Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 26-04-2008, 22:53   #121
Moderator Emeritus
 
David M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: research vessel
Posts: 10,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by heron237 View Post
It's lower on the refining scale?
Although diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline, in the USA, diesel is taxed more.

From Wikipedia: "For diesel, the average state tax is 29.2 cents per gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 53.6 cents per gallon."

Fuel tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________

__________________
David

Life begins where land ends.
David M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 00:13   #122
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oz
Boat: Jarcat 5, 5m, Mandy
Posts: 419
As for CO2 being the terrible gas that is creating the weather changes - I am not a believer.
CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, air is around 29, so CO2 is heavier than air, and will therefore sink down to the lowest areas,i.e sea level. The partial pressure of CO2 in the air and water will equalise ( that's why a soft drink or beer fizzes when opened), so water will absorb CO2 depending on the salinity or rather total salt concentration. CO2 and water react to form a weak acid which leads to other things, but the CO2 is absorbed.end quote

There is plenty of mixing , otherwise we would be unable to breathe at sea level. CO2, is absorbed, but it is not based simply on partial pressures. The chemistry of absorption in seawater with higher atmospheric CO2 levels is what is threatening the coral reefs. The weak acids it produces are enough to tip the balance. Ever think why the coral reefs stop at the latitude they do? Cold water tips the chemistry to the more acidic end and the coral becomes weaker. The CO2 is definitely increasing. It was about 300 parts per million when I first needed to know about it, and is now 380 parts and rising faster each year. There are thousands of scientists around the world measuring the levels in various fields. I really don't think all of them are part of a giant conspiracy.


CO2 is needed for photosynthesis, and extra CO2 in the air makes it a bit easier to fix carbon. The plants don't need quite as much nitrogen as they don't need as much of the enzymes needed to initially fix the carbon. Unfortunately these enzymes are a large part of what makes these plants nutritious. They end up lower in proteins and minerals.

PS I agree that to maintain independence, we need to wean ourselves off liquid petroleum
Robert
__________________

__________________
Robertcateran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 03:49   #123
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,596
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertcateran View Post
As for CO2 being the terrible gas that is creating the weather changes - I am not a believer.
CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, air is around 29, so CO2 is heavier than air, and will therefore sink down to the lowest areas,i.e sea level. The partial pressure of CO2 in the air and water will equalise ( that's why a soft drink or beer fizzes when opened), so water will absorb CO2 depending on the salinity or rather total salt concentration. CO2 and water react to form a weak acid which leads to other things, but the CO2 is absorbed.end quote

There is plenty of mixing , otherwise we would be unable to breathe at sea level. CO2, is absorbed, but it is not based simply on partial pressures ...
Robert
True, CO2 is heavier than air; but gravity has little effect on the diffusion of gases.
The empirical fact is that CO2 is uniformly mixed through (nearly) all altitudes of the atmosphere.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 07:12   #124
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
Gord, Just pointing out that most of your quote attributed to Robert isn't actually from him. Just some sloppy HTML.

It's helpful to separate the data and analysis of the legitimate climate scientists from the contrarian and specious arguments of the politically motovated (follow the funding) 'think tanks'.

If you're not a publishing expert in the field, you should only have confidence in analysis provided in scientific textbooks or journals.

There are lots of contrarian arguments, but none seem to hold up to scrutiny. Usually, suprisingly little scrutiny will do.
__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 08:10   #125
jzk
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherT34C View Post
It's helpful to separate the data and analysis of the legitimate climate scientists from the contrarian and specious arguments of the politically motovated (follow the funding) 'think tanks'.
Because everyone knows that the "legitimate" climate scientists are not politically motivated!
__________________
jzk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 10:23   #126
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
That's correct.
__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 10:35   #127
Moderator Emeritus
 
David M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: research vessel
Posts: 10,153
So much of it is opinion about things which cannot be quantified...which is exactly why there are so many differing theories. If it was all quantifiable, then we would know with certainty. The best that can be done at this point is speculation. Those that think they know, on both sides of the issue, really don't. Nobody knows because of the unquantifiable factors.

There is only one model (the Earth) and no control (another Earth). Without a model and a control, nothing can be proven nor disproven.

How do you explain this to the general public who have swallowed these theories as fact?
__________________
David

Life begins where land ends.
David M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 10:45   #128
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
David, You might be surprised to learn just how much is known and quantified. The 'think tanks' have done a pretty good job of convincing people that there exists scientific controversy where there is none.

I was fooled too at first (and I'm a scientist). It wasn't until I started to scrutinize the issues that I realized what was going on. I should have known better, but I simply wasn't paying attention.
__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 13:12   #129
Moderator Emeritus
 
David M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: research vessel
Posts: 10,153
The fact is although much is quantifiable, much is not quantifiable. It is the unquantifiable that needs to be known in order to draw definitive conclusions. Therefore we cannot know with certainty. We cant even determine probabilities. Too many people are saying with certainty that it is true.

I am saying that it cannot be determined, which is as close to the truth as we can get until all these undeterminables become quantifiable, if that ever happens.
__________________
David

Life begins where land ends.
David M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 15:03   #130
Registered User
 
Nordic cat's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Boat: FP Tobago 35
Posts: 721
The measurement of CO2 at the actual ppm levels in question is highly inaccurate, Typically, the high-end measurements are NIR based systems that compare absorption in the sample to a "known sample", these measurements are very sensitive to vapours, temperature, sampling system design etc. And require regular adjustment and calibration. The selectivity of some these measurements can also be debated.

During the last 10 years, there has been an improvement, but I would question the quality of many of the earlier measurements, as well as some present measurements.

This is just a small but very important factor when discussing these values, and is a problem that can be adressed given the right attention and resources.

Measurements are published and taken at face value, often without proper traceability and a designation of uncertainty.

So when statements are made that things are "known and quantified" in certain areas, I have my doubts if they in fact are as well known as we are led to believe.
If we can't trust the measurements, can we believe the conclusions drawn from them? I have my doubts sometimes when I see what goes on in the real world

Regards

Alan
__________________
Nordic cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 15:07   #131
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Traverse City, Mi
Boat: Catalina 34MKII
Posts: 102

Love these conspiracy theories, but really got worried on Ex-Calif's Exxon statement. My oil stocks sure did not turn $1000 into $55000!!!!!!

Did a little checking. An Exxon investment of $1000 in April 2004 is now worth $2,209.68. A 120% return, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and better than the BP return of 80%. However, 1.2 times your money is FAR short of 55 times your money. I certainly agree with the rest of his statements though.

Also found it interestin in looking at the income and tax statements that they paid about $90 Billion in tax on the $240 Billion in income. Thats a lot of taxes!

Someone else made the statement that all businesses are in it for the profit? What else would they be in it for? It has been proven many times over that businesses that don't make profits go out of business!

Don't think I have read a long thread like this all the way through in a long time. Glad I finally splash in a couple of weeks. Let's go sailing!
__________________
tommy
tomdidit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 16:52   #132
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oz
Boat: Jarcat 5, 5m, Mandy
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordic cat View Post
The measurement of CO2 at the actual ppm levels in question is highly inaccurate, Typically, the high-end measurements are NIR based systems that compare absorption in the sample to a "known sample", these measurements are very sensitive to vapours, temperature, sampling system design etc. And require regular adjustment and calibration. The selectivity of some these measurements can also be debated.

During the last 10 years, there has been an improvement, but I would question the quality of many of the earlier measurements, as well as some present measurements.

This is just a small but very important factor when discussing these values, and is a problem that can be adressed given the right attention and resources.

Measurements are published and taken at face value, often without proper traceability and a designation of uncertainty.

So when statements are made that things are "known and quantified" in certain areas, I have my doubts if they in fact are as well known as we are led to believe.
If we can't trust the measurements, can we believe the conclusions drawn from them? I have my doubts sometimes when I see what goes on in the real world

Regards

Alan
I agree as a scientist that there is always a bit of slop in the system, but the accumulated data is overwhelming. Early measurements I did with infra red, would have had an accuracy of about 1%. that is not enough to take away from the argument that there has been a substantial increase.
I know of no rational refutation of the increase in atmospheric CO2 affecting the structural integrity of the corals. I went to a recent conference on the topic at the Australian National University. The chemistry is high school stuff, and the experimental evidence on the changes to coral growing below an atmosphere containing 450ppm CO2 was shocking. If you want to see a coral reef , do it now.
The scientists would have much greater access to funding if they could prove otherwise. If you want to spout conspiracy theories: during the previous government in Oz, scientists at the CSIRO lost there funding if they spoke up about global warming. This is on public record.
Robert
__________________
Robertcateran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 16:59   #133
cruiser

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,167
Several years ago , powerboats in Desolation sound BC were doing 15 knots, now they go 7 knots. I've been runing my diesel at half throttle for ew long time now saving a lot in fuel costs. I also leave the sails up and motorsail when the wind falls light. 4 knots is plenty for a sailboat. Just shorten your daily cruises. Then there is no need to hurry. The longer you stay in each port, the less you spend in a season and the better your chances of finding a fair wind.
Brent
__________________
Brent Swain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 17:31   #134
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertcateran View Post
I agree as a scientist that there is always a bit of slop in the system, but the accumulated data is overwhelming.
Yes, they're called error bars and they are not terribly wide.

Robert, do you have a good reference on the coral reef data (I'm not doubting you, I'm curious)? Preferably something at the freshman lecture level, but I'll muddle through whatever you might have.
__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2008, 20:11   #135
Registered User
 
Richkd's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aiken,SC
Boat: Hunter 280 AliMar
Posts: 34
Images: 3
Even if there is no 'real' trueth to humans impacting the globe to the point that it is warming isnt it effective to improve the quality of life by distrupting the enviroment less negitively? Didnt the Clean Air and Water act of the 70's prove the point?

I think as a 'conspiracy' the minipulation of our energy crisis, supply and demand market, what ever, is a positive move if it achives getting the world off oil and onto something else. Call it Green call it what ever but lets get there.

Thomas Jefferson was correct in his accessment of the Arab world. Read the book "Jefferson's War".


Sound like I'm all over the place? I am. its the cheap rum. I'm a scotch man myself but spent all my leave pay on gas.
__________________

__________________
Richkd ( Not Rich Kid)

"If the wind is free then why is sailing so dang expensive?"
Richkd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fuel

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fuel consumption xort Monohull Sailboats 51 02-02-2012 06:52
No Fuel Problem S/V Elusive Engines and Propulsion Systems 17 24-03-2008 16:46
How much fuel do I have? theonecalledtom Engines and Propulsion Systems 26 12-03-2008 12:39
Seaward 6 Gallon Stainless Water Heater Aqua Vitae Classifieds Archive 1 28-09-2007 13:44
Spare Fuel NoTies Seamanship & Boat Handling 11 01-02-2006 00:48



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:24.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.