US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

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.

This is a very narrow view that might apply to a few. Many boaters need professional help to change their oil, in case non OEM varieties invalidate their warranty. Not saying your take is a bad idea, just that if the population at large switched to vegetable oil the prices would escalate and producers would start to use vast swaths of agricultural land, or rain forests, for the cultivation of fuel oil rather than food. A larger and better contribution to conservation would be to not buy foods or fuel that is derived from the use palm oil. Read the food ingredients labels on the packets you have on your boat. Palm oil's prevalence in food stuffs is so big that I bet you have at least some examples on your own engine less boat.

Furthermore you cannot just put veg oil in your fuel tank, a process of adding alcohol and removing glycerine is necessary to ensure reliability and longevity, a process that is not very practical especially on a small boat and is laughable on a super yacht. Starting can also be an issue if not mixed with some mineral fuel.

Unfortunately, western values are based on image and having the biggest SUV or a huge multihull that can't sail for s**t is seen as a status symbol. IMO the best and fairest method of fuel use reduction would be rationing rather than taxation but this is an enigma for governments that rely heavily on fuel tax revenues and would disadvantage rich people who are largely unaffected by high fuel taxes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

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.

Oh forgot to say that most of that is in my furnace . it doesnt like biodiesel . ( dont know exactly why but wont run for diddly on the stuff. ) the Mitsubishi doesn't care . but both run off the same tank so long dead plants it is.

Not going to triple my fuel costs for a net nothing but more maintenance costs

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

This is a very narrow view that might apply to a few. Many boaters need professional help to change their oil, in case non OEM varieties invalidate their warranty. Not saying your take is a bad idea, just that if the population at large switched to vegetable oil the prices would escalate and producers would start to use vast swaths of agricultural land, or rain forests, for the cultivation of fuel oil rather than food. A larger and better contribution to conservation would be to not buy foods or fuel that is derived from the use palm oil. Read the food ingredients labels on the packets you have on your boat. Palm oil's prevalence in food stuffs is so big that I bet you have at least some examples on your own engine less boat.

.

Look at how much corn is grown now to be used to make ethanol. And not the drinking version .

[Baby tug]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

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.

How much oil was used to make your vegetable oil ,what surprises me the most how many people buy into this poppycock probably don’t even own a boat . I call them liars and hypocrites driving a SUV and live in a house made out of cedar and lecture everybody else

[AllenRbrts]

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.

Here is the danger of the internet. Three guys with no climate expertise (their field is actually industrial exhaust monitoring), write a scientific looking paper, pay to have it publish in a scientific sounding "journal" which is not actually a journal at all with no review of any kind and get people to fall for the incorrect results. Of course wattsupwiththat.com picks it up because it has a message they like and BS gets widely circulated.

I'm hardly a physicist, so I not a qualified peer reviewer to find all the mistakes in this bogus "paper". However reading it over, it seems to have to the same misconception that newhaul posted; that the atmosphere can not absorb any more longwave radiation. Like what newhaul referred to, the paper fails to take into account the absorption and re-radiation which occurs in all layers of the atmosphere. Here is a quote

" As can be seen, most of the radiation absorption occurs in the lower 5000m of the atmosphere. Beyond that point the radiation in the CO2 and H2O absorption bands has been absorbed and reduced to almost zero. Little further absorption can occur."

This is just wrong and probably one of the reasons they got the bogus answer at the end.

Here is a quote from a great paper which does a good job explaining the science.

"longwave radiation emitted from the surface is absorbed and reemitted by greenhouse gases and clouds throughout the earth's atmosphere. The transfer of longwave radiation depends on both the local temperature of the gaseous absorber and the efficiency of the gases to absorb radiation at a given wavelength. This absorption efficiency varies with wavelength. It is also important to note that different gases can absorb radiation at the same wavelengths; this is called the overlap effect."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...l?tab_body=pdf

This paper was published in 1997, it has been peer reviewed and has their calculations verified by measurements.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wrong three times. And thanks yourself for the childish (and wrong) ad hominem.

The irony in that statement is monumental. On two levels. Clearly, having an intelligent debate here on any science is like talking to a rock which I see no purpose in doing so I’ll stop.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Here is the danger of the internet. Three guys with no climate expertise (their field is actually industrial exhaust monitoring), write a scientific looking paper, pay to have it publish in a scientific sounding "journal" which is not actually a journal at all with no review of any kind and get people to fall for the incorrect results. Of course wattsupwiththat.com picks it up because it has a message they like and BS gets widely circulated.

I'm hardly a physicist, so I not a qualified peer reviewer to find all the mistakes in this bogus "paper". However reading it over, it seems to have to the same misconception that newhaul posted; that the atmosphere can not absorb any more longwave radiation. Like what newhaul referred to, the paper fails to take into account the absorption and re-radiation which occurs in all layers of the atmosphere. Here is a quote

" As can be seen, most of the radiation absorption occurs in the lower 5000m of the atmosphere. Beyond that point the radiation in the CO2 and H2O absorption bands has been absorbed and reduced to almost zero. Little further absorption can occur."

This is just wrong and probably one of the reasons they got the bogus answer at the end.

Here is a quote from a great paper which does a good job explaining the science.

"longwave radiation emitted from the surface is absorbed and reemitted by greenhouse gases and clouds throughout the earth's atmosphere. The transfer of longwave radiation depends on both the local temperature of the gaseous absorber and the efficiency of the gases to absorb radiation at a given wavelength. This absorption efficiency varies with wavelength. It is also important to note that different gases can absorb radiation at the same wavelengths; this is called the overlap effect."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...l?tab_body=pdf

This paper was published in 1997, it has been peer reviewed and has their calculations verified by measurements.

Sorry but I will have to go with dr Happer. As he is a physicist who specializes in spectroscopy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really? If I am not mistaken Biden was a elected on platform that included action on climate change

Meanwhile

No he was elected on a policy that was detrimental to both the climate , the American economy and destabilizing of the world's geopolitical.

Well he accomplished the first and second in his first few days in office.

The world is going to continue to use oil so would you rather light sweet crude or the heavy crude from opec.

From a place with comparatively strict environmental standards or one with none.?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Here is the danger of the internet. Three guys with no climate expertise (their field is actually industrial exhaust monitoring), write a scientific looking paper, pay to have it publish in a scientific sounding "journal" which is not actually a journal at all with no review of any kind and get people to fall for the incorrect results. Of course wattsupwiththat.com picks it up because it has a message they like and BS gets widely circulated.

I'm hardly a physicist, so I not a qualified peer reviewer to find all the mistakes in this bogus "paper". However reading it over, it seems to have to the same misconception that newhaul posted; that the atmosphere can not absorb any more longwave radiation. Like what newhaul referred to, the paper fails to take into account the absorption and re-radiation which occurs in all layers of the atmosphere...

IMHO, it would be better to stay in one's own lane of expertise than to parrot information that you really don't have much of a clue about.

The ranting, repeating, and virtual signaling by the same non-technical posters on this thread and others are poignant reminders of the New Guinea cargo cults.

"Isolated and pre-industrial island cultures that were lacking technology experienced soldiers and supplies arriving in large numbers, often by airdrop. The soldiers would trade with the islanders. After the war, the soldiers departed. Cargo cults arose, attempting to imitate the behaviors of the soldiers, thinking that this would cause the soldiers and their cargo to return.

Some cult behaviors involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by StuM

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

Assuming that the animals can survive where plants can

Ever have a planted aquarium? Overstock it with fish and the fish will quickly dies due to a lack of oxygen and increase of co2 but the plants live on

That’s just a simple example without going into great detail

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Clearly, having an intelligent debate here on any science is like talking to a rock which I see no purpose in doing so I’ll stop.

When your contribution to a scientific debate is unsupported nonsense and falsehoods, maybe you simply shouldn't have started.

There's an intelligent debate to be had, somewhere, but with posts like the linked one, it's not likely to be on CF.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Assuming that the animals can survive where plants can

Ever have a planted aquarium? Overstock it with fish and the fish will quickly dies due to a lack of oxygen and increase of co2 but the plants live on

That’s just a simple example without going into great detail

I know I shouldn't have to point this out but fish are not animals.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

IMHO, it would be better to stay in one's own lane of expertise than to parrot information that you really don't have much of a clue about.

And you're here because...?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ever seen noctolucent clouds?

FYI, sic: Noctilucent.

Yes, and also the moon and the stars.

Left pondering if that a rhetorical question? And if so, what the point of such is. Please advise.


Definition:

rhetorical question

NOUN
a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

FYI, sic: Noctilucent.

Yes, and also the moon and the stars.

Left pondering if that a rhetorical question? And if so, what the point of such is. Please advise.


Definition:

rhetorical question

NOUN
a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

Go back and actually read the exchange that birthed that and you may understand but if not then look up what they are and what causes them.