"Carbon Neutral" Sailing...

[Ross]

Anyone who considers wood to be carbon neutral just isn't paying attention. You have to burn "fossil fuels" in one form or another to cut, transport, plane and finish, transport again, store, sell, transport again and finally fit for the boat. (Of course all of this only matters if you believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change. A line of thinking that isn't supported by science.)

Also, organic matter (i.e. wood) that is "sequestered" at the bottom of the ocean becomes oil.

.

My statement was to build entirely with hand tools. Wood grows near water and as you say they can be chopped down. The pieces desired can be hewn where the tree falls and transported on the backs of men or dragged by animals.
If you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for global warming then you have been sleeping through all of the reports in the past twenty years.

 

[kenn]

(Of course all of this only matters if you believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change. A line of thinking that isn't supported by science.)

A gross oversimplification.

The climate issue is that human activity is having a measurable and arguably significant effect on the climate, and the single biggest component of this human-caused influence is from carbon dioxide output, coupled with continued reduction of natural carbon dioxide sinks. All of this is highly supported by current science; they're the ones who brought it up.

(there are 1000 other reasons besides "climate change" to rein in our energy consumption a bit, and make less of a mess overall. But keeping climate-change front and center, and pretending that there's some green-lefty-science cabal making sh!t up has successfully kept us from doing alot of anything.)

I think electric motors are the more sustainable approach to engines and boats are a prime place for them to develop first. Once the technology has developed to the point that you have efficient enough electrical engines, better batteries (perhaps the new lithium based ones) and efficient solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines, a boat could very easily become self sufficient in this regard. I suspect in another 20 years gas and diesel engines will be a thing of the past for boats.

100% agree. Though I think the combustion engines will continue to be around for longer, albeit in more efficient configurations.

 

[RichH]

If you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for global warming then you have been sleeping through all of the reports in the past twenty years.

Carbon dioxide leaves beer and escapes into the atmosphere because the beer gets warmer. The beer does not get warmer because it has lost its CO2.
Simple laws of solubility of gases in liquids.

Temperature rise first, then followed by change of CO2 solubility in aqueous liquids; not the other way around.
Simple chemistry .... and you cant get a 'grant' to study/report simple chemistry ... and the probable reason for the errant 'consensus' - grant money if you agree. Opportunistic consensus for the enticement of obtaining 'grants' is NOT science; but an answer looking for a question.
;-)

 

[Forrest15112]

A gross oversimplification.

The climate issue is that human activity is having a measurable and arguably significant effect on the climate, and the single biggest component of this human-caused influence is from carbon dioxide output, coupled with continued reduction of natural carbon dioxide sinks. All of this is highly supported by current science; they're the ones who brought it up.

(there are 1000 other reasons besides "climate change" to rein in our energy consumption a bit, and make less of a mess overall. But keeping climate-change front and center, and pretending that there's some green-lefty-science cabal making sh!t up has successfully kept us from doing alot of anything.)

100% agree. Though I think the combustion engines will continue to be around for longer, albeit in more efficient configurations.

But, those scientists have been shown to lie, collude with other labs, and attempt to personally destroy any deniers. If their theories are settled and provable, they wouldn't have to falsify their data.
This is totally a political issue. I watched Al Gore roll out his famous "hockey stick" graph and then learned what those 'scientists' misreported as facts.
They have their conclusion and report anything that supports it and rarely any data that doesn't.

 

[kenn]

But, those scientists have been shown to lie, collude with other labs, and attempt to personally destroy any deniers. If their theories are settled and provable, they wouldn't have to falsify their data.
This is totally a political issue.

Is that crack in that pipe?

No-one has successfully shown that climate scientists have colluded in presenting false data or conclusions. No-one.

Here's a handy list of excuses to continue ignoring the subject-matter experts. Just avoid the fact that these facile denier claims have all been debunked.

It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so damn depressing, to ponder the credulity of those who accuse the scientists of ulterior motives, while completely trusting the big-oil-funded "think" tanks and groups that are spewing all the misinformation.

 

[Ross]

Carbon dioxide leaves beer and escapes into the atmosphere because the beer gets warmer. The beer does not get warmer because it has lost its CO2.
Simple laws of solubility of gases in liquids.

Temperature rise first, then followed by change of CO2 solubility in aqueous liquids; not the other way around.
Simple chemistry .... and you cant get a 'grant' to study/report simple chemistry ... and the probable reason for the errant 'consensus' - grant money if you agree. Opportunistic consensus for the enticement of obtaining 'grants' is NOT science; but an answer looking for a question.
;-)

carbon dioxide leaves the burning oil because carbon is being oxidized. Carbon dioxide is more or less opaque to infrared radiation but transparent to the visible spectrum. The energy in the visible spectrum warms the earth and the radiated infrared can not radiate back into deep space without first giving up some of its energy to the atmosphere.

 

[JK_Boston_Catalina310]

A gross oversimplification.

The climate issue is that human activity is having a measurable and arguably significant effect on the climate, and the single biggest component of this human-caused influence is from carbon dioxide output, coupled with continued reduction of natural carbon dioxide sinks. All of this is highly supported by current science; they're the ones who brought it up.

Look, I am not saying that climate change isn't happening and that there are not anthropogenic effects on the climate.

However, empirical studies that actually directly measure the effects of carbon dioxide, considered on its own and not a circumstantial argument based on the wave lengths of light and other factors, identify carbon dioxide as a minor greenhouse gas with a logarithmic effect on temperature. Meaning that as you increase carbon dioxide you get diminishing returns on climate forcing. Further, pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels had already maximized the climate forcing, so the post-industrial increase in carbon dioxide likely does not account for changes observed.

(there are 1000 other reasons besides "climate change" to rein in our energy consumption a bit, and make less of a mess overall. But keeping climate-change front and center, and pretending that there's some green-lefty-science cabal making sh!t up has successfully kept us from doing alot of anything.)

Agreed.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

What's wrong with global warming? I think the benefits may outweigh the problems. Consider the alternative ...

Also, CO2 is good for plants, no? What's wrong with that?

 

[JK_Boston_Catalina310]

Is that crack in that pipe?

No-one has successfully shown that climate scientists have colluded in presenting false data or conclusions. No-one.

Here's a handy list of excuses to continue ignoring the subject-matter experts. Just avoid the fact that these facile denier claims have all been debunked.

It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so damn depressing, to ponder the credulity of those who accuse the scientists of ulterior motives, while completely trusting the big-oil-funded "think" tanks and groups that are spewing all the misinformation.

OK, so I did a quick visit to the link you provided and there was one item that specifically went to what I most recently posted on the subject.

Specifically, "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect". With the response:

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

This is the exact type of response I have a problem with when it comes to climate change discussions. Measurements of the infrared spectra regarding wavelengths escaping is an observation. Until that observation is put to a test by a empirical study it is not empirical evidence. This does not provide "a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming"! This is a classic example of mixing up causation with correlation.

The details provided further down on the page are examples of confirmation bias. The discuss several studies that support the conclusion but don't even mention the many studies that refute the claim. Such as the classic glass jar experiments, where jars are filled with several gas combinations, exposed to sunlight and then the heat increases are measure and quantified. Those show that CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas.

Designing a emperical study is all about finding the one "no" that disproves your hypothesis. Once you have that no, it's time for a new hypothesis. You look for the "no", the yes is essentially disregarded. Again going with classic examples, there was a hypothesis that there are no black swans. This held up for years as the people who posed the hypothesis saw only white swans. And then somebody finally traveled to Australia and low and behold, there are black swans. Hypothesis out the window. You don't keep holding onto that false hypothesis.

Who ever made the statement about critical thinking being gone had it right.