There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Phil1111 908]

11 minutes ago, DJL said:

Ok, you think that mankind, in 200-something years of industrialization has made more CO2 than the volcanoes have in the 4.5 BILLION years in which Earth has existed. Come on man, I thought we were deferring to science.

Well thats somewhat moot to the discussion at hand. What is relevant is Co2 levels, industrialization and the rate of climate change now. 4.5 billion years ago, who cares? In the next 100-200 years, everyone should.

The planet was stable relative to Co2, carrying capacity of humans and industrialization. Up until about 100 years ago.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

 I've been staring at this quote for 10 minutes. . .

 I'm like totally tripping balls, man.

 

I'm reading it and assuming a sarcasm font was sorely missed when he wrote it.

That's what makes it so much fun.  I couldn't tell at first, but at least he lets us off the hook at the end of the post.

 

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

That's what makes it so much fun.  I couldn't tell at first, but at least he lets us off the hook at the end of the post.

 

Bigly.

[richravizza 25]

On 2/5/2019 at 4:09 PM, richravizza said:

Someone mentioned ozone and acid rain,and the wolves of our national parks, man can, does, and will effect the environment in the future,that by definition is ecology.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 6:56 AM, DJL said:

It's a good thing that we took the science community's advice regarding the ozone layer.  I've been unable to figure out why the concept of mankind being responsible for and being able to reverse the effects of global warming is so foreign to those who understand very well that we caused and fixed the ozone layer issue.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 7:02 AM, Phil1111 said:

I completely agree. Scientific monitoring of ozone, the accord and the results speak to global efforts to control man-made events. I recognize smaller efforts of trying to rectify events of man-made ecological mistakes.Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone national park. As an example. Easy to understand and easy to see the intended results.

Co2 and ozone are more difficult for the layperson to quantify.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 7:13 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

Acid rain too.

I think the biggest reason we understood and took action on both of those was the time frame.

They could show that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer pretty quickly. 
Once CFCs were 'banned' (greatly reduced in reality), the ozone layer repaired itself equally quickly. 

 

The acid rain was quite similar. The effects were dramatic and sudden (on a geological time scale). The science was clear, straightforward and very hard to argue with. Yet many still did. 
And once high sulfur coal was greatly reduced, the acid rain issues greatly diminished and the lakes that were 'killed' restored themselves, mostly anyway. 

AGW is far slower. I don't have to worry about it personally, I'll be dead long before any serious issues come about. 
So why should I have to pay extra or suffer deprivations to mitigate it? 
Which is a very selfish and stupid attitude to have. 

 

Unfortunately, many have that attitude.

And, like so many other issues, our descendants will have to pay the price. 

  I Agree.

Man-made compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halons destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere).That is man made POLLUTION

These manmade compounds did seam benign at first, but very basic science was needed to determine  the clorine component was destroying ozone.the layman could understand it, although probably found it absurd.

Sulfur dioxide and acid rain was even easier,High content sulfur coal was the norm,What most dont know is High Sulfur deisel was use in about 50% of car and nearly 100% in transportation.THE PLACE STUNK,the people  saw the black forrests' dark green turning to a burnt yellow.The Germans' love their Forests, and love to volk march. 

 Man made POLLUTION.

   But you see, CO2 is not exclusively  man made.Nor a POLLUTANT.

How Many of you where PROPONENTS of FRACKING !!!! ?

As a result of fracking, U.S. production of oil and natural gas has increased dramatically. This increase has abruptly lowered energy prices, strengthened energy security and even lowered air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal in electricity generation.

  How many of you support Nat.gas even though it's a FOSSIL FUEL?

I was  a denier, then a belieiver and now I'm a sceptic..Lables hate'em.

   ''When the facts change,I change my mind, what do you do sir?"

 The wolves in our National Parks is a interesting story.You'll see, we got it wrong at first,we tried,thought we knew best.We eliminated the wolves,for decades the park and the ecology suffered.We eventually got it right.

 The Seqouia National Park did the same,One of the Great Groves was permited for harvest.All the trees were havested, ALL but ONE.

Investors thought, ONE TREE a million board feet.we're rich!!! As it turns out 2000 year old wood aint so good.The enterprise went Broke.

For over 20years the Forestry Service dutifully put out dozens of raging wildfires.Stopping them just short of destroying the last Tree in the grove.Little did they know fire is necessary.Unfortunately they had prevented the grove from regenerating.Once fire was allowed, undergrowth was cleared.The cones were torched seeds then germinated, the stuggle for water,nutient rich soil ,water and sun light eliminated.The grove is now amazing.  Sequoia sapling every where, so dense,they will eventually chock off each other till a few will dominate  the forest floor as well,as the skyline.

  

On 2/4/2019 at 4:14 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

No. Not AGW. Decreased volcanic activity and increased solar radiation.

So when those natural factors went back to normal, the temps dropped (actually dropped more than normal, resulting in the 'Little Ice Age).

 

Droughts in North America ended, fires decreased. 

 

But the Mayans were still gone. 

 

And while natural cycles are just that, cycles; we are continuing to alter the ecosystem. We are continuing to dump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unless that is addressed in some way, the 'natural cycle' will not happen. Warming won't stop. 

Again, this really won't impact me. Real, serious, 'civilization ending' stuff won't happen until long after I'm dead. 

 

Not sure why so many seem to (want to?) think that means it's not real or that they shouldn't care.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 1:52 PM, richravizza said:

YES,and not a result of AGW, Im sure you'll agree.

Sounds like a typical Alarmist News cycle, from the 21century.

"Until it got cold again." 
 

I appologize for being blunt,and offensive

 After debating with the "So Cal wildfires subject' the  obstinance of some,and their  purposeful twist of fact.I became quite frusturated.How very intelligent people,Smarter than I,could be so stubborn.

 What I meant inso few word was,the Midevil warm period was the Natural state of the environment.The sun regardless of activity is the natural state.Even the Volcanos regardless of what they emit or their role in climate is Nature.The santa anna winds, same.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by richravizza
typos

[kallend 1,621]

16 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

That is simply not true. The earth has had volcanoes which spew out tons of CO2 every year. This has happened for millions of years. Imagine that. Even before humans were around. If mankind stops its CO2 emissions, the earth will just compensate probably by creating more volcanoes. Man has NOTHING to do with climate change/global warming etc. It is all natural and there is nothing that man can possibly do to affect the world environment as a whole. Have you even seen how big the earth is? We are so insignificant in comparison to such a bigly place. Huge place. With big water - ocean water. 

Cygnus X-1, the first  Black Hole to be discovered.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

Man-made compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halons destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere).That is man made POLLUTION

These manmade compounds did seam benign at first, but very basic science was needed to determine  the clorine component was destroying ozone.the layman could understand it, although probably found it absurd.

Sulfur dioxide and acid rain was even easier,High content sulfur coal was the norm,What most dont know is High Sulfur deisel was use in about 50% of car and nearly 100% in transportation.THE PLACE STUNK,the people  saw the black forrests' dark green turning to a burnt yellow.The Germans' love their Forests, and love to volk march. 

 Man made POLLUTION.

   But you see, CO2 is not exclusively  man made.Nor a POLLUTANT.

Sulfur coal is not manmade, and sulfur dioxide pollution from burning it is not exclusively manmade, yet you agree that it is a pollutant and it had a drastic effect on the environment.

 

I'm struggling to see what your point is here.

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Cygnus X-1, the first  Black Hole to be discovered.

In case everyone didn't get it, he wrote a satire piece.  To whoever responded to me no, I don't think what Volcanoes have emitted in the last 2.5bn years is relevant. 

[Phil1111 908]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Sulfur coal is not manmade, and sulfur dioxide pollution from burning it is not exclusively manmade, yet you agree that it is a pollutant and it had a drastic effect on the environment.

 

I'm struggling to see what your point is here.

Without getting too deep into sulfur as a component of global warming. Some fundamental misconceptions of how this chemical relates to energy are evident.

Sulfuric acid

Sulfur content of crude

Images of sulfur piles as a result of refining oil

Sweet crude oil 

Finally coal:Typical Sulfur Content in Coal

• Anthracite Coal : 0.6 - 0.77 weight %
• Bituminous Coal : 0.7 - 4.0 weight %
• Lignite Coal : 0.4 weight %

 

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Sulfur coal is not manmade, and sulfur dioxide pollution from burning it is not exclusively manmade, yet you agree that it is a pollutant and it had a drastic effect on the environment.

 

I'm struggling to see what your point is here.

That's kind of like saying you shouldn't worry about drowning because water is natural.

[jakee 1,254]

20 minutes ago, DJL said:

That's kind of like saying you shouldn't worry about drowning because water is natural.

Well, since Rich has aid that warmer temperatures and rising sea levels aren't a problem anyway, that's pretty much exactly what he's saying.

[billvon 2,384]

6 hours ago, richravizza said:

 

   But you see, CO2 is not exclusively  man made.Nor a POLLUTANT.

 

A pollutant is something that, when introduced into the environment, harms that environment (or people.)  So normal concentrations of CO2 are not pollutants - but high concentrations are.  At 280ppm it's not a pollutant.  At 500ppm it causes warming, which is bad for the environment.  At 2000ppm it causes people to get sick.

This isn't unique to CO2.  Ozone occurs naturally - but too much can make you sick, and is a big part of pollution in some cities.  Isoprene is also naturally occurring; isoprenes give the Smoky Mountains their name.  But too much of it will also make you sick, and is definitely a pollutant.

Quote

  How many of you support Nat.gas even though it's a FOSSIL FUEL?

I think natural gas is pretty good for a few reasons.

1) It kills a LOT less people than coal.

2) It is considerably cleaner (in terms of emissions and carbon) than coal.

3) Fracking does less damage to the environment than mountaintop removal.

4) It can be produced renewably.

Quote

 The wolves in our National Parks is a interesting story . . . The Seqouia National Park did the same . . .

Two good examples of how we once thought that killing wolves and preventing forest fires at all costs were good things.  Then, through science, we learned that we were mistaken.  As you say, we eventually got it right.

Over a century ago we thought pollution was a good thing; tycoons exclaimed that seeing that black smoke from the smokestacks was a visible sign of progress.  We didn't think anything of CO2.  Heck, it's already in the atmosphere; what's a little more?  It's not making anyone sick.  Now we know better - and are slowly but surely starting to, as you say, "get it right."

Quote

What I meant inso few word was,the Midevil warm period was the Natural state of the environment.The sun regardless of activity is the natural state.Even the Volcanos regardless of what they emit or their role in climate is Nature.The santa anna winds, same.

Yep.  We can't control nature; we can't stop the Santa Anas.  But we can control our contribution to warming.  And if we can keep that warming a few degrees lower, those Santa Anas will be less destructive.

[richravizza 25]

 

On 2/6/2019 at 10:29 PM, billvon said:

We definitely have more issues facing us.  But not dealing with AGW because of that is like a diabetic 300 pound smoker saying "why should I quit smoking?  I have way more health problems than just smoking."

?? Decreasing our CO2 emissions will absolutely change that "fact."  If we stopped our emissions tomorrow, we'd plateau at about 500ppm and then start declining.  We just don't want to.

We definitely have more issues facing us.  But not dealing with AGW because of that is like a diabetic 300 pound smoker saying "why should I quit smoking?  I have way more health problems than just smoking."

This is the problem with the alarmist phycology,The earth is not close to that ugly 300 lb.portrait.

 If I Use your "example" the330lb,smoker diabetic.

 Than he Has a gangrenous limb,in sepsis, and in Shock because of humanity,so ya smoking is a problem.

 CFCs were just convenientes,proplellents,refrigerants,definately not part of the environment,actual Pollution.

They were minor items removing,replacing,substituting them had very little effect of humanity or our way of life, at cost of nill.

Acid rain was actually desolving statues,even the finish of your Car.It was definitely man made Pollution.

Corrective action was more difficult and costly.  Side note; they were amazed a 5.0L mustang had catalyst technology .

 But   'We just don't want to."

  As If it were that easy,tomorrow. What would be the cost to humanity?

[jakee 1,254]

20 minutes ago, richravizza said:

 CFCs were just convenientes,proplellents,refrigerants,definately not part of the environment,actual Pollution.

They were minor items removing,replacing,substituting them had very little effect of humanity or our way of life, at cost of nill.

Acid rain was actually desolving statues,even the finish of your Car.It was definitely man made Pollution.

Ok.

 

Quote

Side note; they were amazed a 5.0L mustang had catalyst technology .

Who was? 

 

And why?

 

And so what?

[richravizza 25]

On 2/6/2019 at 8:00 PM, richravizza said:

Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue wrote that “surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

Al Gore took ‘worst-case scenario’ data, rebranded it as ‘Global Warming’, and became a multi-millionaire.

Hansen’s conclusion, they wrote, “significantly overstates the warming.”

 

How do you Alarmist come to terms with the above statement?

This came  from Hasens MOUTH..

12 hours ago, jakee said:

Well, since Rich has aid that warmer temperatures and rising sea levels aren't a problem anyway, that's pretty much exactly what he's saying.

If you use my words, please Quote. themes and some context is in order.

I don't think you read my views on coal. I think it's dirty full of carcinogens heavy-metal full of toxic waste and a principle generator CO2 and other GG.
We are in agreement on its use.

Sulfer dioxide can be found in nature,in small quantities abeit toxic, around nearly all geothermal or volcanic vents so.

I don't think its a major player in the AWG debate,

But its effects on the enviroment and ecology is well known.Thats why it became a priority.

THIS CANT BE SAID FOR CO2.

Please Excuse my incorrect use of side note.

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by richravizza
Please side note?

[richravizza 25]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

And if we can keep that warming a few degrees lower, those Santa Anas will be less destructive.

Was this trolling or just a joke? 

 

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, richravizza said:

 

We definitely have more issues facing us.  But not dealing with AGW because of that is like a diabetic 300 pound smoker saying "why should I quit smoking?  I have way more health problems than just smoking."

This is the problem with the alarmist phycology,The earth is not close to that ugly 300 lb.portrait.

 

You just said that AGW was an issue - but "we have many more issues facing us."  Yes, we do.  Like that 300 lb guy.  If you asked him, I am sure he would tell you that it's not that bad, he feels fine, and besides, this other guy is fatter and smoked and lived to be 85.

Or if you prefer he is a 260lb guy who smokes occasionally and eats lots of burgers and chocolate.  His argument - "hey, I just smoke occasionally; it's insignificant compared to all the junk food I eat!" - is just as bad.

Quote

Acid rain was actually desolving statues,even the finish of your Car.It was definitely man made Pollution.

Acid rain comes from two primary pollutants - sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.  They come naturally from volcanoes and decaying plant material.  In small quantities they form nitric acid and sulfuric acid in the rain, and change the pH a very small amount - not enough to harm anything.  (Usually; after the Kilauea eruption, Hawaiians were put at risk for very acidic - but very natural - rain after the volcano released tons of SO2.)

But then we came along and started emitting lots of both from cars and power plants.  And the acid rain got a lot worse.  So yes, it was man made pollution, even if those chemicals are produced naturally as well.

Likewise, CO2 at around 280ppm is perfectly natural.  We breathe it out and plants use it for raw material.  It's part of what keeps our planet at a good temperature for humans.

Then we came along and started emitting way more of it, to the point where it is reducing the pH of the oceans (making them more acidic) and raising the temperature of the planet.  Yes, CO2, like SOx and NOx, is produced naturally.  When we produce way too much of it, it becomes a harmful pollutant - again just like SOx and NOx cause acid rain.

Quote

 

But   'We just don't want to."

  As If it were that easy,tomorrow. What would be the cost to humanity?

 

If we did it tomorrow?  The cost would be huge, enormous.  Billions would die.

If we do it over the next 30 years?  It would cost way less than a handful of wars, both in money and human lives.  And if we avoided those wars and put all that money into reducing our impact on the environment, the world would be a better place overall.   Just think about all that money that used to go to military contractors going to renewable energy projects, reforestation and non-fossil-fuel transportation.  Lots of jobs.  Seems like a good goal.

[richravizza 25]

28 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

 Yes, CO2, like SOx and NOx, is produced naturally.  When we produce way too much of it, it becomes a harmful pollutant - again just like SOx and NOx cause acid rain.

If we did it tomorrow?  The cost would be huge, enormous.  Billions would die.

If we do it over the next 30 years?  It would cost way less than a handful of wars, both in money and human lives.  And if we avoided those wars and put all that money into reducing our impact on the environment, the world would be a better place overall.   Just think about all that money that used to go to military contractors going to renewable energy projects, reforestation and non-fossil-fuel transportation.  Lots of jobs.  Seems like a good goal.

 Yes, finally we agree 2 out of 3 aint Bad.I think this gets an 

 

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

How do you Alarmist come to terms with the above statement?

Who here do you consider an alarmist? And whoever Hansen is, how can he be so convincing to you when the American scientific community is not? Again, the glaciers are melting. Go look at them, it's simple. Why do you need to complicate it?

[richravizza 25]

 

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Who here do you consider an alarmist? And whoever Hansen is, how can he be so convincing to you when the American scientific community is not? Again, the glaciers are melting. Go look at them, it's simple. Why do you need to complicate it?

   Most actually,trying to relate co2 to weather I find ridiculous.

"And whoever Hansen is," well,I think he did the muppets.  He has nothing to do with AGW theory. 

Beacuse its a complicated subject,lives are on the line, now and there no one solution.

So I guess your on board with US Facking operations  expanding around the world.

International negotiations with actors like these?

While China has canceled some coal-fired capacity due to lack of demand growth, China still plans to increase its coal-fired power plants to almost 1,100 gigawatts, which is over three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

Yes, I agree We are now in an interglacial period.

Beacuse again,its a complicated subject,lives are on the line now, not 50 or 80 years from now,and there is no one solution.

[richravizza 25]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Why do you need to complicate it?

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-ion-battery-production-is-surging-but-at-what-cost#gs.Dff5LMjU

Hope you don't have a bias with this site.

Lithium-based batteries also require raw materials like cobalt, nickel and graphite, which further complicate the supply chain. Labor injustices in the extraction of cobalt are well documented. Over 20 percent of exports from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s top producer, come from unregulated artisanal mines that often employ children. For raw materials like nickel and graphite, producing countries cope with water contamination and deforestation.

Edited February 9, 2019 by richravizza
long read?

[billvon 2,384]

28 minutes ago, richravizza said:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-ion-battery-production-is-surging-but-at-what-cost#gs.Dff5LMjU

Hope you don't have a bias with this site.

Lithium-based batteries also require raw materials like cobalt, nickel and graphite, which further complicate the supply chain. Labor injustices in the extraction of cobalt are well documented. Over 20 percent of exports from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s top producer, come from unregulated artisanal mines that often employ children. For raw materials like nickel and graphite, producing countries cope with water contamination and deforestation.

If cobalt becomes a problem, then we go to formulations that use less, or no, cobalt.  If nickel or graphite becomes a problem - same thing.  Coke anodes work just fine.

The story of grid scale storage is just starting.  Maybe nickel iron will be the way to go.  Or perhaps sodium sulfur.  Or lithium ion in an existing formulation, or a tweaked one, or a completely different one.  Lots of choices.

Quote

 

"And whoever Hansen is," well,I think he did the muppets.  He has nothing to do with AGW theory. 

Beacuse its a complicated subject,lives are on the line, now and there no one solution.

So I guess your on board with US Facking operations  expanding around the world.

 

Whatever "facking" is.  I think that was from Battlestar Galactica.

[richravizza 25]

14 hours ago, billvon said:

Whatever "facking" is.  I think that was from Battlestar Galactica.

Nice some humor .....I think we're learning a lot in the debate.

 I don't particularly care for labels, unfortunately  it's necessary, to simplify this debate.I recommend we try and defuse our emotional  responce,that labels invoke.

17 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Who here do you consider an alarmist? And whoever Hansen is, how can he be so convincing to you when the American scientific community is not? Again, the glaciers are melting. Go look at them, it's simple. Why do you need to complicate it?

 

19 hours ago, jakee said:

 

 

On 2/8/2019 at 5:26 AM, Phil1111 said:

 

 

On 2/8/2019 at 2:10 AM, kallend said:

 

I invite you all, invest some time into this very serious subject.I spent a couple full days on Phll site,AGW is real, happening,The site displelled myths and misconcerption I had on AGW theory.

But, the 'Alarmist psychology" of humanities maleficence is detrimental to our emotional health,even more so in our childern.We seem to be at a duck and cover moment.

I beleive Bill said "Smoke stacks and pollution were considerned process." {sorry for indirect quote}

 Unfortunatly and fortunately thats true.

  Some relativism needs to be applied to a statement like that. Most of the Poor of America live better than the "Robber Barrons" of the day.Cental heat and air was non-existent running clean water,sewer sytems the list is endless.Gasoline was dumped into steams as a useless by product.Everything was horrible compared to todays way of life.

So the first 12 minutes is my point,may lure you to learn more,dispelling myths and misconceptions.I think almost all the subjects on this thread are in laymans' terms.

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

A bunch of name calling and making fun of people. But where's the beef? Real data shows, once again, increasing CO2 levels, warming oceans, warming air, melting ice. Instead of searching all over the corners of the internet for better quality deniers, try the gold standard;

 

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm

 

These are not "alarmists" these are realists. This organization represents the broad arc of American science.

 

[billvon 2,384]

5 hours ago, richravizza said:

I invite you all, invest some time into this very serious subject.I spent a couple full days on Phll site,AGW is real, happening,The site displelled myths and misconcerption I had on AGW theory.

But, the 'Alarmist psychology" of humanities maleficence is detrimental to our emotional health,even more so in our childern.We seem to be at a duck and cover moment.

I agree.  Fortunately the sort of alarmism you describe is very rare.  (Alarmism is not exemplified by someone who quits smoking because of the health risks; alarmism means that someone can't sleep at night because of the fear that someone else might smoke near them.)

Quote

 

I beleive Bill said "Smoke stacks and pollution were considerned process." {sorry for indirect quote}

 Unfortunatly and fortunately thats true.

  Some relativism needs to be applied to a statement like that. Most of the Poor of America live better than the "Robber Barrons" of the day.Cental heat and air was non-existent running clean water,sewer sytems the list is endless.Gasoline was dumped into steams as a useless by product.Everything was horrible compared to todays way of life.

 

Excellent point.  And concordantly, we all thought that all those advances came for free; that we wouldn't have to pay for them.  Turns out we do.  The mines, the oil fields, the atmosphere and the oceans are not infinite, and we are reaching the limits of what they can do for us.

The cool thing is that now we know better, and can get that same quality of life without polluting the oceans and skies, and without exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet.  If we want to, of course.

[kallend 1,621]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

  The mines, the oil fields, the atmosphere and the oceans are not infinite, and we are reaching the limits of what they can do for us.

The cool thing is that now we know better, and can get that same quality of life without polluting the oceans and skies, and without exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet.  If we want to, of course.

Last year we spent a week on the Silver Bank - a humpback whale breeding area some 70 miles off the coast of the Dominican Republic.  Even there we spotted plastic garbage in the ocean.