Visit our Popular Forums

**Dockhead** · 12-06-2019, 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Settle down, chief. It's a bit steep saying it's idiotic to question large emissions unless you have read none of the science.. . .

This is not about the science -- suppose we agree on that.

Who are you, to question what I emit carbon for? You don't emit carbon yourself? Did I ask you whether or not you eat meat or dairy products? Did I ask you whether you drive a car or use air conditioning?

Are we going to compare who spends carbon on what? That's about as interesting -- and meaningful -- as comparing penis sizes. The word "idiotic" is not at all out of place.

**hpeer** · 12-06-2019, 07:40

Dock head,

We question for the same reason we have no discharge zones. When someone fouls the common resources everyone has the right to question.

Do we want to run the world into San Francisco?

Tornadosailing · 12-06-2019, 07:46

This is such an easy question to answer. Is it dramatically more expensive (as a % of hull value) to insure a cat than a mono?

It's not. There's your answer. If cats capsize at a higher rate than mono's sink, it would be reflected in insurance rates.

Chotu · 12-06-2019, 07:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

This is such an easy question to answer. Is it dramatically more expensive (as a % of hull value) to insure a cat than a mono?

It's not. There's your answer. If cats capsize at a higher rate than mono's sink, it would be reflected in insurance rates.

Finally. An end to conjecture and wild guesses.

mikereed100 · 12-06-2019, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

If you're happy enjoying the arctic by burning so much of the fuel that destroys it I guess that's for you. But pretty odd to read you moralizing about responsibility on the Rebel Heart thread for the risk they placed only themselves in when you're so blase about your own role in a global safety risk.

This conversation has certainly taken a bizarre turn. Reminds me why I continue to read CF, despite my better judgement. If we are going to berate Dockhead for motoring for 3 days in order to avoid weather in the high latitudes I suppose I will have to come clean and admit that I recently motored for 8 days in the Southern Ocean for the same reason. I didn't like it, but one look at the big red blob creeping up behind us on the GRIB chart kept my hand on the throttle. Call me crazy, a lot of people do and they're probably right, but I don't feel that putting oneself in harms way is the best way to conserve carbon units.

**Dockhead** · 12-06-2019, 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by hpeer

Dock head,

We question for the same reason we have no discharge zones. When someone fouls the common resources everyone has the right to question.

Do we want to run the world into San Francisco?

I don't understand -- so you are questioning my right to run my diesel for 3 days? Because I am "fouling the common resources"? Really?

Well -- go jump in a lake.

I am a vegan, ride a bike to work, don't drive, don't use air conditioning. If it were relevant at all, which it's not, but since you brought it up -- my carbon footprint is definitely much smaller than yours, probably several times smaller. Your eating meat and consuming dairy products, just to take one thing, does vast ecological damage, not only carbon emissions, but land use, fresh water resources, and we won't even get into cruelty to animals. Diet has a bigger impact on carbon footprint than transportation choices. So why don't you tell us about your diet, and tell us how you can live with yourself, "fouling the common resources" in this inexcusable way?

Do you really want to start auditing each other's "fouling of common resources"? Comparing each other's carbon footprints? Is this at all an interesting conversation?

smj · 12-06-2019, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't understand -- so you are questioning my right to run my diesel for 3 days? Because I am "fouling the common resources"? Really?

Well -- go jump in a lake.

I am a vegan, ride a bike to work, don't drive, don't use air conditioning. If it were relevant at all, which it's not, but since you brought it up -- my carbon footprint is definitely much smaller than yours, probably several times smaller. Your eating meat and consuming dairy products, just to take one thing, does vast ecological damage, not only carbon emissions, but land use, fresh water resources, and we won't even get into cruelty to animals. Diet has a bigger impact on carbon footprint than transportation choices. So why don't you tell us about your diet, and tell us how you can live with yourself, "fouling the common resources" in this inexcusable way?

Do you really want to start auditing each other's "fouling of common resources"? Comparing each other's carbon footprints? Is this at all an interesting conversation?

Being a vegan I’m guessing you fart like a mule and the amount of methane gas you emit probably pollutes more than if you were a meat eating automobile driver. This of course is in humor!

**Dockhead** · 12-06-2019, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

Being a vegan I’m guessing you fart like a mule and the amount of methane gas you emit probably pollutes more than if you were a meat eating automobile driver. This of course is in humor!

Ha, ha.

Well, it's a common myth that vegans fart all the time, right up there with "where do you get your protein"? If you are consuming legumes for your protein, as many vegans, then the key is understanding how to cook them to get rid of the fartogenic enzymes.

Seriously, though, methane from cow farts (and belches) is a major source of greenhouse gas, apparently more significant than the entire transportation industry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qzmw_xG58

The single most effective way for people to reduce their carbon footprint is to give up beef and dairy products.

I don't normally preach about this on here, but having been outrageously berated for diesel usage . . .

**boatman61** · 12-06-2019, 10:45

You guys will hate me then..
Motored a Lagoon 45S most of the way from Miami to Gib.. But hey, time, tide and owners wait for no man.. especially delivery skippers faced with light head or zero winds when its a <5 week schedule.

KC375 · 12-06-2019, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomfl

I know you ain't going to break the rules, because there ain't any.

Except for development classes which do have rules and following them means better performance from a single sail; but the boat would have even better performance if there was a foresail which created a slot.

what the development classes have shown is for a given sail area it's better in one sail. Yes adding a jib increases performance because of the extra sail area.

If for a given sail area the "slot" had a real effect, then geuss what? Development class would take some sail area from the main to allow them to add a jib...they don't.

contrail · 12-06-2019, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61

You guys will hate me then..
Motored a Lagoon 45S most of the way from Miami to Gib.. But hey, time, tide and owners wait for no man.. especially delivery skippers faced with light head or zero winds when its a <5 week schedule.

I suppose if you could have gotten your desired angle of heel, the sails might have been more useful...........

**boatman61** · 12-06-2019, 11:33

Oh she heeled in 25kts with double reefed main and jib.. Not a lot but enough to make an orange roll on the table..

Trouble was it was ESE and took me from 150nm SE of Bermuda to 500nm SE of Newfoundland.. but 3 days of good sailing before it died down back to 7kts E.