[Amish Abe]

Keora
Can we use less energy, no doubt, and in my opinion we will continue to move away from fossil fuels. But there is a good reason we use more energy than Europe....the EU is not nearly as productive.

You've have out of control social policies and double digit unemployment, that does not appeal to us either. With all due respect perhaps less effort should be expended on a disputed climatic theory and more effort on getting your economic house in order. Is the outcry from Europe an ecological concern or an attempt to even the ecomomic playing field? Not unlike the socialist policies that haven't worked so well either.

[Slag Bandoon]

...ecos push to make ridiculuous regulations punishing capitalism which is their real goal anyway.  
 
It is an easy position to take, because it makes you feel so good, and you arent actually required to do any thinking to take it.

 Turboe, fellow steel man, I'm aware of the constant pressures of Professional Enviromentalists (EPA, Sierra, etc.)that seem to hinder production but I have to say that their prime motive is not to punish capitalism, but to act, by decree of the people funding them, to tauten the leash on those with less than noble intent who might lack appreciation of quality air and water by their monetary motives -which we know can blind anybody. They're doing their job;  just as you or I do (or in my case did).  Historically, manufacturers have had free reign on the resources and the environment and it's caused irrepairable damage to the planet and to people.  The EPA may seem to be an annoyance but they were activated out of necessity - so that we wouldn't totally destroy our habitation.  Without the watchdogs, what would we have?  

  Your second statement that I've chosen is aarrrgh! (Quoting Jim Kennedy)    "Requires no thinking...and makes us feel good"?  How about from the other perspective of ignoring potentialities? Doesn't that make us even happier?


 I've learned a lot on this post.
The Amish are now using computers.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican.  (I thought he was an American Party member
American vs. European value by virtue of Gross National  
    Product is a viable scale.
America is a Top 10 country.
Smoking is ok if I drink the hooch.

If the polar ice caps melt, we will lose Turnberry, Shinnecock, National GLC, Pebble Beach, Dornoch, Barwon Head but Pine Valley will finally get that oceanside view.

"Indifference is evil."  Vladimir Putin

BTW...I am a hypocrite only looking for that balance.  

[keora]

Abe,

I understand and respect what you are saying, but the statistic that Americans, on average, use three times as much energy to do the same thing as EU citizens suggests that the US is less productive but has more resources. If this statistic is untrue or misrepresented, I'd gladly take it back.

The unemployment figures for the EU are 7.5 percent - not double figures. Europe, principally Germany, has had to reintegrate East Germany, which has impacted significantly on the German economy.

In terms of agriculture, many of the hormones and growth products available to the US farmer are illegal in Europe (thankfully), so farming is less productive.

It is not in Europe's interest for the US economy to suffer, so there is no interest in leveling the economic playing field in that respect.

I'd also be interested to hear about our "out of control social policies." We must seem very exotic to American people.

And in terms of the disputed climatic theory - it is mainly disputed by those with in an interest in a continued uneficient energy policy.

I am a physicist, and the climatic theory makes sense to me. If it was wrong, hurray!

In light of what I have said, I am very frustrated by the current anti-American feeling throughout Europe. I think the veiws and aspirations of the American people are being misrepresented by some over here. I can't understand the reasoning behind it.

Salut

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I am going to finally bring this topic back to golf course architecture (stay with me on this one it will take a while to get there)

Again I am going to fight "unfair" according to most environmentalists that I have dealt with.  I am going to again use facts.  They hate it when that happens.  Note again I am framing "environmentalists" in the context of the people that I have dealt with during my time in two of the most vilified industires to all the granola crunchers.  If you dont think this describes you then dont get bent, because I am not talking to you, I am talking to your leaders and the people who set that agenda.

Lets talk about greenhouse gases.  Again I apologize for basing my arguement in facts and actual figures I guess it is just the engineer in me coming out again.  By far the leading source of the C02 and Methane gas in the world are all living animals (which contrary to many environmentalists view does actually include us humans also) which can't help it they emit C02 out one end, and many of them emit Methane out thier other end.  Cows alone in the US produce 50 Million tons of these gases each year (I forgot I have actually worked in the three most vilified industries if your count my growing up on a beef cattle ranch).  So that creates an interesting quandry for the environmentalist who also just happens to be an animal rights activist if we could just eliminate all living things from this planet (including plants) we could do away with greenhouse gases entirely.  Wow what a world that would be.

Now back to how this ties into golf course architecture.  By far the largest source of greenhouse gas is termites, whose digestive activities  are responsible for about 50 Billion tons of CO2 and Methane annually (yes that is Billion with a B).  By the way this is roughly 10 times the annual world production from burning fossil fuels COMBINED!!!   So we could close every factory, get rid of every car (which if you read Al Gore's book is the goal) and you would still only effect the world level of greenhouse gases by about 1/10 of what comes just from the lowly termite (without even taking every other living thing into account)

Now to my final tie in.   What do termites eat?   Wood of course.  So if we could just eliminate more trees we could actually be positively effecting the production of greenhouse gases.  Now this will irritate the tree huggers, but think of the arguement applied to golf courses.  Everyone locked in a mortal struggle trying to get that tree removal program off square one at your home club could try the angle that you are actually trying to head off global warming.  And as we all know you can't argue against that.

Think of it.  "Save the Plantet!!! Remove a tree from a classic golf course!!!"   I can see the signs now.

[Justin_Zook]

The figure about Americans using 3 times as much energy as Europeans is probably pretty accurate, but I think the reason that us Americans use more energy is because in the case of gas, its cheaper, and because many of us life in a suburban environment and we need to use our cars to get to work or other places.  

Traveling in Europe, specifically German, Austria, and Switzerland, I can see how much more centered their communities/cities are than ours.  Europe has an incredible public transportation system as well.  You truely can travel just about anywhere by train, or bus or plane for a relatively cheap price.  

So while it may be true that we use more energy, I think that part of it is out of necessity, not just a plain old disregard for the environments health.  

[George Bahto]

     ......... and to think I started this in jest .....

[ed_getka]

Turboe,
  Do termites eat living trees? Even if they don't, the billions of tons those little critters pump out is amazing.

When I am deciding who to vote for I focus on environment and education, since I can't possibly keep track of every issue. I would agree that environmentalists give their cause a bad name with their fanaticism at times.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

No they probably dont eat live trees, but I thought it was a nice and funny tie into golf architecture.  And of course to steal a page from their own environmental handbook.  

"The cause of removing trees from classic golf courses is too important to be bogged down in minute details like that!!!"

But the other info is true those little buggers do produce that much, it is hard to believe.

[ed_getka]

There must be somebody out there who could get those termites to mutate so they would eat living trees (only on overplanted golf courses that would benefit architecturally of course).

I did like your architectural tie in attempt , perhaps the termites wood be interested in the enviro handbook as an hors d'ouevre.

[Amish Abe]

EU zone unemployment is 8.5%....and growing. We don't find comfort in the statistic, it has detremental effect on us as well.

The left has had a major effect on social programs in Europe, which has led to some of the economic difficulties. That is unappealing to most Americans. These same people are pushing the theory of global warming, might they have their own agenda?

The US and Europe have roughly the same energy consumption, we have far fewer people, but we also produce significantly more. Its a wash, perhaps not per capita, but as compared to economic output. Also keep in mind, all the energy we do consume....we pay good money for it.

The problem is not energy consumption, the problem is the material we currently utilize to produce the energy and its location. So as physist you should get off this site and go find a solution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Turbo,

If we are to judge by the length of TEPaul's posts, the three to one (3-1) ratio would be valid, perhaps even........ conservative

[Jack Marr]

The change in global climate, whatever is causing it, is affecting golf courses. I believe they are producing wine now in England! Does anyone know if this will affect the nature of linksland, which I believe is quite delicate? I'm not asking how wine production affects links courses, but the weather. Probably what has the greater affect on golf courses is their irrigation policies.


Amish Abe
The EU and the Euro zone, which I believe you are referring to, are different. I don't know the unemployment rates for each.

[DMoriarty]

Turboe,

In Reply 29, you say that you are again using facts.  I must have missed the facts in your previous posts on this thread.
 
I am sure that you won't mind if I attempt to delve a little more deeply into your facts.  Please pardon me if my questions and comments are a little naive or even outright ignorant.  I have more of a Liberal arts background than a science background and am thus working with a substantial disadvantage when it comes to understanding this topic.  Think of me as a 36 handicap who really wants to learn the game.

By far the largest source of greenhouse gas is termites, whose digestive activities  are responsible for about 50 Billion tons of CO2 and Methane annually (yes that is Billion with a B).  By the way this is roughly 10 times the annual world production from burning fossil fuels COMBINED!!!   So we could close every factory, get rid of every car (which if you read Al Gore's book is the goal) and you would still only effect the world level of greenhouse gases by about 1/10 of what comes just from the lowly termite (without even taking every other living thing into account)

That is hard to believe.  I recall reading that 60% of greenhouse gas production is attributable to man, and the other 40% to "natural" things like termites and swamps.  The EPA  website (link provided above by jim kennedy) has man's contribution at 66%.  Obviously, these numbers don't jibe with yours.  Is there any reason I should suspect that the EPA (headed by a Bush appointee) is way off with their numbers?  Do you mind pointing me to your source?

You clarify that you were just joking when you implied that termites eat living trees.  I figured this from your original post.  However, your joke might have hit on something worth mentioning.  I don't have the "facts" in front of me, but I would guess that industry, in particular the agriculture industry in South America, produces greater concentrations of dead wood than the members of Augusta before Viagra (sorry, I couldnt resist.)  The abundance of natural-greenhouse-gas-producing termites may be not be so natural after all.    

Termites produce 10X more greenhouse gases that man's use of fossil fuel?

 
I've read that termites produce less than 5% of the total atmospheric methane.  Again, could you please provide me with your source?  

By the way, I've also read that the rate at which termites produce greenhouse gases is 10X greater than the rate at which burning fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases (methane in particular.)  I believe that I read this in an article comparing the energy converting efficiency of cows vs. termites.  Accordingly, I viewed the "rate" as a measure of relative energy converting efficiency, rather than a measure of absolute production.  Assuming we are talking about the same "10X," did you misinterpret or did I?

By far the leading source of the C02 and Methane gas in the world are all living animals . . .

I was under the impression that animals (most of which are industrialized animals) produce only around 20% of greenhouse gases.  Your source?  

. . . many [living animals] emit Methane out thier other end.  Cows alone in the US produce 50 Million tons of these gases each year.

Many animals emit methane gas? I was under the impression that only ruminant animals with high fiber diets, such as cows and sheep (which digest food much like termites), produce significant quantities of methane gas. Doesn't this completely undercut your position?  You grew up on a cattle ranch-- I am sure you are aware that ranching is an industry, and that cows and sheep are industrialized.  If it weren't for the agricultural industry, there wouldn't be too many "natural" cows roaming the plains.  

Lastly Turboe, when discussing this issue why do you insist on engaging in name-calling, empty rhetoric, and didactic attacks aimed at straw-man enviro-morons?  You don't actually think your rant furthers anyone's understanding of the "facts," do you?  If you are really concerned with the facts, wouldn't it make more sense to set aside the Limbaughian vitriol and stick to reasonably discussing those facts.  

[David Kelly]

There simply is no scientific proof or even a consensus among the scientific community that global warming caused by "greenhouse gas effect" is occuring much less that is caused by man.

The global warming thesis originated in a report done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990.  Since then their predictions of temperature increases have been way off and they have been criticized by various scientific organizations that the methodology used in their forecasts was flawed.  The IPCC even acknowledged as much when they issued their second assessment report in 1995.

While there is merit to the claim that the earth's temperature is slightly rising (and even that is disputed) there is absolutely no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them. The IPCC itself acknowledges that as does the NAS.

Global warming has become a religion to many people and like all religions the adherents base their beliefs on faith not verifiable truth.

[Keora]

Unemployment in the European Union is 7.7%. Not that this matters in this debate.

Again, you believe who you want to believe.

"Here's the reality: there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, that this warming trend will worsen, and that human activity is largely to blame. Certainly you can find scientists who will argue otherwise. But these are the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body that draws on the expertise of hundreds of climate scientists around the world. President Bush was among those who doubted the science, so he asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review. The NAS established a very well balanced panel, including some well-known skeptical scientists, and then came back with the very same conclusions: the planet is warming and we are largely responsible.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Now I will take an quick attempt at answering your questions, not as thorough as I might like, but as usual those of us on this side of the issue are more busy living live than out being activists.  And unfortunately I will have to leave my office here soon, and I do not know how late I will be getting into my hotel room.  But I wanted to give you the  best answer I could quickly, because you raise good questions.  I dont know exactly how those fancy little boxes you used with my quotes works, but here goes my best.

By the way your Liberal Arts Degree is fine with me I am only stating the Engineering background because it is relavant in that I have dealt with the innane and baseless claims of many environmentalists when dealing with permitting of projects.  And I have personally witnessed when uninformed and highly emotional environmentalists have used those tendancies (rather than any facts) to win their victory, change the course of, or entirely derail a project that not only put many people out of work, but also took us backwards on production of products that add to the overall quality of life.  And what is really ironic is that those rantings and ravings (again the ones I have witnessed not refering to you) and the subsequent project cancellation have actually caused a more environmental damage to "Good old Mother Earth" whom they profess to be working for.  But they are happy because they have stopped the evil capitalist and that should tell you that they really are not interested in what happens to "Mother Earth"

 I recall reading that 60% of greenhouse gas production is attributable to man, and the other 40% to "natural" things like termites and swamps.  The EPA  website (link provided above by jim kennedy) has man's contribution at 66%.  Obviously, these numbers don't jibe with yours.  Is there any reason I should suspect that the EPA (headed by a Bush appointee) is way off with their numbers?  Do you mind pointing me to your source?

There is a typical Liberal shot, somehow because the EPA is headed by a Republican appointee that is supposed to mean that that person probably isnt impartial about environmental issues, and probably if anything has to lean unfairly towards unsound environmental policy, after all they are a republican.  Well as a matter of fact I do not belive most of what the EPA spews out.  And I dont care who nominated the current head.  They have a agenda and a purpose in sustaing their existance.  And when it comes to the facts and figures I quoted, no I dont mind pointing you to my source.  My source is the research and writings of Dr. Dixy Lee Ray.  Ms. Ray was the former Governor of WA, Assistand Secretary of State with the US Bureau of Oceans (I dont know who nor do I care who appointed her), one time chairman of the Atomic Energy Comission.  That is all that I can quote you about her resume off the top of my head if you want the full resume, individual books, exact pages, etc I will have to wait until I can get home and have the time to sift through her writings again.  If you would like at that time to have the exact quotes I will try to provide them, but on what I wrote suffice it to say it is very nearly what is written.  Also there is likely some information that may have been written by Bjorn Lomborg, a scientist and former admitted environmental extremist who eventually tired of seeing that the cause he trumpeted also was thumbing their nose at the scientific principles that he was trained with.  He is now the so called Skeptical Environmentalist, he still claims to be a staunch environmentalist, (which again I have to say I think most of us are), but he has also documented and written much information on how the leading environmental causes have lied, decieved, and misrepresented facts in the interest of their caues.  I have had the occasion to put some of these these things nearly to memory over the last few years as I am called upon to quote them quite often

I've read that termites produce less than 5% of the total atmospheric methane.  Again, could you please provide me with your source?  

See Above.  

By the way, I've also read that the rate at which termites produce greenhouse gases is 10X greater than the rate at which burning fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases (methane in particular.)  I believe that I read this in an article comparing the energy converting efficiency of cows vs. termites.  Accordingly, I viewed the "rate" as a measure of relative energy converting efficiency, rather than a measure of absolute production.  Assuming we are talking about the same "10X," did you misinterpret or did I?

To the best of my knowlede Termites produce 50Billion tons of gas annually, which is x10 more than the production from buring of fossil fuels.  

 
I was under the impression that animals (most of which are industrialized animals) produce only around 20% of greenhouse gases.  Your source?  

Answered above.

 
  You grew up on a cattle ranch-- I am sure you are aware that ranching is an industry, and that cows and sheep are industrialized.  If it weren't for the agricultural industry, there wouldn't be too many "natural" cows roaming the plains.  

Since I have "roamed the plains" myself for numerous years I would only say that if we could go back to some idilic utopia where there was no ranching or even people for that matter there may not be modern hybrid cattle roaming the plains but there would still be the Bison which are still out there and were native.  And I would guess that their anatomy works roughly the same.  Having said that I for one (and I imagine there are a few other humans) who enjoy my hamburgers, steaks, and leather shoes too much to want to see "Industrialized animals" go away.  As a human I don't want to waste all those years of evolution, fighting our way to the top of the food chain only to be a vegetarian.  I dont fault you if you want to be one, but don't tell me that I should be one.

Lastly Turboe, when discussing this issue why do you insist on engaging in name-calling, empty rhetoric, and didactic attacks aimed at straw-man enviro-morons?  You don't actually think your rant furthers anyone's understanding of the "facts," do you?  If you are really concerned with the facts, wouldn't it make more sense to set aside the Limbaughian vitriol and stick to reasonably discussing those facts.  

Now there is the pot calling the kettle black.  Again not necessarily in your instance, but in my dealings I have seen numerous times environmental arguements made solely on name calling, empty-rhetoric, and vitriol.  And then when we are forced to go back and prove that these claims are baseless and the facts prove them wrong you again get a standard emotional answer "well dont fault me, I am only trying to do what is right."  and the standard "This (Clean air and water) is too important of a cause to be bothered with such details."

So maybe in that respect I must ask your indulgance.  Because I had just enough Liberal Arts classes as required to graduate in Engineering.  And because of that I was taught to study facts and figures and not rely on emotion.  So when it comes to putting much stock in the emotional arguements I do not have much patience and I am in essance that same 36 handicapper you refered to along those line.

I mentioned in a previous post that the people reading this (and specifically you DM) may not be an "Environmental extremist".  If so then dont take offense, but I can tell you that I have seen that ilk up close and observed their leaders  operate.  And if you watch, observe, and learn what their tactics and goals are on every project I have been involved with, I can only surmise that this same disinformation, and goals are extended in issues where I am not inside doing the research myself.

Thats my story and now I must get going in pursuit of the evil Capitalist dollar.

[JohnV]

Turboe,  I read Lomborg ( and Gregg Easterbrook and Simon before him) and while they make good cases in a lot of areas, they also use frequently only the facts that suit their case.  There have been a number of well thought out rebuttals to Lomborg.  But, there are many things that he says that make a lot of sense.  One is that many of the non-scientific organizations such as the World Watch Institute and the Sierra Club make grandious claims and charges and don't back them with any (or minimal) facts.  The other is that we have a limited amount of financial resources to spend on fixing and protecting the environment and that we should spend them in areas where we can do the most good.  Some of the sections of his book point out that we are spending a lot of money in areas where the gains are minimal or non-existant while ignoring other areas where we could do a lot of good.  Also, he is very strong in the area that Simon covered where he discusses the amount of energy and mineral resources that we have available.

Global Warming is one area where his claims look to be weaker than others (at least from the number of scientists who have taken the time to refute them.)  But, even if the scientists are correct, the question becomes, can we do anything of value by spending lots of money on the problem.

Even if termites contribute 99% of the global warming gases, they have been around for a long time and we haven't seen the problem.  Sometimes it is just the straw that broke the camel's back that makes the difference.

By the way, I wouldn't get the environmentalists too mad if I were you, they might be the ones who can do the most to save Ponce De Leon Golf Course.

[keora]

I believe the termite population is increasing because they thrive in grassland, not the forests. These forests are being cut down and turned into grassland. Moreover, the breakdown of methane is inhibited by carbon monoxide, which is produced when fossil feuls are burned.

If you do accept that methane and carbon dioxide impact on global warming, then it is important to address the elements of its production that we can control.

[Slag Bandoon]

Why's everyone worrying about it?  Let your kids and grandbabies take care of the problem later and just tell them "We didn't know".  

   "Cannibals are humanitarians."   Unk

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

As Drew Carey says while spraying cans of aersol, "Screw the grandkids, I'm cold now!"

[DMoriarty]

There simply is no scientific proof or even a consensus among the scientific community that global warming caused by "greenhouse gas effect" is occuring much less that is caused by man.

The global warming thesis originated in a report done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990.  Since then their predictions of temperature increases have been way off and they have been criticized by various scientific organizations that the methodology used in their forecasts was flawed.  The IPCC even acknowledged as much when they issued their second assessment report in 1995.

While there is merit to the claim that the earth's temperature is slightly rising (and even that is disputed) there is absolutely no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them. The IPCC itself acknowledges that as does the NAS.

David,  

You may want to consider asking your local librarian to update the science shelves.  Your assertions are based on stale studies.  

You refer to the IPCC's First (1990) and Second (1995) Assessment Reports.  In 2001 the IPCC issued its Third Assessment Report.   Some of the conclusions are as follows (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm):

20th century climate was unusual.
Palaeoclimatic reconstructions for the last 1,000 years indicate that the 20th century warming is highly unusual, even taking into account the large uncertainties in these reconstructions.

The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability.
. . . it is [] unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) that natural internal variability alone can explain the changes in global climate over the 20th century. . . .

The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing . . . It is [] unlikely that natural forcing and internal variability together can explain the instrumental temperature record. . . .

Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change. . . .

The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is detected, despite uncertainties in sulphate aerosol forcing and response. . . .

It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for an anthropogenic signal.

I am no scientist, but it seems that the IPCC thinks it has substantial "scientific proof" that global warming caused by "greenhouse gas effect" is occuring, and is caused by man-- I looked up the word "anthropogenic," and the most fitting definition is "caused by humans."  

I also took a look at the nas.edu website and found what appear to be similar conclusions.  

So, the IPCC, the EPA, and the NAS all think that it is likely that global warming is occuring and is caused in substantial part by man.  Can you give me any good, factual, reason to doubt their findings?  Who, specifically, should I listen to instead?  

[David Kelly]

DMoriarty wrote:

Who, specifically, should I listen to instead?

The answer is as always - me.

Since this has nothing to do with GCA I responded privately.  Check your inbox.

[DMoriarty]

Since this has nothing to do with GCA I responded privately.

Geez David, we dont even agree on this.  Presumably, we on this site are all concerned with the future of golf architecture.  It is painfully obvious that to get anything built a developer must go through rolls of red tape, with no guarantee of ever breaking ground.  Certainly this is in large part because some environmental groups have taken a radical, zero development position and will do whatever it takes to kill any project, whether it makes scientific sense or not.  

That being said, I just dont think it helps the cause of golf course development to take equally radical, dogmatic, and unsupportable positions on the right.  You end up looking just as foolish to the far left as they look to you. You also lose credibility when dealing with those in the middle who are trying to do the right thing.  

That being said David, I reviewed your message and responded accordingly.

[David Kelly]

DMoriarty wrote:

Geez David, we dont even agree on this.  Presumably, we on this site are all concerned with the future of golf architecture.

Debating the findings of the NAS or the reliability of the statistical modeling of the IPCC's Third Assessment is related to GCA in only the most extremely tenuous way.  Also it is boring.

Besides you made me reexamine all of my core beliefs when you went with the bold font a few posts ago.  I don't know what to think now.  I mean bold...wow thats pretty serious.

[DMoriarty]

David.  The bold was unintentional, unexplained, and apparently unreversable, at least for me.  Probably yet another consequence of global warming.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()