K 439: I, for example, moved away from religion to spirituality exactly because I deeply considered my sins and the nature of the god or gods that I would want addressing them and found those offered wanting. I determined any god that is not the best example of a father/mother one could think of was not worth my time and moved on.
BPL: You, in your Godlike judgment, determined that all the traditional gods and goddesses were “wanting.” Who does God think he is, eh?
Killiansays
429: How ironic given how badly you treat the “fringe” here.
433: Wrong. Regenerative Governance. See: PermResInitDet on Twitter.
434: Well done.
Piotrsays
Poet (432) “I’ll own it anyway, you know. The more you attack Nazis (which my own family fought 1941-45), the more you validate them. YOU are scum.”
C’mon, you can’t be blamed, for actions you have no part in. Nobody blames _you_ for your own family … “validating Nazis”???
And how exactly you “owned it” (it= having your views, deleted by RC moderators for being racist, as “Nazi”) ?
By …. trying to take credit for actions on which you have had no influence (“my own family fought [Nazis] 1941-45”), or by calling your opponent: “ YOU are scum”?
English is not my even second language, but I always thought “owning it” meant … something else. Say: “Taking responsibility to what you’ve done. Being accountable for your actions.” Where exactly you have done that?
Piotrsays
Piotr (426): Huh? How many times do you need it explained? BASELOAD is not the same as BACKUP energy, genius. Your: “ just 150 hours of average US electric consumption ” is BASELOAD, and not BACKUP i.e. energy needed only for the “deficit” periods, when the demand exceeds supply.
E-P: (435) How many times do YOU need it explained? [and gives a link to some post on some , nomen omen ;-0, “Atomic Insights” from 2014]
Piotr: How does your NEW link invalidate your inability to understand the difference between BASELOAD and BACKUP STORAGE you showed in your PREVIOUS POSTS?
(As a rule I try to critique arguments people have already posted, not those they will come up with in the future. So here are your words to which my comment referred to:
E-P (414): Pumping the entire volume of Lake Erie to a height 53 meters higher would store about 69 TWh, just 150 hours of average US electric consumption
See? You dismissed the BACKUP storage by saying that it is only good for 150 hrs
of providing of 100% of BASELOAD. Ergo, in your (414) YOU DIDN’T understand the difference between BACKUP storage and BASELOAD. Wait a minute, this sounds … familiar… Ah, yes, June:
—–
Piotr: “Most of the Canadian hydro is used for a _base_ load, NOT as a backup.”
E-P: “ It’s enough to serve the locals, but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000.”
Piotr: “Sheesh – which part of distinction between provided BASELOAD and providing BACK-UP for wind and solar you don’t understand? Serving “536,000 locals”: that’s BASE LOAD, not BACKUP.”
another E-P: “ Quebec’s hydro is adequate for its 8.4 million, but grossly inadequate for N. America’s 350+ million”
Piotr: Huh? This discussion is about the BACKUP for renewables, NOT about providing BASE LOAD (to which giving population numbers apply to).”
—
Hmmm. How did that old engineering saying go?
“Show an Engineer that he can’t tell the BASELOAD from BACKUP once – shame on … you. Show him it twice – shame … still on you. Show him thrice shame, of course!, on you, i.e: E-P:”How many times do YOU need it explained?“
Piotrsays
Piotr(426): “If after all these, our Poet still doesn’t get the difference between baseload and backup, then I don’t know what else I could do. Write in dactylic hexameter ???”
Kevin(437): Hmm, seems unlikely, but I’ll give it a try:
Thank you, my Nigel, for saying again that renewable power, built
Once and curtailed well (with wisdom profound) can supply our deep need
With less than one thinks of the storage we’d want, did we not o’er-build so. And this it can do with less cost than incurred by the alternate plans.**
Good try :-) I am afraid though it didn’t work – see Engineering-Poet in (435).
But maybe his not a fan of heroic hexameter, and we need to move our poetry more down his alley. Perhaps something like this?
” There once was a Poet from Nantucket
Engineering sheepskin* in pocket
But his friend, David B. Benson
Was not so wise** nor so handsome
And as for sheepskin in pocket, Nantucket.”
———
* [Piotr:] “baseload is [not the same as the discussed] backup ”
[Engineering-Poet] responds with dismissing backup for being too small to provide …baseload: “ It’s enough to serve the locals, but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000“, and defends his not understanding the difference between baseload and backup by pulling up his … engineering diploma: “Then there’s the little matter of my sheepskin.”
“I know of no pumped hydro schemes under construction nor serious planning for such. The economics favors other solutions for electrical energy storage.”
I’m aware of the following projects either under construction or being planned or seriously investigated:
“Australia already has river-based pumped hydro energy storage facilities at Wivenhoe, Shoalhaven and Tumut 3. Construction of Snowy 2.0 has commenced—this project would add 2,000 MW of generation to the National Electricity Market (NEM) and provide about 175 hours of storage. The Kidston pumped hydro scheme in an old gold mine in Far North Queensland has received Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) funds. A further six pumped hydro energy projects have been shortlisted in the Underwriting New Generation Investments program.”
“The (New Zealand) Government is taking a significant step toward its goal for 100% renewable electricity generation in a move that could be a game changer for consumers and the creation of a low-emissions economy, Energy & Resources Minister Megan Woods said. The Government is investigating options to ‘green the grid’ as part of a new, transformative infrastructure plan for renewable energy to:…”
“The Government will fund a close examination of a key recommendation by the Interim Climate Change Committee; hydro schemes which pump water to manage peak demand, dry hydrological years, and the intermittency of renewable energy sources such as wind. “If a business case stacks up pumped hydro would be a game changer for securing sustainable, cheaper, low-emissions electricity for the long term,” Megan Woods said.”
However I accept sulphur flow batteries show considerable promise as below.
“The lithium-ion batteries that power many of our devices now are expensive, and to manufacture batteries on a grid-sized scale is cost-prohibitive. Elon Musk’s Gigafactory manufactures batteries near $125 per kWh. The cost of coal is at $53 per MWh. The total chemical cost of a sulfur flow battery comes to about $20 per kWh.”
In fact I recall EP said that batteries need to be $17 per kwhr ( or a number close to this) to make renewables economically viable, so sulphur flow batteries are right in the ball park.
Al Bundysays
Nigelj: Given solar power is already lower cost than coal power
AB: When debating it is a freshman level error to wave off your opponent’s primary point with ‘Given that”.
EP has consistently maintained that the formulas used to define cost are deeply flawed because they BY DESIGN don’t reflect actual costs.
For example, EVs run on roads that are paid for with gas taxes. Sure, you can claim whatever, but EVs are free riders and if one were to tax EVs an electron tax for road building and maintenance equivalent to the gas tax then the economics will change.
So, EP says ruinables aren’t cheaper than coal/CH4 because without coal/CH4 the system becomes incredibly expensive. And that totally destroys your point. You MUST calculate ruinables cost GIVEN that no fossil power can take up any slack.
And EP makes the same mistake. He claims by omission that it is impossible for us to reduce our consumption of energy when a ruinables lull is predicted.
Al Bundysays
EP: Yeah, right; land use kills you
AB: because everyone knows that south-facing hills do not exist.
Dude, steep land is cheap.
James Charlessays
‘Renewables’ are ‘the answer’?
The CleanTechnica Answer Box (Renewable Energy & Electric Vehicle Answers To Common Myths)
Piotr,
EP obviously understands baseload v peak. He simply disagrees with you about how much storage is needed. By Spouting obviously false insults you weaken your case.
To answer him you’d have to show how we could have sailed through the largest and longest recent lull without serious harm with only ruinables and storage available.
Spouting “10%”! means nothing. In contrast, an analysis of Germany’s handling of [whatever that lulling word is] would provide evidence….
…that might support his claim. Got confidence in your conclusions? Show us the evidence, as opposed to handwaving.
Is a three month lull averaging 25% production something we need to prepare for? How do you suggest achieving lull-tolerence?
Nigel says double the capacity. I mentioned bio/synfuels and north/south and east/west transmission lines. Somebody else said flow batteries. And “snow days” aren’t an inherently bad thing. Yeah, the billionaires will get richer slightly slower, but who cares? Their wealth is nothing but an agreement that their spawn will “own” yours, so stuff that reduces the future redistribution of income from your spawn to theirs feels like a good thing to me.
Al Bundysays
Piotr,
And remember Nigel’s(?) rule of thumb, that solar (but not wind) is slashed to 50% of summer norms, so my 25% hypothetical lull calculates down to 12.5% of solar and 25% of wind, so 18% overall if it happens in winter, and, importantly, that sort of weather is likely accompanied by a serious spike in demand for heating. That’s why he mentioned death.
I built a pond and an irrigation system a few years ago. It was way informative seeing how quickly one can drain a pond, even if the runoff theoretically goes back in the pond.
Humans don’t do orders of magnitude. Nature doesn’t comply with our deficient eyes. EP is correct about the importance of density.
KIA 445: For over two years Democrats have encouraged hate, harassment, vandalism, acts of violence and even threats of assassination
BPL: And yet it wasn’t Democrats who shot up a church and a synagogue, set fire to a police station, or assassinated a police officer. It was Republicans and right-wingers. The proof is in the pudding.
Killiansays
441 David B. Benson: Killian @439 — It doesn’t actually take that much rock. Terra has plenty; the rock which has chemically bound the carbon dioxide can be used as dirt to build soil. There are other uses.
“That much?” Well, that’s certainly specific…
I repeat: There are non-destructive, create-ive ways to do the same thing. This makes the rock idea stupid.
jgnfldsays
Re. [EP]…”but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000.”
Interesting that for all his vast education and claimed scientific and literary credentials, our “poet” is apparently is unaware that Newfoundland and Labrador is a singular province. Poets are supposed to understand and know how to use language appropriately, or so I thought.
The correct statement in reality as well as in correct communication would be: “Newfoundland and Labrador _has_ a combined population of 522,000.” Yes, 522K…ep is apparently is using old population figures–something he often does in other areas we’ve all noticed.
Kevin M: To be a leader, you have to step up! Are you going to? Am I? Nope, not happening.
Now you’re putting my words in Kevin’s fingers. WTF’s wrong witchoo? Kevin is doing quite well on his own.
AB:
So perhaps you wouldn’t lead, but it’s what I was born to do.
I sure hope your comment is parody, Al. If so, it’s brilliant 8^D! If not, it’s awkward 8^(! Based solely on your avatar’s comments on RC, we have an informed prior for brilliant, needing only to envisage your deadpan as you typed. But that’s the joke with a well-crafted Poe: we’re never really sure 8^}. Provisional congratulations, therefore 8^|.
mikesays
“The UK needs to cut its emissions by 78% below 1990 levels over the next 15 years, according to the latest advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC).”
If anyone wants to dig deep and determine what the CO2 atmospheric count is supposed to be if we met that target, that would be helpful. I doubt that human beings will meet the targets, but I hope I am wrong.
I am dreadfully tired of happy talk about emission cuts, or 33% cuts by 2030 or net zero by 2050 because I think this talk is primarily smoke and mirrors to allow a level of cuts that will blow past our warming targets and cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering. The beneficiaries of the smoke and mirror campaign are the first world folks who don’t want to change their lifestyles in the manner that will be needed to meet the targets. Those are the folks who understand that this talk is smoke and mirrors. There are other well-meaning folks who buy the talk because their analysis is so weak that they simply parrot the talking points of conventional wisdom.
God, I would love to be wrong about all this.
Cheers
Mike
Al Bundysays
Killian: Zero emissions jets, eh?
AB: Don’t be silly. Zero emission prop planes are easy. Why shoot down the impossible when the easy and obvious is right there in front of your eyes?
_________________
EP: Thousand-to-one energy densities are not something you can ignore.
AB: Bull. Pretty much any member of your species ignores three or four orders of magnitude as a matter of course. Now, if you said that it was unwise, then yep.
EP: The vast majority of those can’t be used, because the lower reservoir is saltwater. We’ve been over this.
AB: Nope. I asked what harm would result and you didn’t say diddly. So, go ahead. Why is it harmful to use a lined upper reservoir and the ocean?
_______________
zebra: Absolutely! Without religion, for example, lots of young gay people would never have the benefit of experiencing shame and self-loathing when they had those funny feelings. They might even act on them!
AB: Sign me up. I would kill if it would make me as acceptable as a gay person. Heck, I’d kill to become gay.
____________________
Mrkia: We Trumpians will accept your apology for your baseless insults any time you’re ready to give it.
AB: I hereby apologize for all baseless insults about Trumpists. Oops. Turns out that all those insults were dead on. Never mind.
______________
BPL: Bugger off.
AB: Your response shows that you’re a typical Christian. Not even slightly concerned about following the teachings of Jesus, you are. Ain’t it strange that athiests are serious followers of Jesus and you and your kind reject all of his teachings in the name of the Old Testament?
____________
David B Benson: Barton Paul Levenson @423 — That was beneath you.
AB: You’re being too kind. That was EXACTLY him.
_______________
BPL: So when your family allegedly fought Nazis, they were validating them? Do you read what you write before you post it?
AB: No, dummy. His point was clear and irrefutable. Your total abandonment of Jesus’ teachings when you interact with others makes you and yours look putrid, thus validating those you reject, including Nazis. NOBODY cares about your myths. Get over yourself. Go play at your fantasy in your own room, but stop harassing innocent athiests in public.
_______________
BPL: That’s right, zebra, all Christians are anti-gay bigots. But YOU’RE not a bigot. Oh, no. You have “spirituality.”
AB: Good boy! Repeat until you’ve internalized the truth.
mikesays
Religion elsewhere, please. Let’s talk and think about climate and science here. I think there are religion websites out there, seek and ye shall find. I think this is a climate and science website. Check your religion/spirituality/etc. at the door, please.
Mike
William B Jacksonsays
#463 It has not been shown that Kyle Rittenhouse is a Democrat either, but KIA and reality are not synonymous hell they are not even closely related!
K 439: I, for example, moved away from religion to spirituality exactly because I deeply considered my sins and the nature of the god or gods that I would want addressing them and found those offered wanting. I determined any god that is not the best example of a father/mother one could think of was not worth my time and moved on.
BPL: You, in your Godlike judgment, determined that all the traditional gods and goddesses were “wanting.” Who does God think he is, eh?
429: How ironic given how badly you treat the “fringe” here.
433: Wrong. Regenerative Governance. See: PermResInitDet on Twitter.
434: Well done.
Poet (432)
“I’ll own it anyway, you know. The more you attack Nazis (which my own family fought 1941-45), the more you validate them. YOU are scum.”
C’mon, you can’t be blamed, for actions you have no part in. Nobody blames _you_ for your own family … “validating Nazis”???
And how exactly you “owned it” (it= having your views, deleted by RC moderators for being racist, as “Nazi”) ?
By …. trying to take credit for actions on which you have had no influence (“my own family fought [Nazis] 1941-45”), or by calling your opponent: “ YOU are scum”?
English is not my even second language, but I always thought “owning it” meant … something else. Say: “Taking responsibility to what you’ve done. Being accountable for your actions.” Where exactly you have done that?
Piotr (426): Huh? How many times do you need it explained? BASELOAD is not the same as BACKUP energy, genius. Your: “ just 150 hours of average US electric consumption ” is BASELOAD, and not BACKUP i.e. energy needed only for the “deficit” periods, when the demand exceeds supply.
E-P: (435) How many times do YOU need it explained? [and gives a link to some post on some , nomen omen ;-0, “Atomic Insights” from 2014]
Piotr: How does your NEW link invalidate your inability to understand the difference between BASELOAD and BACKUP STORAGE you showed in your PREVIOUS POSTS?
(As a rule I try to critique arguments people have already posted, not those they will come up with in the future. So here are your words to which my comment referred to:
E-P (414): Pumping the entire volume of Lake Erie to a height 53 meters higher would store about 69 TWh, just 150 hours of average US electric consumption
See? You dismissed the BACKUP storage by saying that it is only good for 150 hrs
of providing of 100% of BASELOAD. Ergo, in your (414) YOU DIDN’T understand the difference between BACKUP storage and BASELOAD. Wait a minute, this sounds … familiar… Ah, yes, June:
—–
Piotr: “Most of the Canadian hydro is used for a _base_ load, NOT as a backup.”
E-P: “ It’s enough to serve the locals, but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000.”
Piotr: “Sheesh – which part of distinction between provided BASELOAD and providing BACK-UP for wind and solar you don’t understand? Serving “536,000 locals”: that’s BASE LOAD, not BACKUP.”
another E-P: “ Quebec’s hydro is adequate for its 8.4 million, but grossly inadequate for N. America’s 350+ million”
Piotr: Huh? This discussion is about the BACKUP for renewables, NOT about providing BASE LOAD (to which giving population numbers apply to).”
—
Hmmm. How did that old engineering saying go?
“Show an Engineer that he can’t tell the BASELOAD from BACKUP once – shame on … you. Show him it twice – shame … still on you. Show him thrice shame, of course!, on you, i.e: E-P:”How many times do YOU need it explained?“
Piotr(426): “If after all these, our Poet still doesn’t get the difference between baseload and backup, then I don’t know what else I could do. Write in dactylic hexameter ???”
Kevin(437): Hmm, seems unlikely, but I’ll give it a try:
Thank you, my Nigel, for saying again that renewable power, built
Once and curtailed well (with wisdom profound) can supply our deep need
With less than one thinks of the storage we’d want, did we not o’er-build so. And this it can do with less cost than incurred by the alternate plans.**
Good try :-) I am afraid though it didn’t work – see Engineering-Poet in (435).
But maybe his not a fan of heroic hexameter, and we need to move our poetry more down his alley. Perhaps something like this?
” There once was a Poet from Nantucket
Engineering sheepskin* in pocket
But his friend, David B. Benson
Was not so wise** nor so handsome
And as for sheepskin in pocket, Nantucket.”
———
* [Piotr:] “baseload is [not the same as the discussed] backup ”
[Engineering-Poet] responds with dismissing backup for being too small to provide …baseload: “ It’s enough to serve the locals, but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000“, and defends his not understanding the difference between baseload and backup by pulling up his … engineering diploma: “Then there’s the little matter of my sheepskin.”
** https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/06/forced-responses-jun-2020/comment-page-3/ e.g. (@132)
————
Re: 442 — The Scottish government has approved a pumped hydro scheme with the Great Glenn Lochaber as the lower reservoir:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/739/long-duration-storage
There is no further news of funding or actual construction.
David B. Benson @442
“I know of no pumped hydro schemes under construction nor serious planning for such. The economics favors other solutions for electrical energy storage.”
I’m aware of the following projects either under construction or being planned or seriously investigated:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustralianElectricityOptionsPumpedHydro#:~:text=Australia%20already%20has%20river%2Dbased,about%20175%20hours%20of%20storage.
“Australia already has river-based pumped hydro energy storage facilities at Wivenhoe, Shoalhaven and Tumut 3. Construction of Snowy 2.0 has commenced—this project would add 2,000 MW of generation to the National Electricity Market (NEM) and provide about 175 hours of storage. The Kidston pumped hydro scheme in an old gold mine in Far North Queensland has received Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) funds. A further six pumped hydro energy projects have been shortlisted in the Underwriting New Generation Investments program.”
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/100-renewable-electricity-grid-explored-pumped-storage-%E2%80%98battery%E2%80%99
“The (New Zealand) Government is taking a significant step toward its goal for 100% renewable electricity generation in a move that could be a game changer for consumers and the creation of a low-emissions economy, Energy & Resources Minister Megan Woods said. The Government is investigating options to ‘green the grid’ as part of a new, transformative infrastructure plan for renewable energy to:…”
“The Government will fund a close examination of a key recommendation by the Interim Climate Change Committee; hydro schemes which pump water to manage peak demand, dry hydrological years, and the intermittency of renewable energy sources such as wind. “If a business case stacks up pumped hydro would be a game changer for securing sustainable, cheaper, low-emissions electricity for the long term,” Megan Woods said.”
However I accept sulphur flow batteries show considerable promise as below.
https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2018/09/are-sulfur-flow-batteries-the-answer/29441#:~:text=The%20total%20chemical%20cost%20of,to%20about%20%2420%20per%20kWh.
“The lithium-ion batteries that power many of our devices now are expensive, and to manufacture batteries on a grid-sized scale is cost-prohibitive. Elon Musk’s Gigafactory manufactures batteries near $125 per kWh. The cost of coal is at $53 per MWh. The total chemical cost of a sulfur flow battery comes to about $20 per kWh.”
In fact I recall EP said that batteries need to be $17 per kwhr ( or a number close to this) to make renewables economically viable, so sulphur flow batteries are right in the ball park.
Nigelj: Given solar power is already lower cost than coal power
AB: When debating it is a freshman level error to wave off your opponent’s primary point with ‘Given that”.
EP has consistently maintained that the formulas used to define cost are deeply flawed because they BY DESIGN don’t reflect actual costs.
For example, EVs run on roads that are paid for with gas taxes. Sure, you can claim whatever, but EVs are free riders and if one were to tax EVs an electron tax for road building and maintenance equivalent to the gas tax then the economics will change.
So, EP says ruinables aren’t cheaper than coal/CH4 because without coal/CH4 the system becomes incredibly expensive. And that totally destroys your point. You MUST calculate ruinables cost GIVEN that no fossil power can take up any slack.
And EP makes the same mistake. He claims by omission that it is impossible for us to reduce our consumption of energy when a ruinables lull is predicted.
EP: Yeah, right; land use kills you
AB: because everyone knows that south-facing hills do not exist.
Dude, steep land is cheap.
‘Renewables’ are ‘the answer’?
The CleanTechnica Answer Box (Renewable Energy & Electric Vehicle Answers To Common Myths)
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/02/renewable-energy-facts-electric-vehicle-facts-answers/
Piotr,
EP obviously understands baseload v peak. He simply disagrees with you about how much storage is needed. By Spouting obviously false insults you weaken your case.
To answer him you’d have to show how we could have sailed through the largest and longest recent lull without serious harm with only ruinables and storage available.
Spouting “10%”! means nothing. In contrast, an analysis of Germany’s handling of [whatever that lulling word is] would provide evidence….
…that might support his claim. Got confidence in your conclusions? Show us the evidence, as opposed to handwaving.
Is a three month lull averaging 25% production something we need to prepare for? How do you suggest achieving lull-tolerence?
Nigel says double the capacity. I mentioned bio/synfuels and north/south and east/west transmission lines. Somebody else said flow batteries. And “snow days” aren’t an inherently bad thing. Yeah, the billionaires will get richer slightly slower, but who cares? Their wealth is nothing but an agreement that their spawn will “own” yours, so stuff that reduces the future redistribution of income from your spawn to theirs feels like a good thing to me.
Piotr,
And remember Nigel’s(?) rule of thumb, that solar (but not wind) is slashed to 50% of summer norms, so my 25% hypothetical lull calculates down to 12.5% of solar and 25% of wind, so 18% overall if it happens in winter, and, importantly, that sort of weather is likely accompanied by a serious spike in demand for heating. That’s why he mentioned death.
I built a pond and an irrigation system a few years ago. It was way informative seeing how quickly one can drain a pond, even if the runoff theoretically goes back in the pond.
Humans don’t do orders of magnitude. Nature doesn’t comply with our deficient eyes. EP is correct about the importance of density.
KIA 445: For over two years Democrats have encouraged hate, harassment, vandalism, acts of violence and even threats of assassination
BPL: And yet it wasn’t Democrats who shot up a church and a synagogue, set fire to a police station, or assassinated a police officer. It was Republicans and right-wingers. The proof is in the pudding.
441 David B. Benson: Killian @439 — It doesn’t actually take that much rock. Terra has plenty; the rock which has chemically bound the carbon dioxide can be used as dirt to build soil. There are other uses.
“That much?” Well, that’s certainly specific…
I repeat: There are non-destructive, create-ive ways to do the same thing. This makes the rock idea stupid.
Re. [EP]…”but Newfoundland and Labrador have a combined population of only 536,000.”
Interesting that for all his vast education and claimed scientific and literary credentials, our “poet” is apparently is unaware that Newfoundland and Labrador is a singular province. Poets are supposed to understand and know how to use language appropriately, or so I thought.
The correct statement in reality as well as in correct communication would be: “Newfoundland and Labrador _has_ a combined population of 522,000.” Yes, 522K…ep is apparently is using old population figures–something he often does in other areas we’ve all noticed.
Pretty sloppy all around.
Al Bundy:
Now you’re putting my words in Kevin’s fingers. WTF’s wrong witchoo? Kevin is doing quite well on his own.
AB:
I sure hope your comment is parody, Al. If so, it’s brilliant 8^D! If not, it’s awkward 8^(! Based solely on your avatar’s comments on RC, we have an informed prior for brilliant, needing only to envisage your deadpan as you typed. But that’s the joke with a well-crafted Poe: we’re never really sure 8^}. Provisional congratulations, therefore 8^|.
“The UK needs to cut its emissions by 78% below 1990 levels over the next 15 years, according to the latest advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC).”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-uk-must-cut-emissions-78-by-2035-to-be-on-course-for-net-zero-goal?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20201209&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
If anyone wants to dig deep and determine what the CO2 atmospheric count is supposed to be if we met that target, that would be helpful. I doubt that human beings will meet the targets, but I hope I am wrong.
I am dreadfully tired of happy talk about emission cuts, or 33% cuts by 2030 or net zero by 2050 because I think this talk is primarily smoke and mirrors to allow a level of cuts that will blow past our warming targets and cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering. The beneficiaries of the smoke and mirror campaign are the first world folks who don’t want to change their lifestyles in the manner that will be needed to meet the targets. Those are the folks who understand that this talk is smoke and mirrors. There are other well-meaning folks who buy the talk because their analysis is so weak that they simply parrot the talking points of conventional wisdom.
God, I would love to be wrong about all this.
Cheers
Mike
Killian: Zero emissions jets, eh?
AB: Don’t be silly. Zero emission prop planes are easy. Why shoot down the impossible when the easy and obvious is right there in front of your eyes?
_________________
EP: Thousand-to-one energy densities are not something you can ignore.
AB: Bull. Pretty much any member of your species ignores three or four orders of magnitude as a matter of course. Now, if you said that it was unwise, then yep.
EP: The vast majority of those can’t be used, because the lower reservoir is saltwater. We’ve been over this.
AB: Nope. I asked what harm would result and you didn’t say diddly. So, go ahead. Why is it harmful to use a lined upper reservoir and the ocean?
_______________
zebra: Absolutely! Without religion, for example, lots of young gay people would never have the benefit of experiencing shame and self-loathing when they had those funny feelings. They might even act on them!
AB: Sign me up. I would kill if it would make me as acceptable as a gay person. Heck, I’d kill to become gay.
____________________
Mrkia: We Trumpians will accept your apology for your baseless insults any time you’re ready to give it.
AB: I hereby apologize for all baseless insults about Trumpists. Oops. Turns out that all those insults were dead on. Never mind.
______________
BPL: Bugger off.
AB: Your response shows that you’re a typical Christian. Not even slightly concerned about following the teachings of Jesus, you are. Ain’t it strange that athiests are serious followers of Jesus and you and your kind reject all of his teachings in the name of the Old Testament?
____________
David B Benson: Barton Paul Levenson @423 — That was beneath you.
AB: You’re being too kind. That was EXACTLY him.
_______________
BPL: So when your family allegedly fought Nazis, they were validating them? Do you read what you write before you post it?
AB: No, dummy. His point was clear and irrefutable. Your total abandonment of Jesus’ teachings when you interact with others makes you and yours look putrid, thus validating those you reject, including Nazis. NOBODY cares about your myths. Get over yourself. Go play at your fantasy in your own room, but stop harassing innocent athiests in public.
_______________
BPL: That’s right, zebra, all Christians are anti-gay bigots. But YOU’RE not a bigot. Oh, no. You have “spirituality.”
AB: Good boy! Repeat until you’ve internalized the truth.
Religion elsewhere, please. Let’s talk and think about climate and science here. I think there are religion websites out there, seek and ye shall find. I think this is a climate and science website. Check your religion/spirituality/etc. at the door, please.
Mike
#463 It has not been shown that Kyle Rittenhouse is a Democrat either, but KIA and reality are not synonymous hell they are not even closely related!