Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Fossil fuels is are buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

Fossil fuel combustion is also the source of the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries. They are primarily responsible for AGW.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Fossil fuel combustion is also the source of the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries. They are primarily responsible for AGW.

actually wrong jack the official stance is 40%

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Fossil fuels is are buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

in other words plants.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
But:
Among the top 10 absolute emitters, only two countries have per capita emissions that are below the world average. Canada, the United States, and Russia all emit more than double the global average per person. On the other end of the spectrum, India’s per capita emissions, for instance, are only one-third of the global average.
So, we/re not all average emmiters.




Fossil fuels is are buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

We may not all be average, but those below average compensate for those above average meaning average is average. Since analogies are doing the rounds in this thread, imagine if a car manufacturer sold an average of 10000 cars a day. If you actually inspected their sales orders you'd no doubt find that they rarely, if ever, actually sell exactly 10000 in a day. Unless China or the Sentinelese breed at magnitudes of rates higher than everywhere else the overall average may waiver slightly but it won't change significantly and it will never reach 0.

[Lake-Effect]

[trying to be brief, to make sure that others have sufficient bandwidth with which to discuss whether people actually eat fossil fuels]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I don't mean to convey that one needs street credibility as evidenced by a vegan cave (cabin!)-dwelling lifestyle to speak on this subject, but rather that...in the effort of swaying opinion...that perhaps it'd be a more effective sales pitch to say "when I was younger, I didn't realize how short-sighted I was...I used to over-consume [etc] but now I'm working on reforming my habits and these are the good things I've immediately noticed"

Again, I feel that's still submitting to the "who's greener" p1ssing contest. And I'm not yet on commission.

I generally loathe the efforts of Al Gore and friends going back to his early days. If he and his friends simply said "hey everyone, we've got garbage lying all over the place, who likes that? What can we do? Hey, here's some ideas to immediately make your personal life better, I'm doing them too..." that Gore and company would have been much more successful.

O noes! You've got AlGoraphobia!

I've heard the case against. I don't completely disagree, but I think that specifically with Mr Gore it's a bit of a bum rap. He was a VP, he was already wealthy. The idea that he'd forego living as his wealth and status dictate, and that he'd need to put on some sort of green farce - he and his secret service detail travelling around in a fleet of Priuses (Priuii?), etc - everyone would see through that.

His efforts and the film ("An Inconvenient Truth") were fairly instrumental in helping get AGW onto the front page, and around the dining and boardroom tables.

Everyone rags on him for having the big house, travelling by private jet etc, but I have this theory: such people should be judged by their net carbon footprint. If Al speaks to 1 million schoolkids, and 30% of the kids talk about it at home, and 10% of those homes swap out incandescent bulbs for LED, upgrade some insulation, etc - that's a big carbon saving. Ditto for companies and institutions that he persuaded/arm-twisted into some energy savings and efficiencies. He could heat his house with open barrels of burning creosote, and eat grassfed steak every meal, and use his private jet to go shopping, and he'd still have a net positive carbon footprint.

Anyway, AlGoraphobia's symptoms can be controlled, and complete cures have been observed. Get well soon.

(My TDS will hopefully be cured by next fall)

in summary, AGW reformers will not succeed over business interests. It's just not possible, no matter how necessary reform needs to be. Quite simply the civilization won't sufficiently support it.

"Reform" and "succeed" seem a bit strong. I don't believe that there will suddenly be a drastic WW II grade effort to stave off warming. It's like a big ship; you can't turn it on a dime, so you try to get a warning to the bridge in good time, and they hopefully start putting the wheel over.

Going back to the exceedingly poor on earth. The village types (who aren't within a few feet of sea level). These are the people who, in totality, will be least effected by AGW, but who will, per capita, disproportionately produce GG.

... that doesn't make sense. per-capita, wealthy 1st-worlders have the biggest carbon footprints. Their cars, imported food, the stuff they buy, trips, amount of garbage produced... almost an order of magnitude worse than your poor villager and his dung fire.

To summarize much...the modern western economy "health" is predicated upon the growth of consumption, pure and simple.

Moving to overall sustainability will involve a whole lotta soul-searching, and abandonment of some economics dogma. Short-term, we need stick (regulations, carbon caps, stop subsidising fossil fuel use) and carrot (incentives to develop more sustainable technology).

As a single-point philosophy to reduce consumption, consider introducing people to Ivan Illich's observations about the absurdity of cars. This Illich-car heuristic can be applied to all sorts of other personal decision-making. The [removed] snip is from this page; the numbers may be a bit exaggerated, but the logic is clear.
[removed]

Many urban-dwelling millenials have not followed us into car dependence. Many don't even licence up. Auto manufacturers are starting to cut back, and to diversify. So the writing's on the wall. I still feel comfortable in predicting that by 2030, the internal combustion engine will no longer be dominant in autos.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And prey tell what are fossil fuels?

Originally Posted by newhaul

in other words plants.

You seem to relish being wrong, and you've given yourself another opportunity to do so again.

First, it's "pray", not "prey".

Second, according to your favorite source, crude oil mostly comes from "Algae, plankton and other marine and lacustrine photosynthesizers", only a portion of which are plants (e.g. phytoplanktons, but not zooplankton or algae).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...-it-come-from/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

You seem to relish being wrong, and you've given yourself another opportunity to do so again.

First, it's "pray", not "prey".

Second, according to your favorite source, crude oil mostly comes from "Algae, plankton and other marine and lacustrine photosynthesizers", only a portion of which are plants (e.g. phytoplanktons, but not zooplankton or algae).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/...-it-come-from/

And what is coal??

Prey would be appropriate as in it was easy prey not pray I don't pray to anything all it is is virtue signaling . Such as your current post I am replying to .

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I tend to agree with/buy into a lot of ideas promulgated by the Frankfurt school of thought (e.g. Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man [of which many sailors are effectively exercising the great refusal described by Dante, but I digress from a digression]) which generally finds (my interpolation) that, in summary, AGW reformers will not succeed over business interests. It's just not possible, no matter how necessary reform needs to be. Quite simply the civilization won't sufficiently support it.

Could you give a layman's description of what the Frankfurt School thinks. I found the Wikipedia article too full of words longer than six letter for me to understand.

Going back to the exceedingly poor on earth. The village types (who aren't within a few feet of sea level). These are the people who, in totality, will be least effected by AGW, but who will, per capita, disproportionately produce GG. It occurs to me that these are the people whom will have the least amount of buy-in (as they can't afford it in the first place).

I'm surprised you think so. From what I've read the changing climate will screw up current agricultural practices. Too much rain; not enough rain; rain at the wrong time; glacier-fed rivers with less volume; higher heat stressing plants; more plant pests; etc.

We "rich" countries will be far more able to buy ourselves out of trouble. Not so much the extremely poor. I understand that China is buying large acreages of farm land in Africa to better feed their own masses --- obviously to the detriment of the locals.

Again, there's always the flat earth component. You legitimize them by giving them attention. If you provide a better product...a better philosophy...then people will follow you. If you find yourself mired in the opposite narrative, either the opposite narrative is correct, or you're a really, really bad salesman.

In the US one of the most monolithic groups denying/skeptical of AGW are conservative Evangelical Christians (and they are also one of Trump's most reliable supporters). At least of few of them have graced these CF AGW-discussion threads with their presence. Their philosophy is backed by "The Word of the Lord", and sweetened with everlasting-pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die. What "better product...a better philosophy" do you recommend we "alarmists" offer to these type of people?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[

Anyway, AlGoraphobia's symptoms can be controlled, and complete cures have been observed. Get well soon.

(My TDS will hopefully be cured by next fall)

yes it will become fully apparent to all that you are fully infected for the next 4 years after the elections. Wonder what they will call it for the period from 2024 till 2032 when we still have a conservative president that doesn't fall for the Al gore hype. :-):-):-)

[weavis]

Gentle People.

The sell-by date for a non-cruising related thread has expired. Given the historical fact of all threads of this nature eventually are closed, it might be an idea to realise that starting another will be not viewed with compassion by the CF admin and moderators, so perhaps best to concentrate on something more in keeping with CFs normal topics.