Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-01-2016, 16:32   #1291
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 992
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Um... this is just wrong. Half the world total of emissions are produced by the richest 1 billion people; i.e. you and me. In total, 85 percent are emitted by the wealthiest 3 billion. Because change doesn't happen overnight, the effect of the poorest 4 billion will have little effect on the manmade worldwide CO2 emissions for probably at least 25 years. Plus whatever new power generation techniques they use will (theoretically) have the advantage of learning from the mistakes the (now) first world made previously.
...because everybody knows that third worlders are very discerning about how they get their energy so nothing but the latest and greatest green technology will do for them!

The point you seem to have missed is that in order for these third worlders to have any hope of raising their standard of living, they must have cheap energy. Cheap energy means fossil fuels, at least for the forseeable future. At the rate coal plants are being built, cheap (compared with "green") energy will soon be readily available and once it is, these folks will quickly learn how to consume it to improve their standard of living. I don't think they deserve to or intend to wait 25 years. Do you?
__________________

__________________
jtsailjt is online now  
Old 06-01-2016, 16:50   #1292
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Quote:
There's your block. It's not the AGW debate.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm talking about those who profess to support 'green' outcomes (besides AGW) but are seldom supporting those organizations promoting other green initiatives, or political parties with stronger green commitments in those areas. This is a much more significant block, especially since the same organizations and parties are usually also pro-AGW.

It's ridiculous to blame the AGW debate itself as a block on other initiatives, especially since you feel it's an important and necessary debate to be having. And as I said to Reef, there was green advocacy before AGW... and hostility towards that as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post

You seem to be the least tolerant of anyone here who advocates the existence of AGW and is concerned about its impacts. Given your unyielding position and seeming inability to grasp other points of view, I thought it only fair to ask what you might be doing personally to reduce your resource consumption or, if you prefer, "carbon footprint."
Being a Jerk Advocacy on CF. Other than that, no I won't enter the pissing match. For me, policy is the most important piece to achieving real progress in all these desirable goals, including AGW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
...just a bit frightened of people who, with little or no independent scientific expertise or learning, are so unquestionably eager to toe the party line and demonize those who differ. I am much more comfortable debating those with whom I may disagree, even vehemently so, but who are capable of independent thinking. Sorry, but trying to pigeonhole people into distinct boxes is counterproductive to your professed desire to galvanize those same people to act. Just thought this was worth pointing out.
Like everyone, I have to take responsibility for the arguments I make, and the way in which I make them. So, if I've given offense or failed to make persuasive points, the fault is mine. I get it. Sorry. Trying to rein it in.
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 16:56   #1293
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
A slight edit.

There is a consensus about the science within the scientific community. The lack of consensus exists with the solutions proposed. And the MSM plays up on that.

The MSM is there is to sell newspapers or click-throughs. "If it bleeds, it leads."
I'm certainly good with your edit, Jack, as well as your assessment of what motivates the MSM. And my reference to "consensus" was the political one, but agree there exists more scientific consensus on CC and other environmental issues than there is amongst the people & politicians. But whatever ultimately should happen on these issues never will unless there's more political consensus, and that will require less polarization than we're seeing these days, at least in the US. Like any other large & potentially expensive initiative, I don't think it has much chance of becoming effective with the support of only one political party and half the voting public. Just the reality I think, but I could always be wrong.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 16:57   #1294
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 992
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Temperatures fluctuated in concert with those CO2 levels.
By looking at a graph of CO2 vs temp, you can see there is a correlation between the two, but as they fluctuate "in concert," which is the leader and which is the follower? In order for rising CO2 to lead to higher temps, the rising CO2 would have to happen first, but when you look at a graph of the two, the temperature peaks are reached before the CO2 peaks. How do you explain this?
__________________
jtsailjt is online now  
Old 06-01-2016, 17:04   #1295
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 2,735
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Another two pages and everyone will be saying that CC-advocacy CAUSES the other pollutions.

Reef, what do you think the eco-advocates were on about before AGW? I don't recall them getting any love then, either.
Dunno. But encouraging someone not to drop their MacDonalds wrappers in the gutter and making them aware that palm oil's only virtue is to increase profit margins for corporations and to avoid products containing it strikes me as likely to be more successful then telling everyone we have a massive problem that has bandaid solutions at best.
__________________
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 17:35   #1296
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
By looking at a graph of CO2 vs temp, you can see there is a correlation between the two, but as they fluctuate "in concert," which is the leader and which is the follower? In order for rising CO2 to lead to higher temps, the rising CO2 would have to happen first, but when you look at a graph of the two, the temperature peaks are reached before the CO2 peaks. How do you explain this?
You need a trigger for the process. It used to be Milankovitch cycles.

Milankovitch cycles > warming oceans> release CO2> more warming> more CO2 released> more warming > more CO2 ...

It is a positive feedback loop.

The is an initial lag in rising CO2 in the natural cycle.

By releasing sequestered carbon through burning fossil fuels, we became the trigger and we continue to release CO2. The oceans are acting as a bit of a sink as witnessed by changing pH levels, but as they warm they will start releasing CO2 and the positive feedback loop will accelerate with CO2 levels that have not been seen during those natural cycles of the past 800,000 years.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 17:47   #1297
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I'm certainly good with your edit, Jack, as well as your assessment of what motivates the MSM. And my reference to "consensus" was the political one, but agree there exists more scientific consensus on CC and other environmental issues than there is amongst the people & politicians. But whatever ultimately should happen on these issues never will unless there's more political consensus, and that will require less polarization than we're seeing these days, at least in the US. Like any other large & potentially expensive initiative, I don't think it has much chance of becoming effective with the support of only one political party and half the voting public. Just the reality I think, but I could always be wrong.
The degree of polarization is most pronounced in the US. This past year in Canada we have elected governments that have a commitment to deal with climate. This is not a single government in Canada with the word conservative in its title. The only one not on board with the federal government and other provincial governments is Saskatchewan. Alberta, the hole of the oil sands, elected a social democratic government that acted quickly on a climate change strategy.

As I have pointed out it was Frank Luntz who helped initiate a lot of the polarization in the US. He has since done a mea culpa.

https://youtu.be/hPdCkUiHCg4?list=PL...U7n7ZJOE8wvzVr

Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 18:01   #1298
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
I'm talking about those who profess to support 'green' outcomes (besides AGW) but are seldom supporting those organizations promoting other green initiatives, or political parties with stronger green commitments in those areas. This is a much more significant block, especially since the same organizations and parties are usually also pro-AGW.

Not so simple. Most people are not wedded to a single issue, and are not in lock-step with whichever of the two main political parties in the US they happen to favor. People have to prioritize which issues are most important. They may sincerely care about many environmental issues, but are turned off by positions their party takes on the economy & foreign affairs, to cite just a couple of examples. We recently saw somebody post some polling numbers where CC was at or near the bottom of importance. It's a fallacy to suggest that people who happen to support a political party which is considered not as "green" as the other don't care about environmental issues.

It's ridiculous to blame the AGW debate itself as a block on other initiatives, especially since you feel it's an important and necessary debate to be having. And as I said to Reef, there was green advocacy before AGW... and hostility towards that as well.
I think the "green" movement (or whatever) has a lot of credibility problems amongst the vast middle of the electorate, at least in the US. Ethanol is one example of where the same environmentalists who advocated for it now acknowledge it's a net loss for the environment, and everyone knows it's just another form of corporate welfare for the farm lobby. I don't know if AGW is so much a "block" to other pressing enviro issues as it is one which is consuming much of the remaining energy that the enviro movement still has. As I've said, I think expending all the political energy on the alarmist/denier battle is wasted effort when there's little scientific or political consensus on impacts & solutions. Meanwhile, more immediate environmental issues don't get as much attention, unless it involves overbearing regulations or the loss of jobs. Just my $.02 and probably all its worth.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 18:12   #1299
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,511
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
If you go through the thread, list who are the most vehemently opposed to AGW, then do the same for who are loudly anti- the 'green' movement (in some cases despite having tested the alternatives themselves)... the matchup is pretty tight.

As above, and just a pissing contest. I suspect Kenomac is being a bit coy about how much he's actually out of pocket vs how much he's writing off (business/rental deductions), but he still took the step, no question. .
I guess for some skeptics.... seeing is believing. Here's some pictures of our roof taken back in 2008, this is what $78,000 worth of solar panels looked like back then. I can provide a receipt and satellite pictures if you still have any doubts.

What does your roof look like? Still haven't heard back form Jack regarding what his actual contributions have been over the years, other than..... excessive cut and paste internet activities on forums.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2360.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	426.2 KB
ID:	116299   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2358.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	415.9 KB
ID:	116300  

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2359.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	421.5 KB
ID:	116301   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2362.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	426.2 KB
ID:	116303  

Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2361.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	416.2 KB
ID:	116304   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2356.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	414.0 KB
ID:	116305  

__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 18:44   #1300
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,102
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsailjt View Post
...because everybody knows that third worlders are very discerning about how they get their energy so nothing but the latest and greatest green technology will do for them!

The point you seem to have missed is that in order for these third worlders to have any hope of raising their standard of living, they must have cheap energy. Cheap energy means fossil fuels, at least for the forseeable future. At the rate coal plants are being built, cheap (compared with "green") energy will soon be readily available and once it is, these folks will quickly learn how to consume it to improve their standard of living. I don't think they deserve to or intend to wait 25 years. Do you?
I've missed no point. The roughly 4 billion third worlders that generate 15 percent or less of emissions have cheap energy. It's called non fossil fuels (organic combustibles). What you mean is for the poorest 4 billion to join the richest 3 billion in consumption, they must have cheap energy provided by fossil fuels. What they deserve or intend has absolutely nothing to do with it. To build power plants you have to have a market in which to sell power. Do you think any power company is going to build a generating plant where there aren't toasters and washing machines? What, on speculation? The point is that it takes time to build an economy that has anything like the energy requirements of our own. 25 years is a guestimate as to how long it will take for the poorest half of the world's population emissions to matter, because it will take time for them to acquire the ability to consume power.

The following cartoon illustrates the point. China and India are enormously more invested in new coal plants than any other countries, and while each of those countries' per capita gdp is very low compared to ours, neither really qualifies as a third world country. The desperately poor countries in Africa, South America, Central America and Southeast Asia are adding no or very small amounts of power generating capacity. Keep in mind these numbers are for megawatt capacity, not individual plants.

This will of course change over time, and hopefully the new plants will be ever more efficient and clean. It seems that might be an area where interference (regulation) by the first world generating plant manufacturers (or more likely, their respective governments) would have a valid role. Not holding my breath on that one though...

__________________
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 19:14   #1301
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
The degree of polarization is most pronounced in the US. This past year in Canada we have elected governments that have a commitment to deal with climate. This is not a single government in Canada with the word conservative in its title. The only one not on board with the federal government and other provincial governments is Saskatchewan. Alberta, the hole of the oil sands, elected a social democratic government that acted quickly on a climate change strategy.

Condolences to my good friends up north, but better luck with the next election cycle. I'm sure significant tax increases can't be too far off.

As I have pointed out it was Frank Luntz who helped initiate a lot of the polarization in the US. He has since done a mea culpa.

https://youtu.be/hPdCkUiHCg4?list=PL...U7n7ZJOE8wvzVr

Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "
I don't know when the youTube you cited was produced, but Luntz said he wrote the memo in 1998-99. Apparently it was used by Bush in a 2002 speech. Are you suggesting the scientific consensus was as strong back then as it was when Luntz was interviewed? Luntz himself acknowledged in the video that he wouldn't have used the same language again in light of the stronger consensus. It sounds like less of a "mea culpa" and more about the use of less alarmist language that more accurately reflected the state of the science at that time.

But this begs the question of why during the past seven years of the Obama administration, the term "climate change" as opposed to "global warming" has remained in consistent use? It's not like this administration is shy about changing nomenclature to suit its narrative. As Luntz himself pointed out, the responsibility for the narrative falls on the people advocating the science now, not on a single memo that one particular presidential speechwriter wrote 17-18 years ago. So you're ascribing much of the blame for the polarization surrounding the issue NOW, to terminology that Frank Luntz wrote in the late '90's for George W. to announce 14 years ago?? Oh PLEASE . . . .
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 19:21   #1302
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
I guess for some skeptics.... seeing is believing.
Who's a skeptic about your solar? I never said you didn't do everything you said you did, at the prices you did. I merely raised the possibility that, being installed on a business and/or a rental property, you have been able to write at least part of your outlay off?

Don't answer; it's not relevant and none of my beezwax. This is why the 'show me your panels' game is pointless. If I showed you an install with twice as many panels, would you yield to my obvious eco-superiority? No, and I wouldn't expect you to. Forgive me if I don't bow before yours.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 19:49   #1303
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Who's a skeptic about your solar? I never said you didn't do everything you said you did, at the prices you did. I merely raised the possibility that, being installed on a business and/or a rental property, you have been able to write at least part of your outlay off?

Don't answer; it's not relevant and none of my beezwax. This is why the 'show me your panels' game is pointless. If I showed you an install with twice as many panels, would you yield to my obvious eco-superiority? No, and I wouldn't expect you to. Forgive me if I don't bow before yours.
Why do I have the feeling we're not going to see that? So given your passion for the AGW issue, what exactly are you doing to lower your carbon footprint? I mean, forgive me for asking, but you've made it clear that you're convinced there is a big problem, and also made it clear that others not so convinced may even be a bigger problem. As Mike O. has pointed out, there's not much we can do about China or even American politics right now, but those of us who believe there's a problem can control what we as individuals do. If not your own house, then what about petitioning your local govt. to bring more renewables into the power grid? Your taxes may go up to pay for it, but you sound more than willing, if not eager, to bear the added costs, right?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 20:03   #1304
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
It's a fallacy to suggest that people who happen to support a political party which is considered not as "green" as the other don't care about environmental issues.
Not suggesting that at all. But just caring won't get the job - any of the demanding jobs we all agree are required - done, right?

Quote:
As I've said, I think expending all the political energy on the alarmist/denier battle is wasted effort when there's little scientific or political consensus on impacts & solutions. Meanwhile, more immediate environmental issues don't get as much attention, unless it involves overbearing regulations or the loss of jobs. Just my $.02 and probably all its worth.
Well, I've always felt that the AGW debate in the form that it's currently being waged in public is not very useful... (that's the point...), but there's gas being poured on it from both sides.

There's four ways the AGW debate could end:
  1. when we get more evidence it's actually happening
  2. when we get solid counter-evidence that it's not happening
  3. when the next government says shaddup, debate over, we're acting (or not acting)
  4. there's public agreement that "ok, AGW's a thing; go study some more". No big commitments, no agreement on solutions, just something constructive while we wait some more.
At this time, I don't know what's more likely.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 06-01-2016, 20:11   #1305
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
forgive me for asking, but you've made it clear that you're convinced there is a big problem, and also made it clear that others not so convinced may even be a bigger problem.
You're forgiven. But I don't think that people's attitudes are a bigger issue than AGW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
what about petitioning your local govt. to bring more renewables into the power grid? Your taxes may go up to pay for it, but you sound more than willing, if not eager, to bear the added costs, right?
Provincially, and federally, we have elected governments who have made those commitments. Ontario has phased out coal; our new federal government has initiatives in that area. Including tax and utility increases.
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Closed Thread

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
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15.


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.