Global Warming Debate

[PBzeer]

Odd as it may sound, irregardless of mankind's most evil intentions, the planet has warmed and cooled, prior to the astounding discovery of Global Warming. Simple facts such as they used to farm in Greenland, rather than chunk out blocks of ice would seem to indicate we are currently on the correct path to restoring the planet to it's previous balance, prior to the Industrial Revolution.

[sailaway21]

One of Mr. Will's, and mine, favorite quotes is, "ideas have consequences". Having won just enough of the GW debate to cause the issue to be economically marketable (that is, regardless if it's true or not, here's how we're gonna make some money off it) the US and Detroit, who realizes that while their bread may not be buttered in Washington, DC a certain amount of deference to DC's crack-pot ideas may limit the carnage, have embarked pell-mell on the notion of growing our fuel.

Sailors can appreciate the size of ships. A ULCC, or ultra large crude carrier, runs about 1300 feet loa and draws over 100' of draft. I use those figures because no one other than an imagianary on the order of George Lucas can conceive of what 600,000 tons of crude oil amounts to. I perform this little exercise because a ship of that size passes through the Straits of Malacca about every half hour. And folks, that ain't popcorn. The world uses quantities of oil that are quite simply unmeasureable in real-world terms.

I've got one question, well, actually two. How many cars do you own, and how big is your back yard? Because you're going to have to get rid of a few of the former and I'll be over to plant the latter in a couple of months. There are a lot of issues in the upcoming election; most politicians seem to be finessing this one. It could be the most important one issue of them all in just a few years.

Mr. Will has some even more fun facts for us to know and tell: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107575/page/1

[sailhog]

Mr. Will forgot to mention the corrosive effects of ethanol on the internal combustion engine, its tendency to wick moisture out of the air when sitting in a tank, its tendency to eat away at gaskets...

That's a good read...

[chucklesR]

Sway,
I mean no offense.
As I tend towards the conservative side it galls me to read your certainly unbiased and certainly unbalanced posts. It galls me because the more liberal folks might read them and say 'what a nut case'.

The next time you post a balanced, reports on all sides of an issue post will be the first one I see from you.
A few corrections:
ULCC's are in the 320,000 range, not 600,000, only 4 have been built at 440,000 ish : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertanker

And that's gross, not net tonnage.

Your 'one every half hour' is a little overstated.

What the heck has George "I'm a screaming neocon" Will 's article on soybean's cost rising because more land use is going to biofuel production got to do with the number of car's owned and backyards?

The biofuel impact I discussed in this thread BTW
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/off-topic/40061-bio-diversity-its-best.html
So I'm neither new to the subject nor a tree hugging liberal pinko schizophrenic neocon.


Just the facts, skip the diatribe.

[jonlgauthier]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

And that's gross, not net tonnage.

Actually, a further reading of Wikipedia says that it actually is net tonnage:

Lightship or Lightweight measures the actual weight of the ship with no fuel, passengers, cargo, water, etc. on board.


Deadweight (often abbreviated as DWT for deadweight tonnes) is the displacement at any loaded condition minus the lightship weight. It includes the crew, passengers, cargo, fuel, water, and stores. Like Displacement, it is often expressed in long tons or in metric tons.

So 440,000 tons is close to the actual cargo weight, not the total displacement of the ship + cargo/fuel.

[chucklesR]

My bad, you are correct, and 600,000 is still more than the largest ship every built at at 564,763 dwt.

Ergo, one 600,000 dwt per half hour is relatively um, impossible.

Now, 2 @ 300,000's dwt'er's every half hour is possible, maybe probable, but not the point being made.

[PBzeer]

If we get a consensus that Sway is right, does that mean he is?

[Freesail99]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

If we get a consensus that Sway is right, does that mean he is?

Let's all have a drink or 2 and discuss it. Btw, Feb. 5th and it is 66F in Southern New Jersey.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

If we get a consensus that Sway is right, does that mean he is?

Only if the IPCC says so - in a large summary statement, with edited scientific mumbo jumbo to support it, and some ex-politician has to make a movie out of the decision and get a non-scientific Nobel for it.

Otherwise a Sailnet consensus (meaning no one objects to S'way being right) would be astronomically long on odds - I'm so sure it won't happen I'll bet on it.
I will shave the top of my head, wear hawaiian shirts, and sail a catamaran if you get one.

[PBzeer]

What a challenge! And what a prize!

I was thinking though, in place of the UN, it should be a committee of like thinking AFOC's, and rather than skewing the data to acheive the desired results, just fake it in the first place, then make a YouTube video.