Pacific islanders move to escape global warming

[Alan Wheeler]

Your absolutley correct Kai Nui. In fact, the main reason we have one camp saying the sky is falling and the other saying we don't have a problem, is because no one really knows the answer. The environment has been slowly warming for more than just the period of industrial revolution till now. And then, within that time, we have seen major shifts of cold to hot to cold again. There are many complex cycles and issues and no one really knows. One fact, an erupting volcanoe puts out more Ozone depleating chemicals in one day, than all of mankind put together does for an entire year. Yet on the other hand of that, an erupting volcanoe has the affect of cooling down the atmosphere.

Why do we see and hear of more weather disarsters around the world today??? The media. We have had many much bigger weather related disarsters around the world in history. Some records are still to be broken. So just because we had a series of storms that many can't remember the last time it was like that, doens't mean it wasn't.

Well put Wheels. The efficiency of information technology has totally changed our perception of the world around us. Things seem much more immediate, and accordingly, more threatening.

[CaptainK]

And with the help of the world wide web. Knowledge can be passed on to other people more swiftly. Than in any other time of human history, as well.

More and more people. More and more scientists are trying to solve issues about what could. Or might happen? The great mystery is yet to come?

Unfortunately, the speed of information also allows, no, encourages, the rapid disemination of misinformation. Ideas and theories, instead of being tossed around the scientific community for a few years, before becoming public, are thrown out there as fact, and absorbed by an information hungry society as scientific fact. Often with out any real basis in fact.

[CaptainK]

Well, like what thisone moderator once said after the internet started booming back in the 1990's said.

The internet is a two way street. You could learn old information that you never knew about. Or you can learn about new information.

[Alan Wheeler]

Awe common Kai Nui, next you'll be telling us Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the moon.
I find it interesting in my everyday job, of working with young people, just how gulable they are. They will believe anything without hesitation and ramification. But what they buy into maybe so rediculouse to us older ones, yet even we are taken as fools to the truth by higher powers. I love the line by the Blackeyed peas. Damn I forget the first few words, but it's something like, "People are at war, but the reasons under cover".

Back to the weather issue. Now firstly, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we don't have a possible global warming problem. But anyone taking an extreme point of view of either side of the line of warming or not warming is foolish. It's true, the scientific world is flooded with facts and data. But the issue is, we just don't now how to interpret all the information. Here in NZ, we have already experianced politicians making the most obserd decisions on combating Global warming. One of the most embarrasing for us Kiwi's was the dipstick that suggested all farmers would be charged a tax on their cows and sheep farting. Fortunately for now, it was laughed out of Parliment. But one other major mistake that hasn't been and the consequences could be huge, is the Kioto agreement. I think mostly due to some fool thinking our country could make billions of dollars because we are supposedly clean and green. But after the signing, they worked out that due to a huge era on the politicians part, It could actually Cost the country Billions instead. And what does the agreement achieve?? Nothing. Absolutley nothing. If you reduce polution in some way, you get a credit. Some one that can't or won't reduce polution can buy that credit. At the end of it all, the polution, the very thing the agreement was trying to controll, hasn't been reduced at all. Just some coperation or country can buy, sell or swap credits. The ones that get penalised are the end users. That's you and me, when we have to fork out for higher electricity bills and food and so on.

Personaly, I don't think the real worrying issue is Global warming. I am becoming more and more aware and concerned for the toxins we are putting into our air, than how warm the air is. I am concerned about what chemicals we are exposed to daily. Ever read what is in your shampoo for instance. Did you know that 60 tons of paint thinners are released into the air in the city of LA per day. That's 60 tons of fumes of just one type and just one city.
But anyway, I do not want to sqew this in a politcal rant direction. And I ask that anyone that replies, will try and becareful not to do the same. When political arguments get out of hand, and they easily do on BB's, no one wins and usually, we all become losers. Both in personal standing and in the loss of the BB to morons.

[delmarrey]

http://cruisersforum.com/showthread....hlight=glacier

Well Weels, as a long time member of the Flat Earth Society, I know the real truth
I will admit this has, in part due to my own comments, turned to a political discussion, however, there are elements that are directly related to boats. Look at the price of a repower for one. It just goes to show that when the politics get going, even the least guilty get pulled into the mix. As for the smog credits, more corporate greed. Just like a $2500 fine to a multi million dollar corporation. That $2500 often translates to a million dollars in lower operating costs. It is a screwy system.
Personally, I think the sailing community has allot to offer the environmental community. The very nature of what we do lends itself to new ideas on ways to get by more efficiently. If the corporations would spend some of that money developing some of those ideas to work on a larger scale, we would all be in better shape.
For instance:
Solar power. Using solar power to create grid power is not cost effective, however, what about adding a self contained system consisting of panels, inverter, and batteries in all new construction. Hook this system to grid power for charging the system when the panels are not generating, and take some of the maintenance crew that are maintaining the grid, and pay them to do monthly mainenance checks on homes. This would accomplish several things. !)it would eliminate brown outs and even power failures 2)it woud maintain the current level of power company jobs 3)it would eliminate peak hour loads on already overtaxed power plants 4)It would be a simple way of supplementing coal burning power plants with solar power without obtaining the huge acerages that are needed for such a set up.
If this sounds like it would not be cost effective, price having power run into a new subdivision. (Keep in mind that this set-up would stil need grid power, but not near the capacity that current systems do, and the cost would be reduced accordingly.
This is just my hair brained scheme, but if I can come up with thios, think what the multi million dollar corporations could do if they commited to it.

[Alan Wheeler]

Now why is it that we laymen can come up with all the ways to save the world and man kind and yet the ones that make the decisions can't. Kai Nui, I have thought exactly the same way. Another easy one is solar heating, especially for hot water. InNZ, heating our hot water is one of the biggest consumers of electricity. We have great sunshine here. Especially in the area I live, we have consistantly the highest Sunshine hrs in NZ. Solar water heating panels could easily take large demands off our National power system. We are seeing many wind farms being placed around the country, but many dogooders don't like the site of them and oppose them. Ya just can't win with some.

Although, I wonder if Sailing is as clean green as we would all like to think it is. We have clothes and ropes all made from synthetics. We have paints that are hard on the environment. We have resins made from Oil. Timber cut from exotic tree's. Hmmm, maybe we should all build or buy concrete boats and not paint them.

[Wukong]

Why does "global warming" have to be a disaster? What if arid regions such as the Sahara, Gobi, SW US, Australia become lush fertile areas? What if Alaska, Siberia, Greenland, etc. become wheat and corn producers that would rival Iowa? Would we (worry warts) then get all worked up over "global unwarming?"

It's all trash science.

[BC Mike]

Cows belch methane. There are loonies in North America that have raised that issue. We know for a fact that we are putting nasty things in the air, things that were not put in the air centuries ago. Do we need a scientist to tell us that this will have an effect? China already loses one month per year of growing time because of crap in the air. A study of Venus is a very scary thing, that's where the scientists can help with their warnings. The predominate event of the nineties was not war or famine, it was the fact that almost 1 billion people became eligible to vote. Let us not only think of doom and gloom. For me the fact that Estonia, Latvia, Luthiwania and many other countries are all free to vote. Oil works very well at providing energy and it is cheap, perhaps God would wonder why we did not use it, while we were working on more complex solutions. Sails appear to be one of the best energy producers.
Michael

[sneuman]

I have often thought the basis of a good education is two fold:

1) Be curious
2) Learn to think critically

If you've got those two things, you'll be set for life.

The first is instilled (or not) by family and school. I think the current record is poor.

The second is nearly non-existent, as far as I can tell, in at least the American education system.

As regards global warming - it is unfortunately a problem we don't really have the luxury to think out fully before acting. If we DO something to mitigate the perceived problem, the worst thing that will likely happen is that we will have cleaner air to breathe. If on the other hand we do nothing and the more dire predictions (which, by the way, do tend to be closer to the scientific mainstream) turn out to be true, we're screwed.

If I were a betting man, I know where I'd put my money.

Wheels, great point. Wukong, I agree completely. Michael, the first post I put on this thread was to kill all the cows
We may not be the most green lifestyle, but we do better than most. As for synthetic clothes, I say bring back hemp! Works for rope, works for clothes, works for fuel, works for relaxation. (oh that's the problem)
Maybe it's hype, but the people that are pushing the cultivation and use of hemp for industrial purposes make a good point.

[sneuman]

I think it's important not to use the uncertainties to cloud this issue. Yes, there are larger trends on grander time scales taking place here, but the vast preponderance of evidence is that human activity IS changing the environment in profound ways. Geologically, sequestration of carbon in the rocks and soil is what made higher life possible in the first place. Now we have reversed that trend and are quickly releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.

If we can't at least slow down the process - and do it fast - we better go planet shopping.

[NoTies]

The planet is indeed in the middle of a cyclic event of global warming. However,the increase in the rate of warming has all but disappeared off the top of the graph since the industrial revolution. CO2 levels (which icecore and sediment samples show are directly related to warming) have increased over 25% since the early 1800s and methane levels have increased 150% in the same time frame. Scientists predict that by the year 2050 CO2 levels in the atmosphere will be twice what they were pre industrial revolution.
Scientists are not generally noted for their passion when it comes to downstream effects of their data. One exception is Dr Peter Garrett (yep, another Kiwi) who is pre-eminent in the field of climatic research. He has worked extensively with the Cape Roberts Project and more recently ANDRILL, both projects directly aimed at studying historic climate patterns. He was alarmed enough last year to make an impassioned speech about the very immediate effects of global warming and was subsequently accused of being alarmist. Having met the guy, ridden snowmobiles across the Ross Ice Shelf in support of his research and shared the odd glass of wine with him I am of the opinion that his nature is far from being alarmist. There are people who would make a case that there was a political agenda involved, however the funding for ANDRILL (over 40 million dollars) had already been approved at the time he made his speech.
I'm not a betting man but I don't like the odds.