Now is the time to act, we can all do something good!

[clyde]

that means i`ll have to speed up!...clyde

 

[sunchaser]

Greetings, As I've mentioned before, GW is a bit of a red herring IMO that is currently in vogue much to the detriment of all the other ills of the planet (see above) that are MUCH more evident, destructive and obvious and need addressing NOW.

Follow the money and votes. The other ills you refer to are seldom on the front burner, even in countries where a crying need is ever so apparent.

A trip to West Africa or Guatemala and noting how the governments deal with health and welfare issues is a real eye opener. Or heck even Cuba and Venezuela. Point being, it is really hard to help those whose governments are unwilling to deal with the most obvious of health and nutrition issues.

 

[Avalon36]

Just the trawlers owners? That is a minuscule slice of the pie. That would be like scolding a young girl for crying during a flood.

You'd be better served looking at the cruise line industry or asking everyone to ride a bike once a week.

We will all be better served if we all do our part to reduce the emissions of Green House Gasses like CO2. Kicking the can down the road or over to some other industry is not a strategy for success. This is a global challenge, not just an industry or activity specific problem.

 

[Landshark]

Novel concept. So, please tell what will change and when it will happen if I cruise 0.5 knots slower? In the meantime all the flatulence from cattle, all the emissions from swamps and volcanos will go unchecked.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. 53. Nope. Not confused at all. If you can't see the interrelationship between the planet and life on same, it is pointless for me to even attempt to explain.


Mr. s. Re: Post #122. Follow the $$ indeed...

 

[Delfin]

Novel concept. So, please tell what will change and when it will happen if I cruise 0.5 knots slower? In the meantime all the flatulence from cattle, all the emissions from swamps and volcanos will go unchecked.

According to IPCC data on the impact of reductions in anthropogenic emissions of CO2 on temperature, if the Paris Accords were fully implemented (they won't be), we would see a reduction in average global temps by 1/5th to 1/20th of a degree by 2100 (Lomborg, et al). So, if trawler owners slowed down, it might have an impact about the same as a gnat refraining from fartimg would decrease the wind strength of a hurricane.

However, I shouldn't feel too bad about the situation. Since increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature by 250 years based on ice core data, the notion that atmospheric CO2 in the concentrations we are talking about can cause warming is scientifically a fairly dubious proposition, unless one thinks effects precede causes.

But people should do what makes them feel virtuous, by all means.

 

[Delfin]

You appear to be confused between detrimental to humans and detrimental to the planet, of the issues you cited only pollution is a long term threat to the planet the others are only detrimental to humans.

Just curious, but how is any set of conditions capable of being "detrimental" to the planet? In other words, absent humans, is Mercury at a disadvantage relative to Earth? Does it feel bad about itself, perhaps, since it is tidally locked and either wicked hot or wicked cold?

 

[78puget-trawler]

Doesn`t get any better, does it?
You posted earlier,another thread I think (can`t be bothered looking for it),that the posts of some others made you "want to puke". Please do, it might remove some of the bile that sullies your posting.

Hi Bruce, I just calls them like I sees them. You know what they say about opinions... being offended by miniscule things seems to be the new national pastime... But just to make everyone happy, I wont post on this thread again.

 

[Fish53]

Just curious, but how is any set of conditions capable of being "detrimental" to the planet? In other words, absent humans, is Mercury at a disadvantage relative to Earth? Does it feel bad about itself, perhaps, since it is tidally locked and either wicked hot or wicked cold?

I may be mistaken but I believe there are other forms of life on this planet, but hey who am I to tell you what to care about? Personally I've never subscribed to the notion that if humans don't need or use it then it has no value.

 

[Fish53]

Greetings,
Mr. 53. Nope. Not confused at all. If you can't see the interrelationship between the planet and life on same, it is pointless for me to even attempt to explain.


Mr. s. Re: Post #122. Follow the $$ indeed...

Thank you, I couldn't figure out what you already said any more would have been a waste of time.

 

[Fish53]

We will all be better served if we all do our part to reduce the emissions of Green House Gasses like CO2. Kicking the can down the road or over to some other industry is not a strategy for success. This is a global challenge, not just an industry or activity specific problem.

It's always someone else's problem or someone else's fault.

 

[deprice320]

Really???

 

[Sangraal]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Earth's problems (there's more than one) stem from an excessive human population. Trying to mitigate climate change is like taking Nyquil to cure the common cold. You're only treating symptoms, not curing the problem.

Ted

Now that’s something everyone should be able to agree upon.

 

[fsgjdsmith]

Green House gases and Co2 Emmissions

I read the other day that until Especially China, Russia, Japan and other Countries try to do ANYTHING about their emissions, no matter what the rest of the world does about their emissions, it will not have ANY effect on global warming what-so-every!!! Another article from NOAA said that our blue planet has cooled and heated and cooled and heated over billions of years and no matter what we humans do, it will never affect the cycle of the earth heating and cooling. So, i try to recycle most things, and conserve where I personally can. And enjoy life and what God has blessed me with!

 

[Fish53]

Well that's as good a reason as any to do nothing, sort like I posted on #131.

 

[Fish53]

Now that’s something everyone should be able to agree upon.

If that were true please explain epidemic, starvation, war and mass migration when there was less than two billion people? I would contend it's not the numbers of people but the kind of people that have even a slight amount of control over the others.

 

[Delfin]

I may be mistaken but I believe there are other forms of life on this planet, but hey who am I to tell you what to care about? Personally I've never subscribed to the notion that if humans don't need or use it then it has no value.

Got it. When you say "planet" you mean the current ecosystem, which is different than it was 10 million years ago, which was in turn very different from the ecosystem of 200 million years ago. You like it as is today, and anything different is a step backwards. Is that about right?

 

[Fish53]

Got it. When you say "planet" you mean the current ecosystem, which is different than it was 10 million years ago, which was in turn very different from the ecosystem of 200 million years ago. You like it as is today, and anything different is a step backwards. Is that about right?

Gee whiz, I reread my comments but I couldn't find where I said that, maybe you're confused. Is that about right?

 

[sunchaser]

Well, to shed a bit of information, the earth's temperature during the past few centuries is at a 250 million year low. Today we are around 10C. 65 million years ago we were around 25C. 250 million years ago we were at 10C. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

 

[Paul Swanson]

There is a persistent theme in this thread that says that everyone else is polluting more so why should I do anything to inconvenience myself. Apply the same argument to throwing your garbage into the water or out your car window. Do you do that? China is one of the world’s largest polluters, partly because it is one of the world’s largest countries. However, it is also the world’s leader in alternate energy development, so it realizes there is a problem and is addressing it.

Is there a problem? I am a scientist but not a climate expert, although I designed and built space instruments for the express purpose of measuring atmospheric phenomena. There are much more that “computer models” indicating climate change and global warming. There are very accurate measurements of all aspects of climatology. There are, amazingly, even accurate measurements of atmospheric C02 from thousands of years ago obtained from Greenland ice sore samples. Yes, the climate has always changed, but we are now seeing changes over a century that historically took many thousands of years. The theory and observations are in close agreement. CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to heat up at an unprecedented rate.

I am not apt to change the mind of any climate deniers but my experience is that when questioned the common denominator is generally ignorance and an unwillingness to put in the effort to learn the scientific facts. The latter requires a lot of work if you are going look at the original studies. Most people when they want to know something about a difficult field such as medicine, law or science simply ask a well-educated expert. In this case the deniers choose to ignore the experts or else seek out the 0.1% of “flat Earthers” to support their prejudices. I don’t know why. God help us.

 

[Lou_tribal]

...China is one of the world’s largest polluters, partly because it is one of the world’s largest countries...

And maybe also because they are manufacturing most of the junk we are consuming with an insatiable pleasure...

L

 

[Delfin]

Gee whiz, I reread my comments but I couldn't find where I said that, maybe you're confused. Is that about right?

Hmmm. Here you say that Firefly is confusing what is detrimental to the planet vs. what is detrimental to humans:

You appear to be confused between detrimental to humans and detrimental to the planet, of the issues you cited only pollution is a long term threat to the planet the others are only detrimental to humans.

You speak of a "threat to the planet", which I thought a bit odd, since outside of big meteors, comets or attacks by the Death Star planets are generally not considered to be threatenable. You then clarified that you didn't mean planet, as in planet, but planet as in other species who you were concerned with, so for you, planet = critters and their habitat, a.k.a. the ecosystem. Which as I pointed out has been changing since God made dirt, but your post seems to imply if there is a change in the ecosystem, that is detrimental. So no, I don't think I'm confused, but if you have trouble understanding your own words, perhaps you'll understand why others may scratch their heads over their meaning.

But you might be able to help me understand something about the thinking of people who seem most agitated about a warmer climate. This is supposed to be very bad, even catastrophic, thereby justifying diverting trillions to reducing carbon emissions so we can get that 1/5th of a degree of cooling over the next 80 years. Yet, the same people who buy this argument also seem to talk favorably about reducing the human population by a few billion. So if global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is so bad, why on earth do you lot care about stopping it since it will be bad for human populations, which you seem to think would be a good thing since too many humans if viewed by you as the source of all that ails us?

So which is it? Do we want to stop global warming to save humans, or do we want to not save humans in order to stop global warming?

 

[Delfin]

I am not apt to change the mind of any climate deniers but my experience is that when questioned the common denominator is generally ignorance and an unwillingness to put in the effort to learn the scientific facts. The latter requires a lot of work if you are going look at the original studies. Most people when they want to know something about a difficult field such as medicine, law or science simply ask a well-educated expert. In this case the deniers choose to ignore the experts or else seek out the 0.1% of “flat Earthers” to support their prejudices. I don’t know why. God help us.

If you would like, I would be happy to provide you with peer reviewed journal papers disputing everything you have written. For example, ice core samples understate the level of atmospheric CO2 due to diffusion initiated pressure (Trudinger et al., GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 2003); that swings in atmospheric CO2 do take place on centennial time frames (Kouwenberg et al., GEOLOGY 2005), and that CO2 increases trail the warming of the planet by a couple of centuries (Wagner, et al, SCIENCE, 1999).

So, since I am familiar with the literature and the disconnect between the literature and the prognostications of MMGW enthusiasts, does that make me one of the "generally ignorant" "deniers" you refer to?

But since you are a scientist, I have a scientific question for you. I'd be curious what your answer might be. Or you can just call me a denier and let that be your answer. So here it is:

Is water vapor in the atmosphere uniform at all altitudes? Since water vapor is by far and away the most significant greenhouse gas, it's kind of an important question to know the answer to for those who want to present themselves as qualified to judge others knowledge on the subject, or their motivations.

 

[sunchaser]

There is a persistent theme in this thread that says that everyone else is polluting more so why should I do anything to inconvenience myself. Apply the same argument to throwing your garbage into the water or out your car window. Do you do that? China is one of the world’s largest polluters, partly because it is one of the world’s largest countries. However, it is also the world’s leader in alternate energy development, so it realizes there is a problem and is addressing it.

Is there a problem? I am a scientist but not a climate expert, although I designed and built space instruments for the express purpose of measuring atmospheric phenomena. There are much more that “computer models” indicating climate change and global warming. There are very accurate measurements of all aspects of climatology. There are, amazingly, even accurate measurements of atmospheric C02 from thousands of years ago obtained from Greenland ice sore samples. Yes, the climate has always changed, but we are now seeing changes over a century that historically took many thousands of years. The theory and observations are in close agreement. CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to heat up at an unprecedented rate.

I am not apt to change the mind of any climate deniers but my experience is that when questioned the common denominator is generally ignorance and an unwillingness to put in the effort to learn the scientific facts. The latter requires a lot of work if you are going look at the original studies. Most people when they want to know something about a difficult field such as medicine, law or science simply ask a well-educated expert. In this case the deniers choose to ignore the experts or else seek out the 0.1% of “flat Earthers” to support their prejudices. I don’t know why. God help us.

Paul

Did you look at the graph of CO2 levels, earth temperature and time in the above link?

Also, Ice core samples have been shown to be highly anomalous dependent upon the protocols used to obtain and measure residual CO2 levels in them.

An interesting range of detailed papers and studies emanating from China herald the move towards higher CO2 levels from the ultra low levels of today. Why? Crop growth.

 

[Fish53]

Hmmm. Here you say that Firefly is confusing what is detrimental to the planet vs. what is detrimental to humans:



You speak of a "threat to the planet", which I thought a bit odd, since outside of big meteors, comets or attacks by the Death Star planets are generally not considered to be threatenable. You then clarified that you didn't mean planet, as in planet, but planet as in other species who you were concerned with, so for you, planet = critters and their habitat, a.k.a. the ecosystem. Which as I pointed out has been changing since God made dirt, but your post seems to imply if there is a change in the ecosystem, that is detrimental. So no, I don't think I'm confused, but if you have trouble understanding your own words, perhaps you'll understand why others may scratch their heads over their meaning.

But you might be able to help me understand something about the thinking of people who seem most agitated about a warmer climate. This is supposed to be very bad, even catastrophic, thereby justifying diverting trillions to reducing carbon emissions so we can get that 1/5th of a degree of cooling over the next 80 years. Yet, the same people who buy this argument also seem to talk favorably about reducing the human population by a few billion. So if global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is so bad, why on earth do you lot care about stopping it since it will be bad for human populations, which you seem to think would be a good thing since too many humans if viewed by you as the source of all that ails us?

So which is it? Do we want to stop global warming to save humans, or do we want to not save humans in order to stop global warming?

That's it huh? The only two options you could come up with are those? Try hard I believe there are others. I have a question for myself, should I believe the evidence and conclusions provided by a huge portion of the worlds scientists or place my trust in some guy on a boat forum with an obvious bias? Hmmm? Let's see? Scientists, I believe the scientists. You see rather than me trying to act like an expert, which I'm not, I've decided to trust the majority of the scientific community when it comes to an understanding of the existence and effects of climate change. Why, which actually is what you're asking? I don't really need a why, I certainly don't need your why and why is what I want it to be and I might change it from time to time and I'll act accordingly. So there you go, I believe climate change is real, I believe it's effects will harm life on this planet now and in the future. I also believe that a small but significant portion of the cause is human activity, and I believe it's possible to do something to mitigate it's negative effects on the habitability of this planet. If you have some problem with that being what I believe well, that's life, everyone ain't you.

 

[O C Diver]

Is there a problem? I am a scientist but not a climate expert, although I designed and built space instruments for the express purpose of measuring atmospheric phenomena. There are much more that “computer models” indicating climate change and global warming. There are very accurate measurements of all aspects of climatology. There are, amazingly, even accurate measurements of atmospheric C02 from thousands of years ago obtained from Greenland ice sore samples. Yes, the climate has always changed, but we are now seeing changes over a century that historically took many thousands of years. The theory and observations are in close agreement. CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to heat up at an unprecedented rate.

I am not apt to change the mind of any climate deniers but my experience is that when questioned the common denominator is generally ignorance and an unwillingness to put in the effort to learn the scientific facts. The latter requires a lot of work if you are going look at the original studies. Most people when they want to know something about a difficult field such as medicine, law or science simply ask a well-educated expert. In this case the deniers choose to ignore the experts or else seek out the 0.1% of “flat Earthers” to support their prejudices. I don’t know why. God help us.

Paul, with all do respect, you're professionally and probably emotionally invested in climate change, global warming, or whatever buzz title is in fashion this year. We (the occupants of the earth) have other problems that left unchecked, will be our demise long before global warming does us in. Survival of the inhabitants isn't going to happen by reducing total CO2 by 1% when the earth's population is growing by 1.5 to 2% per year.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Earth's problems (there's more than one) stem from an excessive human population. Trying to mitigate climate change is like taking Nyquil to cure the common cold. You're only treating symptoms, not curing the problem.

Ted

Ted

 

[Adopo]

Useful idiots the lot of you. How bout take a lung out and reduce your co2 by half. At 41000 ft on my way to Vegas with a big carbon footprint ready to gamble, drink, chase, raise a little hell, and smoke.

 

[Fish53]

And all this because some fellow none of you probably know suggested doing something good, not rob a bank, not rape old women, actually do something he believed was good. Get it? Good. You may think he's wrong and disagree with him but fully half of you outright crapped on him and as I doubt you're ashamed I'll do it for you. This forum is starting to look more and more like some good ole' boy social club.

 

[Seevee]

And all this because some fellow none of you probably know suggested doing something good, not rob a bank, not rape old women, actually do something he believed was good. Get it? Good. You may think he's wrong and disagree with him but fully half of you outright crapped on him and as I doubt you're ashamed I'll do it for you. This forum is starting to look more and more like some good ole' boy social club.

Fish,

Good points, but many of us have heard this message before and it doesn't delivery good facts or a way to save the planet. Most of us are WAY more practical and look at the total picture.

I'd bet we all contribute to "saving the planet" in our own way, but the suggestion that we slow up a bit is a non starter and a non issue. If we were that serious, we'd sell our boats. And if that's your thing, sell your boat, most of us don't care.

For most of us, we don't do stupid stuff, but we are not willing to make ridiculous sacrifices for very little to no benefit.

We will keep our cars, boats and jets and life goes on......

 

[NCheaven]

Good initiative! Point is for all of us to do something positive. For me that is driving my Buick Hybrid, leaving full forest canopy in my back yard, building leaf dams where water runs off to slow runoff and charge the water table, and write my elected officials about supporting sound environmental policies. I bet all of you have great ideas, too, and i’d Love to hear them. And running more at Hull speed or less is something i’m glad to do!