Will be a total bashing and not much sleep apparently wrongtime of the year to do such a passage from what I hear.
Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..Datawiz said..saintpeter said..
I can't find my post - funny about that.
So I'll just sit back in the naughty corner ..... again
I can't find mine either saintpeter - I guess my comments about climate change deniers were too much for some.
Given the usual profile of most deniers, I guess it's not surprising.
I'd join you in the naughty corner if I thought I deserved to....
In this context denier was coined in terms of the Holocaust, it is now used to imply the same horrid mindset for people who disagree with you.
Denier, the word you use when you want to shut up your oppositions arguments because you can't think of anything else to say!
The use of the term denier in the context of Climate Change is quite simple.
A denier is one who does not accept what the majority of credible, non-partisan, independent scientists have been telling us for years.
Select to expand quotetired said..hoop said..Madmouse said..
I think the post suggesting someone should drown was removed ( thank god) so anyone quoting that post might have been too.
I think that post was made by someone that sympathises with the Christchurch killer and also hates most people that aren't white Christians. The self appointed Seabreeze White Power advocate.
He gets upset when someone calls him a bigot, go figure??
What a load of nonsense this post is.
Someone has a different opion to you and out comes the nasty, nasty name calling,
Even the boffins don't agree about climate change.
Grow up.
I've got teenagers and like Greta they have a nice way of cutting through to us Boomers - What if we are Wrong?
I wouldn't sail with suspect rigging, I wouldn't go if the forecast looks nasty. So, call me old fashioned, but I prefer the precautionary approach.
Even if the science turns out to have overstated the threat, seems to me like we, through the changes advised, we will get a better environment. Now, if we don't change, and leave our kids and the planet with a big mess...that is my definition of dumb ass
Most teenagers have the attention span of a goldfish.
True.
I seen it on Facebook when l wuz researching stuffs.
But how do we know that the adaptation to climate change won't be more beneficial to mankind in the future.
Oldies are always being told change is good, change is better so maybe climate change is better
Select to expand quoteConcepcion said..tired said..hoop said..Madmouse said..
I think the post suggesting someone should drown was removed ( thank god) so anyone quoting that post might have been too.
I think that post was made by someone that sympathises with the Christchurch killer and also hates most people that aren't white Christians. The self appointed Seabreeze White Power advocate.
He gets upset when someone calls him a bigot, go figure??
What a load of nonsense this post is.
Someone has a different opion to you and out comes the nasty, nasty name calling,
Even the boffins don't agree about climate change.
Grow up.
I've got teenagers and like Greta they have a nice way of cutting through to us Boomers - What if we are Wrong?
I wouldn't sail with suspect rigging, I wouldn't go if the forecast looks nasty. So, call me old fashioned, but I prefer the precautionary approach.
Even if the science turns out to have overstated the threat, seems to me like we, through the changes advised, we will get a better environment. Now, if we don't change, and leave our kids and the planet with a big mess...that is my definition of dumb ass
Yeah, what if science overstated the threat and we created a much better world for no good reason......????
Oh dear the sailing forum is starting to look a bit like heavy weather!
Lefties go on feeling smug and superior. Righties go on shaking your heads at their naievity.
Back to the sailing this is a pretty impressive effort on rileys part so far. Dodged the NE front that's faster and stronger than forecast. Great routing but it's gonna have to be or they will be smashed.
Reckon they will have to do many many miles more than the rhumb line and gretas gonna miss her date by quite a bit especially given she won't let them motor to dodge or catch the weather.
For me that pretty much sums up the problem with her and her followers approach - better be be seen to be doing something even if it's not effective than actually getting a result and arriving on time.
Ok,
Henny Penny.
You win.
The planet needs less opinionated folk on it, that's essentially it...mostly
And less throw away toys...like my Super crap saw which buggered up after 17 mins of use.
So do the right thing...
stop breeding.
and start giving decent birthday/xmas presents.
Thank you ball boys
Thank you ball girls
Select to expand quotetired said..
Ok,
Henny Penny.
You win.
The planet needs less opinionated folk on it, that's essentially it...mostly
And less throw away toys...like my Super crap saw which buggered up after 17 mins of use.
So do the right thing...
stop breeding.
and start giving decent birthday/xmas presents.
Thank you ball boys
Thank you ball girls
You got it! Less throw away goods will do a lot of practical effect to help the planet. We need things that can be repaired rather than discarded. Take barbecues as an example. My old Ozzie one cost twice as much as the latest all metal cheapie, but lasted 5 times longer, and used less carbon based resources.
Sailing to a conference using a carbon fibre boat to promote "save the environment" is like the marketing con job of "clean" solar panels. What solar panels actually do is transfer the massive pollution created in making them somewhere else where we dont see it. Smelting the silicon, copper and glass in a solar panel requires massive energy and the pollution created by supplying that energy appears as smog and dead rivers in China.
See asiancorrespondent.com/2011/09/the-hidden-pollution-caused-by-solar-panels/
Same with carbon fibre. It is actually right up there with the worst manufacturing material you could use as far as damage to the environment goes. A quick Google shows you need to burn about 10kg of hard coal to get 300MJ of energy to make 1kg of carbon fibre. How heavy is that boat? I am a greenie but grandstanding rubbish doesnt help anything.
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/22/carbon-fibre-wonder-material-dirty-secret
We need to deal with facts. The Ms is riding on a boat the construction thereof that caused more massive environmental damage than most other things you could possible make. The Ms would have been better to add her 60kg to the weight of the A380 which was flying the route regardless!
Select to expand quoteBara said..
Oh dear the sailing forum is starting to look a bit like heavy weather!
Lefties go on feeling smug and superior. Righties go on shaking your heads at their naievity.
Back to the sailing this is a pretty impressive effort on rileys part so far. Dodged the NE front that's faster and stronger than forecast. Great routing but it's gonna have to be or they will be smashed.
Reckon they will have to do many many miles more than the rhumb line and gretas gonna miss her date by quite a bit especially given she won't let them motor to dodge or catch the weather.
For me that pretty much sums up the problem with her and her followers approach - better be be seen to be doing something even if it's not effective than actually getting a result and arriving on time.
They have the professional navigator, Christian Dumard who is giving advice with the routing. Should be interesting watching their progress as the various weather systems come and go.
Select to expand quoteConcepcion said..tired said..hoop said..Madmouse said..
I think the post suggesting someone should drown was removed ( thank god) so anyone quoting that post might have been too.
I think that post was made by someone that sympathises with the Christchurch killer and also hates most people that aren't white Christians. The self appointed Seabreeze White Power advocate.
He gets upset when someone calls him a bigot, go figure??
What a load of nonsense this post is.
Someone has a different opion to you and out comes the nasty, nasty name calling,
Even the boffins don't agree about climate change.
Grow up.
I've got teenagers and like Greta they have a nice way of cutting through to us Boomers - What if we are Wrong?
I wouldn't sail with suspect rigging, I wouldn't go if the forecast looks nasty. So, call me old fashioned, but I prefer the precautionary approach.
Even if the science turns out to have overstated the threat, seems to me like we, through the changes advised, we will get a better environment. Now, if we don't change, and leave our kids and the planet with a big mess...that is my definition of dumb ass
I had a detailed post last night on the subject that got somehow deleted on my computer as I tried to attach a link to a paper titled:
Climate change and the Precautionary Principle.
It was written in 2006 and it is very interesting with respect to how things have progressed since it's publication . Here is the link. Well worth a read :
www.nusap.net/downloads/Climate_Change_and_the_Precautionary_Principle.pdf
This debate should not be "Lefties verses Righties". It is the politicians who have framed the debate as such.
I'm not left or right but vary my position from subject to subject and I'm not smug or superior. Nor am i naive. The word implies lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement and i refuse to be put in the box of someone else's narrowly defining one liner. ( and Bara I'm not really offended at your post, just using it as an illustration to make a point. I hope you don't mind. )
With respect to communication i will make two statements as it is with poor communication that much of the problem around the climate issue arises.
False assumptions pave the way to prejudice.
Accusations, more often than not, say more about the accuser than the accused.
and this from Morning Bird
"In this context denier was coined in terms of the Holocaust, it is now used to imply the same horrid mindset for people who disagree with you.
Denier, the word you use when you want to shut up your oppositions arguments because you can't think of anything else to say!"
I'm sorry but you are way off the mark with respect to many who use the term. Of course in some situations and exchanges in hostile debates you would be absolutely right. ;) however Datawiz is more on the mark with respect to how many intend to be heard and understood when using the word.
My use of the word in the poem i wrote was definitely a statement to the political leaders it was aimed at. Leaders should lead from an informed and inteligent position and not play manipulating games with the electorate and our leaders are far from being fair dinkum in their media statements. The lack of integrity in Political leadership on all manner of subjects is staggering and will have devastating consequences for Australian people.
Select to expand quoteTrek said..
Sailing to a conference using a carbon fibre boat to promote "save the environment" is like the marketing con job of "clean" solar panels. What solar panels actually do is transfer the massive pollution created in making them somewhere else where we dont see it. Smelting the silicon, copper and glass in a solar panel requires massive energy and the pollution created by supplying that energy appears as smog and dead rivers in China.
See asiancorrespondent.com/2011/09/the-hidden-pollution-caused-by-solar-panels/
Same with carbon fibre. It is actually right up there with the worst manufacturing material you could use as far as damage to the environment goes. A quick Google shows you need to burn about 10kg of hard coal to get 300MJ of energy to make 1kg of carbon fibre. How heavy is that boat? I am a greenie but grandstanding rubbish doesnt help anything.
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/22/carbon-fibre-wonder-material-dirty-secret
We need to deal with facts. The Ms is riding on a boat the construction thereof that caused more massive environmental damage than most other things you could possible make. The Ms would have been better to add her 60kg to the weight of the A380 which was flying the route regardless!
The extra fuel burn of a B777 at normal operating weight for that length of flight would be about 300kg/ tonne of increase in weight. If she hopped on board at the last minute her 60kg would create an extra burn of only about 19kg or 23 litres of Jet A1. I'd say they've burnt that a few times over already...
There seems to be an ominous silence on the sailing la vagabonde channel of late.
With the funding and tech they have on board I don't think it an issue of not having internet connection.
Maybe Greta has stared them down with her "How Dare You" grimmace for actually eating fish they caught along the way, or maybe it was "How Dare You" start that diesel engine and create a carbon footprint on my trip back across the Atlantic.
Possibly Riley and Elena are pondering the wisdom of letting Greta The Gremlin on board.
Select to expand quotecisco said..
There seems to be an ominous silence on the sailing la vagabonde channel of late.
With the funding and tech they have on board I don't think it an issue of not having internet connection.
Maybe Greta has stared them down with her "How Dare You" grimmace for actually eating fish they caught along the way, or maybe it was "How Dare You" start that diesel engine and create a carbon footprint on my trip back across the Atlantic.
Possibly Riley and Elena are pondering the wisdom of letting Greta The Gremlin on board.
Umm not really. There are daily posts on facebook. The website is showing them very nearly there. They are off the coast of Spain. Doing over 9 knots each time l look.
After a slow start its great to see them pretty much on track.
Fingers crossed
sailing-lavagabonde.com
For a more balanced view, I have been following the thread on Sailing Anarchy. 18 very long pages!
forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/211616-greta-rides-again/&page=18
What is it that all these grumpy old guys find so offensive about Greta?
Do they not want to live on a clean planet? Are they just too scared to change their ways for the better?
Or is it a pride thing that a 16 year old girl is sending an important message?
For my part blaming previous generations for the industrial revolution and its result is nieve and achieves nothing. Noone knew the Earth was an air tight ball back then.
Sailing on a carbon fibre boat to reduce carbon foot print is ridiculous. That boat would have cost hundreds of tonnes of carbon emissions to make!! Its the worst of the worst in materials. The voyage has been a great unpaid commercial for carbon fibre. Good job boys.
Over population is responsible for most of the climate change problem. Everyones desire to procreate. But silence about that! Should previous generations be blamed for having children?
I am very much an environmentalist like most yacht sailors but considered and well expressed facts beat TV grand standing any day. I deal with plenty of red necks who ridicule climate change and that offensive blaming of previous generations who were only starting to understand the world back then has turned them right off. Well thought out explainations would not have.
Select to expand quoteTrek said..
For my part blaming previous generations for the industrial revolution and its result is nieve and achieves nothing. Noone knew the Earth was an air tight ball back then.
Sailing on a carbon fibre boat to reduce carbon foot print is ridiculous. That boat would have cost hundreds of tonnes of carbon emissions to make!! Its the worst of the worst in materials. The voyage has been a great unpaid commercial for carbon fibre. Good job boys.
Over population is responsible for most of the climate change problem. Everyones desire to procreate. But silence about that! Should previous generations be blamed for having children?
I am very much an environmentalist like most yacht sailors but considered and well expressed facts beat TV grand standing any day. I deal with plenty of red necks who ridicule climate change and that offensive blaming of previous generations who were only starting to understand the world back then has turned them right off. Well thought out explainations would not have.
Nah, I think you have it a bit wrong there.
She's not blaming the industrial revolution. No one could have known how that would have turned out all those years ago.
She's talking more about the fact that we've known there's been a massive impending issue for about 40 years now and nothing's been addressed.
I think the traveling by yacht thing is a non issue. The haters would be hating and accusing no matter how she travelled.
I think best to put all the hair splitting bull**** aside and listen to the message. I don't know how anyone could see that as a negative thing.
Go Greta!
Select to expand quotehoop said..Trek said..
For my part blaming previous generations for the industrial revolution and its result is nieve and achieves nothing. Noone knew the Earth was an air tight ball back then.
Sailing on a carbon fibre boat to reduce carbon foot print is ridiculous. That boat would have cost hundreds of tonnes of carbon emissions to make!! Its the worst of the worst in materials. The voyage has been a great unpaid commercial for carbon fibre. Good job boys.
Over population is responsible for most of the climate change problem. Everyones desire to procreate. But silence about that! Should previous generations be blamed for having children?
I am very much an environmentalist like most yacht sailors but considered and well expressed facts beat TV grand standing any day. I deal with plenty of red necks who ridicule climate change and that offensive blaming of previous generations who were only starting to understand the world back then has turned them right off. Well thought out explainations would not have.
Nah, I think you have it a bit wrong there.
She's not blaming the industrial revolution. No one could have known how that would have turned out all those years ago.
She's talking more about the fact that we've known there's been a massive impending issue for about 40 years now and nothing's been addressed.
I think the traveling by yacht thing is a non issue. The haters would be hating and accusing no matter how she travelled.
I think best to put all the hair splitting bull**** aside and listen to the message. I don't know how anyone could see that as a negative thing.
Go Greta!
Agree entirely!
They are all side-stepping the reality that (mostly) China and a number of large countries have been greatly increasing their carbon emissions whilst pointing the finger at smaller countries.
Our government has failed to educate the public that their task is to find a balance between meeting our international commitments, and destroying our economy and standard of living.
Is it just me, or is this at least a step forward:
I don't see many comments suggesting Climate Change is Crap
Plenty of suggestions that there may be better ways to reduce our emissions
References to the precautionary principle and emissions intensity (per person) or emission scale (size)
Comments informing us of the embedded emissions in different materials and respective ability to recycle
Thanks for contributing here in a civil and constructive way, and thanks to our very own La Vagabond for giving us the incentive, and to that extraordinary 16 yr old for passionately challenging us all.
I don't really think many really care.
We don't live forever and when your dead you have no responsibility any more. I'm sure the future generations will adapt to whatever and get the most from it.
Change is good they say
The humans will evaporate and the earth will rejuvenate. Go with it , flow with it.
So great that people can make a career mocking a 16 year old. She is certainly having an impact.
Select to expand quoteTrek said..
Sailing to a conference using a carbon fibre boat to promote "save the environment" is like the marketing con job of "clean" solar panels. What solar panels actually do is transfer the massive pollution created in making them somewhere else where we dont see it. Smelting the silicon, copper and glass in a solar panel requires massive energy and the pollution created by supplying that energy appears as smog and dead rivers in China.
See asiancorrespondent.com/2011/09/the-hidden-pollution-caused-by-solar-panels/
Same with carbon fibre. It is actually right up there with the worst manufacturing material you could use as far as damage to the environment goes. A quick Google shows you need to burn about 10kg of hard coal to get 300MJ of energy to make 1kg of carbon fibre. How heavy is that boat? I am a greenie but grandstanding rubbish doesnt help anything.
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/22/carbon-fibre-wonder-material-dirty-secret
We need to deal with facts. The Ms is riding on a boat the construction thereof that caused more massive environmental damage than most other things you could possible make. The Ms would have been better to add her 60kg to the weight of the A380 which was flying the route regardless!
It is nice that you know these facts but it seems like obfuscation to the argument at hand, that we need to alter our modus operandi and quickly.
There are a billion cars in the world, running for an hour one will use ~10 litres of fuel which creates 23 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. And since when is an Outremer carbon? Aren't they just vacuum bagged glass ? Do you know where the energy comes from for carbon fibre manufacturing, wouldn't' that depend upon where it was made? Sure solar will cause greenhouse initially but their lifespan is huge and they could offset orders of magnitude more emissions.
But back to the car thing, on average most people use them for ~20,000 km a year or ~2,000 litres of fuel for 4,600 kg of CO2 emissions. So what creating a full carbon 50' cat might be like running ~10 cars for a year...
In the end we science'd our way into this, we can science our way out.
Modern nuclear is an order of magnitude more efficient in waste to energy produced and designed with passive safety can't meltdown. Combine with carbon capture FTW. Basically storing electrical energy as chemical energy to power our existing ICEs, a zero sum game if you can cleanly make energy.
Yes we do need to alter our modus operandi and quickly. We are on the same side. Cars are worst. I agree. The knowledge I am using is what you correctly say is vital to saving our planet. If it ever gets used. Re your questions re the carbon fibre. This is the energy (embodied) to make boat building materials (from composites uk).
Forgive the longness of this but since you asked.....
MaterialEnergy Content (MJ/Kg)
Carbon Fibre 183-286
Glass Fibre 13-32
Polyester resin 63-78
Epoxy resin 76-80
The Outremer website states its built extensively from carbon fibre and weighs 10 tonnes. Simple maths and that data says making 10,000 kg (10T) of carbon fibre will use 10,000 x 183-286 MJ of energy. Maybe the amount of carbon fibre in the boat is less its but its right up there. (Lets say 240 MJ because I worked once on a process that used that much). So we need 2,400,000 MJ of energy to make that much carbon fibre. There is 29300MJ of energy in a tonne of coal. Maths again 2400000/29300 gives burning 81.9 tonnes of coal to make a 10T carbon fibre boat. Burning 81.9 tonnes of coal produces 153 tonnes of carbon emissions. (Heavier because the carbon combines with oxygen). The EPA says the average car produces 4.6 tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
So re cars versus this carbon fibre boat, its responsible for 33 years worth of one cars emissions. And its for someones pleasure, not a useful purpose.
Its true the electricity they use in some cases might be nuclear but vast majority not. Those numbers assume 100% conversion efficiencies which the real processes are not (More like 70%) so the numbers are actually far far worse. We urgently need to save the planet but would you do that by driving 33 cars around for a year? It would be ridiculed but thats what they are doing! I am absolutely in favour of saving the planet but I would not grand stand on a carbon fibre boat to do it!!!!
Select to expand quoteTrek said..
Forgive the longness of this but since you asked.....
MaterialEnergy Content (MJ/Kg)
Carbon Fibre 183-286
Glass Fibre 13-32
Polyester resin 63-78
Epoxy resin 76-80
The Outremer website states its built extensively from carbon fibre and weighs 10 tonnes.
So re cars versus this carbon fibre boat, its responsible for 33 years worth of one cars emissions. And its for someones pleasure, not a useful purpose.
Its true the electricity they use in some cases might be nuclear but vast majority not. Those numbers assume 100% conversion efficiencies which the real processes are not (More like 70%) so the numbers are actually far far worse. We urgently need to save the planet but would you do that by driving 33 cars around for a year? It would be ridiculed but thats what they are doing! I am absolutely in favour of saving the planet but I would not grand stand on a carbon fibre boat to do it!!!!
No forgiveness required, more like thanks for the thoughtful reply :)
Comments about points:
- Material Content, yeah wow (I tend to bandy about the idea of orders of magnitude when tossing loose numbers around) carbon being a full order of magnitude greater impact is surprising.
- Outremer at 10 tonne is also surprising since it's probably comparable in living space and payload to a Leopard 40 with extensions which weighs the same, makes me wonder how much carbon might really be in there... Could be marketing speak. But it isn't being discarded at the end of the journey so it's embodied energy isn't lost. Also how many people do you know who drive EVERYWHERE, even to the gym :) :) ha ha, is that a useful purpose??
- As to getting energy to use for carbon capture, yes we need to invest HUGE sums of money into nuclear to make it viable, I did read in one of the Carbon Solutions (??) engineers blogs talk of it costing as little as $1 / litre. However think of the side benefits, basically you would break the whole warring over squished carboniferous trees cycle which has plagued the past >100 years, have the ability to set atmospheric carbon as required, stop the shipping of vast amounts of oil around and kill off the sketchy deep sea drilling operations planned.
It would be a huge job to create several thousand carbon capture plants but strangely humans manage to mobilise to far greater levels for national identity or fear...
Personally IMO putting a $0.50 / litre tax on petrol to pay for turning Australia into a global superpower in creating ecologically sustainable fuel would be a smart move, far smarter than the government's plan to use electric cars... Although since it would cost people an extra $5.00 an hour to sit in traffic they would go nuts :( :( :(
