you think that water vapor is uniformly distributed through the atmosphere? It is not. As you get higher in the atmosphere, it is too cold for water vapor to exist, but CO2 is still there which absorbs heat radiated from below. As for saturation, as energy is absorbed by molecules, it doesn't disappear. It is re-radiated in all directions. Some downward which causes surface heating, but also upwards which other layers of the atmosphere will absorb and re-radiate. It is this pinball like effect that occurs which is not shown on your graphic. It never gets saturated, it gets absorbed higher and higher in the atmosphere. Here is a picture of the measured vs simulated emission from the surface at the top of the atmosphere. They are intentionally offset so you can compare. Notice the chunk taken out by CO2, it is not saturated. This is from late 60s, so no new science here. It was also for the military to perfect heat seeking missiles... not grant seeking climate scientists.

Ever seen noctolucent clouds?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My standard link for those who do not understand that CO2 is a driver and H2O is an amplifier.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

Co2 is a trace but necessary for life gas.

[captmikem]

We have been constantly told for as long as we can remember that Antarctica is shrinking because man's carbon dioxide emissions are overheating our planet. While fearmongering has made its way around the world countless times, the truth is still pulling on its boots.
So what is the truth? It's quite straightforward: Antarctic sea ice has been growing.

According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, the continent's annual maximum sea ice has grown for three straight years. The annual mean is increasing and the annual minimum has also expanded for three consecutive years. The long-term trend lines for the annual maximum and mean, starting in 1979, are noticeably moving upward while the trend line for the annual minimum is ascending as well, though much more modestly.
Doesn't fit the doomsday narrative, does it?

Please don't think this is an isolated and therefore meaningless example. There are many other facts that show global warming fears are overblown.

- There's been no change in sea surface temperatures along Australia's Great Barrier Reef in 150 years.

- That sea levels near British Columbia were almost 300 feet higher 14,500 years ago than they are today and were about 30 feet higher 1,800 years ago.

- Environmental Protection Agency and National Hurricane Center data "show hurricanes have neither become more numerous nor more powerful during the past half-century of modest warming."

Until recently, at least, climate scientists long warned against using individual weather events to ponder the existence or otherwise of global warming... But it happens all the time now that climate advocates have found it to be an effective tool. In 2019, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that three-fourths of those polled said their views about climate change had been shaped by extreme weather events.

Leah Sprain, in the book Ethics and Practice in Science Communication, says the broad claim that climate change 'may result in future extreme weather,' creates a tension: 'For some communicators, the ultimate goal - mobilizing political action - warrants rhetorical use of extreme weather events.' But that makes scientists nervous, Sprain writes, because 'misrepresenting science will undermine the credibility of arguments for climate change.'

Which is exactly what happened with the World Weather Attribution group, Mass wrote on his blog: 'Many of the climate attribution studies are resulting in headlines that are deceptive and result in people coming to incorrect conclusions about the relative roles of global warming and natural variability in current extreme weather

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My standard link for those who do not understand that CO2 is a driver and H2O is an amplifier.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

Here's mine-

The Impact of CO₂, H₂O and Other “Greenhouse Gasesâ€� on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures :: Science Publishing Group

The current IPC predictions to C02 doubling run from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C. My reference states its more like 0.5 deg K, and that there is no thermal run-away tipping point to be afraid of.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Support life or support humans?

Support plants - and therefore all animals that rely on them for sustenance.

[Ryban]

The same people who complain about climate change fear mongering are generally the same ones that fear monger over how carbon fees and green energy will somehow destroy the economy and their way of life.

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Here's mine-

The Impact of CO₂, H₂O and Other “Greenhouse Gasesâ€� on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures :: Science Publishing Group

The current IPC predictions to C02 doubling run from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C. My reference states its more like 0.5 deg K, and that there is no thermal run-away tipping point to be afraid of.

That's a pretty obscure journal, the paper is very recent, and has only 1 citation.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry but not giving up my diesel engine . Do you sail completely engineless?

I thought it was clear by now I am and always have been engine-free, never used one and although sailing to 30 countries never once considered it anything but an advantage. The only frustration with engines is other people using them.

If you won't remove it (to your own advantage) at least run your engine on canola oil. it's only $9 a gallon, and the exhaust is half as harmful to breath which is good for everyone around, especially you. at 20 gal/year it won't cost you much.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ever seen noctolucent clouds?

What's your point?


Climate change is making noctilucent clouds more visible

Noctilucent, or night-shining, clouds [NLC] are the highest clouds in Earth’s atmosphere. They form in the middle atmosphere, or mesosphere, roughly 80 kilometers (50 miles) above Earth’s surface. The clouds form when water vapor freezes, around specks of dust. As water vapor freezes around specks of dust, at low mesospheric temperatures, newly formed ice crystals are illuminated from the low-angled sun, during dusk and dawn.

Increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere, due to human activities, is making these shimmering high-altitude clouds more visible, a new study [1] finds. The results suggest these strange, but increasingly common, clouds, seen only on summer nights, are an indicator of human-caused climate change, according to the study’s authors.

The study’s results [1] suggest methane emissions have increased water vapor concentrations, in the mesosphere, by about 40 percent, since the late 1800s, which has more than doubled the amount of ice that forms in the mesosphere. They conclude human activities are the main reason why noctilucent clouds are significantly more visible now, than they were 150 years ago.

More about ➥ https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate...s-more-visible

And ➥ https://weather.com/science/environm...s-more-visible

Or ➥ https://news.agu.org/press-release/c...-more-visible/


[1] “On the Anthropogenic Impact on Long-Term Evolution of Noctilucent Clouds” ~ by Franz-Josef Lübken, Uwe Berger, & Gerd Baumgarten
“... Since the beginning of industrialization,the chance to observe a bright NLC has increased from just one per several centuries(!) to a few per year. We conclude that NLC are indeed an indicator for climate change...”
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018GL077719