Climate Change

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

" evolved enhanced capabilities" , what other species has evolved enhanced capabilities like humans , little green men , vulcans , what ?

Human arrogance got us here , that's right. And human arrogance will have to get us out of it too.

Dave

Guess you've never wondered why Dolphins always laugh at us...
Sorry Dave... not picking on ya... just most of the others are so bludi boring and 'I'm so frickin clever'

PS: not doing to well on the 'Mr Grumpy' shift...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Conachair is correct. You cite a few technical advances, which promote humanity. That does not refute his point.

If i can accurately paraphrase the matter it is that humanity exploits resources with disregard to future consequences. At times humanity has made some megar attempts to stockpile against the future, farming and grain silos for example. However the very much stronger trend is for humanity to identify a resource and then over exploit it in a non sustainable fashion. History is basically a catalog of our bumbling from one resource to another and the wars fought in the process.

Tall Cedars of Lebanon
Venetian conquest of adjacent territories to build ships
Norse ventures to Iceland due over crowding at home
My ancestors from Switzerland to Philadephia with Penn due over crowding
Countless species made extinct or near extinct, with full knowledge that we were doing so
Helium!!!! Look it up. Party balloons?

Examples of conservation are remarkable because of their rarity.

To make a fair and balanced scale of our over exploitation on one side vs our planning and foresight on the other side is to simply demonstrate our innate inability to constrain ourselves.

Yes but , in general, we do not proceed to self destruction , Easter island not withstanding , one can look at , for example , in Europe , to reforestation, improved water quality in lakes and rivers , smog free cities because of coal bans or smokeless coals, less vehicle pollution , improved drinking water quality etc etc. yes we're not solving every thing at once , but little by little improvements are being made.

It doesn't help that the looney right try's and portrays such efforts as " commie', " liberal" or anti -business. Increasingly however , certainly in Europe , for example , conservation, green politics , etc , have actually become mainstream, and generally accepted, ironically sometimes leading to the demise of the " Greens " as a political force.

Every where you look there are attempts at conservation, reintroduction of threatened species , improvements in pollution reduction , I can see it in my lifetime. Small , un coordinated yes, but its not hopeless like some predict

Furthermore , even if you believe its ultimately hopeless , thats not a polluters charter. That fact that your teenage son or daughter can't keep their room tidy , doesn't make you let every room turn into a junk heap , does it ?

Dave

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Pardon my impatience. I'm just wondering whether it's your point that water vapour contributes to global warming, or that you've got a complete proof all set up that shows that the earth's climate is not being materially affected by human activity. It could save some time.

Patience---impatience??? Well yes, I do believe you display impatience. Did I say anything about human contribution to climate in any manner other than to suggest a possible ban on swimming pools??? AND YOU DID ASK FOR BACK UP SUPPORT FOR MY WATER VAPOR STATEMENT WHICH I PROVIDED!!! AND YOU'RE NOT HAPPY???

What I did say... or state if you prefer is that doubling CO2 amounts to as much change.... (here I will use the king's English) ...as pissing in the snow and you must get a lot of that up there in the north. Maybe even snow

[goboatingnow]

The funny thing is those arguing against climate change , seem to then extend that to " so now I can pollute " I find it bizare that deniers then argue its alright to drive gas guzzlers. The anti climate change argument isn't so much, heres my alternative science , more , " let me continue to deplete resources and pollute "

Dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Patience---impatience??? Well yes, I do believe you display impatience. Did I say anything about human contribution to climate in any manner other than to suggest a possible ban on swimming pools??? AND YOU DID ASK FOR BACK UP SUPPORT FOR MY WATER VAPOR STATEMENT WHICH I PROVIDED!!! AND YOU'RE NOT HAPPY???

What I did say... or state if you prefer is that doubling CO2 amounts to as much change.... (here I will use the king's English) ...as pissing in the snow and you must get a lot of that up there in the north. Maybe even snow

I didn't say I was unhappy. But I was rude for not thanking you. So, thanks for the NASA link on the contribution of water vapour to global warming.

But it's late, we have other forums to haunt, so... is the earth heating up in large part due to human activity, or not? You seem coy about stating your position, and my asking has vexed you.

[boatman61]

Actually GBN is spot on about how the EU is cleaning up its act... at last... the last 10yrs I've seen pods of whales every time I've crossed the Biscay... awesome... no food... no whales... hell I even saw one gambolling near the islands in front of Vigo/Baiona... in the 90's none... then blow me down... I saw a pair in the Med near Sardinia this year... never seen that before and I've poodled through the Med on and off since the 60's...
Now if we could just get a realistic fish stock restoration program going...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually GBN is spot on about how the EU is cleaning up its act... at last... the last 10yrs I've seen whales every time I've crossed the Biscay... awesome... no food... no whales... hell I even saw one gambolling near the islands in front of Vigo/Baiona... in the 90's none... then blow me down... I saw a pair in the Med near Sardinia this year... never seen that before and I've poodled through the Med on and off since the 60's...
Now if we could just get a realistic fish stock restoration program going...

Yeah and dolphins in Dublin bay , when I was there last year , before that they rarely entered the Irish Sea due to pollution

Sure its all small beer, but what's Tescos moto .

Dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Now if we could just get a realistic fish stock restoration program going...

Oh man. To think that we completely fished out the Grand Banks of cod...I don't think I'll live long enough to see that fishery return...

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The funny thing is those arguing against climate change , seem to then extend that to " so now I can pollute " I find it bizare that deniers then argue its alright to drive gas guzzlers. The anti climate change argument isn't so much, heres my alternative science , more , " let me continue to deplete resources and pollute "

Dave

I doubt that is the goal of most people. For example I read in our WSJ that Germany..maybe other European countries have windmills now contributing to...I think the number is 30% of electrical power generation. But that came at a cost in reliability along with a 300% higher cost than we pay here in the states. Cost should matter!

My point, cost impacts families whether environmentalists like it or not. Obama is trying his hardest to emulate Europe. But what makes Europe correct? Maybe the higher costs of goods caused by such things as cap and trade do greater harm to society in general than gas fired power generation? Some months ago Spain was featured to have huge solar power generation which is emission free. I remember reading about and seeing pictures of a tall tower with a target being heated by reflected solar energy which heated liquid salt that could be used even at night to generate power. Very impressive until I read that Spain tossed the solar towel and closed the facility because it was not financially viable.

There is strong environmental lobbying to establish off shore wind mills near where I live, it is called Cape Winds or something. They coerced with the Governor's help ---commercial power companies to purchase huge amounts of that generated power at a cost of 23 cents a kilowatt. I pay 6 cents to my local supplier. Government should not be selecting which industry should survive by grants... which Cape Winds will receive plus lucrative forced sales to power companies that do not want to pay more than market prices.

I could go on to include the ethanol farce but its getting late.

Foggy

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sure its all small beer, but what's Tescos moto .

Dave

Polish Workers are cheaper...
Sorry.. to good to resist...

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh man. To think that we completely fished out the Grand Banks of cod...I don't think I'll live long enough to see that fishery return...

And I do agree with you!!! When I was a younger man I could go a mile off shore from Plymouth or New Bedford and catch all the cod I could eat in a month. In fact, they were so plentiful, nobody wanted cod, they wanted haddock.

[cdreid]

The fisheries are never going to recover in a world where the norm is now for politicians to be legally buyable.

We need to crack down hard on commercial fishing.. especially the Japanese who need to be shown if they want to shoot the world a bird re fishing practices we can show them what it's really like to be a rogue state. But all fisheries need the pressure taken off.

For some reason a lot of commercial fishermen see the ocean as a treasure horde to be raped instead of an ecology to be carefully nurtured and harvested. Then again it doesnt help we still proudly use the oceans as a toxic waste dump (hint.. you emptying human excrement doesnt harm the ocean.. it probably helps it. A company/city dumping concentrated chemicals though can kill off entire ecosystems)00000

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I doubt that is the goal of most people. For example I read in our WSJ that Germany..maybe other European countries have windmills now contributing to...I think the number is 30% of electrical power generation. But that came at a cost in reliability along with a 300% higher cost than we pay here in the states. Cost should matter!

My point, cost impacts families whether environmentalists like it or not. Obama is trying his hardest to emulate Europe. But what makes Europe correct? Maybe the higher costs of goods caused by such things as cap and trade do greater harm to society in general than gas fired power generation? Some months ago Spain was featured to have huge solar power generation which is emission free. I remember reading about and seeing pictures of a tall tower with a target being heated by reflected solar energy which heated liquid salt that could be used even at night to generate power. Very impressive until I read that Spain tossed the solar towel and closed the facility because it was not financially viable.

There is strong environmental efforts to establish off shore wind mills near where I live, it is called Cape Winds or something. They coerced with the Governor's help ---commercial power companies to purchase huge amounts of that generated power at a cost of 23 cents a kilowatt. I pay 6 cents to my local supplier. Government should not be selecting which industry should survive by grants... which Cape Winds will receive plus lucrative forced sales to power companies that do not want to pay more than market prices.

I could go on to include the ethanol farce but its getting late.

Foggy

renewables are finding it tough to compete that true , the very high capital costs etc, but these projects in Europe are gaining momentum not loosing it. Solar has had a hard time , primarily because technology and price points haven't been delivered , but wind and increasingly wave is growing

Europe may not have all the green answers , but people in general seem prepared to pay a " certain" premium for cleaner energy. Green programmes have lots of support and mainstream political parties now all promote such ideals.

Government should select via grants , the greater good must succeed over sectional interests. You think the motor car would still dominate if the Interstate program hadn't happened, what size of a grant is that. You think trade barriers and subsidies in uS agriculture are not grants. The whole US military production industry is a " grant " . All over Europe there are grant aided programmes to improve house insulation, subsidise green energy , attract electric vehicles etc. all this is for the greater good

People are prepared via their taxes to see valuable industries promoted , no more then you don't buy the cheapest food available do you ? . Governments may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong.

And " what higher cost of goods " if one compares disposable income against cost of goods , Europe and the US work out broadly similar. You just can't compare apples in Paris against apples in LA.

[Lake-Effect]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Originally Posted by foggysail

For example I read in our WSJ that Germany..maybe other European countries have windmills now contributing to...I think the number is 30% of electrical power generation. But that came at a cost in reliability along with a 300% higher cost than we pay here in the states. Cost should matter!

You have to start somewhere.

Today's wind generators are pretty friggin good. But they're not perfect. The technology will evolve, they will become more efficient, reliable, quieter, kill less tweety-birds, and get cheaper.

My most potent comeback on the issue of costs is that fossil fuel is massively subsidized (some $600B a year) in the form of low royalties, tax breaks, etc and because the price at the pump in no way covers the full life-cycle cost of burning it. Take some of that and apply to the renewables and the cost thing gets much better.

Also, renewables are the growth industry of the future. Investment must be kick-started by governments, and you will have the occasional Solyndra, but in 10 or 15 years it will be a powerful and growing sector.

My point, cost impacts families whether environmentalists like it or not. Obama is trying his hardest to emulate Europe. But what makes Europe correct? Maybe the higher costs of goods caused by such things as cap and trade do greater harm to society in general than gas fired power generation? Some months ago Spain was featured to have huge solar power generation which is emission free. I remember reading about and seeing pictures of a tall tower with a target being heated by reflected solar energy which heated liquid salt that could be used even at night to generate power. Very impressive until I read that Spain tossed the solar towel and closed the facility because it was not financially viable.

Spain is economically hurting right now, and is going into survival mode. Of course they'll back away from R&D at this time.

The US economy is currently running on petroleum. They're relying on low-cost fuel to keep other sectors running... but that isn't a sustainable path. Absurdly cheap gas isn't going to be around forever. So there's a bill coming due one way or another.

There are strong environmental lobbying to establish off shore wind mills near where I live, it is called Cape Winds or something. They coerced with the Governor's help ---commercial power companies to purchase huge amounts of that generated power at a cost of 23 cents a kilowatt. I pay 6 cents to my local supplier. Government should not be selecting which industry should survive by grants... which Cape Winds will receive plus lucrative forced sales to power companies that do not want to pay more than market prices.

I could go on to include the ethanol farce but its getting late.

Again, shift some of the fossil-fuel subsidies and tax-breaks over to renewables, and there'd be less need for forced buy-ins and such.

Ethanol from corn is truly a farce, but that's a different industry lobby.

[cdreid]

foggy you need to quit reading rw websites.

the .gov has always subsidised and interfered in industry. let me point out the #1 culprit that directly undermines your hypothesis. Big energy. they are subsidised 1000 ways from roads to having the reserves We own handed to them for free to the military. We are and have been fighting energy wars for 40+ years. All of our current defense problems come from that or from fighting wars or clandestine actions for the energy companies or other industries who gave money to the right pol. And it's not one party either. We could cut our mil budget 75% easily if we didnt have to fight for energy resources.. that alone would end our budget problems, allow us to pay down the debt AND send the economy in overdrive. it's not even a secret. But we dont because the parties have to keep us fighting over bs to keep getting elected and keep getting payoffs.

The real cost of fossil fuels (gas/diesel) is well over $10 a gallon. The real cost of coal (where most of our energy originates) is astronomical