Greta Thunberg sails back to Europe on La Vagabonde

Status
Not open for further replies.

TomY

Alden Forum Moderator
Jun 22, 2004
2,759
Alden 38' Challenger yawl Rockport Harbor
The government in China doesn't allow activism. In fact, they have shot activists, as those of us lucky enough to live in a democracy, know.

None the less, China has a few young climate activists, perhaps thanks to Greta. I hope they are careful, Chinese go'ment will be watching their every move. Same in Russia, not much activism there.

 
  • Like
Likes: DrJudyB
Oct 1, 2007
1,858
Boston Whaler Super Sport Pt. Judith
Phil:
Remember the board that you shut down for political arguing? This thread is heading in that direction. Individuals are now attacking political figures and name calling of others. Is this time to move on back to sailing?
Rick
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,076
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
Feeding people these obtuse scientific studies is a losing battle.
I realize that I used the wrong word. I didn't mean to imply that scientific studies are obtuse (dull, stupid). I meant to use the word opaque in the sense that the studies are hard or impossible to understand, unfathomable. If that is how they read to me, I suspect that I am not alone. Regardless, I realize how choosing the wrong word throws a completely different meaning on everything I said thereafter. (I admit that I also threw in a few inflammatory descriptions of scientists for entertainment value :redface::redface:)

I connect with more tangible storylines. Tom speaks frequently about the effect of warming waters causing the lobster population to move north. There recently was a story about Lake Hopatcong actually. It was about the ice-cutting industry on the lake during the time before refrigeration. Ice was cut in the winter and shipped by rail to all of the urban areas to be stored and sold throughout the year for people to use in their ice boxes. The story was about how that industry wouldn't be feasible now because the lake does not freeze deeply enough anymore, if at all. In the past few decades, we frequently see ice-free winters.

Sure, we can recognize changes in the environment. I don't believe all changes are harmful. I have to admit that if lobsters are thriving in Canada, I don't really have a lot of empathy for US fishermen. Everybody has a need to adapt at times, I'm not sure why fishermen should be exempt. But the alarm that is spread by the most strident voices is polarizing. I think the largest impediment to structural and behavioral changes that can actually advance the environmental cause is the polarization that is caused by the extremists on both sides.

It's a shame if any thread is shut down for political polarization. Many of the topics that we like to follow have a political bent. I can choose a side, too, but in respect for this forum, I try to wade into politics with a neutral attitude. Sure, you can usually guess where I stand, but I have no desire to denigrate anybody in this forum for their views. Hopefully that is evident.
 
Oct 22, 2014
21,088
CAL 35 Cruiser #21 moored EVERETT WA
It's a shame if any thread is shut down for political polarization. Many of the topics that we like to follow have a political bent. I can choose a side, too, but in respect for this forum, I try to wade into politics with a neutral attitude. Sure, you can usually guess where I stand, but I have no desire to denigrate anybody in this forum for their views.
:dancing: Here here!
 
Oct 19, 2017
7,745
O'Day 19 Littleton, NH
It's a shame if any thread is shut down for political polarization. Many of the topics that we like to follow have a political bent. I can choose a side, too, but in respect for this forum, I try to wade into politics with a neutral attitude. Sure, you can usually guess where I stand, but I have no desire to denigrate anybody in this forum for their views.
You can add my voice to this sentiment.

-Will (Dragonfly)
 
  • Like
Likes: tfox2069

dLj

.
Mar 23, 2017
3,414
Belliure 41 Sailing back to the Chesapeake
I'm going to disagree. If the thread is creating political polarization, then it should be shut down. This is a sailing forum. However, if the thread is discussing political subjects, without creating polarization, then is could be allowed to continue - at the discretion of the moderators.

dj
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
if a subject creates political polarization, it should not be in a sailing forum. Ruins the sailing love..

My local group of sailing friends (and I like them all) run the gamut politically. Ie, I dont think there is any correlation at all to love of sailing and how you vote. We hang out with a group of sailors and a group of hikers. The hiking group who also vote over the spectrum is very good about keeping politics out.. and we all just love each other. A few people in the sailing group slip a bit and its resulted in some bad feeling between people who would otherwise also just love each other.

However.. A retirement hobby of mine has been to study the science of climate change and find its an interesting and of course an important subject. I have been in scientific discussions / threads where you either have to find a reference that agrees with you (ie, fact check yourself) or let everyone know its something you made up. These discussion actually end up being informative and educational but they dont always work because not everyone can follow the rule that you have to fact check yourself.

My vote.. if this subject is discussed and anyone is free to post whatever they want, they go downhill, get political and should be banned as someone will definitely get pissed off and that is not at all good.. However, I have seen these discussion where you must fact check yourself and this can work well - and actually enjoy those. But.. its going to be obtuse scientific stuff and everyone has to follow the rule :p
 
Last edited:
Oct 19, 2017
7,745
O'Day 19 Littleton, NH
I'm taking polarization to be different from animosity or abusive behavior. Taking sides on an issue isn't the same as being uncivilized.
I, for one, believe in political moderation, but I don't begrudge anyone's strong feelings on a subject, just their derogatory attacks on those who don't agree with them. I see very little of that here on SBO, and for that, the administrators and moderators of this forum have my grateful admiration.

As for the crossing of La Vagabonde, what a ride! No stops, excellent weather strategies, and a schedule kept. A testament to both their skills as sailors and the sailing quality of their vessel. Awesome:clap:.

-Will (Dragonfly)
 
Apr 8, 2011
768
Hunter 40 Deale, MD
This past summer I crewed on a boat with a very experienced 84-year-old owner/racer I know very well (he's done 10+ Bermuda races, FastNet, Trans-Atlantic, and much cruising on his own boat). He's also a very successful businessman, and is engaging on any number of subjects. One of the reasons he picked the crewmembers for the round trip from NY to Nova Scotia was to gain differing perspectives on our current political climate in the US from people with vastly different backgrounds (university professor, small business owner, Intelligence Community consultant). His rules were: Make nothing personal, never raise your voice, and everyone gets to speak without being interrupted. We had some great conversations and a lot of rum - though we rarely agreed. No meal was ruined, and no one climbed into a bunk angry. I hope we can honor those rules in here as well.
 
Jun 25, 2004
1,108
Corsair F24 Mk1 003 San Francisco Bay, CA
Maybe there are conclusions that are comprehensible, but I just can't buy any conclusion if I can't comprehend the background. It's fruitless to me. Go ahead and mock my intelligence if you must … but that's me. I just don't follow the crowd that says that "science" nails down the facts. Until I can read something comprehensible I'll just go my own way.
Walt presented a lot of strong (IMO) statistical evidence for global warming and you can't unpack it. That doesn't make the evidence any less valid.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2004
1,108
Corsair F24 Mk1 003 San Francisco Bay, CA
Okay, let's talk about CO2 and ocean acidification.

The ocean is getting less basic due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by increasing emission of CO2, which is the result of human fossil fuel combustion.

Does anybody dispute the cause and effect relationship? I think the data and the scientific explanation are pretty damned damning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This from NOAA. I highly recommend you visit the page and watch the 1 minute video. That's all it takes to make the conclusion.


What is Ocean Acidification?
Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

For more than 200 years, or since the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use change. The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere, and as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase, so do the levels in the ocean.
When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur resulting in the increased concentration of hydrogen ions. This increase causes the seawater to become more acidic and causes carbonate ions to be relatively less abundant.
Carbonate ions are an important building block of structures such as sea shells and coral skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ions can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton.
These changes in ocean chemistry can affect the behavior of non-calcifying organisms as well. Certain fish's ability to detect predators is decreased in more acidic waters. When these organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk.
Ocean acidification is affecting the entire world’s oceans, including coastal estuaries and waterways. Many economies are dependent on fish and shellfish and people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a commonly cited scientific article from 10 years ago that's still as valid as the day it was published.


Abstract
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.
Keywords
biogeochemistry, calcification, carbon dioxide, climate change, coral, ecosystem
 
Last edited:

dLj

.
Mar 23, 2017
3,414
Belliure 41 Sailing back to the Chesapeake
I'm old enough to have personally witnessed the western Adirondack lakes going from beautiful pristine lakes filled with aquatic life to almost void of life due to the emissions of primarily coal fired plants in the midwest. I was then personally able to witness the changing regulations that required the emissions to be curbed, and the lakes slowly coming back from a near dead state to where they are today. While they are still not 100% of what they were when I was young, they are substantially improved. All of these observations were direct observations from being there and by my own eyes seeing that cycle. I didn't have to read any scientists paper, listen to any politician espousing whatever point of view they particularly wanted to support, I saw it directly.

Yes, there may also be forces of nature outside of our control that may be also contributing to climate change. But it is absolutely clear, for anyone wishing to take an objective point of view without all the politics intertwined, that there is a significant human contribution due to how we are living. We may not be able to change the forces of nature, but we can certainly change the factors that are under our control. To sit and do nothing, to rant about how it's sun spots or whatever force beyond our control, is to be irresponsible.

I have seen that by acting responsibly and taking action, it can have an important and positive impact on our lives, our children and our environment.

From an unknown native american saying:

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. – Tribe Unknown

dj
 
Jan 5, 2017
2,265
Beneteau First 38 Lyall Harbour Saturna Island
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
I like that!
 
  • Like
Likes: jssailem
Oct 26, 2008
6,076
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
The horror of relocation due to climate change and … there's no bias in science!


"In 2016, SUNY Buffalo State climate scientist Stephen Vermette set out to show how climate change had made life harder in western New York with the hope of galvanizing locals to take up arms against the carbon crisis."

When I would present this data, I was somewhat apologetic, because I couldn’t find some of the trends that we would expect to be seeing in western New York,” said Vermette, author of The Face of WNY's Weather. “It’s bad news if you’re trying to demonstrate that the climate is changing.”

Vermette thought there must be a gap in the data or a flaw in his analysis, so he crunched the numbers again and again, every time arriving at the same result — a flat line. It was only after repeated attempts to find evidence of worsening weather that Vermette started to think that western New York might be responding to rising temperatures differently than the rest of the country. This was a revelation, and one he would see corroborated by other experts.


This is actually very funny, don't you think?! :biggrin:

I think that this is just the greatest article. Oh my gosh … so many juicy nuggets to digest! I wonder how much the author intentionally revealed or how much was just unwittingly revealed. Either way, the article is genius!

It has a heartwarming story of a family from Puerto Rico (an island that reputedly had never suffered hurricanes before the climate crisis), whom find a home, work, compassion, loving neighbors and happyness (that was intentional) in Buffalo, NY! What makes this so unbelievable (remarkable) is that they did this despite a bumbling government bureaucracy that can't get anything accomplished in the manner of planning and preparation, which is necessary for any city that is positioned to be recognized as a "climate haven". Wow! How did they do it! They just up and moved to a new city and they did it without bureaucratic preparation!

BTW, I think it's a great story for the Robles family and the City of Buffalo! What makes it even more endearing is the statement that Buffalo doesn't want the likes of people from San Francisco and New York City! I'm sure those folks don't want to move to Buffalo, either, but that's despite the point and it's probably better for Buffalo to be pro-active and put that out there right away before it's too late! :clap::clap::cool::cool:
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2004
1,108
Corsair F24 Mk1 003 San Francisco Bay, CA
The horror of relocation due to climate change and … there's no bias in science!


"In 2016, SUNY Buffalo State climate scientist Stephen Vermette set out to show how climate change had made life harder in western New York with the hope of galvanizing locals to take up arms against the carbon crisis."

When I would present this data, I was somewhat apologetic, because I couldn’t find some of the trends that we would expect to be seeing in western New York,” said Vermette, author of The Face of WNY's Weather. “It’s bad news if you’re trying to demonstrate that the climate is changing.”

Vermette thought there must be a gap in the data or a flaw in his analysis, so he crunched the numbers again and again, every time arriving at the same result — a flat line. It was only after repeated attempts to find evidence of worsening weather that Vermette started to think that western New York might be responding to rising temperatures differently than the rest of the country. This was a revelation, and one he would see corroborated by other experts.


This is actually very funny, don't you think?! :biggrin:

I think that this is just the greatest article. Oh my gosh … so many juicy nuggets to digest! I wonder how much the author intentionally revealed or how much was just unwittingly revealed. Either way, the article is genius!

It has a heartwarming story of a family from Puerto Rico (an island that reputedly had never suffered hurricanes before the climate crisis), whom find a home, work, compassion, loving neighbors and happyness (that was intentional) in Buffalo, NY! What makes this so unbelievable is that they did this despite a bumbling government bureaucracy that can't get anything accomplished in the manner of planning and preparation, which is necessary for any city that is positioned to be recognized as a "climate haven". Wow! How did they do it! They just up and moved to a new city and they did it without bureaucratic preparation!

BTW, I think it's a great story for the Robles family and the City of Buffalo! What makes it even more endearing is the statement that Buffalo doesn't want the likes of people from San Francisco and New York City! I'm sure those folks don't want to move to Buffalo, either, but that's despite the point and it's probably better for Buffalo to be pro-active and put that out there right away before it's too late! :clap::clap::cool::cool:
Scott,

My first point:
I just read the article. You totally misinterpreted and mis-reported how the scientific inquiry proceeded.

In fact, the scientist used the scientific method of test a hypothesis and then discarded it because the evidence didn’t support it. That’s not biased science, that’s good use of the scientific method and the data. He concluded that Buffaloes proximity to the Great Lakes mitigated the potential negative effects on the city due to changing weather systems.

My second and third points
And it doesn’t say half the stuff you say it up it does. You’re just making up

For example, the article doesn’t say that buffalo doesn’t want “the likes of” folks from San Francisco, You made that up out of thin air and then applauded yourself with “clapping” and “I’m cool”.

I read that as a cheap shot at people from San Francisco. You are attacking people, not disputing ideas.

Quoted from your post:
“What makes it even more endearing is the statement that Buffalo doesn't want the likes of people from San Francisco and New York City! I'm sure those folks don't want to move to Buffalo, either, but that's despite the point and it's probably better for Buffalo to be pro-active and put that out there right away before it's too late! :clap::clap::cool::cool:

Finally:
There are many more examples mis-quotes, misrepresentation, rhetorical fallacies, and personal attacks in your post, but I’m not going to engage you about any more of them. They aren’t worth repeating, IMO.

People will follow your link to read the article and form their own opinion of your credibility on this topic.

Judy.
 
Last edited:

TomY

Alden Forum Moderator
Jun 22, 2004
2,759
Alden 38' Challenger yawl Rockport Harbor
Buffalo is not alone. Maine years ago started discussing this. We're not going to be as impacted as many areas - in the short term - by climate change. People in some areas (low lying, on the edge of extreme heat warnings), will be most. They will move eventually (check the Florida Keys).

Science is boring stuff; measuring, jotting down on a clipboard, over and over again. We're lucky that this has resulted in zillions of data points to 'crunch'(more boring work by science).

Currently Maine has found two promising areas of stability as temperatures rise. One is in the Eastern depths of the Gulf of Maine. That holds some hope for the lobster fishery. The catch will still go down but there's hope this will help the fishing industry (a place for fry to evolve), adjust rather than an all out collapse as lobsters move into cooler Canadian water.

I'm with you Scott on fishermen: Having been in the fish biz and done much study, as a group, I don't think (as a group), they have much regard for sustainable fishing stocks. You can't catch many fish off our coast these days. They dragged them all out decades ago. I'd hate to see the culture collapse, though. A slow re-set could let new thinking in the industry follow more progressive fishing practices.

The other area is the climate along the shore of Acadia National Park. Apparently scientists are finding species that have largely disappeared from our general latitude due to rising temperatures. Scientists hope these climate change havens will allow refuge areas for some fragile species. Further hope is that we are able to accomplish results on carbon reduction to retain as much of the present ecology as long as possible.

We're desperate for population/workers in Maine. Climate change isn't going to be all bad, at least in the short term.
 
Jan 5, 2017
2,265
Beneteau First 38 Lyall Harbour Saturna Island
Apparently scientists are finding species that have largely disappeared from our general latitude due to rising temperatures.
We are starting to see that here as well. Starting to see Redwoods(northern California tree) appear in our forests. Western Red Cedar, the iconic tree of the B.C. west coast is under stress on the south coast but seems OK so far on the north coast. Change is happening.
 
Oct 26, 2008
6,076
Catalina 320 Barnegat, NJ
I don't know, what did I say wrong? … I made direct quotes from the article. This one for instance … hope of galvanizing locals to take up arms against the carbon crisis. Is that objective science?

“The San Francisco, the Chicago model, the Washington, D.C., model, the New York City model — that’s the model that they’re using here. And they are caught between this idea that there is either this model that they’re using, or death,” Taylor said. “They’re frustrated because they can’t figure out how to get this square peg called ‘equity, equality, justice’ into this round hole called ‘the market.’”

The challenge for Buffalo, he said, is that it must not model itself after San Francisco and New York City, attracting white-collar migrants who displace working-class natives. If it is going to be a climate refuge, he says, it needs to do better than the gilded coastal metropolises.


It seems I left out Chicago & Washington, D.C. Of course I embellished for entertainment value. Has nobody from California ever done that, though? Nobody whom we've all seen on television, for instance? ;) Relax, I'm probably more on your side than you think. I was talking about the "gilded" folks, if that helps soothe the wounds. They won't need our empathy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.