Open thread for climate solution discussion. Climate science discussions should remain on the Unforced Variations thread.
Reader Interactions
854 Responses to "Forced Responses: Dec 2019"
Thomassays
E-P you’re not going to win any arguments here. Nor does anyone else for that matter. For shooting oneself in the foot repeatedly is everyone’s forte. As is being in love with their own ‘ideology’ and entrenched belief systems a thousand times more than they love the Earth and it’s future generations or reason.
Maybe after half the world is in ashes like a huge portion of Australia presently is the generation of that day may have better luck. Until then it’s Turtles all the way down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @612
“And Nigel, please try to think of Others. Yeah, gloat about your access to healthcare. I’m an American inventor. So I don’t have access to healthcare.”
I wasn’t gloating. Our system is underfunded anyway. I was just making the point that the reason only one parent worked back in the 1950s wasn’t because everything was perfect like EP implied. I was outlining why both partners worked now.
David B. Benson @619, on artificially grown foods. Thanx. Got to be the most interesting article I’ve seen in weeks.
nigeljsays
Engineer-Poet @620, ok fair point that research on nuclear power and renewables both go way back. But I would not say renewables have had all that much support. No subsidies where I live, and we have huge lobby groups attacking them.
Its fossil fuels that have had a huge advantage. Read an article recently as below:
From the article: Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one. During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.
I suspect Nuclear power is in a similar disadvantaged position.
I agree a carbon tax is preferable to subsidies. Or put it this way, subsidies were a good way to kick start renewables, but its now time they were phased out and replaced with a carbon tax.
—————————————–
Engineer-Poet @621
“We have far cheaper ways of storing hours and days of energy for the grid, such as hot molten “solar salt”.”
Yes, and another is using renewables excess electricity to create carbon neutral liquid fuels.
Interesting how information that causes your point to crumble (or require advancement) evaporates instead of assimilates.
What’s that supposed to refer to, let alone mean?
The issue isn’t external radiation. The issue is concentrated bits of internal radiation that reinjure the same tissue over extended periods.
It’s sad that I need to explain this to you, but apparently I must: “concentrated bits of internal radiation” (no such thing, radiation is not a substance, it’s an emission from decay of a substance) simply do not travel far or for long. Such bits need to be generated and lofted by an energetic event (like a nuclear bomb going off near the ground) and fall out again very quickly; that’s why they’re called “fallout”.
Anything that was still aloft more than 30 minutes after the Chernobyl reactor blew up was a gas, vapor or fume, not a particle. Any fumes that condensed rapidly fell out rapidly as well. The stuff that travelled as far as the EU bloc had to be either vapors or attached to hyper-fine particles, and there just isn’t enough material there to pose a real threat.
nobody is disagreeing with your irrelevant factoid about diffuse external radiation.
The alpha emissions from radon cannot penetrate the dead layer of skin. To have any effect, it has to be taken INTERNALLY, to the lungs and the bloodstream. Maybe even deeper; nobody has done the work of determining the exact site and mechanism of action.
nigeljsays
Killian @635, every time you call people idiots you loose half your audience including the exact people you need. You are painfully slow working that out.
My original point was simple. Both partners work these days mainly because we produce and consume more as a society. You yourself have said we consume more as a society now. I think it holds true as a global general pattern. Obviously its not the only reason. I should probably have been clearer its not the only reason.
And I was talking globally and of my country. You have assumed I meant America. I think that is half the problem here.
Sure, the working classes in America have seen their wages go backwards, so that is part of the reason both partners work in those families. And its a nasty problem. Your minimum wage levels are also ridiculously low.
We have a problem with high housing prices, in NZ although its probably not forcing more women into the workforce. Most already work.
I dont doubt that second incomes pay for a lot of sunk costs. But its for consumption. I already covered consumption.
“No, misogynyst, these are facts.”
Just a stupid lie. How you get that from anything I say just shows how you jump to silly conclusions. Makes you a danger to us all.
———————————-
Killian @639
“1. You clearly do not understand the Straw Man Fallacy. 2. You specifically talked about rich countries, more women working and that making countries richer. That you think greater debt equals wealth show what an utter idiot you are.”
I understand straw man fallacies perfectly well. Yes more women working obviously makes countries richer. It doesn’t cause inequality within countries. I have no idea what you are really trying to say. I never said greater debt creates greater wealth. Its more complex than that.
“Suuuure you have. Let me see, 1. Git thos liddle ladees back in der kitchen! Theys makin too muches moneis and weez gettin too rich. 2. See #1.”
You are just a toxic, deranged liar.
“Consumer debt in the U.S. has grown by 25 percent in five years and doubled since the turn of the century…”
I’ve already addressed this. Women were working well before debt truly exploded. And nobody made people take on all that debt, they want to buy all those pretty things. EXCEPT for the problem where wages have fallen like with the working classes in America, or stagnated badly. I have already mentioned this.
“Stupid. No. The fact is as I stated in another post just posted: Those non-discretionary costs have risen to a majority of income where they used to be a manageable fraction. Housing, childcare, utilities, transportation, etc., things we must spend on, became much higher since the early ’70’s.”
I accept this is the case in America. In my country its not as large a problem. Housing mortgage payments are about the same proportion of income, cars are much cheaper these days.
I’m not going to deal with the rest. Basically you assumed I was referring to America. I was thinking a bit more generally and of my country. That is the problem. Its all getting way off topic anyway.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia:
FYI, I can only see 625 comments – should be 653 I think. The rest will likely appear after this is posted.
Please note that this comment contains no bickering, insults, threats of violence, foul language, etc. See if the rest of you can do as well.
nigeljsays
Killian @636
“Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynyst, too!'”
Blatantly lying about what KM said, while Killian bitterly complains when he thinks people lie about what he said (hes invariably wrong). What a complete twit.
nigeljsays
Engineer-Poet says @638 oh dear god I find Dickens writing tedious, depressing and excruciating . But ok I do understand your point. So this woman became so obsessed with her african charity work, she forgot about the needs of her own children. And I appreciate you are using it as an analogy for the wider picture.
I suppose its always a danger and we should obviously look after our own first. I would just suggest we basically do. For example we take some political refugees each year but they don’t get given an open check book.
If they lack money they get the same social welfare assistance as our own citizens, nothing more apart from some language lessons, which is understandable. They do get temporary housing accommodation until they get on their own feet. We cant really put them in tents and throw dog food at them. Its always a difficult balancing act, but I dont see a huge problem.
We only take immigrants if they have at least some work skills, basic english, and some funds. We take immigrants from all countries on their personal merits. They don’t get special treatment. I think we have the right approach to immigration in this respect at least.
I have no patience for the argument coming from the right that our house (country) should be “perfectly” in order before we do something to help people on the international stage. It’s just dumb.
nigeljsays
Regarding: Engineer-Poet says @638 blah blah blah. Oops you aren’t saying that I am. Typo.
Al Bundysays
EP quotes Kevin: Does he know that migrants quite often arrive with cellphones?
EP: Do you know that it’s possible for someone to have a cell phone, but have never lived outside a wattle-and-daub hut or seen a water faucet let alone a flush toilet?
Kevin spoke of a large fraction. You responded with a snarky “it could happen”
More piss poor debating technique. Are you a GOPper? They, being Conse***tives and so genetically (on average) inferior, often resort to such idiotic gropings that only fool other GOPpers.
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
Of course you weren’t gloating. My comment included a pre-retraction. I was showing how an innocent comment, even when motivated by inclusion, can and will pull the opposite strings in Others’ (the excluded) minds.
EP,
You missed it, too? I know you have talent. My point is that your attitude swamps it and makes your contribution repulsive. Think Nazi medical research. “No thanks, just shred the data. We’ll accept extra death rather than use your research” is a normal conclusion. Not the only one but it has wide constituency and wider sympathy.
I asked you your SAT scores. You never answered, instead painting the most grandiose picture of yourself while denigrating the question, and so the asker.
You just asked for somebody’s SAT. You sure suck at debate…
…compared to a liberal who’s in your league.
You’re inept. You come to a room and supposedly want to promote nuclear. Only a social moron would mix shredding the audience’s core values into their spiel.
Al Bundysays
Mr null-et-al (aka intellectual void): He was probably refused service by the intolerant leftist so he grabbed his phone and started recording
AB: Dumbest interpretation possible. When’s the last time you have witnessed somebody with pure and non-confrontational mindset grin with satisfaction in response to treatment such as you describe?
It was a fishing expedition. Staged and set up explicitly to hide the instigation. Note that the employee was all in with regard to calling the owner. Why was that, mrkia?
(Here’s where everyone gets to laugh at you for choosing an ever-narrowing possibility instead of discussing for mutual enlightenment.)
Choose, mrkia. Impartial juror or GOPper?
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA: “Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia:…”
Well, except for the fact that mile-thick ice scoured off the soil down near to bedrock during the last ice age. And then American stupidity allowed the soil to be blown off of the Great Plains (to depths of several meters in some places) and blown into the Gulf of Mexico, where it caused algal blooms for years.
Dude, do you have any critical thinking skills at all?
Al Bundysays
EP: The alpha emissions from radon cannot penetrate the dead layer of skin. To have any effect, it has to be taken INTERNALLY, to the lungs and the bloodstream. Maybe even deeper; nobody has done the work of determining the exact site and mechanism of action.
AB: So you 100% agree with me that diffuse external radiation is a moronic factoid and you will surely promise to never bring it up again.
You also seem to agree that hot particles are not included in any of the irrelevant but true goop you’ve been spouting.
So, either double down on moronic irrelevancies or limit discussion to hot particles and other stuff that concentrates radiation, especially with regard to alpha. Like you said, alpha cannot escape skin, so internal alpha will never not interact with your body.
KIA paints a happy picture of the northward expansion of agriculture in Canada, citing a good article (!). But perhaps he should have read all the way to the concluding ‘graphs:
For Canada, most analysts and farmers believe the potential rewards of climate change will outweigh the risks – at least over the next 30 years.
But if heat keeps on rising and causes greater water shortages and crop failures, Canada could see a decrease in farm productivity by the end of the century, said agriculture official Jarvis.
For now, improvements in farm technology, drought-resistant crops and new harvesting methods mean farmers should be poised to ramp up production as temperatures warm.
“Canada could be playing a bigger role providing the food for the world as heat rises,” Jarvis said.
“Other countries are going to be affected (by climate change) much worse than we are,” he said. “It’s not a really happy picture overall.”
Killian, it would really serve you better to do what you asked me to do, which was “pay attention.”
I didn’t call you a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so. Go back and look:
I also didn’t insult, belittle, or even, largely, disagree with you. Let me highlight this bit:
Well, sure, and also by inflated consumer standards among those who have the money.
Almost literally, a ‘yes, and’ to your point.
And one basic thrust of what I wrote, far from being a “justification of the crap system,” was to critique consumerism (specific examples being the absurdity of spending a grand on a smartphone, or $30,000 on a new car.) You know, the kinds of things we wouldn’t see under a regime of simplification.
The other basic thrust, which you apparently missed, was that the female 50+% of the population benefits greatly by being relieved of structural dependency on a man. Virginia Woolf famously wrote of ‘a room of one’s own’; but a job of one’s own is far more fundamental. With it, there is much, much less impediment for a woman to walk away from an unsatisfactory or abusive relationship. That’s the relevance of the comment about ‘bad marriages,’ which you described as (I paraphrase) completely unrelated.
Please, try to read for comprehension before exploding.
(Although, frankly, the explosion was hilarious. I wasn’t trying to troll you, but the ridiculously inappropriate–and inapt–response I got gave me some insight into the pleasure real trolls apparently derive.)
From the article: Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one.
And that doesn’t include the “charitable” giving which is laundered through foundations into support for anti-nuclear “environmental” front groups like Greenpeace and Friends Of the Earth (founded with financial assistance from ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson). It’s all directed to suppressing the competition.
I suspect Nuclear power is in a similar disadvantaged position.
Much, MUCH worse. A lot of nuclear plants are operated as regulated utilities and are not allowed to spend money on lobbying or PR. They can’t even refute the lies the FF shills tell about them.
another is using renewables excess electricity to create carbon neutral liquid fuels.
I like to go into the round-trip efficiency of hydrogen. 43 kWh of electricity makes 1 kg of H2. 1 kg H2 has 120 MJ lower heating value; burned in a combined-cycle gas turbine plant at 60% LHV efficiency, you get 72 MJ back out of it. That’s just 46.5% of your 43 kWh input, and it doesn’t include any overhead for e.g. compression.
1 kg H2 makes 5.667 kg NH3. At 18.646 MJ/kg LHV and 60% efficiency in the same gas turbine, the yield from 1 kg H2 is 63.4 MJ and the round-trip efficiency is just 41%.
This is why “renewables + storage” is nigh-impossible. Your already-low energy return on investment from unreliable RE is divided by as much as 2.5 even before considering the investment in the production and storage systems. It is a program that is designed to fail.
Hmm, E-P really has a penchant for misdrawing mental Venn diagrams:
Are you under the impression that slavery was unique to US South?
Are you under the impression that if I say slavery disfigured the US–which it clearly did–that that somehow implies that it never disfigured any other society? If yes, would you also say that if I call you an engineer, that would imply that no other engineers exist?
Did it escape your notice that people from places where slavery continues are trying to get to the USA? It’s a really weird variety of oppression if literally millions want to enjoy it.
L-effing-OL!
Did it escape your attention that (legal) slavery in the US was abolished in 1865? It would appear that the ‘millions’ don’t enjoy it so much in the places they are fleeing… of course. The US has problems. Some other places have worse ones. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work on (or recognize) the ones we do have.
Do we get no credit for 5 decades of affirmative action, and repeated lowering of qualification bars to make that “leg up” ever easier to get without putting forth effort or showing actual ability? If massive inequality persists despite this, it confirms that the claimed causes thereof were lies from the beginning. We can stop blaming white people for it now.
It’s not a matter of blaming; it’s a matter of getting the job done–which will benefit all people.
Do you know that it’s possible for someone to have a cell phone, but have never lived outside a wattle-and-daub hut or seen a water faucet let alone a flush toilet?
Certainly. But if they can deal with contextual menus, how hard to do you think it will be to deal with pulling the flush lever?
I could go on with about the scope of the problem. For instance, WRT to Honduras, “Across the country, more than one million lack access to improved sanitation, and 638,000 lack safe water.” Wow! One million haven’t seen–or, at least, don’t have regular personal access to–a flush toilet! 638,000 don’t have access to safe water, which implies that they may not have seen a water faucet, either!
But turn it around: the population of Honduras is about 6.6 million, which means that 90% probably have seen a water faucet (or at least they have a clean well of some sort) and 85% deal regularly with flush toilets.
So why focus on the minority who may not have these things? And why imply, without empirical support, that they are going to be unable to learn to deal with them? (As opposed to, say, adopting them enthusiastically with a ‘this is great!’ kind of vibe?)
At this point, I really can’t avoid thinking that the reason is emotional bias: those, primitive, dirty, non-white ‘lesser breeds’ are a threat to our clean, right, white way of life. There certainly has been ample support for this interpretation in numerous E-P posts.
It’s emotional-cognitive pathology, not reason. In fact, it’s the antithesis of reason. Perhaps that accounts for the logical errors noted at the top of this comment. When the emotional brain gets really going, the frontal cortex gets subordinated to rationalization, and you get ‘garbage out.’
Nemesissays
@funny Engineer Poet, #641
You need to FEEL what’s real and you WILL feel very soon, my dear engineer 38=>
I was asked for an example of a nation that had decarbonized via intermittent RE, and had responded that there wasn’t one, yet. I think that’s still valid, but there’s a case that is getting close: the UK.
In 2019, RE–of which wind was by far the biggest component, with hydro accounting for only 18% of UK RE–became for the first time the largest component in the UK electrical generation mix, edging out natgas by a tenth of a percent at 38.9%. (Oil came in at 2.9%, while once-mighty coal was a mere 1%, so for now FF as an amalgamated category still beats RE–though not, one may confidently forecast, for long.)
Note that time-of-use charges formed a part of the solution to integrating all that variable generation into the grid:
The wind power highs meant thousands of homes were paid to plug in their electric vehicles overnight and set their dishwashers on timers for the early hours of the morning to make use of the extra energy.
Not coincidentally, it was reported elsewhere (and earlier–December 2018) that emissions in the UK are now at roughly the levels last seen in 1860 (per capita) or 1890 (absolute).
Denmark has a higher penetration of wind–nearly 50% of production as of last year–but is heavily interconnected with larger partners:
Denmark is generally a transit country for electricity trade between the much larger markets in Norway, Sweden and Germany, and plans to add cables to the Netherlands (COBRAcable) and England (Viking Link) as well, further increasing the function of being a crossroads for electricity.
So that’s a confounding factor in the analysis (albeit a good argument for a geographically and technologically diversified energy economy.) The biggest effect seems to be time-shifting loads with imports of Norwegian hydropower and exports of Danish wind power.
ok fair point that research on nuclear power and renewables both go way back.
No they do not BOTH “go way back”. Wind and solar both go back CENTURIES. Fission goes back to 1938, at the earliest; the first demonstration was 1942. Now compare successes against age. Give credit where credit is due.
oh dear god I find Dickens writing tedious, depressing and excruciating .
Dickens was a best-selling author in his time. A great deal of his work is slightly-fictionalized history. “Depressing” might be apt, but if it’s tedious or excruciating… what does THAT say about our modern attention span? Does it not CONFIRM that we’ve had generations of dysgenic trend between then and now?
If you grew up in an English-speaking Western culture and you can’t read Dickens, does that not suggest that you are not fit to carry on the culture and should not reproduce?
I suppose its always a danger and we should obviously look after our own first.
Try to guarantee that those who enter the country are at least as good for it as those who are already there.
We cant really put them in tents and throw dog food at them.
That really is the right way to treat hostile people who only want to take advantage of you. Australia puts them on an island and gives them the choice of staying there or going back home. That is the correct response to probably 99.9% of them.
I have no patience for the argument coming from the right that our house (country) should be “perfectly” in order before we do something to help people on the international stage.
Why should ANYONE “on the international stage” be admitted to the West rather than being assisted in place? Assistance in place is vastly cheaper, for one thing. What is the argument for admitting them to a country where they don’t fit, except to have masses WHO DO NOT FIT?
Al Bundysays
EP,
You never read “Chernobyl”, did you? Until you do, or post a link to a refutation, we can’t come to an agreement on fallout and the existence of concentrated radiation sources (thyroid glands, various plants and animals, dust that is re-lofted by a child’s shoe, whatever).
And your snark pretending to not be intelligent enough to realize that I understand that those helium ions are created during fission paints you poorly.
Life’s too short to track down whatever you might be alluding to.
I asked you your SAT scores. You never answered
800 math, well over 600 verbal (not going to be too specific here), and that was before the test was re-centered for the dumber demographics coming down the pike. Also 5’s on 3 separate AP exams and a 4 on another.
Even before re-centering, the math SAT was easy. It didn’t go beyond algebra, and if you knew your algebra and weren’t hopelessly slow you could finish it well within the alloted time. I have no idea what it’s like now, probably burdened with multi-culti stuff. I have thought about taking it again just for shits and grins.
The other basic thrust, which you apparently missed, was that the female 50+% of the population benefits greatly by being relieved of structural dependency on a man.
Wait just a second there. From whom, exactly, is this “relief” extracted? What “structure” is required to extract this relief?
The inescapable answers are (a) men and (b) misandrist treatment of men.
So Go F**k Yourself, and every last “feminist” dependent on such injustice.
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
EP is slinging around a 40s% efficiency to make liquid fuel. That fits well with other somewhere-around-50% guestimates. Stuff generally improves significantly during early development, so call it 60%, which is grand because the energy is upgraded from electrons, which are common but expensive to store, to a vehicle fuel, which is way valuable in a post-fossil world since it’s energy dense and emminently storable. Why give away electrons when you can make liquid gold instead? Well, as EP noted, letting capital goods sit around half the time while waiting for the wind is a bit expensive. But T Bills are 1.79%. Capital ain’t worth what it used to be. If we unleashed the power of the US government as focused by the Army Corps of Engineers renewables would sprout like weeds and we wouldn’t have to pay capitalistic leeches God knows what insane rate of return they’ll demand. We can get it done at 1.79%. Why pay more?
EP,
Twas funny seeing you ask ‘what’s that mean’ when my next sentence, which you also quoted, explained ‘what that meant’.
Are you under the impression that if I say slavery disfigured the US–which it clearly did–that that somehow implies that it never disfigured any other society?
Are you under the impression that a near-universal institution could “disfigure” all of human society, both at the time and going forward?
The left normalizes pathology and pathologizes normality. You exemplify the latter.
Did it escape your attention that (legal) slavery in the US was abolished in 1865?
Go back and count how many times I’ve noted it, and BTW the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, not 1865.
It would appear that the ‘millions’ don’t enjoy it so much in the places they are fleeing… of course.
And exactly WHOSE people CONTINUE the institution they don’t enjoy, more than 150 years after it was abolished here? Why should we admit ANY of the people whose societies continue the institution we abolished that long ago? So they can re-institute it here? Exercise some fscking awareness, why don’t you?
The US has problems. Some other places have worse ones.
Reversed causation. Use whatever brains you were given, and if you don’t have any, have the decency to STFU.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @663 onwards…some bits and pieces of things…
“Of course you weren’t gloating. My comment included a pre-retraction. I was showing how an innocent comment, even when motivated by inclusion, can and will pull the opposite strings in Others’ (the excluded) minds.”
Must have missed the pre- retraction. I think you are right though in principle, but how far do you go, without going insane? What I mean is we can qualify and explain what we say to avoid misinterpretations, but to do a full job and it could become a long set of comments! Its also necessary for readers to resist the tendency to jump to silly conclusions about peoples intent.
For example some character over at SkSc called me a denialist, simply because I don’t agree with every word of his preferred mitigation strategy, and despite my posting plenty of comments about how serious the climate problem is and how we are causing it. Yet he still didn’t get it. He has group think syndrome but doesn’t realise it.
Anyone who wants to do that to my face is going to regret it big time. I’m way smart enough to deal with people like that, by a huge margin. My patience with people like this has run out. Being inclusive and tolerant is good but doesn’t mean we have to put up with people like that. Everything has limits.
“I asked your (EP’s) SAT scores. You never answered”
He did answer. Same maths sat scores as you. Whatever sat scores actually are.
“You’re (EP) inept. You come to a room and supposedly want to promote nuclear. Only a social moron would mix shredding the audience’s core values into their spiel.”
Got to agree with this. People need to be a bit more subtle and less edgy over the political stuff if they want to get anywhere selling their main climate ideas.
———————————————
KM @668 says “I didn’t call you (killian) a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so. Go back and look:”
Killian wasn’t claiming that. Read what he said “Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynist, too!” He saying “you are a misogynist”. Surely you know his style by now?
Killiansays
Why continuing to engage denialists is co-dependency, not climate action:
Al Bundy says “Interesting how information that causes your point to crumble (or require advancement) evaporates instead of assimilates.”
I get what you mean Al, but EP doesn’t despite being pretty bright. Remember what I said about being just a little bit “too clever” with use of language?
———————————
Mr hopefull KIA says “Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia”
Like people say, it depends on the status of the soils, and it takes a very, very long time for good deep soils to develop.
However there’s another thing. It’s like the denialists think the good from global warming (such as it is, pretty limited) will just cancel out the bad. “Things will come out in the wash”. This is really not good enough reasoning. Far too much is at stake for dumb assumptions like that. The modelling that is done is far more use, and shows the future isn’t looking good if we contine with business as usual.
Killiansays
Simplicity, principles:
* Use what you’ve got.
* Adapt in place.
* Zero Waste.
* Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences, and failing to use and value diversity.
* Every element has *at least* two functions.
Potentially? Anyone wanting a sustainably electric grid should recognize this is non-negotiable. However, given the time line, and the abhorrent nature of utility-scale power, it is necessary to simplify first, maintain R&D until sustainability is achieved, then roll out.
Mike Robertssays
Kevin, I wouldn’t characterise the UK as “an example of a nation that [is close to decarbonising] via intermittent RE.” 39% is not “close” to 100% of electricity and renewable energy was only 11% of total energy demand in 2018.
KIA 658: Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia
BPL: Area in a latitude band is smaller as you approach the poles. It’s a 1 – sin θ relation where θ is the latitude.
zebrasays
#670 Kevin McKinney,
Kevin’s profound insight/revelation on the road to Damascus:
“It’s emotional-cognitive pathology, not reason.”
Kevin, I have pointed out several times that EP fits a classic Authoritarian personality diagnosis. But I find, as I said to Ray, that even people with science backgrounds (in the physical sciences), tend to be in Denial about well-established psychological and social science research.
I would argue that this Denial is in itself a manifestation of emotionally-based un-reason. We are reluctant to acknowledge that our fellow monkeys (and therefore we ourselves) are never that far from “pathological” behavior. It is, after all, a pretty scary scientific fact.
By the way, I am still waiting to hear all about the physics principle of “net storage”. That discussion is actually a good illustration of what I just said.
Killiansays
Re #668 a2 [It’s not too late; save yourself! Run from the petty and stupid and back to who you used to be… or at least act like!] said Killian explodes!
‘Twasn’t me who played twit first, a2.
Killian, it would really serve you better to do what you asked me to do, which was “pay attention.”
I didn’t call you a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so.
And that’s what’s so funny: I never said you did.
Go back and look
Yes, do: Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynyst, too!
You know I use bold to denote what the person I am responding to said. “I’m a misogynyst, too!” was quoting you speaking of yourself.
LOL…
The irony… oh, my…
Almost literally, a ‘yes, and’ to your point.
Almost… yes. But not. It was a rebuttal of my points. If you don’t understand that, then you are losing your grip on the language and need to edit the post and re-post it.
This is all on you, bud.
And, no, I don’t think you’re a misogynyst, but that should be obvious. You were, however, so anxious to anklebite that you blew this one every way you could. Literally, not hyperbolicly. That is, you really did:
You supported the wrong poster’s position and you completely failed to understand what you read then posted a rant about something that never happened.
Thanks for the laugh!
Anywho… Leave the anklebiting to the other guy, eh?
And exactly WHOSE people CONTINUE the institution they don’t enjoy, more than 150 years after it was abolished here? Why should we admit ANY of the people whose societies continue the institution we abolished that long ago? So they can re-institute it here? Exercise some fscking awareness, why don’t you?
More ‘garbage out.’ Why, exactly, would anyone who risked everything to flee–in your rather strange framing–slavery, then “reinstitute” it in their new land? I think your own adjuration applies here: “Exercise some fscking awareness, why don’t you?”
[And by the way, why are we linking refugees to slavery here, anyway? While many are fleeing violence, and not a few climate change, I’ve not heard of many–actually, I haven’t heard of *any*, but there may be cases–who are fleeing threats or the reality of enslavement. As for reasons why we should admit refugees, they are numerous, but the two major ones are 1) simple decency, and 2) self-interest: far from harming our society, refugees will on balance amply repay us with the contributing lives they craft for themselves here.]
Finally, to my comment that “The US has problems. Some other places have worse ones….” you replied:
Reversed causation.
Just bizarre; no causation was asserted or implied.
Use whatever brains you were given, and if you don’t have any, have the decency to STFU.
Amazing how often those who give advice could benefit most by it themselves.
39% is not “close” to 100% of electricity and renewable energy was only 11% of total energy demand in 2018.
Fair points, both, although I think “close” is still at least defensible. Perhaps a better formulation would have been “close to decarbonising electricity generation.” And note that when I ascribe the decarbonisation (I’m honoring the Brits by using their spelling) to RE, what I mean by that is that that is the biggest ‘delta’ factor in the recent progress that they’ve made. I’m not thereby denying the reality that nuclear power is also contributing: in the 2019 data, nuclear power was good for 18.4% of the mix, meaning that non-emitting power accounted for 57.3% of electrical generation.
Meanwhile, in the UK’s latest Contracts for Difference (CfD), twelve new renewable energy projects won contracts to provide some 6 GW of capacity—enough to power over seven million UK homes at record low costs as renewables are expected to come online below market prices for the first time…
It’s also worth noting that decarbonization of electricity–reverting to US style–is a necessary step toward addressing petroleum use, too, since the alternatives to liquid fossil fuels in many cases involve substituting electricity. Relevant here is the UK’s policy goal of eliminating ICE vehicle completely by 2040; that will obviously eliminate a whole lot of petroleum use, but the cleaner the grid, the better the emissions reductions impact.
As is typical, there’s a lot of what sounds like ‘muddle’ around the policy and its various proposed implementation measures, but the good news is that there actually are proposed implementation measures which seem to be moving forward.
Area in a latitude band is smaller as you approach the poles. It’s a 1 – sin θ relation where θ is the latitude.
Yes, “vast” additional lands in the Arctic are a poor trade for the much vaster and inherently more productive lands in the tropics and sub-tropics. “Vast” is a fair descriptor for the 10 million Arctic/sub-Arctic acres cited in KIA’s source by any ordinary standard.
But, per the FAO–see Table 4.6–~4.2 billion ha are suitable, worldwide, for rainfed agriculture. That a bit over 10 billion acres.
So that apparently ‘vast’ Arctic/sub-Arctic increment amounts to all of 0.1% of global agricultural lands.
“We are reluctant to acknowledge that our fellow monkeys (and therefore we ourselves) are never that far from “pathological” behavior. It is, after all, a pretty scary scientific fact.”
Aren’t we just? But we’re rather having our faces rubbed in it these days, aren’t we?
nigeljsays
Killian @686 lists 5 simplicity principles. This is still not really a definition of simplicity, so work on that.
However the list is a good, useful concise list of things and is thought provoking, and mostly rings true. What Killian needs to do is give some more real world examples, and this will really grab peoples attention.
I could attack it viciously for the sake of exposing any weaknesses, but will take a measured approach. So here’s a couple of things.”
“Use what you’ve got”. I was so tempted to buy some new furniture for all my audio equipment last week, but they were out of stock with the item I wanted. After much improvising I figured out a solution with what I already had that worked and looked just fine. These days we are too quick to throw stuff out, and just go to the local retail store and put something on credit.
“Every element has *at least* two functions.” Does this mean it invariably has two functions? It seems rather obvious. It’s a peculiar characteristic of our existence that many things have more than one function.
Or is it saying we should ensure everything has at least two functions? This seems like a desirable thing in general terms, but not a compelling thing. Something very useful might only have just one real function, like an allen key. You cant use it for much else really yet abandoning it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
“Zero waste” Ok on the whole, but methinks some stuff will still have no use other than landfill. A small amount of residual stuff. Which would be roughly consistent with the principle “Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences”.
E-P you’re not going to win any arguments here. Nor does anyone else for that matter. For shooting oneself in the foot repeatedly is everyone’s forte. As is being in love with their own ‘ideology’ and entrenched belief systems a thousand times more than they love the Earth and it’s future generations or reason.
Maybe after half the world is in ashes like a huge portion of Australia presently is the generation of that day may have better luck. Until then it’s Turtles all the way down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Al Bundy @612
“And Nigel, please try to think of Others. Yeah, gloat about your access to healthcare. I’m an American inventor. So I don’t have access to healthcare.”
I wasn’t gloating. Our system is underfunded anyway. I was just making the point that the reason only one parent worked back in the 1950s wasn’t because everything was perfect like EP implied. I was outlining why both partners worked now.
Oh, yes, rich. Everything’s just peachy-keen.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/bones-of-the-past-highlight-child-poverty-of-the-present-a4337096.html?fbclid=IwAR2FEMm4MVR0EGten9mqU1FZV0Rk1L_bkBLtwyL_P0zvieeYqzNCdIbdNVI
David B. Benson @619, on artificially grown foods. Thanx. Got to be the most interesting article I’ve seen in weeks.
Engineer-Poet @620, ok fair point that research on nuclear power and renewables both go way back. But I would not say renewables have had all that much support. No subsidies where I live, and we have huge lobby groups attacking them.
Its fossil fuels that have had a huge advantage. Read an article recently as below:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/
From the article: Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one. During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.
I suspect Nuclear power is in a similar disadvantaged position.
I agree a carbon tax is preferable to subsidies. Or put it this way, subsidies were a good way to kick start renewables, but its now time they were phased out and replaced with a carbon tax.
—————————————–
Engineer-Poet @621
“We have far cheaper ways of storing hours and days of energy for the grid, such as hot molten “solar salt”.”
Yes, and another is using renewables excess electricity to create carbon neutral liquid fuels.
https://www.electrochem.org/ecs-blog/renewable-liquid-fuels
https://goexplorer.org/storing-renewable-energy-in-carbon-neutral-liquid-fuel/
Don’t know much about this or how economic it is likely to be. Comments anyone?
Al Bundy misses the point again @644 (and you were doing so well for a bit):
What’s that supposed to refer to, let alone mean?
It’s sad that I need to explain this to you, but apparently I must: “concentrated bits of internal radiation” (no such thing, radiation is not a substance, it’s an emission from decay of a substance) simply do not travel far or for long. Such bits need to be generated and lofted by an energetic event (like a nuclear bomb going off near the ground) and fall out again very quickly; that’s why they’re called “fallout”.
Anything that was still aloft more than 30 minutes after the Chernobyl reactor blew up was a gas, vapor or fume, not a particle. Any fumes that condensed rapidly fell out rapidly as well. The stuff that travelled as far as the EU bloc had to be either vapors or attached to hyper-fine particles, and there just isn’t enough material there to pose a real threat.
The alpha emissions from radon cannot penetrate the dead layer of skin. To have any effect, it has to be taken INTERNALLY, to the lungs and the bloodstream. Maybe even deeper; nobody has done the work of determining the exact site and mechanism of action.
Killian @635, every time you call people idiots you loose half your audience including the exact people you need. You are painfully slow working that out.
My original point was simple. Both partners work these days mainly because we produce and consume more as a society. You yourself have said we consume more as a society now. I think it holds true as a global general pattern. Obviously its not the only reason. I should probably have been clearer its not the only reason.
And I was talking globally and of my country. You have assumed I meant America. I think that is half the problem here.
Sure, the working classes in America have seen their wages go backwards, so that is part of the reason both partners work in those families. And its a nasty problem. Your minimum wage levels are also ridiculously low.
We have a problem with high housing prices, in NZ although its probably not forcing more women into the workforce. Most already work.
I dont doubt that second incomes pay for a lot of sunk costs. But its for consumption. I already covered consumption.
“No, misogynyst, these are facts.”
Just a stupid lie. How you get that from anything I say just shows how you jump to silly conclusions. Makes you a danger to us all.
———————————-
Killian @639
“1. You clearly do not understand the Straw Man Fallacy. 2. You specifically talked about rich countries, more women working and that making countries richer. That you think greater debt equals wealth show what an utter idiot you are.”
I understand straw man fallacies perfectly well. Yes more women working obviously makes countries richer. It doesn’t cause inequality within countries. I have no idea what you are really trying to say. I never said greater debt creates greater wealth. Its more complex than that.
“Suuuure you have. Let me see, 1. Git thos liddle ladees back in der kitchen! Theys makin too muches moneis and weez gettin too rich. 2. See #1.”
You are just a toxic, deranged liar.
“Consumer debt in the U.S. has grown by 25 percent in five years and doubled since the turn of the century…”
I’ve already addressed this. Women were working well before debt truly exploded. And nobody made people take on all that debt, they want to buy all those pretty things. EXCEPT for the problem where wages have fallen like with the working classes in America, or stagnated badly. I have already mentioned this.
“Stupid. No. The fact is as I stated in another post just posted: Those non-discretionary costs have risen to a majority of income where they used to be a manageable fraction. Housing, childcare, utilities, transportation, etc., things we must spend on, became much higher since the early ’70’s.”
I accept this is the case in America. In my country its not as large a problem. Housing mortgage payments are about the same proportion of income, cars are much cheaper these days.
I’m not going to deal with the rest. Basically you assumed I was referring to America. I was thinking a bit more generally and of my country. That is the problem. Its all getting way off topic anyway.
Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heatwave-canada-farming/in-canada-climate-change-could-open-new-farmland-to-the-plow-idUSKCN1BZ075
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/09/15/commentary/world-commentary/russia-emerging-superpower-food-supply/#.XiVVEf5KiUk
FYI, I can only see 625 comments – should be 653 I think. The rest will likely appear after this is posted.
Please note that this comment contains no bickering, insults, threats of violence, foul language, etc. See if the rest of you can do as well.
Killian @636
“Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynyst, too!'”
Blatantly lying about what KM said, while Killian bitterly complains when he thinks people lie about what he said (hes invariably wrong). What a complete twit.
Engineer-Poet says @638 oh dear god I find Dickens writing tedious, depressing and excruciating . But ok I do understand your point. So this woman became so obsessed with her african charity work, she forgot about the needs of her own children. And I appreciate you are using it as an analogy for the wider picture.
I suppose its always a danger and we should obviously look after our own first. I would just suggest we basically do. For example we take some political refugees each year but they don’t get given an open check book.
If they lack money they get the same social welfare assistance as our own citizens, nothing more apart from some language lessons, which is understandable. They do get temporary housing accommodation until they get on their own feet. We cant really put them in tents and throw dog food at them. Its always a difficult balancing act, but I dont see a huge problem.
We only take immigrants if they have at least some work skills, basic english, and some funds. We take immigrants from all countries on their personal merits. They don’t get special treatment. I think we have the right approach to immigration in this respect at least.
I have no patience for the argument coming from the right that our house (country) should be “perfectly” in order before we do something to help people on the international stage. It’s just dumb.
Regarding: Engineer-Poet says @638 blah blah blah. Oops you aren’t saying that I am. Typo.
EP quotes Kevin: Does he know that migrants quite often arrive with cellphones?
EP: Do you know that it’s possible for someone to have a cell phone, but have never lived outside a wattle-and-daub hut or seen a water faucet let alone a flush toilet?
Kevin spoke of a large fraction. You responded with a snarky “it could happen”
More piss poor debating technique. Are you a GOPper? They, being Conse***tives and so genetically (on average) inferior, often resort to such idiotic gropings that only fool other GOPpers.
Nigel,
Of course you weren’t gloating. My comment included a pre-retraction. I was showing how an innocent comment, even when motivated by inclusion, can and will pull the opposite strings in Others’ (the excluded) minds.
EP,
You missed it, too? I know you have talent. My point is that your attitude swamps it and makes your contribution repulsive. Think Nazi medical research. “No thanks, just shred the data. We’ll accept extra death rather than use your research” is a normal conclusion. Not the only one but it has wide constituency and wider sympathy.
I asked you your SAT scores. You never answered, instead painting the most grandiose picture of yourself while denigrating the question, and so the asker.
You just asked for somebody’s SAT. You sure suck at debate…
…compared to a liberal who’s in your league.
You’re inept. You come to a room and supposedly want to promote nuclear. Only a social moron would mix shredding the audience’s core values into their spiel.
Mr null-et-al (aka intellectual void): He was probably refused service by the intolerant leftist so he grabbed his phone and started recording
AB: Dumbest interpretation possible. When’s the last time you have witnessed somebody with pure and non-confrontational mindset grin with satisfaction in response to treatment such as you describe?
It was a fishing expedition. Staged and set up explicitly to hide the instigation. Note that the employee was all in with regard to calling the owner. Why was that, mrkia?
(Here’s where everyone gets to laugh at you for choosing an ever-narrowing possibility instead of discussing for mutual enlightenment.)
Choose, mrkia. Impartial juror or GOPper?
Mr. KIA: “Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia:…”
Well, except for the fact that mile-thick ice scoured off the soil down near to bedrock during the last ice age. And then American stupidity allowed the soil to be blown off of the Great Plains (to depths of several meters in some places) and blown into the Gulf of Mexico, where it caused algal blooms for years.
Dude, do you have any critical thinking skills at all?
EP: The alpha emissions from radon cannot penetrate the dead layer of skin. To have any effect, it has to be taken INTERNALLY, to the lungs and the bloodstream. Maybe even deeper; nobody has done the work of determining the exact site and mechanism of action.
AB: So you 100% agree with me that diffuse external radiation is a moronic factoid and you will surely promise to never bring it up again.
You also seem to agree that hot particles are not included in any of the irrelevant but true goop you’ve been spouting.
So, either double down on moronic irrelevancies or limit discussion to hot particles and other stuff that concentrates radiation, especially with regard to alpha. Like you said, alpha cannot escape skin, so internal alpha will never not interact with your body.
KIA paints a happy picture of the northward expansion of agriculture in Canada, citing a good article (!). But perhaps he should have read all the way to the concluding ‘graphs:
Oh, joy!
Killian explodes!
Killian, it would really serve you better to do what you asked me to do, which was “pay attention.”
I didn’t call you a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so. Go back and look:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/forced-responses-dec-2019/comment-page-13/#comment-754527
I also didn’t insult, belittle, or even, largely, disagree with you. Let me highlight this bit:
Almost literally, a ‘yes, and’ to your point.
And one basic thrust of what I wrote, far from being a “justification of the crap system,” was to critique consumerism (specific examples being the absurdity of spending a grand on a smartphone, or $30,000 on a new car.) You know, the kinds of things we wouldn’t see under a regime of simplification.
The other basic thrust, which you apparently missed, was that the female 50+% of the population benefits greatly by being relieved of structural dependency on a man. Virginia Woolf famously wrote of ‘a room of one’s own’; but a job of one’s own is far more fundamental. With it, there is much, much less impediment for a woman to walk away from an unsatisfactory or abusive relationship. That’s the relevance of the comment about ‘bad marriages,’ which you described as (I paraphrase) completely unrelated.
Please, try to read for comprehension before exploding.
(Although, frankly, the explosion was hilarious. I wasn’t trying to troll you, but the ridiculously inappropriate–and inapt–response I got gave me some insight into the pleasure real trolls apparently derive.)
nigelj wrote @655:
And that doesn’t include the “charitable” giving which is laundered through foundations into support for anti-nuclear “environmental” front groups like Greenpeace and Friends Of the Earth (founded with financial assistance from ARCO executive Robert O. Anderson). It’s all directed to suppressing the competition.
Much, MUCH worse. A lot of nuclear plants are operated as regulated utilities and are not allowed to spend money on lobbying or PR. They can’t even refute the lies the FF shills tell about them.
The round-trip efficiency on those fuels ranges from sad to abysmal. There are interesting developments like electrolytic ammonia production from water and nitrogen, but at a production rate of about 1% of the catalyst mass per hour the economics seem likely to be poor.
I like to go into the round-trip efficiency of hydrogen. 43 kWh of electricity makes 1 kg of H2. 1 kg H2 has 120 MJ lower heating value; burned in a combined-cycle gas turbine plant at 60% LHV efficiency, you get 72 MJ back out of it. That’s just 46.5% of your 43 kWh input, and it doesn’t include any overhead for e.g. compression.
Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to liquefy. Ammonia’s easy, and easy production of this perovskite catalyst may make ammonia synthesis cheap even at small scale. But what’s the RTE?
1 kg H2 makes 5.667 kg NH3. At 18.646 MJ/kg LHV and 60% efficiency in the same gas turbine, the yield from 1 kg H2 is 63.4 MJ and the round-trip efficiency is just 41%.
This is why “renewables + storage” is nigh-impossible. Your already-low energy return on investment from unreliable RE is divided by as much as 2.5 even before considering the investment in the production and storage systems. It is a program that is designed to fail.
E-P, #606–
Hmm, E-P really has a penchant for misdrawing mental Venn diagrams:
Are you under the impression that if I say slavery disfigured the US–which it clearly did–that that somehow implies that it never disfigured any other society? If yes, would you also say that if I call you an engineer, that would imply that no other engineers exist?
L-effing-OL!
Did it escape your attention that (legal) slavery in the US was abolished in 1865? It would appear that the ‘millions’ don’t enjoy it so much in the places they are fleeing… of course. The US has problems. Some other places have worse ones. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work on (or recognize) the ones we do have.
It’s not a matter of blaming; it’s a matter of getting the job done–which will benefit all people.
Certainly. But if they can deal with contextual menus, how hard to do you think it will be to deal with pulling the flush lever?
I could go on with about the scope of the problem. For instance, WRT to Honduras, “Across the country, more than one million lack access to improved sanitation, and 638,000 lack safe water.” Wow! One million haven’t seen–or, at least, don’t have regular personal access to–a flush toilet! 638,000 don’t have access to safe water, which implies that they may not have seen a water faucet, either!
But turn it around: the population of Honduras is about 6.6 million, which means that 90% probably have seen a water faucet (or at least they have a clean well of some sort) and 85% deal regularly with flush toilets.
So why focus on the minority who may not have these things? And why imply, without empirical support, that they are going to be unable to learn to deal with them? (As opposed to, say, adopting them enthusiastically with a ‘this is great!’ kind of vibe?)
At this point, I really can’t avoid thinking that the reason is emotional bias: those, primitive, dirty, non-white ‘lesser breeds’ are a threat to our clean, right, white way of life. There certainly has been ample support for this interpretation in numerous E-P posts.
It’s emotional-cognitive pathology, not reason. In fact, it’s the antithesis of reason. Perhaps that accounts for the logical errors noted at the top of this comment. When the emotional brain gets really going, the frontal cortex gets subordinated to rationalization, and you get ‘garbage out.’
@funny Engineer Poet, #641
You need to FEEL what’s real and you WILL feel very soon, my dear engineer 38=>
Startling, but in a good way:
https://voxeu.org/article/driving-uks-capita-carbon-dioxide-emissions-below-1860-levels
(From the tag end of 2018, so keep that in mind.)
I was asked for an example of a nation that had decarbonized via intermittent RE, and had responded that there wasn’t one, yet. I think that’s still valid, but there’s a case that is getting close: the UK.
In 2019, RE–of which wind was by far the biggest component, with hydro accounting for only 18% of UK RE–became for the first time the largest component in the UK electrical generation mix, edging out natgas by a tenth of a percent at 38.9%. (Oil came in at 2.9%, while once-mighty coal was a mere 1%, so for now FF as an amalgamated category still beats RE–though not, one may confidently forecast, for long.)
Note that time-of-use charges formed a part of the solution to integrating all that variable generation into the grid:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/fossil-fuels-fall-to-record-low-in-britains-energy-mix-data-shows
Not coincidentally, it was reported elsewhere (and earlier–December 2018) that emissions in the UK are now at roughly the levels last seen in 1860 (per capita) or 1890 (absolute).
https://voxeu.org/article/driving-uks-capita-carbon-dioxide-emissions-below-1860-levels
Denmark has a higher penetration of wind–nearly 50% of production as of last year–but is heavily interconnected with larger partners:
So that’s a confounding factor in the analysis (albeit a good argument for a geographically and technologically diversified energy economy.) The biggest effect seems to be time-shifting loads with imports of Norwegian hydropower and exports of Danish wind power.
Vestas seems to be getting serious about the issue of wind turbine waste:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/vestas-announces-plans-for-zero-waste-turbines.html
It’s a pretty significant issue, potentially.
zebra @626 — On the contrary, I am pleasantly surprised that a so-called free market for electrical power production is possible and works!
http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/714/pjm-style-electricity-markets
nigelj wrote @655:
No they do not BOTH “go way back”. Wind and solar both go back CENTURIES. Fission goes back to 1938, at the earliest; the first demonstration was 1942. Now compare successes against age. Give credit where credit is due.
nigelj writes @660:
Dickens was a best-selling author in his time. A great deal of his work is slightly-fictionalized history. “Depressing” might be apt, but if it’s tedious or excruciating… what does THAT say about our modern attention span? Does it not CONFIRM that we’ve had generations of dysgenic trend between then and now?
If you grew up in an English-speaking Western culture and you can’t read Dickens, does that not suggest that you are not fit to carry on the culture and should not reproduce?
Try to guarantee that those who enter the country are at least as good for it as those who are already there.
That really is the right way to treat hostile people who only want to take advantage of you. Australia puts them on an island and gives them the choice of staying there or going back home. That is the correct response to probably 99.9% of them.
Why should ANYONE “on the international stage” be admitted to the West rather than being assisted in place? Assistance in place is vastly cheaper, for one thing. What is the argument for admitting them to a country where they don’t fit, except to have masses WHO DO NOT FIT?
EP,
You never read “Chernobyl”, did you? Until you do, or post a link to a refutation, we can’t come to an agreement on fallout and the existence of concentrated radiation sources (thyroid glands, various plants and animals, dust that is re-lofted by a child’s shoe, whatever).
And your snark pretending to not be intelligent enough to realize that I understand that those helium ions are created during fission paints you poorly.
Al Bundy snarks @663:
Life’s too short to track down whatever you might be alluding to.
800 math, well over 600 verbal (not going to be too specific here), and that was before the test was re-centered for the dumber demographics coming down the pike. Also 5’s on 3 separate AP exams and a 4 on another.
The re-centering was done to raise the average score by about 25 points M / 75 points V so that the mean would once again fall at about 500. IOW, a 575 V now corresponds to about a 500 V then. The NYT was all over it at the time.
Even before re-centering, the math SAT was easy. It didn’t go beyond algebra, and if you knew your algebra and weren’t hopelessly slow you could finish it well within the alloted time. I have no idea what it’s like now, probably burdened with multi-culti stuff. I have thought about taking it again just for shits and grins.
Kevin McKinney writes cluelessly @668:
Wait just a second there. From whom, exactly, is this “relief” extracted? What “structure” is required to extract this relief?
The inescapable answers are (a) men and (b) misandrist treatment of men.
So Go F**k Yourself, and every last “feminist” dependent on such injustice.
Nigel,
EP is slinging around a 40s% efficiency to make liquid fuel. That fits well with other somewhere-around-50% guestimates. Stuff generally improves significantly during early development, so call it 60%, which is grand because the energy is upgraded from electrons, which are common but expensive to store, to a vehicle fuel, which is way valuable in a post-fossil world since it’s energy dense and emminently storable. Why give away electrons when you can make liquid gold instead? Well, as EP noted, letting capital goods sit around half the time while waiting for the wind is a bit expensive. But T Bills are 1.79%. Capital ain’t worth what it used to be. If we unleashed the power of the US government as focused by the Army Corps of Engineers renewables would sprout like weeds and we wouldn’t have to pay capitalistic leeches God knows what insane rate of return they’ll demand. We can get it done at 1.79%. Why pay more?
EP,
Twas funny seeing you ask ‘what’s that mean’ when my next sentence, which you also quoted, explained ‘what that meant’.
Kevin McKinney tries to game things @670:
Are you under the impression that a near-universal institution could “disfigure” all of human society, both at the time and going forward?
The left normalizes pathology and pathologizes normality. You exemplify the latter.
Go back and count how many times I’ve noted it, and BTW the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, not 1865.
And exactly WHOSE people CONTINUE the institution they don’t enjoy, more than 150 years after it was abolished here? Why should we admit ANY of the people whose societies continue the institution we abolished that long ago? So they can re-institute it here? Exercise some fscking awareness, why don’t you?
Reversed causation. Use whatever brains you were given, and if you don’t have any, have the decency to STFU.
Al Bundy @663 onwards…some bits and pieces of things…
“Of course you weren’t gloating. My comment included a pre-retraction. I was showing how an innocent comment, even when motivated by inclusion, can and will pull the opposite strings in Others’ (the excluded) minds.”
Must have missed the pre- retraction. I think you are right though in principle, but how far do you go, without going insane? What I mean is we can qualify and explain what we say to avoid misinterpretations, but to do a full job and it could become a long set of comments! Its also necessary for readers to resist the tendency to jump to silly conclusions about peoples intent.
For example some character over at SkSc called me a denialist, simply because I don’t agree with every word of his preferred mitigation strategy, and despite my posting plenty of comments about how serious the climate problem is and how we are causing it. Yet he still didn’t get it. He has group think syndrome but doesn’t realise it.
Anyone who wants to do that to my face is going to regret it big time. I’m way smart enough to deal with people like that, by a huge margin. My patience with people like this has run out. Being inclusive and tolerant is good but doesn’t mean we have to put up with people like that. Everything has limits.
“I asked your (EP’s) SAT scores. You never answered”
He did answer. Same maths sat scores as you. Whatever sat scores actually are.
“You’re (EP) inept. You come to a room and supposedly want to promote nuclear. Only a social moron would mix shredding the audience’s core values into their spiel.”
Got to agree with this. People need to be a bit more subtle and less edgy over the political stuff if they want to get anywhere selling their main climate ideas.
———————————————
KM @668 says “I didn’t call you (killian) a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so. Go back and look:”
Killian wasn’t claiming that. Read what he said “Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynist, too!” He saying “you are a misogynist”. Surely you know his style by now?
Why continuing to engage denialists is co-dependency, not climate action:
https://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1217839883714289664?s=09
Al Bundy says “Interesting how information that causes your point to crumble (or require advancement) evaporates instead of assimilates.”
I get what you mean Al, but EP doesn’t despite being pretty bright. Remember what I said about being just a little bit “too clever” with use of language?
———————————
Mr hopefull KIA says “Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia”
Like people say, it depends on the status of the soils, and it takes a very, very long time for good deep soils to develop.
However there’s another thing. It’s like the denialists think the good from global warming (such as it is, pretty limited) will just cancel out the bad. “Things will come out in the wash”. This is really not good enough reasoning. Far too much is at stake for dumb assumptions like that. The modelling that is done is far more use, and shows the future isn’t looking good if we contine with business as usual.
Simplicity, principles:
* Use what you’ve got.
* Adapt in place.
* Zero Waste.
* Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences, and failing to use and value diversity.
* Every element has *at least* two functions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dying-craft-chinas-mermaid-descendants-040156879.html
Re #674 Kevin McKinney said
Vestas seems to be getting serious about the issue of wind turbine waste:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/vestas-announces-plans-for-zero-waste-turbines.html
Twenty years too late, perhaps.
It’s a pretty significant issue, potentially.
Potentially? Anyone wanting a sustainably electric grid should recognize this is non-negotiable. However, given the time line, and the abhorrent nature of utility-scale power, it is necessary to simplify first, maintain R&D until sustainability is achieved, then roll out.
Kevin, I wouldn’t characterise the UK as “an example of a nation that [is close to decarbonising] via intermittent RE.” 39% is not “close” to 100% of electricity and renewable energy was only 11% of total energy demand in 2018.
E-P 638: especially the use of “power” rather than “energy” which appears to limit its scope to the electric grid.
BPL: Ever heard of electrification?
E-P 656: Anything that was still aloft more than 30 minutes after the Chernobyl reactor blew up was a gas, vapor or fume, not a particle.
BPL: Iodine is a liquid at room temperature.
KIA 658: Climate change to open up vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia
BPL: Area in a latitude band is smaller as you approach the poles. It’s a 1 – sin θ relation where θ is the latitude.
#670 Kevin McKinney,
Kevin’s profound insight/revelation on the road to Damascus:
“It’s emotional-cognitive pathology, not reason.”
Kevin, I have pointed out several times that EP fits a classic Authoritarian personality diagnosis. But I find, as I said to Ray, that even people with science backgrounds (in the physical sciences), tend to be in Denial about well-established psychological and social science research.
I would argue that this Denial is in itself a manifestation of emotionally-based un-reason. We are reluctant to acknowledge that our fellow monkeys (and therefore we ourselves) are never that far from “pathological” behavior. It is, after all, a pretty scary scientific fact.
By the way, I am still waiting to hear all about the physics principle of “net storage”. That discussion is actually a good illustration of what I just said.
Re #668 a2 [It’s not too late; save yourself! Run from the petty and stupid and back to who you used to be… or at least act like!] said Killian explodes!
‘Twasn’t me who played twit first, a2.
Killian, it would really serve you better to do what you asked me to do, which was “pay attention.”
I didn’t call you a misogynist–by standard OR alternate spelling–nor did I suggest it, imply it, or even distantly approach doing so.
And that’s what’s so funny: I never said you did.
Go back and look
Yes, do: Re #601 Kevin McKinney said I’m a misogynyst, too!
You know I use bold to denote what the person I am responding to said. “I’m a misogynyst, too!” was quoting you speaking of yourself.
LOL…
The irony… oh, my…
Almost literally, a ‘yes, and’ to your point.
Almost… yes. But not. It was a rebuttal of my points. If you don’t understand that, then you are losing your grip on the language and need to edit the post and re-post it.
This is all on you, bud.
And, no, I don’t think you’re a misogynyst, but that should be obvious. You were, however, so anxious to anklebite that you blew this one every way you could. Literally, not hyperbolicly. That is, you really did:
You supported the wrong poster’s position and you completely failed to understand what you read then posted a rant about something that never happened.
Thanks for the laugh!
Anywho… Leave the anklebiting to the other guy, eh?
E-P, #682–
Yes, I’m firmly convinced of it.
Hey, you’re the one who just defended slavery.
If you’re going to nitpick, at least try to get it right: The Emancipation Proclamation did not abolish slavery.
More ‘garbage out.’ Why, exactly, would anyone who risked everything to flee–in your rather strange framing–slavery, then “reinstitute” it in their new land? I think your own adjuration applies here: “Exercise some fscking awareness, why don’t you?”
[And by the way, why are we linking refugees to slavery here, anyway? While many are fleeing violence, and not a few climate change, I’ve not heard of many–actually, I haven’t heard of *any*, but there may be cases–who are fleeing threats or the reality of enslavement. As for reasons why we should admit refugees, they are numerous, but the two major ones are 1) simple decency, and 2) self-interest: far from harming our society, refugees will on balance amply repay us with the contributing lives they craft for themselves here.]
Finally, to my comment that “The US has problems. Some other places have worse ones….” you replied:
Just bizarre; no causation was asserted or implied.
Amazing how often those who give advice could benefit most by it themselves.
#688, Mike Roberts–
Fair points, both, although I think “close” is still at least defensible. Perhaps a better formulation would have been “close to decarbonising electricity generation.” And note that when I ascribe the decarbonisation (I’m honoring the Brits by using their spelling) to RE, what I mean by that is that that is the biggest ‘delta’ factor in the recent progress that they’ve made. I’m not thereby denying the reality that nuclear power is also contributing: in the 2019 data, nuclear power was good for 18.4% of the mix, meaning that non-emitting power accounted for 57.3% of electrical generation.
Better yet, the prospects for continuing improvement look good:
It’s also worth noting that decarbonization of electricity–reverting to US style–is a necessary step toward addressing petroleum use, too, since the alternatives to liquid fossil fuels in many cases involve substituting electricity. Relevant here is the UK’s policy goal of eliminating ICE vehicle completely by 2040; that will obviously eliminate a whole lot of petroleum use, but the cleaner the grid, the better the emissions reductions impact.
As is typical, there’s a lot of what sounds like ‘muddle’ around the policy and its various proposed implementation measures, but the good news is that there actually are proposed implementation measures which seem to be moving forward.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/70303/uk-government-electric-vehicles/
YouTube claims that Climate State has no Educational Value http://climatestate.com/2020/01/21/youtube-claims-that-climate-state-has-no-educational-value/
zebra said:
Hm, I knew I was going somewhere!
BPL, #691–
Yes, “vast” additional lands in the Arctic are a poor trade for the much vaster and inherently more productive lands in the tropics and sub-tropics. “Vast” is a fair descriptor for the 10 million Arctic/sub-Arctic acres cited in KIA’s source by any ordinary standard.
But, per the FAO–see Table 4.6–~4.2 billion ha are suitable, worldwide, for rainfed agriculture. That a bit over 10 billion acres.
So that apparently ‘vast’ Arctic/sub-Arctic increment amounts to all of 0.1% of global agricultural lands.
As I said in another connection, “Oh, joy!”
“We are reluctant to acknowledge that our fellow monkeys (and therefore we ourselves) are never that far from “pathological” behavior. It is, after all, a pretty scary scientific fact.”
Aren’t we just? But we’re rather having our faces rubbed in it these days, aren’t we?
Killian @686 lists 5 simplicity principles. This is still not really a definition of simplicity, so work on that.
However the list is a good, useful concise list of things and is thought provoking, and mostly rings true. What Killian needs to do is give some more real world examples, and this will really grab peoples attention.
I could attack it viciously for the sake of exposing any weaknesses, but will take a measured approach. So here’s a couple of things.”
“Use what you’ve got”. I was so tempted to buy some new furniture for all my audio equipment last week, but they were out of stock with the item I wanted. After much improvising I figured out a solution with what I already had that worked and looked just fine. These days we are too quick to throw stuff out, and just go to the local retail store and put something on credit.
“Every element has *at least* two functions.” Does this mean it invariably has two functions? It seems rather obvious. It’s a peculiar characteristic of our existence that many things have more than one function.
Or is it saying we should ensure everything has at least two functions? This seems like a desirable thing in general terms, but not a compelling thing. Something very useful might only have just one real function, like an allen key. You cant use it for much else really yet abandoning it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
“Zero waste” Ok on the whole, but methinks some stuff will still have no use other than landfill. A small amount of residual stuff. Which would be roughly consistent with the principle “Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences”.