What Do We Think About Climate Change

Are you aware that NASA/NOAA removed pages from their websites that detailed recent works from NASA scientists on volcanism, works that show that our estimates of pollutant emissions from volcanism need to be revised upward by a factor of at least 4 but more than likely a factor 10 or more? Why do you think they removed these pages?

Isn't it amazing that people so mistrusting of the CIA, DEA, FDA, DOD, NSA and a host of others put complete blind trust in other arms of the same deceitful government:?:

I guess it's the white coats

Jimbo

 

Is the extra CO2 from natural sources? Let’s look at the numbers.

Current worldwide oil consumption 84mbd (million barrels per day). Number of days in 50 years 365 x 50 = 18250 days. Amount of oil burnt in that period, assuming an average level of 60% of current rates over that time = 0.6 x 84 x 18250 = 919,800 million barrels, at 317 kg of CO2 per barrel that’s 317 x 919,800 / 1000 = 291 billion tonnes of CO2.

OK, now for the atmosphere. Area of the earth 510 million sq km or 510 million million sq m. Air pressure = weight of air over 1 sq m = 101 kN = 101 * 0.112 = 11.3 tonnes per sq m. Weight of entire atmosphere = 11.3 x 510 = 5,763 million million tonnes.

Human sources of CO2 released into the atmosphere over last 50 years = 291 billion / 5,763 million million = 50 ppm.

Increase of atmospheric CO2 over 50 years 70 ppm.

Do I have anyone’s attention yet? There’s some missing but note that I haven’t taken into account the use of coal, natural gas and the burning of the tropical forests to clear space for farming. My heating bills for natural gas exceed my gasoline costs over the course of a year. Now, I personally drive less than some but this suggests that natural gas is also a player, although perhaps not comparable with oil.

Human CO2 sources are such a good match for the overall atmospheric increase that I really wonder why people bother to try to explain it away as due to natural sources or claim it will all be absorbed by the oceans. It’s much more likely that those factors are simply offsetting each other, just as they have done for a couple of billion years.

 

Ancient Kayaker

Well my friend Terry, if you knew you are being misled, I am sure you wouldn't be.... right?

I am not going to get into a pseudo science match with anyone, since such is done to death. There is a much more interesting debate to be had.

Suppose, just suppose I say there is no God.
In other times I would probably be killed an hung up to dry after being skinned.
Today if I said this in the middle east I would still be killed, in the western world...well, not killed but may be frown upon a bit I suppose.

Why?

Belief.
That is the key word. Neither you nor me have the means or the ability to find out by ourselves from scratch. We must buy premixed from the supermarket.
So it boils down to which brand you buy and which one do I buy. You chose to believe the guys who say the sky is falling unless we all go and live in a cave warmed up by mirrors and turn vegetarian.
I chose to believe the opposite view.
However as opposed to most who buy into the debate borrowing concept that they only half understand based on the number of letters displayed in front of the persons name doing the proclamations, I use a different method.
I look at who PAYS the person to say what he is saying.

Invariably it turns out that the "scientist" who proclaim we must go back to the stone age or else, would loose their grants INSTANTLY if they show a whiff of an incline to have a peep at any alternative possibility, something that is as opposed to the scientific method as a "bistecca alla Fiorentina" is from a Buddhist monk.

Who are the rest? Self proclaimed "experts" who are in bed with the government of the day or are the government themselves or have large interest in the so called "carbon" trade and set to make billions.

The one who oppose such nonsensical hysteria, do so at their own peril, are ostracised by their peers for doing so and many have lost their jobs and grants. They get little exposure from the media who is the tool that feeds this tripe to the masses who absorb it as gospel, plus are accused to be paid by the oil companies like I am being paid to post this. (Good money, if you want in it, give me a call.)

There is a God.

Such affirmation would fail every single scientific test. The existence of God can not be proven, yet that does not stop millions from believing God really exists.
There is another dimension in this debate and that is belief. Only Faith can make God real, just like believing there is a CO2 induced Global Warming after 11 years of cooling and substantial CO2 increases needs a strong faith since the lack of unbiased scientific proof is staggering. (key word is unbiased, not paid for)

Uhuu that was fun Mr Kayaker, I think I'll go to the kithchen to prepare some dinner. I made up a recipy for chicken I baptised "Liverpool chicken", I wish you could try it. I'll have to "emit" a bit of CO2 though, sorry about that. I'll hold my breath a while to compensate.

Kind Regards
Marc
PS
For the record my favourite boat is a Grand Banks 70' with twin 12V71 Detroit Diesel...Aaaah pure music !!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbgQz0ahYdA&feature=related

 

Belief, true... None of us ine here KNOWS enough, but I believe that some of these "alarmists" in the process leading to some of the minor parts in the IPCC's reports (and other reports) that one person can be responsible for, have had the thought;

"ooops somebody in the system above me will not like this..." (Regardless of where the paycheck comes from...).
"gotta double check",
"second opinion",
"third opinion...".
"Ok, we gotta let this information go to similar colleaques....".

And, also this thought;

"If we drop this one, and we've screwed, I'll be responsible for filing reports and refilling the Xerox machine the next 5 years..."

And still the scenarios pointed out by some of these scientists can be pretty grim.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

As to who pays... : Thank God; Oil companies, Gas companies, Coal companies are always 100% objective, and they'll never, ever fall for the temptation to lobby for their cause using false/ misleading information...

 

No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm


Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 November 2007, 10:12 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance
John Christy

VIEWPOINT
By John Christy
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.

Al Gore at the Reichstag. Image: AFP/Getty
Politicians wave goodbye to the IPCC's objectivity, argues Dr Christy
The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.

While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

* this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
* scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead

The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.

Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.

But, it may go further.

Unsound bites

At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.


Martin Parry
Read a different view on the IPCC from another of its leading scientists, Prof Martin Parry

IPCC: As good as it gets
After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.

Follow the herd

As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals.

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).

A scientist launches a weather balloon (copyright John Turner)
The Alabama team produces data on atmospheric temperatures collected by weather balloons
You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."

Slim models

To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

Here is how this can work.

Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.


Supercomputer. Image: AP

Models 'key' to climate future
The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.

Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.

You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).

In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.

The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.

Complex world

Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this.

Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations.

Chart of IPCC projections
This year's IPCC report projects major climatic changes ahead
In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.

Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).

Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

Explosive view

How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.

Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.

I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.


John Christy
We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know...'
These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.

At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear.

I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.

I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway.

Wise teachings

Don't misunderstand me.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.

However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.

John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007

 

Your assumptions about the rate are way off. More than HALF of the total CO2 released by human industry has been released since 1978. This is because industrial CO2 emissions have risen logarithmically. The trouble is, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen monotonically. When our emissions were only 1/10 of present, atmospheric CO2 was rising at about the same rate as today. Furthermore, the rate of CO2 rise has been leveling off recently, not accelerating as one would expect if the rise were due to the logarithmically rising human emissions.

Don't forget that the carbon cycle fluxed somewhere between 6750 and 7500 billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere over that same period. In a related matter, you forgot to divide the influx by a factor for Henry's Law. The factor should be somewhere between 25 and 50 to account for the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere. Remember the iceberg analogy?

You don't even really understand what's 'missing'. Your 'calculations' above seem to assume that all the CO2 humans ever put into the atmosphere is still there. That's an assumption that the AGW alarmists all make, and attempt to bolster with their claim of a long residence time for CO2 by computer modeling. If you do the math, and take into consideration ALL CO2 sources, natural and anthropogenic, and apply your 'math' (the system treats all CO2 the same regardless of origin), the we are missing half of the CO2 in the atmosphere! We should be at 800ppm! The AGW alarmists are, as usual, undaunted by this huge discrepancy, and instead of admitting that CO2 has a short atmospheric residence time, they are off on a Quixotic quest for the 'mystery sink' that has removed the ~410ppm they can't find.

Isn't it easier to just admit that the residence time is short, as the 35 studies on the subject already affirmed? Oh yeah, but that would mean industrial emissions don't matter. I almost forgot.

This is a problem. Just like with my iceberg analogy, you can't increase atmospheric CO2 by Xppm by adding Xppm to the atmosphere: you need to add 25-50Xppm, and THEN you might increase the concentration by Xppm. This is a product of the equilibrium concentration set by Henry's Law.

Is any of this sinking in?


Jimbo

 

-ditto



I created a simple chart with exponential growth approximating the levels of atmospheric CO2. I found a yearly rate increase of 2.2% matches the assumptions in my post #3542. It predicts 49.3% of the total was released over the 31 years since 1978. Jimbo: compare that with your figure of “over 50%” ... not a bad guess. In post 3548 I reported that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has doubled in the last 50 years; my chart shows 49%, again very close. The model matches data for both atmospheric CO2 growth and CO2 release by human activities, data provided by an unimpeachable scientific source (the Mauna Loa observatory) and yourselves.

The model establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the increase of the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased exponentially for several hundred years andere is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to do so.

While it’s perfectly OK to disagree with the significance of these numbers, you should do so properly. Show the numbers, reveal the sources, opinions don’t count! If you can prove my math in error or does not match the recorded facts, do so. However, it is unacceptable to introduce religion, anecdotes, politics and other irrelevancies into this discussion.

A scientifically-based mathematical model is no use if it cannot predict the results of an experiment. The experiment I refer to involves the entire globe, and it will either peter out for reasons not apparent, or it will result in disaster for at least a large proportion of the human race. Once a significant proportion of humanity is destroyed, it is likely that the phenomenom will abate.

CO2 will not flatten off; as 2nd and 3rd World countries continue to industrialize it will keep going up. I see no reason to suppose natural CO2 sources are causing the increase or natural sinks will absorb it. This has little to do with the "carbon cycle" - the natural sources and sinks seem to be balancing each other and are not required to make the model work. It would be nice to think we will run out of fossil fuel, but we have only started to tap the readily available, easily exploited resources.

Human health is adversely effected by short term exposure to CO2 levels of around 5,000 ppm, nobody has done any work on the levels applicable to long-term exposure but if we follow normal public health practice and set a limit on CO2 of, say 1/10 of that figure, atmospheric levels are already above 70% and rising. Since CO2, unlike lead or mercury, is a naturally occuring substance that we have evolved to tolerate, perhaps 1/10 of the level that induces danger signs is to little. Maybe 1/3 would be better. Whatever, we will reach those levels in a few hundred years at best.

Please note, I want to keep it simple, Occams razor and all that stuff. I am not addressing global warming as either cause or effect, the effect of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases, rising sea levels etc. just CO2 levels. Don’t complicate a simple issue.

 

Even a 50 ppm increase in CO2 is a negligible amount, overall and is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and that is assuming the data is accurate, and who says NOAA is always right?

 

It's not the second half of the model that's hard to get right; it's the first. If over half of all Anthropogenic CO2 was emitted after 1978, why was atmospheric CO2 rising in 1930? How about 1900? How about 1850? Yes atmospheric CO2 was rising then. You can go to the CDIAC site and look at the tabulated anthropogenic CO2 emissions yourself and see how puny our emissions were 100 years ago. Yet atmospheric CO2 levels were still rising.

I put the question to you that I put to Boston and bntii(Thomas):

What is the 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

When you come up with a number, go back to the CDIAC site and see where it is on the chart. Then go look at a historical CO2 chart (the Ernst-Beck chart is especially telling) and see what was happening with CO2 concentrations at the time your selected threshold was just crossed.

I promise you, the numbers will not add up!

If the earliest part of the CO2 rise was due to natural sources, why do you believe it is different now? Since the isotopic signature of 'fossil' carbon is not found at anywhere near the 'expected' levels, is that not proof enough for you that fossil fuels are not the source?

What would it take to shake your faith?

So far, we have:

• Henry's law says we'd have to add a truly stupendous amount of CO2 to the atmosphere to have caused the observed rise, 25-50X all cumulative emissions so far, and more than all the fossil reserves known (clearly impossible)
  
  
• When we tabulate cumulative emissions and natural sources and try to forensically reconstruct the atmosphere using your assumed long residence time, the atmosphere is missing half it's CO2. (Substituting the provable short residence time yields a result in harmony with reality, corroborating the short residence time with all that implies.)
  
  
• The isotopic signature of fossil carbon is largely missing; it's not nearly what we should see if the rise we're due to fossil fuel burning.

In the end you'll believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't come back and claim your belief is based on the simple physics of the matter.

Jimbo

 

You make the assumption that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average temperature. Yet, during the last two ice ages atmospheric CO2 was 17 times higher (that is 1700 percent!) than it is today, and the earth had severe global cooling. the scientists that study the LONG TERM global temperature trends have not found any correlation to CO2 and average global temps.

look it up for yourselves at this site that just has graphs of temps and CO2:

www.goblalwarminggart.com

 

Thank you! Some hard data I can use. I haven’t found usable data for atmospheric data other than that from the Muana Loa observatory which only go back 50 years. Dealing only with the change above the historical baseline about 200 years ago, which appears to be about 260 ppm, the atmospheric CO2 levels attributable to anthropomorphic origins have been rising at about 1.2 to 1.6% pa; the higher values are for more recent periods. From the CDIAC data the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere has been rising over the same period by 3.1%. The earlier analysis was based on data that does not agree with the CDIAC figures.

I am not sure I understand you, but I’ll try to respond. CO2 levels around 5,000 ppm cause breathing and other health problems. I will adopt typical practice for setting legally acceptable limits for poisons in general by taking 1/10 of that as the threshold of significance, i.e., 500 ppm. Based on the above revised analysis we should reach it, if current trends continue, around 2025; of course that’s a pseudo-legal level I have arbitrarily set. You might prefer to set it at 1/3 the problem level, say 1660, that will put off the onset of lawsuits until about 2075. Looking forward to when people will have actual difficulty, an average person will have problems around 3075 although sensitive individuals, the elderly, and persons with impaired cardiovascular systems would be troubled years earlier and would be dying by that time. That’s assuming we haven’t evolved by then, of course

I have found several data sets for atmospheric CO2 levels for periods of millions and billions of years but nothing with enough resolution over the same period as the CDIA data. Certainly CO2 levels varied long before the advent of humans, let alone the onset of civilization and the sharply upward trends of the lst few decades. I have assumed the upward trend over the last few hundred years is primarily due to human emmissions, which seems reasonable given that the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels and human emissions seem to correspond rather well if we calculate the total quantities. It seems an astonishing coincidence that the human emissions have just vanished and been replaced by natural sources of similar amounts.

Regarding your refernce to Henry’s law, we have indeed added stupendous amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. Please review my analysis of post #3550.

The factor of 2 difference between the rates of increase of atmospheric CO2 vs the rates of emission from human sources certainly suggests that there are other factors involved than the simple accumulation I used for my illustration, and it is now clear that there is a significant CO2 sink effect involved. Nonetheless, the CO2 we are releasing is going somewhere, and a good deal of it is remaining in the atmosphere. If the residence time is short enough then there is some hope that we can rectify our dangerous behavior. Henry's law shows gas solubility in water increases with temperature. Given the rise in global temperatures over recent decades, it may be fortuitous, resulting in more CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. Hopefully global warming IS caused by adding CO2, if not, a reversal of temperature trend may result in all that CO2 being returned to the atmosphere.

Jimbo: I have to say I don't understand your continued obsession with religion. I take data, I analyse to the best of my ability, and I present it for review and comment. They are called conclusions, not beliefs. I have read your posts, checked out links to data, and adjusted my thinking. I haven't changed my conclusions enough to agree with you, not yet at least, although I have changed them in degree. We are performing an experiment, but it is not a scientific one, mostly we are just hoping it will all turn out well even though none of us understands what is going on sufficiently to make reliable predictions. I hope I am wrong in mine. I hope we can continue to have an exchange of views and information based on mutual respect even if we disagree.

Petros: I can't find that data: please post the link to your source. using the data I found we would have to go back to the paleozoic to get those kinds of levels; to merely get to the levels of just 100 years ago we have to go back 150,000 years.

 

During the two last ice ages CO2 was 17 times higher...1700% higher.
Were there humans during the last two ice ages?
Only asking, my knowledge of the ice age is circumscribed to the movie Ice age 1 and Ice age 2. That's it.

If yes, did they all die from CO2 poisoning?
If no, where there mammals comparable to us at the time?
If so did they all die from CO2 'exposure'?

I know that we need CO2 in order to breath during the night as a trigger to automated breathing, so plese do not go "reducing" CO2. Think of all those millions with sleeping apnea you will kill them outright!

Which brings me to my replay to my friend the old kayaker Terry.
When I appreciate you want to keep this simple, the problem is that it is not simple at all.
I am told that (yet I am not friends with Mrs Tatcher so don't really have first knowledge of this).... this all started with the coal mining strike. Mrs Tatcher needed to discredit coal in favour of nuclear energy and PAID a group of scientist to MAKE UP some problems with coal. They came up with this fairy tail CO2 will kill as all.
Unemployed Al Gore saw the opportunity to create a religion who people pay tribute to and supported by his corniness run with it.
The extremist saw the opportunity and followed and the rest is history.

It is all a big hoax, a phenomenal and extremely lucrative hoax that has already made many millionaires and supported thousands of lying and cheating pseudo scientist who do not deserve to have that title in the first place.

This bold faced lie does not deserve an ounce of what I perceive to be a sincere effort from your side.
Or like Kart Graus use to say, your efforts deserve a better cause...or words to that effect.

Take it easy...if you want a good recipie for Chicken, pasta, or may be Malasian Laksa soup, or some nice dessert, just ask.

Kind Regards
Marc

Don't you love Detroit Diesel? RRRRoooooammmmmmmm. Love it just as I did when I was 15

 

17 times higher? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Well those core samples have been scrutinized very thoroughly both here and by real scientists.... not 17 times... not near it...

Yes, no problem with that.... Norway is crowded by descendants of the tribe's lunies that followed the ice toward the north....

 

Aah goold old Wikipedia. A good religious book if you have faith in it.

Considering you can not find almost anything at all that supports an alterntive view to so called "Global Warming", I think I reserve Wiki to look up old Detroit Diesel models to play with.

Now that I think of, I use to have a website pen pal who was a Scott but lived in Norway...huu what a character! last time we spoke he wanted instructions to build and to mount a wind mill on his roof. Supposedto be cold around there. You can buy old fishing boats with semi dieel engines thre....ooooh I wish I could sail one of those down under!

Chug Chug Chug. Plenty of CO2, but burns almost anything, including old frying oil. Now thre is a green thought for you!

 

Next time your'e in contact with that caracter, tell him not to fix the windmill on his roof, the humming will drive him mad(der).... Better on a freestanding pole/ rig away from the house... (or closer to the neighbour that he likes the least).

Older fishing boats often have deplacement hulls, hence the fuel consumption is normally not too high.. Also the CO2 outlet (even with a lousy energy output pr litre) . So; in my opinion; close to max time on the water for a reasonable cost/ environmental impact.

Fast, light boats are fun though....