Visit our Popular Forums

jtsailjt · 07-01-2016, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Again, because I have said it more than a few times, the fix to pollution and sustainability issues will come from policy change. Private charity alone won't end poverty, individual action alone won't fix our pollution problems. Installing solar? positive move. Telling everyone in earshot that the green agenda is a scam? negative move. How many more people have now heard Ken rail against his solar setup, AGW and eco-stuff, vs those who have seen his roof?

Posting such stuff would just enable another avenue of attack, from others, if not from you. You guys would find fault with Ghandhi, if he didn't agree with you. No thanks. Good try tho'.

The decision to cut ties to property and be a liveaboard or longterm cruiser involves a number of inputs: wealth, health, spouse and family, occupation. They don't always come together; for those of you who've pulled it off, bravo. The ability to be off-grid ... about the same set.

Would I like to be out cruising? hell yes. Would I like to be a liveaboard or otherwise off-grid? yes also. But the stars haven't aligned, my ducks are not in a row. But I do the best I can, on both counts.

Ken hasn't been "railing" or "crowing," just trying to explain his first hand experience with solar to us. Why do you feel the need to use such terms to describe the way those who disagree with you speak?

Contrary to your claim, changing policy in itself will make NO difference in pollution or climate change. It's the actual decrease in carbon footprint of many millions of individuals that will make a difference, whether those many millions change their way of securing their energy voluntarily as Ken did or to be in compliance with a policy change. In other words, it's not the words that count, it's the actions.

Ironic that you'd mention finding fault with Gandhi if we didn't agree with him because YOU'RE the one finding fault with Ken because he doesn't agree with you, even though he's taken way more steps to decrease his carbon footprint than you or I or most people have.

You don't have to be a cruiser to decrease your carbon footprint. Yes, it happens that a couple of the folks on here who are living off the grid are doing it on sailboats, but Kens primary decrease in carbon footprint came from a choice he made on land. You say you are doing the best that you can and if that's true how do you propose to pay for your share of increased energy costs if we did make the switch to expensive alternative energy. You are a big advocate of "policy change" which basically means government forcing us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do on our own. So, if the government makes a policy change that says you HAVE to buy more expensive, greener, energy, since you are already "doing the best you can," have you thought how this increased cost will affect you? I bring this up to you because I think that a lot of AGW worriers who want the government to just "do something," don't stop to think what that "something" might cost them personally. I get the feeling they think that somebody else besides them is going to pay for it. If you aren't willing to make the changes (like Ken and others did) to decrease your carbon footprint voluntarily, where do you plan to get the dough to pay for your share of the "policy changes" that you think will help?

Kenomac · 07-01-2016, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks Ken, but as I said, the world is just fine. It's us who are at risk.

I haven't yet sailed far and wide, but I have cruised in some pretty remote and superficially pristine areas. I've also paddled into the wilds of northern Canada, into places that are unreachable by engines, or indeed most people. Yet even here the signs of human pollution and impact are not hard to spot -- if you care to look.

Perhaps the contrast between what you and I see is a perfect metaphor for this discussion. While you see nothing but unspoiled nature, I see the impacts of our global civilization.

Like most things, the "truth" is likely somewhere in between.

Mike,

It appears that I see the glass half full, you see the same glass... half empty.

Lake-Effect · 07-01-2016, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Contrary to your claim, changing policy in itself will make NO difference in pollution or climate change.

Riiiight. We won WW II how, again? Humans got to the moon how? AIDS was changed from a death sentence to a manageable condition in which way? Cancer is being fought by...?

There's so much that's possible when we say "we" instead of "I". "We the people". I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.

Mike OReilly · 07-01-2016, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

It appears that I see the glass half full, you see the same glass... half empty.

Perhaps, although I prefer the rose coloured glasses analogy ... or would this be a simile? Oh the mysteries of life

.

Kenomac · 07-01-2016, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Riiiight. We won WW II how, again?Revving up private/corporate industry to meet the government demand. Ford, General Motors, US Steel etc Humans got to the moon how? NASA along with private/corporate industry AIDS was changed from a death sentence to a manageable condition in which way? Private/corporate industry/Cancer is being fought by...? Private/corporate industry

There's so much that's possible when we say "we" instead of "I". "We the people". I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.

There needs to be a financial incentive built in, otherwise... it won't get done. With the exception being WW II, when our motives were quite different.

When "we the people" do something, or rather government does something.... it usually turns out looking like a public restroom... and stinking just as bad.

Exile · 07-01-2016, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Riiiight. We won WW II how, again? Humans got to the moon how? AIDS was changed from a death sentence to a manageable condition in which way? Cancer is being fought by...?

By a whole lot of dedicated people, with uncontroversial, universally accepted goals, working individually & together on a common mission. Not by individuals standing in the back doing nothing but chastizing others about joining the fight.

Kenomac · 07-01-2016, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"We the people". I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.

Yes, they're the first three words in the Bill of Rights, a document outlining and defining our individual rights and freedoms as U.S Citizens. Nothing collective about it.

Nice try.

**newhaul** · 07-01-2016, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Riiiight. We won WW II how, again? Humans got to the moon how? AIDS was changed from a death sentence to a manageable condition in which way? Cancer is being fought by...?

There's so much that's possible when we say "we" instead of "I". "We the people". I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.

Well let's see here
1) we ( the united states military) was instermental in winning WWII. If japan had not attacked Pearl harbor we would have remained an isolationist country.
2) we ( the united states) went to t moon. The Russians put a man in space so Not willing to loose to them the United States government tasked the country with beating the Russians to the moon.
3) aids research was done by american companies.
4) american companies have made cancer a mostly survivable disease.
5) we the people is the first 3 words of the constitution of the Unites States of America

Muckle Flugga · 07-01-2016, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well let's see here
1) we ( the united states military) was instermental in winning WWII. If japan had not attacked Pearl harbor we would have remained an isolationist country.
2) we ( the united states) went to t moon. The Russians put a man in space so Not willing to loose to them the United States government tasked the country with beating the Russians to the moon.
3) aids research was done by american companies.
4) american companies have made cancer a mostly survivable disease.
5) we the people is the first 3 words of the constitution of the Unites States of America

Well now very off topic indeed but…

1. Entering several years after it began, and discounting the combined efforts of all the other allies, apparently.
2. There is nothing to choose between the achievements of the US and the Russians in human spaceflight. Indeed, if correctly accounted for, the Russkies are maybe slightly ahead. Who was the first person to orbit? Who built the first space station? Who's getting the astronauts to the ISS now? Oh, and the Apollo missions would have been nothing without German tech and expertise.
3. What, ONLY? Nope.
4. ONLY US companies? You are aware that the rest of the world contributes MASSIVELY to biological science, no?

Anyhow… you perhaps didn't mean to diss this. But there it is.

SV THIRD DAY · 07-01-2016, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Yes, they're the first three words in the Bill of Rights, a document outlining and defining our individual rights and freedoms as U.S Citizens. Nothing collective about it.

Nice try.

Hey maybe Obozo can just issue an executive order and ban CO2...or at least give the emitters a background check or stop the CO2 show loop pole. Hey why not...works to take away other constitutional rights.

mr_f · 07-01-2016, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

or 2015 would not have been only the 3rd-warmest year that the satellites have measured since 1979. Instead, it would have been the warmest year,

I will put aside the somewhat odd suggestion that you can't have a warming trend without every year being warmer than the previous year. I assume you are aware of inter annual variability.

But, I think it is worth pointing out some reasons for questioning your claim that it is only the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record. That is one groups interpretation of the satellite temperature data. In particular a group that does not make their correction for diurnal drift publicly available for comparison. Other groups come to different estimates using the same data, and publish how they handle diurnal drift.

The following paper deals with the differences between the UAH interpretation to which you refer and others:

Quote:

A spurious UAH tropical land trend after 2005 relative to other TMT datasets and our analysis with drifting satellites removed suggest that the UAH treatment of diurnal drift has biases. Unlike the RSS and NOAA diurnal corrections, the UAH correction is not publicly available for comparison. UAH constructs its TMT diurnal drift correction using 13 months of data from three coorbiting AMSU satellites: NOAA-15, NOAA-16, and NOAA-17 (J. Christy 2013, personal communication). Differences between our approach and UAH likely result because UAH does not apply diurnal corrections to AMSU measurements (AMSU was carried on satellites starting with NOAA-15). It is also possible that diurnal corrections calculated with AMSU may have biases when applied to MSU. A further complication is that the three coorbiting satellites need to be absolutely calibrated, which is not possible with AMSU, since MSU/ AMSU radiometers are not International System of Units (SI) calibrated. Furthermore, the correction derived from six unique points may be sensitive to assumptions regarding the shape of the diurnal cycle.

http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publica...edley.2015.pdf

As an aside, here is another paper that suggests that the current techniques for interpreting tropospheric temperature from satellites may lead to underestimates:

Uncertainty of AMSU-A derived temperature trends in relationship with clouds and precipitation over ocean - Springer

**newhaul** · 08-01-2016, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Well now very off topic indeed but…

1. Entering several years after it began, and discounting the combined efforts of all the other allies, apparently.
2. There is nothing to choose between the achievements of the US and the Russians in human spaceflight. Indeed, if correctly accounted for, the Russkies are maybe slightly ahead. Who was the first person to orbit? Who built the first space station? Who's getting the astronauts to the ISS now? Oh, and the Apollo missions would have been nothing without German tech and expertise.
3. What, ONLY? Nope.
4. ONLY US companies? You are aware that the rest of the world contributes MASSIVELY to biological science, no?

Anyhow… you perhaps didn't mean to diss this. But there it is.

On the WWII I don't discount the actions of the rest of the allies however look at the facts. America supplied the majority of allied armour, allied troops, allied combat naval vessels, aircraft, and support industry. Perhaps you really need a refresher on WWII. As far as the rest if not for american industry/money well you get the idea.lastly yes the Russians do transport everyone to the iss which was itself transported into space how? Its a lot cheaper to pay the Russians than to .launch our own simple economics that's all.

Sorry form thread drift L-E hit a nerve by implying that Canada and america are the same I may have gotten rather defensive .

Muckle Flugga · 08-01-2016, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

On the WWII I don't discount the actions of the rest of the allies however look at the facts. America supplied the majority of allied armour, allied troops, allied combat naval vessels, aircraft, and support industry. Perhaps you really need a refresher on WWII. As far as the rest if not for american industry/money well you get the idea.lastly yes the Russians do transport everyone to the iss which was itself transported into space how? Its a lot cheaper to pay the Russians than to .launch our own simple economics that's all.

Sorry form thread drift L-E hit a nerve by implying that Canada and america are the same I may have gotten rather defensive .

Apparently it is you who need a refresher.

The Russians produced significantly more armoured fighting vehicles (close to 40,000 more) than did the US during WWII. Ditto ground troops: again, massively more. And that's only the Russians, discounting ALL others. Of course the US contributed greatly, but I am afraid it really burns my wick when I hear this kind of incorrect perspective. The US does sometimes have a tendency to discount the massive contributions of others. Witness the nonsense of U571, the distortions of Saving Private Ryan, and many others. The Russians alone suffered around 20 times the combat casualties than did the US in WWII. Please don't try to diminish the sacrifice of others to burnish a national image. It isn't pretty.

AiniA · 08-01-2016, 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

When you eventually begin cruising on a more world wide basis, you're going to discover the world to be much larger than previously thought. Most people even on this forum, only know the twenty or thirty miles surrounding their homes and then extrapolate their vision of their environment onto the rest of the world.

The world is huge and the vast majority remains unaffected by us lowly humans. It's not made up of oceans filled with garbage and city air so polluted that makes your eyes water. Mostly, there is no trash just laying around like on the Eco documentaries. Where we stay in Sardinia, I'd describe the environment as pristine.

Cheer up... The world isn't coming to an end.

Got to disagree with you. We have sailed around the world and done quite a bit of land travel as well. Currently in Vietnam after coming down from Beijing over the last five weeks or so. I am glad that Sardinia is pristine but there are way more places we have visited that are far from pristine. I am now suggesting that the world is ruined but there are many, many places at risk. We were in Beijing during two 'red alerts' - it was pretty horrible but Beijing does not make the list of cities with the worst air pollution, most of which are in India. No one talks about air pollution in Hanoi, but it was pretty bad too. A few more people live in India and China than in Sardinia, or indeed all of the developed world. Most cruisers go to places that have relatively small populations and population densities.

jimbunyard · 08-01-2016, 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_f

I will put aside the somewhat odd suggestion that you can't have a warming trend without every year being warmer than the previous year. I assume you are aware of inter annual variability.

But, I think it is worth pointing out some reasons for questioning your claim that it is only the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record. That is one groups interpretation of the satellite temperature data. In particular a group that does not make their correction for diurnal drift publicly available for comparison. Other groups come to different estimates using the same data, and publish how they handle diurnal drift.

The following paper deals with the differences between the UAH interpretation to which you refer and others:

http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publica...edley.2015.pdf

As an aside, here is another paper that suggests that the current techniques for interpreting tropospheric temperature from satellites may lead to underestimates:

Uncertainty of AMSU-A derived temperature trends in relationship with clouds and precipitation over ocean - Springer