US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Bycrick]

Politics by sound bite is usually questionable. "God gave us the earth, to till and to keep in a balanced and respectful way.”- Pope Francis

This from somebody who lives in luxury like Jeff Bezos only dreams of, who heads a church that is still settling billions of dollars in claims for sexual abuse over decades ( a lot of it covered up on his watch), is fighting corruption charges for $400 million in shady real estate deals in London. It reminds me of the famous line about the Hawaiian missionaries: They came to do good and they did quite well."

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The climate changers are certainly imaginative at dreaming up new hardships. Wind powered aircraft that rely on updrafts? If all passengers did not have to keep schedules, it might have some merit. But glider aircraft are really only practical for hobbyists. They would be grounded in foul weather so their fly routes would be subject to constant change.

Dude, you can't even keep your sides straight in this argument. On this point I am aligned with you in not advocating for eliminating jet-fueled jets. I just said that its a market and the user should pay what it really costs. Someone else was advocating for gliders.

Really, you need to read and try to understand posts before you fire off one of your unguided missiles.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Politics by sound bite is usually questionable. "God gave us the earth, to till and to keep in a balanced and respectful way.”- Pope Francis

This from somebody who lives in luxury like Jeff Bezos only dreams of, who heads a church that is still settling billions of dollars in claims for sexual abuse over decades ( a lot of it covered up on his watch), is fighting corruption charges for $400 million in shady real estate deals in London. It reminds me of the famous line about the Hawaiian missionaries: They came to do good and they did quite well."

That there are hypocrites has no bearing on the positions they espouse. Conveniently, you ignore the sincerely held views of many. A too clever by half strategy to undermine a position.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lestersails — Thsnks for this comment.
There is actually a serious question to ask about the Maersk proposal. Is it a Nirvana scam? Have they proposed a too-bold, too far off, goal to take the heat off of themselves now? Corporations do not actually have much of any accountability for what they say they will be doing 25 years hence."
I agree with it completely, except there might be more than one serious question in the gift-horse's mouth. A neither do "benevolent governments."

A totally fair point. I apologize if the implication was there was only one fair question.
It would be interesting to understand the basis and history of the Maersk proposal. Not that I reject it or dispute it, but I am interested. Some corporations are undergoing board changes with the addition of members who are forcing the company to take into account longer term factors. It remains to be seen if the current model of corporate governance and the stock market can sustain this. One weakness of current corporate practice is the ruthless and relentless emphasis on the profit number for the next quarter. 25 years, not so much. Very different from a closely held or family business where one can readily sacrifice near term profit for longer term value.

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Forget what you've read, I'd like to hear 1st hand experiences from all our members.

Most of us are old enough to have memories of more than 50 years in the same location and we are from all around the world.

I must live in a "Blue Blob" because I remember spending many stinking hot summers where it was so hot we sat under a fan with a wet tea towel on our heads to keep cool. In the short term history (maybe 10-15 years) it hasn't been anywhere near as hot... Not even close and the water levels don't seem to have changed at all.

What is everyone else's experience ?

I'll play your game a little.
As a kid on the prairie we almost always had to wade through snow on Halloween. Now there often isn't continuous snow on the ground until Christmas.
When I was a kid the grain farmers figured on 3 good years out of 4, now they pray for 2 out of 4. This year they are expecting the worst drought in history.
Where I live now I've seen drier, hotter conditions more frequently just in the past 10 years.
My observations line up pretty well with the historical weather records.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Ah, get rid of airplanes.

yes please

No fresh fruit in the supermarkets out of season.

good

Wait months for your spare part.

mail already takes months: works

Amazon over-night delivery becomes plural instead of singular.

amazon is evil anyway... I don't even use amazon.

Half the countries in the world go back to subsistence farming and fishing because there aren’t any tourists.

half the people already _are_ subsistence farming!

It doesn’t cost anything to deliver his food, because they’re delivering for 1000 other people. So one just the cost of delivering his food. Right.

There is a cost. Where did I say it doesn't cost anything? The cost is marginal compared to someone who lives in excess such as burning diesel needlessly for recreational activities. The difference is using about average amount of resources vs using 10 times the average amount of resources per person that the world has to offer.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Dude, you can't even keep your sides straight in this argument. On this point I am aligned with you in not advocating for eliminating jet-fueled jets. I just said that its a market and the user should pay what it really costs. Someone else was advocating for gliders.

The cost for a single flight would be impossible to afford. This would simply make gliders obvious as the only reasonable way to fly for wealthy. Everyone else cannot fly as they cannot today either (85% of people have never flown even once). jet powered flight would only be possible for billionares, who they themselves would not exist if all of the external costs were to be paid for what it really costs.

So go ahead and keep jet powered flight.. it's just no one on the planet will be able to afford it if everyone paid what things really cost. It's only possible to "afford" by plundering the worlds resources while also manipulating the wealth distribution to unfairly reward a few at the expense of many.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

The cost for a single flight would be impossible to afford. This would simply make gliders obvious as the only reasonable way to fly for wealthy. Everyone else cannot fly as they cannot today either (85% of people have never flown even once). jet powered flight would only be possible for billionares, who they themselves would not exist if all of the external costs were to be paid for what it really costs.

So go ahead and keep jet powered flight.. it's just no one on the planet will be able to afford it if everyone paid what things really cost. It's only possible to "afford" by plundering the worlds resources while also manipulating the wealth distribution to unfairly reward a few at the expense of many.

Um "impossible to afford" is not a cost - it is an opinion bereft of fact. From wikipedia's entry on carbon capture: "As of 2018 a carbon price of at least 100 euros per tonne CO2 was estimated to make industrial CCS viable[64] together with carbon tariffs.[65]" (references can be found in wikipedia entry)
Another set of estimates range from $49-168/ton
https://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
Now that is for industrial CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration), which is cheaper than atmospheric CCS, but let's see where it takes us. I found a number of 250 kg for carbon emission per passenger hour in a Boeing 747 (which is not the most efficient jet). Note that this estimate was already doubled to take into account the effect that high altitude CO2 has a greater greenhouse effect and also takes into account CO2 from manufacture and support of the trip. So, a four hour flight would be 1,000 kg (close enough to 2,000 pounds). So, about 100 Euros or dollars. That is probably low because atmospheric capture is more expensive (since the CO2 is more dilute than it is in industrial capture). But even if it is twice that expensive - maybe $200-$250 for a flight across the US.

To my eye, that is nowhere near "impossible to afford". It is expensive, and a good number of people who currently fly would decide it is not worth it, but as I have previously said, it has to be paid for. If these numbers are anywhere near correct (I welcome corrections from knowledgeable readers) that would be a lot easier to implement than gliders.

It might be worth reminding folks that airfare costs have, over the long haul (pun intended) gone down. The average flight from L.A. to Boston in 1941 cost $4,539.24 per person in today’s money. Even after deregulation, a basic domestic round-trip airfare in 1979 averaged $615.82 in today's money. That average fare dropped to $344.22 by 2016. I lived this, having gone to college in California in the 70's, living in the midwest. Airfare was pricey so I came home for the summer and Christmas, but not thanksgiving or spring break - it was just too pricey. And it didn't hurt me one bit.

So, I would argue that factoring in carbon capture would likely put us somewhere close to where we were in 1979, which belies your doom and gloom that it would be impossible. My guess is that I would pretty much reflect such a change nowadays if this were implemented. If airfare was 2x, I would fly probably about 1/2x.

And I would be ok.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

yes please

good

mail already takes months: works

amazon is evil anyway... I don't even use amazon.

half the people already _are_ subsistence farming!

There is a cost. Where did I say it doesn't cost anything? The cost is marginal compared to someone who lives in excess such as burning diesel needlessly for recreational activities. The difference is using about average amount of resources vs using 10 times the average amount of resources per person that the world has to offer.

It seems that the climate change enthusiasts are really a mob a saboteurs whose purpose it is to destroy a free society. It seems that they follow a an odd mix of Marxism and fascism. SD's remarks confirm what I've said before. Climate change is not a matter of science. It is a political movement that uses false science to create a crisis to beat the public into submission. Marxism and fascism by themselves would be a hard sell. But using them to solve the imaginary climate crises makes converting the public easier. It is much easier to convince people to surrender their freedoms, if the purpose is to avert disaster, than to convince them to do this for no reason.



This technique has been deployed throughout the "pandemic crisis". Why else would large numbers of people surrender their right to security of their person to accept an unproven and potentially dangerous injection? Only a crisis, real or imagined, with a strong threat would be so convincing.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Um "impossible to afford" is not a cost - it is an opinion bereft of fact. From wikipedia's entry on carbon capture: "As of 2018 a carbon price of at least 100 euros per tonne CO2 was estimated to make industrial CCS viable[64] together with carbon tariffs.[65]" (references can be found in wikipedia entry)
Another set of estimates range from $49-168/ton
https://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
Now that is for industrial CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration), which is cheaper than atmospheric CCS, but let's see where it takes us. I found a number of 250 kg for carbon emission per passenger hour in a Boeing 747 (which is not the most efficient jet). Note that this estimate was already doubled to take into account the effect that high altitude CO2 has a greater greenhouse effect and also takes into account CO2 from manufacture and support of the trip. So, a four hour flight would be 1,000 kg (close enough to 2,000 pounds). So, about 100 Euros or dollars. That is probably low because atmospheric capture is more expensive (since the CO2 is more dilute than it is in industrial capture). But even if it is twice that expensive - maybe $200-$250 for a flight across the US.

To my eye, that is nowhere near "impossible to afford". It is expensive, and a good number of people who currently fly would decide it is not worth it, but as I have previously said, it has to be paid for. If these numbers are anywhere near correct (I welcome corrections from knowledgeable readers) that would be a lot easier to implement than gliders.

It might be worth reminding folks that airfare costs have, over the long haul (pun intended) gone down. The average flight from L.A. to Boston in 1941 cost $4,539.24 per person in today’s money. Even after deregulation, a basic domestic round-trip airfare in 1979 averaged $615.82 in today's money. That average fare dropped to $344.22 by 2016. I lived this, having gone to college in California in the 70's, living in the midwest. Airfare was pricey so I came home for the summer and Christmas, but not thanksgiving or spring break - it was just too pricey. And it didn't hurt me one bit.

So, I would argue that factoring in carbon capture would likely put us somewhere close to where we were in 1979, which belies your doom and gloom that it would be impossible. My guess is that I would pretty much reflect such a change nowadays if this were implemented. If airfare was 2x, I would fly probably about 1/2x.

And I would be ok.

A complete red herring discussion. Man caused climate change is only an imaginary problem. It is a politically motivated matter that uses false science as a prop. I've covered some basics about this in previous posts. In a nut shell, it was first introduced in a big way by Margaret Thatcher in the mid 1980's as a means to break the striking coal miners' union. She demonized coal and promoted nuclear to threaten the miners. What we are suffering now the expanded legacy of the original lies.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Climate change is not a matter of science.

Name one scientific institution or professional society that endorses that assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Man caused climate change is only an imaginary problem. It is a politically motivated matter that uses false science as a prop.

Name one scientific institution or professional society that endorses that assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

I've covered some basics about this in previous posts. In a nut shell, it was first introduced in a big way by Margaret Thatcher in the mid 1980's as a means to break the striking coal miners' union. She demonized coal and promoted nuclear to threaten the miners. What we are suffering now the expanded legacy of the original lies.

Repeating GWPF nonsense ad nauseum does not make it true.

Please account for Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, Broecker, Revelle, et al who preceded Thatcher.

[bcboomer]

I've put Dieseldude on ignore. I can't stand his irrational ranting.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

I've put Dieseldude on ignore. I can't stand his irrational ranting.

: thumb:

Maybe he should revisit his profile

I do not own a boat, nor am I skilled at navigation, as this is not required for watchkeeping in the engine room of a large vessel. My interest in this forum are purely out of my experience in the mechanical operation of ships.