A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions. This month will start off with COP-26 and many targets and plans and mechanisms will be proposed and discussed. Look out for the updated impacts of the evolving NDCs such as this one from Climate Resource, suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming (relative to the pre-industrial) (if everyone does what they pledge and we are lucky with respect to climate sensitivity). Please be respectful and constructive.
@RtW:
TBH, I can’t convert your verbal description into a mental image of the device.
Based on the pure physics, though, it’s not going to work. The expansion of a charge in a cylinder with the connecting rod at an angle applies a torque to the engine block that is the exact opposite of the torque applied to the crankshaft. It’s that torque that you need to offset to smooth out the vibration imparted to the rest of the vehicle. You can use e.g. spring dampers to smooth out the torque fed to the driveline, but that doesn’t affect the time-varying torque imparted to the engine itself and transmitted via the motor mounts.
What does work is energy-storage devices. An ultracapacitor and motor can store a bunch of energy over the expansion stroke(s) and return it during the remainder of the cycle. In the process, it will offset the torque variations over the cycle.
A potential new non Lithium storage battery concept.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/03/zinc-bromide-battery-for-stationary-energy-storage-from-australia/
LATEST CLIMATE NEWS:
Snoozefest in Glascow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUgHkbtm9I
At 33 seconds, “For the entire Antarctic continent, the winter of 2021 was the second coldest on record….”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d590_0LUs28
Republicans to attend COP26 and show ’em how it’s done:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/31/john-curtis-climate-summit-glasgow-518013?utm_content=185648430&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-871786657564966912
American Conservative Coalition leading the way on climate change:
https://twitter.com/ACC_National
They are even into that regenerative agriculture technology that Killian likes:
https://twitter.com/ACC_National/status/1455934844504993793
Blueprint: How Dems can piss off parents of kids in schools and lose elections to Republicans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGnMA92oygQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpSclhkJHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EEPdfc5D5s
https://thehill.com/opinion/opinion/576465-pavlich-dojs-outrageous-assault-on-parents
Internet trolls to get prison time:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/internet-trolls-could-face-prison-25353022
:)
You are implying the ACC = GOP, but that is inaccurate based on their environmental concerns; they’re real conservatives, not the GOP crapsters that have dragged this country into shithole status from the first term of Clinton till now.
The kids are alright, but mommy and daddy are more than a little bit weird.
Reality Check: we risk the collapse of civilization. Is this really a possibility? Unfortunately, yes,
Richard: Yes, your civilization will collapse. I’m not convinced that is a bad thing.
Tell me, folks, why should YOUR civilization be preserved? Many have come and gone. Of these, where do you think YOURS rates?
Killian has been clear. ‘Toss the rubbish in the recycling bin’. Anyone, why not strip power from those who are destroying both humanity’s sanity and the current biosphere? What the fuck is worth saving of the current system?
When a civilization becomes fully dysfunctional, incredibly toxic, and pure-t-destructive, what would you think of the wisdom of those who fervently seek to save it?
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
Big thumbs up.
Deep Greens have the end goal right, they just don’t seem to understand their destructive approach is not appropriate to the context. I have had conversations with @thegreatdismal about the time line. I argue we do not have time to tear down *and* rebuild; we only have time for one transition – a transition to regenerative.
RW: why should YOUR civilization be preserved?
BPL: Because of the death and destruction that will accompany its fall. You hate the system so much you’re willing to see billions of people die to get rid of it? What the hell is wrong with you?
Don’t be an ass. You know what he was asking and in no way does his question imply death and destruction. He said why should the SYSTEM be kept and specifically noted my comments which taken in part or in whole cannot be used to defend a “let everyone die” point of view. I specifically call for the controlled creation of a new regenerative system specifically to avoid widespread death and destruction – and as the only means to do so.
I am soo goddamned tired of the knee-jerk, straw man, dishonest bullshit on this site.
WE DON’T HAVE TIME FOR YOUR SHIT.
Clarify what you mean by “YOUR civilization” please.
The apathy and self-dealing in Glasgow are obvious. What’s less obvious are signs of real progress.
Here are ten reasons for optimism:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/climate-change-optimism-glasgow-cop26-1252377/
Earlier I spoke to the York Councils Planning Committee about a proposed development, with figures about remaining carbon budgets and likely emissions from future residents – which easily trash York’s “declaration of a climate emergency”. I concluded …
Of course, I felt awkward saying this to people (nice people largely) that could not absorb anything so far outside their Overton window. (like new housing where private cars are banned).
Creating low carbon lifestyles on a community level should be a design problem that climate experts should campaigner for. Move the Overton window of spatial planners
At COP26 are Town and Country planners being told their plans are screwing the climate?
A very good point Geoff. And a very good example of why Rasmus’ hopes of regional climate models making a dint in adaption strategies or in global mitigation progress are quite misplaced imo. Massaging bau on the margins won’t cut it when overturning / re-orientating all the existing social systems and norms is the beginning of real solutions.
At COP26 are Town and Country planners being told their plans are screwing the climate?
I doubt it. They’re not the only ones either. :)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/carbon-top-1-percent-could-jeopardise-1point5c-global-heating-limit
https://twitter.com/tim_e_gore/status/1456543965650558979
Policies of Socio-Ecological Transformation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9bFZ_rorg0
The above goes directly to your point about designing estates not dependent on private car ownership and much more. The blind spots (the myths) are massive and persist throughout societies but especially in the political realm – those who possess the power to actually make decisons that will drive transformation.
eg from video : “Over-Consumption is designed in by states, industries and markets (necessary as outlets for growth: lack of low consumption alternatives, advertising etc.) The affluent (especially the Super-affluent consumers) drive consumption norms and aspirations….”
see panel Mapping of Product Categories – https://youtu.be/A9bFZ_rorg0?t=887
That ALL Transportation/Travel Categories are in the Luxury & High Intensity quadrant
“…every single transport category is in
there, and pretty much the only thing in
there are transport categories!!!!
So transport is the thing that is over
consumed by rich people that is high
energy intensity high resource use high
emissions….”
Therefore Geoff, your submission to the York Councils Planning Committee about a proposed development is spot on and Nails the #1 Driver of high GHG emissions in York Council and everywhere else in the UK, and the global north.
example ref
Published: 19 June 2020
Scientists’ warning on affluence (and Super-affluent consumers) – full access
Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements. However, existing societies, economies and cultures incite consumption expansion and the structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies inhibits necessary societal change.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y
It is these very ideas and truths that have not been a topic for discussion in the main hall of COP26.
It is a topic that is never addressed by many climate scientists who speak publicly as Mike Mann does and many others in his circle with the same mindset or the gliterati like Bill Gates other hangers on). The topic never arises, ever. Instead Mann calls for emissions to be cut 50% by 2030 and then never ever shows using any credible evidence how that is to be achieved in the real world.
Far too often when Climate Scientists, like Mike Mann as a good example, switch over to talking about Mitigation and Policy proscriptions their credibility and lifelong training for presenting hard scientific evidence with credible Math to support their arguments goes right out the window.
And that annoys the hell out of me. And supports the assertions by K Anderson et al that it’s mainly those in Civil Society now who not only get the scientific evidence behind mitigation requirements and how to get there and speak to that evidence and academic know how, while many climate scientists ignore it.
It’s not even a design *problem;* it makes design a hell of a lot easier with so much more space to work with.
All cars can be replaced by trolleys, cable cars, buses and light rail for longer travel – all using the carcasses of cars.
“Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements.”
The ignorance of regenerative design will kill us all.
And supports the assertions by K Anderson et al that it’s mainly those in Civil Society now who not only get the scientific evidence behind mitigation requirements and how to get there and speak to that evidence and academic know how, while many climate scientists ignore it.
Sustainability is ultimately local.
Current economies and gov’ts cannot, and will not, get us to regenerative being diametrically opposed to regenerative systems at the First Principles level.
I guess I’ll just keep repeating it. KA heard it. Maybe it was from me. who knows?
Gotta keep on truckin’ on.
RC, you want to meet up on Clubhouse? I can introduce you to Regenerative Governance in detail. It’ll make sense to you.
And that’s the *good* news..!
[smh, and organizing]
Nigel: gives me a headache
Richard: I’ve decided to ignore the nested answer reply buttons, so I won’t be contributing to your (everyone’s) “comment hunting” headache. Perhaps others will choose the same.
Doesn’t solve the problem. Then you have to remember all the other comments that relate to your response. I have realized not all the new posts are in the list, so I go directly to those that are, then can see any others that are related, then I either quickly scroll through the last page for any new ones missed by that process. Sometimes I keyword search using Ctrl F.
Greta says …
#COP26 has been named the must excluding COP ever.
This is no longer a climate conference.
This is a Global North greenwash festival.
A two week celebration of business as usual and blah blah blah.
I think thats unfair and unrealistic. I had low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised at some of the things done. The methane reduction agreement might cut global temperatures by .25C over BAU. Thats a big deal, even if its far short of what is needed. I don’t blame the politicians. They somewhat understand the situation, but they know that if they get too far ahead of their skiis then catastrophe looms. Both for their personal careers, and for their climate agenda, which is better than what we will get if their opponents get power. The real issue, is getting enough members of the general public to really care about the issue. As it is appeals to saving near term money and/or jobs -no matter how bogus, get political traction.
I think we can ‘hope’ the governments around the world will take ‘action’ on their part and contribute to preventing further wild weather patterns. We got to do our best to ‘return’ our lands to their ‘former and original’ state before damage had been done. A major problem with governments has been – give and do nothing except deliver ‘lip service’ and ‘promises’ followed by ‘inaction’ and maintaining the ‘status quo’. All the money in the world does not save lives.
It seems to me after some careful thought that google’s response to climate misinformation is vanguard as policy, what it could do for decision authority conflation as press lines would be incredible, we have seen the intentional confusion and divergent timelines on reporting of climate sensitivity and it seems that feedback cycles are ahead of time as impacts increase. Basic modeling sometimes fails at capturing feedbacks as certainty and time series. Observation leads us to conclude that what is being projected is happening now.
Quote: “It seems to me after some careful thought that google’s response to climate misinformation is vanguard as policy, what it could do for decision authority conflation as press lines would be incredible,”
Any censoring of opinions online is viewed by 1/2 the viewers as reason to doubt the opinions that are allowed. Google/Youtube contribute hugely to the skepticism about AGW, COVID, vaccines, etc when they put up the little banners about COVID or AGW next to articles and videos. Everyone knows those websites are run by extreme leftists, so for those not inclined to be leftists, the notices and banners reduce the credibility of the article or video. Same for all websites that censor comments on articles that don’t follow the leftist narrative – they lose all credibility – this is the case for most websites. Some folks value the free exchange of ideas.
Thanks Reality Check for your detailed reply to my carbon accounting question in the older thread.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/09/forced-responses-sep-2021/comment-page-4/#comment-797463
I had feared that was the case. I am surprised there is so little discussion of the issue in the media. In theory, Australia could meet its net zero goal while continuing to export large amounts of coal. (In practice, I don’t expect Australia to reach net zero by 2050; I expect governments to say: oh dear, turns out negative emissions are harder than we thought; no one could have known; so sorry.)
Another new record for EV sales share in Germany–over 30% of the market for the first time. That’s up from about 4% 2 years ago.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/04/germanys-plugin-ev-share-jumps-above-30-an-unstoppable-force/
Good and bad. That rate of exchange clearly implies a lot of perfectly functional ICE;s are being traded in, which means the overall benefit, cradle to grave, is lost. A lot of that maximum 25% improvement is lost if the switch is made before the ICE is no longer reliably functional.
That’s true, but the only practical way around that is incentive programs to retire ICEs pre-nonfunctionality, like the former “Cash for Clunkers” program. Haven’t heard anyone proposing that here lately, but I’d be in favor. Otherwise, the change happens at the source first, necessarily.
Another good point not highlighted above is that *overall* auto sales have been down YOY, even as EVs have been taking market share quite rapidly. That’s one factor, indeed, in how rapid the runup in market share has been in many of these cases lately. It remains to be seen whether that will continue to be the case, of course.
That’s true, but the only practical way around that is incentive programs to retire ICEs pre-nonfunctionality, like the former “Cash for Clunkers” program.
Huh… I’d have thought just not being a self-centered, value-signaling, poorly informed ass would do the trick…
I.e., thanks for perfectly illustrating my point that those with means will not be able or willing to “lead” on regenerative systems.
From previous:
nigelj says
I find all these excuses frustrating but trying to counter them is like trying to kill an army of zombies. There are so many and they keep multiplying.
Do you not see your own hypocrisy in posting this? Your response *every time* to posts on simplicity, regenerative systems, rapid, massive degrowth is exactly the description above. “People won’t, so we need to do unsustainable stuff.” “Simplicity will take decades more than we have. So will everything else, but, don’t ask me why, it’s bad that simplicity will. Even though there are many examples of full transitions to regenerative systems that have taken anywhere from 1 to 10 years.”
Have a little self-awareness. If you really believe what you posted, stop doing so yourself.
Killian. I have always said both renewables and simplification face enormous psychological obstacles. Pretty much all mitigation strategies do. I just think renewables face fewer obstacles than simplification. I’ve explained why more than enough times, so I don’t think I’m being hypocritical.
Sure there are some small communities in America embracing simplification and quite rapidly, but not necessarily your exact prescription, and you have to admit its at very small scale despite 50 years of interest in such lifestyles. From what I’ve read the simplification idea has been around since at least the 1960s if not before, and I became aware of it in the early 1980’s. Its not as if simplification has taken off like a rocket in America, or where I live. In comparison renewables are gaining some reasonable traction.
I also don’t think that a few small communities embracing simplification means you could conclude the majority of people would. By analogy, some people embrace the Mormon Church but it has never become dominant.
It also depends on what elements of simplification. The de-growth and de-industrialisation look like they would face a lot of psychological obstacles of the sort mentioned in the article, and others besides. Regenerative agriculture maybe less so and it is gaining a little bit of traction. This is not so surprising as it doesn’t cost much to switch over systems and its quite profitable with high income earners being prepared to buy the produce from regenerative and organic farms. Sure that’s all current economic paradigm stuff, but it means the obstacles are not as strong in peoples heads as for reductions in materialistic lifestyles.
Killian. I have always said both renewables and simplification face enormous psychological obstacles.
And that it’s primitive living, and can’t be done, and nobody wants to live that way and takes decades, etc. All false.
Pretty much all mitigation strategies do. I just think renewables face fewer obstacles than simplification.
Yeah, but you conveniently leave out that they are unsustainble, don’t solve our problems, lock us into the current car-based, top-down hierarchic, massively unjust and unequal paradigm because it will take decades to build them out and then we’re stuck with them till the end of the century so that *nothing changes for another 80 years.
I’ve explained why more than enough times, so I don’t think I’m being hypocritical.
And still moot. You also leave out we don’t have time for any of that crap without risking collapse and extinction.
Sure there are some small communities in America embracing simplification and quite rapidly,
At least 70% of the world already lives simply and require only small changes to be regenerative. You always leave that out, too. And nobody is telling Americans they have no choice – something you actively campaign against because those poor Americans are too fragile to deal with the truth, right?
Circular reasoning, nigel.
but not necessarily your exact prescription
WTF cares? That comment has no purpose in this post except to jab. Stop it.
and you have to admit its at very small scale despite 50 years of interest in such lifestyles.
It’s been @ 3 million years and that same issue applies to all potential climate responses: They all require change thus changes in beliefs and ideologies. Simplicity is not specail or separate in this regard.
From what I’ve read the simplification idea has been around since at least the 1960s if not before, and I became aware of it in the early 1980’s. Its not as if simplification has taken off like a rocket in America, or where I live. In comparison renewables are gaining some reasonable traction.
Moot. There was no general sense of an emergency. Same reason it has taken decades for solar and wind to penetrate. All of this is obvious. You have to learn to self-edit and stop making circular arguments.
I also don’t think that a few small communities embracing simplification means you could conclude the majority of people would.
Straw Man. Never said that. I have said,and apparently must say it again, *there* *is* *no* *choice.*
By analogy, some people embrace the Mormon Church but it has never become dominant.
How is embracing a cult an analogy for sane actions to prevent collapse and extinction?
It also depends on what elements of simplification. The de-growth and de-industrialisation look like they would face a lot of psychological obstacles of the sort mentioned in the article
Moot. Not going to keep repeating why.
Your problem in all this is your failure to properly analyze the situation, particularly the risks, and your continued lack of knowledge and experience with the systems you criticize – causing you to screw the pooch with each attempt while allowing yourself to continue to believe approaches that will take many decades are preferable to those that could take less than 1.
And meantime in Oz, solar power is ascendant, with capacity additions north of 4 GW each of the last three years.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/04/solar-on-the-roof-goes-through-the-roof-in-australia/
And in Queensland, wind and solar powered 72% of demand for the month of October, hitting 100% at some point during 29 of the 31 days. October is a favorable month, to be sure, but apparently it’s averaged 62% over the last year.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/remarkable-south-australia-reached-100-pct-renewables-nearly-every-day-in-october/
To be sure, Oz has probably the best solar resource in the world, but still, impressive.
Although growing very rapidly, renewables are still a small part of total electrical generation in Australia. Scroll down to second list here – the second list shows many countries with a far greater percentage of electrical generation from renewables than Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production
Confirmed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Australia
They’re making progress though and that’s good.
Well, “small” might mean different things to different people. Says here:
24% could be ‘small’ or not, but in any event it is growing rapidly, as you say.
Only 200+ more countries to go, and maybe 180-200 of them (pulled that out of my ass, but probably close to accurate) can’t afford it. Hmmm….
Well, now that solar & wind are cheaper in most cases than the alternatives…
Unless the alternatives already exist and are in use.
In many cases today, new RE is cheaper than just *operating* existing FF capacity. No fuel costs, for one thing.
E.g.:
https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost
K: Only 200+ more countries to go [to use renewable energy], and maybe 180-200 of them (pulled that out of my ass, but probably close to accurate) can’t afford it. Hmmm….
BPL: They can afford building more fossil fuel power even less.
Irrelevant. Arguing over two things that won’t happen is pretty damned pointless and argumentative. Stick to the point: Time is an issue. As well, who pays for the infrastructure for those poorer countries? Further, and do they get skeletal amounts of electricity so the inequalities all rmain in place or do they get equity? (Rhetorical question, of course.)
If they must have “equity”, then let’s get started. Start building the coal mines and oil fields to provide energy EQUAL to that which the developed world enjoys. THEN, start building FF power plants and refineries, factories for ICE vehicles, Freeways to drive them on, mines to provide the needed metals and gravel. Smelters to produce the metals. Ports for ships from all over the world to import cheap Chinese crap, and export the products made locally. And lots more.
:)
Nick Breeze – inside the COP attending talks and speaking mainly to scientists but also half listening to the pledges and commitments being made. What is striking is the sense of foreboding from people who have followed these negotiations for many years.
K Anderson – Despite a choreographed mainstream media, many within civil society see thro’ the “hot air from the hypocritical tossers” (to quote Mr Chips). Ultimately Planet Politics will bow down to the physics.
J Bamber – I’m not overly optimistic – because I’ve seen the negotiations, the processes, the rhetoric before.
I don’t see anything significantly different.
Inside #COP26Glasgow; Is this the ambition needed to avert disaster?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcSxVHAxW0 (only 19 mins)
What I see and hear overall is a major Credibility Gap …. two separate Planets, two disconnected Realities
relating to KA said “So I think there’s a gap between these two. This is not being filled by good journalism by and large and it’s not being filled by the academics holding our leaders and others to account for the statements that they are making. “
eg I’d include this as an example – “Climate Resource https://www.climate-resource.com/tools/ndcs suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming (out to 2100!!!!)”
That kind of PR work is, imho, not holding our political leaders and others to account for their claims and statements nor the NDCs.
It falsely portrays real progress has been made when none is forthcoming that could or would meet the ambitious goals of Paris. The NDCs are a fiction, a hypothetical fiction, not based on genuine science or the real world in which we live.
Climate Resource talks about the NDCs if they are “possible/potentials” when there is nothing scientifically based underpinning these NDCs that supports such an assumption…. for example their headline is totally False – “pledges bring projected warming to below 2°C for the first time in history”
There is nothing substantive or real about the “projected warming” spoken of by Climate Resource – it does not exist. Saying “for the first time in history” is vacuous PR Spin and extremely overinflated emotive Hyperbole (imo) .
By talking about these NDCs in this way in the report it falsely portrays what are ineffective Pollyanna fantasy failure-based NDCs as having a degree of Credibility and Worth which they do not possess.
Sure, much of the data is useful, yes the NDCs need some level of scrutiny. And yes I am probably being too harsh. However, imho, Climate Scientists and analysts would better spend their efforts on what is real not make believe. They should not be producing reports that talk about things happening Mythical domains, in alternate Realities.
Climate scientists and academics should be taking the myths, lies, fantasies, and falsehoods, the Politicians, the (hot air from hypocritical tosses) are pushing and instead tearing them apart 24/7.
Are you surprised? Not me.
Thomas Sowell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qypnQkdg89g
Ronald Reagan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs
Time to stop waiting on the government. I do think some state governments will make progress however.
This is truly rich, given that it’s folks like you who are impeding progress and have been for 40 years.
Not me. I drive a gas sipper. Used to be an environmental wacko Dem activist, until they went communist and decided to destroy the country. Will not tolerate that.
Used to be a conservative Democrat who often voted Republican till they went full bore right wing fascist nut job. Will not tolerate that!
Ooops, I did it again.
Kevin Anderson: “…the messy _______?_____ of civil society have been much more in line with the science in terms of what we need to do about climate change than the scientists have been.
…climate denial…. but I think more dangerous than that is something I now call Mitigation Denial.. And that is often even carried out by the climate scientists, by the senior academics, by the senior politicians, and so forth. There we’re denying the levels of emissions reductions that are necessary, the levels of mitigation that are necessary…..
He said it, not me.
But you all know you heard it here first.
Care to start listening?
Inside #COP26Glasgow from 9 mins @ https://youtu.be/5GcSxVHAxW0?t=549
KA: ….. we’ve all bought into a narrative of we mustn’t remove hope.
We mustn’t say it as it is, at least not in public.
We must portray quite a jolly cheery message that we can have win-win.
We can have green growth
We can improve the quality of life for everyone.
We can level up.
We can do all of these things and address this enormous challenge of climate change.
But our commitments around climate change, around 1.5 and 2 degrees centigrade they can be translated into the science, into the rates of change that we require and these are completely different to this green growth rhetoric that dominates and echoes around COP26.
NB: The word echo is extremely pertinent because it is a massive echo chamber here and if you take all the things we’ve just mentioned there’s a kind there’s a huge disparity now with a growing cynicism……”
One thing that I do not like about CC is the myth that pointing out the explicit worse-case realities of inaction on climate change is fearmongering, that it destroys hope, and that using Fear will stop people from acting because they’ll just give up or become “doomists”. These false beliefs are all so provably wrong it’s depressing. Because Fear in advertising is possibly the most effective strategy to influences on the general public. Whether that is about drink driving, smoking, from covid protection to using condoms, to the fear of missing out by not keeping up with the Jones’.
A few examples (of the scary truth) that might help to break up the misunderstandings and why offering False Hopes or jolly cheery messages is the way to garner political action to urgently address climate change in every society are:
There are many commercials that use scare tactics like this because fear is one of the most persuasive emotions, and it’s one of the best ways to get viewers to take action (e.g. visit a website, dial a phone number, visit a store, or make a purchase). Fear also stimulates a high level of brand attachment, and according to a recent study, people have better recall for ads that evoke fear than for ads that evoke joy and happiness.
The old saying that sex sells may be true, but fear is actually better at it.
“Fear appeals strike a nerve with people who have doubts about things…They play on our inherent fears of the unknown or that something is going to kill us. That is why scare tactics are stunningly effective.”
https://medium.com/dumbstruck/the-fear-factor-in-advertising-f4e8cc473539
“Fear appeals strike a nerve with people who have doubts about things or do not know about things,” he explains. “They play on our inherent fears of the unknown or that something is going to kill us. This is why scare tactics are stunningly effective.”
https://www.artinstitutes.edu/about/blog/the-four-letter-word-in-advertising-fear
“Discussing risks or instilling anxiety is effective at changing intentions and behavior, particularly when the behavior provides a solution to the threat,” says Dolores Albarracin, PhD, professor of psychology, business, and medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Humans are equipped with approach and avoidance emotions and we need both to lead successful lives.” For example, “having a fear of injury from an auto accident can lead more people to wear seatbelts,” she adds.
https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/fear-motivator-elections
How about a NIH article meta analysis, would that help to convince anyone who still believes the myth that using strident catastrophic fear generating outcomes of climate change is counter-productive?
Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories
Keywords: Fear appeals, risk, health communication, meta-analysis
“Overall, we conclude that (a) fear appeals are effective at positively influencing attitude, intentions, and behaviors, (b) there are very few circumstances under which they are not effective, and (c) there are no identified circumstances under which they backfire and lead to undesirable outcomes.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5789790/
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0039729.pdf
How easily people forget the effectiveness of the Iraq WMD political campaign …. the difference with climate change global heating impacts is there actually is mountains of hard evidence and thousands of recent examples of serious harm causing deaths, crop failures, extreme weather events and an ongoing worsening danger for decades ahead.
I do not believe the “updated impacts of the evolving NDCs such as this one from Climate Resource, suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming “ is at all helpful.
All it does is promote the BS the commitments made at COP26 are to be taken seriously.
Climate Resource and all the rest should ONLY be addressing the Scientific Based Reality and not these Fantasies.
@Geoff Beacon:
She’s one to talk. She parrots a line which excludes the single most successful decarbonization technology ever invented from consideration. Remove the log that is in your own eye, Greta.
Spoken like a true, blinkered idiot.
E-P: She’s one to talk. She parrots a line which excludes the single most successful decarbonization technology ever invented from consideration. Remove the log that is in your own eye, Greta.
BPL: He’s one to talk. He continues to consider nuclear “the single most successful decarbonization technology ever invented.” Remove the log that is in your own eye, E-P.
Yes
Berinjg a poetic engineer and knowing nothing about Thorum that is a very abundant and popular element here where I live, and I know it for many purpopses,….,
………that is a bit large….
……..and hardly upgoing enginering.
I am able to exel in scandals also about it.
Hr Poet
She is getting older and more beautiful for every year, I wonder how long that will keep.
Her parents are both professionals in show business.
Never forget Ronald Reagan, No- one would take him for serious and he was just a second hand moovie star from Hollywood.
I am just a tiny amateur in show. But I can tell you, it is the only method that really scratches, provided that you can contemplate and train for 2 weeks on script and partriture and voicing and choreography for the scenes.
Greta Thunberg is obviously trained and instructed on that and takes it serious.
@RtW:
Ah, I have a convert to the cause!
Let’s do our best to convince the ill-advised authors of these trendy changes that trendy does not automatically equal good, and they need to think of these things in terms of the USER experience and listen to the USERS.
EP,
The stator is attached to the engine block, and yes, a motor and an electric storage device can do what a TTTD does, but at significant cost, complexity, and inefficiency, especially since the torque curve required is not anything like what a motor produces.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DayuUmPV4SyiKKjU6
EP,
I am not an EE so I have serious holes in my knowledge, but I seem to have absorbed that the inefficiency in a motor arises from the ramping up and down of fields, electrical resistance, and mechanical friction.
Nary a mention about how magnetic field to magnetic field interactions have losses.
And superconductors work.
So, now that you have time and a drawing, are there any significant losses?
(My next concern will be torque-to-weight ratio)
a couple more KA outtakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcSxVHAxW0
And folks, you are witnessing how capitalism impedes progress. I ‘have’ to protect my intellectual property and that absolutely delays progress. And not by a little. Some or most of you would be driving 200 mpg full-size supercars right now if instead of Capitalism, Laborism had risen.
So, instead of folks freely collaborating, inventors spend most of their time in ignorance or in protection mode. And since capital can be willed into existence, what good is Capitalism? Anyone? Why is capital, a concept without physical manifestation, more important than labor and Management? For the life of me I can’t think of a valid use for Capitalism except as a way to try to exclude stupidity from the decision process.
How’s that working for you?
Capitalism sucks. But Capitalists have successfully grubbed entire concepts that have nothing to do with Capitalism.. Like “freedom” and “free markets”. WTF do free markets have to do with Capitalism???
@ R. t. Weaver
Truly, I think Capitalismj and Capitalists is a rather meaningless and less fruitful conscept if not very much better specified.
As it is and mostly gets used, it is rather some very old tribal supersticion and political delusion from day before yeaterday. However trusted and believed in and taken for real, elementary, and obvious..
From what I could see personally in my near environment, Capitalismj is very unhealthy also. Thus get rid of it and ban it.
Freedom and possible free markets has got quite other necessary premises. such as individual integrity and dignity, enlightment, consciousness, and responsibility.
And necessary trust and regularity along with official forms of social law and order, together with empathy and solidarity.
Where “capitalism” comes in as a primary cause for anytyhing of that, I cannot see at all.
Eventual capital and ism is rather due to submit and to obey and to take orders from and to serve under all of that.
Because if not, your situation is rather illegal and quite unhealthy.
I admit that I’d like patenting inventions to be less costly, and it would be great if others were honest enough to not steal your inventions, but instead to pay you a good price for them. I don’t think those are defects of capitalism.
Capitalism allocates resources efficiently. Historically it has gotten BY FAR more people out of poverty than any other system. If you think people should work like slaves on land they don’t own, keeping only enough to barely survive, and giving most of what they produce to the grubermint (Soviet system for example), then nobody will convince you that capitalism is best. But YOU can convince yourself by TRYING that system – you will be a believer in capitalism very quickly. People who have experienced that system love capitalism. PEOPLE around the world want to come to the USA so they can be free to live as they want. They risk their lives and the lives of their children to get here.
Perhaps Milton Friedman can convince you that capitalism is good. I think these videos were made in the 1970s:
7 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
5 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnwxUhB9w_M
Ignore first few seconds of this one:, otherwise it’s good – 2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLiVoHuBvNI
Capitalism works great for those who work hard and/or smart to be successful.
RW: you are witnessing how capitalism impedes progress.
BPL: Capitalists are doing their best to implement renewable energy as fast as it can go. They are being impeded by other capitalists, which is why we need government to manage the situation. Replacing capitalism with some half-assed socialism won’t help anything. The Soviet Union polluted the hell out of itself.
BPL. Agree totally. Why do we see this an others don’t? Maybe the message isn’t sexy enough or radical enough or original enough. But the right solutions are often a bit boring.
As to the modern communal ownership of the means of production, like the USSR, Mao’s China, smaller intentional (alternative) communities these have mostly all been failures and were abandoned. This does not inspire confidence the idea could be scaled up and become the global norm. Like Einstein said don’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Clearly some people just aren’t very bright and can’t work it out.
.
Capitalists are doing their best to implement renewable energy as fast as it can go.
That is delusional. “They” are rolling it out at the best possible rate to maximize their profits.
OK…
Capitalism might work if gifts and inheritances were criminalized.
Yeah, it sings.
But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either ensure that capital can’t be inherited or gifted, or get rid of capital’s power.
You are jealous of wealth inherited by others? Why?
What is wrong with inheriting, say, the family farm that you grew up on?
Or inheriting a $10,000,000 IRA?
How many people do broke people hire to work for them? How much $$ do broke people give to charity?
Did n`t I comment on capitalism here? and that it means nothing exept in the worshipful state religious political propaganda 0f the late soviet union?
Capitalism is a routine formula of the gangsters, meaning hardly anything else.
Capitalism caracterizes people who are hardly aware of the actual weathers and the dewpoint and freezing point of water and possible photosynthesis and the premises of nitrogen fixation and rock erosion due to frost and thaw and rain in the universe.
Capitalism has got nothing to do with climate and to be disqualified first. Capitalism is against both Darwin and Gallilei and St.Peter and God and his angels.
Little gems keep on coming. at least to me they are gems. here’s a few more about the “vacuous nonsense and hypocritical tossers”
Nick Breeze “Physics is the only party here not negotiating!” :)
Fatih Birol IEA
Higher climate targets are promising, but will the pledges be fully implemented on time?
Proud that the UK @COP26 Presidency asked @IEA to lead the tracking of progress against these pledges, drawing on our years of policy expertise. Our new analysis https://iea.li/3wemqlQ
John Broderick
Good news but… crude sum of pledges’ CO2 emissions to 2050 gives ~800 GtCO2. Higher than carbon budget for whole of 21st Century in paper @KevinClimate @IsakStoddard for similar temp. Implies NETs balance all CO2 from 2050 https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209
Kevin Anderson
Agree. Why-o-why do we (academics & analysts) insist on taking weak & dirty national commitments to cut emissions, polish them till they gleam like gold, add on a layer of iron-pyrite, & then sell them to a press clamoring for a cheery tale. No surprise emissions keep rising.
refs see thread https://twitter.com/jf_broderick/status/1456331141326200832
– Peter Kalmus; NASA climate scientist terrified by what I see coming.
This is a crisis that cannot be solved by ‘positive messaging’. The only thing that will help is action from world leaders. Climate depression is real. And it is spreading fast among our youth
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/04/climate-depression-youth-crisis-world-leaders
Fabian Dablander – PhD Candidate Psychological Methods || Bayesian statistics, Causal inference, Dynamical Systems || Data for the Social Good
“Physics doesn’t care about legal niceties, eloquent speeches, sharp suits; it only cares about the CO₂ molecules. And until this group starts to recognize that climate change will respond to the physics, and not the ephemeral politics, we will continue to fail.”
Dr Jenna C. Ashton
@KevinClimate’s comments here about the division at #COP26 between civil society groups and politicians, and the failure of mainstream media & senior academic leadership to hold politicians to account, is hugely revealing about abuses of power & complicity.
Ernst-Jan Kuiper Climatologist – Glaciologist (PhD) newbie born 354 ppm
This is my first time at #COP, but I agree with everything @KevinClimate says. As a climatologist it is indeed Orwellian to see the complete discrepancy between the speeches here and the sobering scientific facts… By now, hope only comes from activism.
Meg Ruttan Walker – mother/climate justice organizer
Folks, please keep in mind that, despite their expertise in climate change, climate scientists aren’t necessarily experts in global politics or the umpteen different levers we need to pull for emissions mitigation. Asking them for all the answers isn’t useful or fair.
(repeat original post)The ever-excellent @NickGBreeze probes me on COP26, 19 mins
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GcSxVHAxW0
from https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1456288066923081729
(reminder of James Hansen’s recent post too)
The cruel hoax perpetrated at COP meetings must be apparent to IPCC scientists, but with rare exception (e.g., Kevin Anderson) the alarm is not sounded: it is now impossible to achieve the Paris agreement goal with the COP diplomatic approach.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/president-bidens-silk-purse-young-people-will-sit-in-judgment
note: Of course you cannot tell people who do not already get these things and simply expect them to get it. The only thing they can do in response is to deny it applies to them, and/or rationalize their own position (cognitive dissonance).
“ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.
https://www.stopecocide.earth/legal-definition
Elizabeth Wathuti @lizwathuti
– Here is my full speech at the #COP26 World Leaders Summit Opening Ceremony (6 mins)
– https://twitter.com/lizwathuti/status/1455518577327542273
Another comment about Climate Research et al
So who is right? Who is more credible? Who is worth listening to?
Adam Vaughan @adamvaughan_uk
So this week we had @ClimateRsrc & @IEA assessments saying #COP26 pledges put world on for 1.9°C and 1.8°C respectively.
Reality check from @UNFCCC : global emissions rise nearly 14% by 2030 under short-term plans by 165 countries + the EU.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/message_to_parties_and_observers_on_ndc_numbers.pdf
Or look at the attached graph image – The reported NDCs are no where near tracking at below 2C …
here https://twitter.com/adamvaughan_uk/status/1456556396334522369
Is anyone spinning / massaging the data or their presentations here? Because it does not add up.
How come every time climate scientists, academics and statisticians et al report on supposedly the exact same thing the variations are so extreme?
I mean what is the point of all this NOISE?
When already, before COP26, according to the IPCC and the UNFCCC in order to meet the Paris goals global CO2/GHG emissions need to be reduced ~50% by 2030 …. but already we knew the projections for global GHG emissions are expected to grow ~15% above current levels by 2030.
That’s the issue right there … a 65% error in the wrong direction is the problem. ‘So why are the IEA and climate research or any climate scientists pushing the idea that somehow COP26 has achieved some kind of a MAJOR turnaround where warming out to 2100 is now projected by SCIENCE (sic) to be in the order of only plus 1.8 to 1.9C
What is this *blah blah blah* all about?
The question is – What are you going to do?
Socio-Ecological Transformation talk by Prof Julia Steinberger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9bFZ_rorg0
25th FMM Conference: Macroeconomics of Socio-Ecological Transition
28.10. – 30.10.2021
and one more for today
New paper today estimates the per capita emissions gaps for 1.5C of global income groups in 2030, based on NDCs – see the graphs says it all.
Richest 1% (>$172k income-y) – set for footprints 30x higher than 1.5C aligned global average per capita level
Richest 10% (>$55k plus income-y) – 9x higher
Middle 40% (>$9.8k plus income-y) – 2x higher
Poorest 50% – 2x lower
In absolute terms, the consumption emissions of the richest 10% in 2030 are set to nearly amount to the global total in 2030 compatible with 1.5C (= 18Gt)
https://twitter.com/tim_e_gore/status/1456543965650558979
Briefing note
Carbon inequality in 2030: Per capita consumption emissions and the 1.5⁰C goal
05 Nov 2021
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/
The main driver of the problem and the primary solution to the problem revolve around the very same thing – it is called Consumption by the wealthiest 10% of the global population! aka the very same group of people running this world as it is now.
The very same social class groups who in the historical past have bought humanity child labour, slavery, colonization, the opium wars in China, clear felling rainforests, the East India Company, the burning of witches, fake WMDs, the Iraq War, the GFC, the Great Depression, Acid Rain, DDT, the Spanish Inquisition, unsafe cars, toxic environments, asbestos, and now climate change.
“We have met the enemy and he is us!”
RtW:
Clearer now. I don’t know if it would work as designed, but even if it does, your torque-vs-angle curve is fixed yet your torque output in a normal engine is variable. It will have one “sweet spot” and be off-spec under all other conditions.
You have losses in magnetic hysteresis, losses in induced currents in the core material (which is why cores are typically laminated, powdered or non-conductive), windage losses. You’re likely going to have similar losses in your device, windage at least.
They don’t; magnetic fields are conservative, although EM radiation can be a factor if your frequency is high enough. It’s all the other stuff.
Wrong. Money can be willed into existence. Money is not capital. Capital is energy, roads, water works, buildings, machinery, etc. When money is willed into exitence and chasing a slowly-changing stock of capital assets, inflation results. This is why the stock market is so high and gasoline costs close to twice what it did two years ago; none of this is justified on the fundamentals.
First thing to do to make the world sane is to end fractional-reserve banking. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will not be denied:
Even a stone axe is capital. Civilization is the product of the accumulation of capital. The Parthenon, the Venus de Milo, the Mona Lisa, the Interstate highway system, the electrical grid… these are all capital, and they are all inherited. Most capital requires regular maintenance. Who’ll put forth the labor to maintain something if they don’t benefit? Who’ll build them in the first place?
Hr E.Poet
This is reductionism on behalf of capitalism.
As my chosmology is not based or anchored in pesetas- mammon- money, I just find it supersticious, silly, strange, and ignorant.
It is not the enlighted way that matter and material forms and relatrions are mentioned and discussed. Neither is it any well formed formula of Biology. Or astronomy. Or radiology., Electromagnetism or optics or acoustics.
Perhaps lacks of enlightment training and experience rather on that, makes some people worship and obey under the alternative, namely Das Kapital and Capitalism.
Killian: Doesn’t solve the problem. Then you have to remember all the other comments that relate to your response.
Richard: I disagree because God invented cut and paste. Any and everything required can be inserted again and again.
But yes, actually designing a non-STUPID system is preferable.
And the FACT that all these so-called geniuses who are in charge of saving us can’t do what is bone-simple…
Pray or laugh
LOL
WSJ opinion piece: “Nuclear Power Is the Best Climate-Change Solution by Far
Its total greenhouse-gas emissions are 1/700th those of coal—and one-fourth those of solar.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-power-best-climate-change-solution-by-far-global-warming-emissions-cop26-11636056581
Archive of full article: https://archive.md/H01ne
Hr E.Poet
I find on the net that nuclear power is another hot potatoe in Edinburg.
Comment:
There are many there, who now again see anothe chanse to fish for themselves in stirred water. as long as it lasts.
I would not sell nuclear power the way you do it.
I would try and discuss solved andv unsolved questions relating to it, and as for todays litium- cobold- batteries there are problems enough. Not to speak of the popular CCS and “blue or green” hydrogen.
The Australians, we have at least one of them here, seem very heavy loaded with that great barrier reef and with their very proud and national coal resources. and plans.
Sorry, Glasgow.
France is on it like White on rice:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/macron-confirms-france-build-new-nuclear-reactors-first-time-decades
Greta Thunberg — Classic Greta … uncompromising, informed, perceptive & always one step ahead of the latest ruse. – Kevin Anderson
NOV 6 9 mins
Climate activist @GretaThunberg addresses crowd at #FridaysForFuture protest during #COP26
“It’s not a secret that COP26 is a failure. It should be obvious that we cannot solve a crisis by the same methods that got us into in the first place. And more and more people are starting to realise this. Many are asking what it’ll take for people in power to wake up. But let’s be clear – they’re already awake. They know exactly what they’re doing. They know exactly what priceless values they’re sacrificing to maintain business as usual.”
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1456659358230720512
Here’s the latest episode of #Monbiosis on http://cop26.tv, about the need for scientists to step up and speak out about climate breakdown. With the great, outspoken scientists @JKSteinberger , @DrEmilyGrossman
and @ThierryAaron
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1456714321963241472
Brilliant interview – @KevinClimate tells it as is about the grandstanding politicians at COP26. Civil society is starting to understand that until these politicians actually call a halt to business as usual, all the green talk is just so much hot air.
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1456288066923081729
Then Mike Mann has this to say:
The 2nd greatest trick the fossil fuel industry ever pulled was getting climate activists to declare global climate negotiations in Glasgow a failure before they’ve really even begun.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1456623194098606098
and
#COP26 has barely started. Activists declaring it dead on arrival makes fossil fuel executives jump for joy. They want to undermine and discredit the very notion of multilateral climate action.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1456624718765756417
Then Mann said: “Beware of the slippery slope from cynicism to nihilism. It leads to the same place as denialism: inaction. Which is precisely what polluters and those doing their bidding want.”
So now even Great Thunberg is an agent for denialism, inaction and is doing the bidding of fossil fuel executives?
Apparently not, as Mann, denies this. Now he’s fighting a rear guard action trying to defend what he had said, post Greta’s speech calling COP26 a “Failure” on Friday.
Prof Michael E. Mann on Nov 5
You know what. Pissing on #COP26 doesn’t help anyone. Or the planet.
The next day defending himself with: :
By the way, I was not talking about Greta (I have always lauded her for speaking truth to power). I was talking about some of my own professional colleagues and those who have piled onto their messaging.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1456741520300810245
Name names, Mike, name your professional colleagues. Don’t be coy, take a stand, if you have one. :)
IMO Mike Mann putting his faith in COP26 doesn’t help anyone or the planet either. Because it is an abject failure.
RC. I agree with a lot of your cynicism about COP. I don’t even follow the thing in any detail because there’s so much hot air (excuse the dreadful pun) and its become so predictable.
Lots of talk, pledges, but a distinct lack of follow up and without the detailed and specific meaningful legislation that would create change. Boris Johnson is a master of rousing rhetoric ,while doing nothing.
I find it hard to know whether to scream at the COP people, or try to be glass half full and encouraging and appreciative. Maybe it needs both. Carrot and stick approach.
I do think Mann ahs a point. Hes right about some things about COP, wrong about some things. The trouble is it becomes hard to untangle all this. It becomes a mess.
That said, the people put those leaders in power.. If people wanted real change they would vote for Green Parties. But mostly they don’t.
No, he doesn’t. The more Mann talks about anything not directly about climate science, the more absurd his comments become. I honestly think he’s reading his own press a bit too much. That’s the type of intellectual dynamic he’s exhibiting.
nigel I think you’re quite right there. COP is soaking up too much of my attention. I’m being way too hard on Mann, he’s done so much good and this little issue doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. And besides, I wasn’t expecting much or any good surprises from COP anyway. The writing was already on the wall long before it began. I need to let it go and forget it. No point complaining now.
This morning #ScientistRebellion occupied King George V Bridge in Glasgow! #COP26 has failed, and the people must go into civil resistance! As scientists we feel that we must support those struggling to have their voices heard.
If you want to know more about our background and why academic researchers feel the need to occupy a bridge at #COP26 and spend Saturday evening in custody, read our personal statements.
For example Mila’s: “My name is Mila. I am half Scottish, half Mauritian and part of XR Oxford.”
https://twitter.com/ScientistRebel1/status/1457052327484010497
Attention to the FAKE NEWS out of the IEA and Climate Resource: it is hyperbole fiction about the NDC “claims” out of COP26.
Dear folks, the last I looked, computers still work the same they always have, meaning- GIGO … Garbage in = Garbage Out, right? Personally I prefer the more down to earth phrasing of Shit In = Shit Out! It is what it is! :)
IOW This:
BIG NEWS #COP26 climate pledges mean Glasgow is getting closer to Paris!
New @IEA analysis shows that fully achieving all net zero pledges to date & the Global Methane Pledge by those who signed it would limit global warming to 1.8 C … A big step forward , …..
So, this is very misleading and bad communication. Let me explain this in a Thread : (1/6)
Without corresponding near-term targets and, most importantly, policies to achieve them, long-term pledges are basically worthless ……………………….. They are pretending there is progress being made. ………….. while green-washed business as usual is allowed to continue.
SEE Thread here- https://twitter.com/LasseClimate/status/1456235230155743238
Actually they are not basically worthless, they are nothing but worthless! Please, don’t be naive or foolish.
Now a special couple of words about Mike Mann, Zeke Hausfather, Climate Resource, the IEA and everyone else of their ilk selling this overinflated unscientific Koolaid to the masses as if it means something worth knowing.
OPTIMISM BIAS:
Ninety-four percent of professors believe they are better at their jobs than the average professor, etc.
It’s hard to overstate the penetrance of optimism bias on the human condition. Seriously, most Humans don’t think their own deaths will negatively affect their social lives. Now go back and read that again
REF https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/86/
Reality Check could also suggest it’s time to get real. To stop being so easily misled, conned, fooled and manipulated by supposedly “smarter people than you” ….. Dunning-Kruger is actually a two-way street. Think!
I have long hoped for and called for more climate scientists speaking out much more about the urgency of climate change impacts and the need for deep global mitigation actions. Overlooking too often that when it comes to policy, politics, media communications, and activism climate scientists are no better skilled or qualified than anyone else.
Because when M Mann says here: “….but there is already some very real progress” using analytics company Climate Resource as his “evidence” in support
see https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1457086216042598402
Malte Meinshausen, an author of the new projection, says are “not cause for unbounded optimism,”. Meinshausen worries countries won’t follow through.
https://science.org/content/article/climate-summit-produces-new-pledges-could-keep-global-warming-below-2c-target
It’s fake news iow. The COP26 NDCs do not prove “very real progress” at all. It is selling people up the garden path on political promises based on nothing. Pledges are not REAL things. Mystical Futures of Carbon-sequestration and NETs success maybe decades into the future are not REAL things. I think the IEA and Climate Resource and many others are wasting their time and ours!
Much better to deal in real tangible facts and real valid observations. Such as first analyzing each countries NDCs to see if they are actually based on anything real or on bullshit. Then calling them out on it by telling the whole world the Truth about the Facts involved.
I know, I know. Makes no difference at all to anyone by pointing it out. I know. Nothing is going to change anytime soon if ever.
Great to see climate scientists talking about collapse this century.
About damned time!
COP Lack of Progress Is ‘Frightening,’ Says Poor Nations Bloc
I will repeat: It CAN’T be top-down. Literally impossible.
When enough people “get” this, change will speed up. This COP may be that tipping point.
The Government™ has made an ad about Net Zero by 2050, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative.
https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1457223112743739393
Honest Government Ad | Net Zero by 2050 (feat. Greta)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FqXTCvDLeo
May as well laugh about it.
EP,
Yes, the torque curve is fixed, but its magnitude is variable. Moving either the stator or the rotor to the side will decrease torque at all angles. Perhaps not perfectly, but awfully close.
Another interesting choice would be to leave out the throttle and instead tune the device to match the engine while cruising. This would allow for that sweet throbbing an ICE can give while accelerating. This takes finesse because low torque, perhaps all the way down to idle, needs consideration, too. Two TTTDs, a tiny always-on and a big one clutched in later? But that sounds about as complex as the throttle and still results in a fair amount of mismatch. Might as well throttle.
Yes, windage, I hadn’t considered that. Flywheels are round. A TTTD’s rotor is not. Fortunately the design is so simple that a case and pulling a bit of vacuum would be easy. In fact, a case is kinda required to keep things aligned because magnets love to twist. This would also allow for oiling the stator/rotor joint, which could allow for tighter tolerance. It feels like minimizing the gap between the stator and rotor is important.
And thanks. This conversation means a lot to me.
PS: Book3 goes grandly. This year’s Halloween trick blew me away. I still don’t understand how it managed to materialize.
I’ve pondered torque mismatches about as obsessively as I do everything else (especially since the engine has two crankshafts), and it seems that Job1 is to minimize or eliminate negative torque at any angle and engine throttle setting.
Serious question: is ‘eliminating’ way better than ‘eliminating at almost all angles’?
Everything else is gravy. So as long as the engine turns off instead of idling, a single TTTD without a throttle might be OK. The throttle requires hydraulics and imparts a constant force on the structure, so the case needs some beef, so there is incentive to eliminate the throttle.
Or, just go for significantly better than a flywheel by using a small non-variable TTTD. If some negative torque angles is no big deal then cheap and good enough to make two-bangers acceptable (while retaining lots of acceleration throb) might snare a lot of market share.
Guys, which of all the forementioned configurations (or something else) sounds most promising for any particular application and use?
“What the fuck is worth saving of the current system?”
I coulda sworn there was more than Killian and some crickets here.
You all have an opportunity, here. Speak your minds
I wish to make a major announcement – My New Year’s Resolution was to lose 10 Kg of excess weight by the end of Dec 2022 next year. Today I am upping that goal to losing 15 Kg by the end of Dec 2022.
To achieve this I am implementing a new healthy living diet strategy which includes completely cut out my consumption of ice-cream, chocolate, french fries, cake and biscuits/cookies.
Plus I am going to start walking 10 klms per day as soon as I possibly can do that. And I have every intention to join a local Gym and start exercising there 3 hours per week every week.
Obviously you good people will immediately recognize this real progress in my weight loss regime, going from a weight loss of only 10kg now ramping it up 50% to 15kg. .
And anyone who dares mention since Jan 2021 that I have put on an extra 6 Kg of weight to now is clearly a weight loss Denier and a nefarious shill for the fast food, snack food, and soft drink industries,
My weight loss program has not been a failure!!! My ambitious regime has barely started. Weight-Watchers Activists declaring it dead on arrival makes snack food and ice-cream executives jump for joy. They want to undermine and discredit the very notion of achieving individual healthy living action.
It’s the 2nd greatest trick the Fast Food industry ever pulled was getting health activists to declare recommitting to increased weight loss goals a failure before they’ve really even begun.
I have scientifically crunched the numbers using an advanced Weight Loss Calculation App on my smart phone, and they indisputably prove that if I do what I pledge to do, and achieve my goals then I will lose 15 kg by the end of 2022 and the world will be a much better place in which to live.
This is all very Scientific. Merely pointing out the bleeding obvious. You should try it yourself one day. Best of luck with your own weight loss program!!!
Excellent.
Please share this great news of my stunning success at making real progress in my weight loss program with the world via social media, tell your family, friends and Church, And let your co-workers at University and the Science Lab know too! They’ll be so grateful to you and to me!!! They might even follow me on Twitter, TikTok and Instagram and make me a global celebrity too.
It’s such Positive News it will surely encourage others in the same boat. I mean, you know this makes logical scientific sense.
Reality Check,
Yeah, but in any game the folks who are winning will fight tooth and nail to keep the rules, procedures, and even, say, etiquette from changing one bit. Ask Joe McMansion.
We have to do this ourselves.
I am as confident in the engine as the TTTD. The other systems come close. And my luck still holds regarding the book.
There is a very real probability that we’re going to acquire some serious leverage.
So yeah. MrKIA, Vic, et al, you can fight your fight anywhere. But you can only help build systems that might actually ‘fly’ here in Forced Responses. Play nice on Real Climate. Deal?
HUH?
By far the best climate change video I’ve ever seen:
https://youtu.be/1FqXTCvDLeo
Here is an interesting little known but comprehensive (?) open access paper by a little known/spoken about group the World Energy Council published in 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Energy_Council
Global energy perspectives to 2060 – WEC’s World Energy Scenarios 2019
T. Kober et al
As explorative scenarios, the World Energy Scenarios build on a comprehensive expert dialogue and model-based quantification.
Although energy technology innovation is an essential facilitator to achieve deep CO2 emission reductions, technology innovation alone is insufficient to meet the Paris goals.
As none of the World Energy Scenarios meets the long-term Paris goal, it remains imperative that energy businesses and policy need to intensify their climate change mitigation.
…. it also compares (scenarios) with the future paths presented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) in the fall of 2019
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X20300766
In 2060 this *hypothetical analysis* for Global primary energy consumption is looking like:
Global primary energy consumption in 2060 exceeds the 2015 level by about a third more (slower growth).
Global power generation more than doubles from 24 TWh in 2015 to above 55 TWh in 2060.(faster growth)
Primary energy consumption shares (Only a rough simplified guide from graphs data)
Hydro 3-4%
Renewables 12-15%
Biomass 14-17% (small CCS share is assumed)
Nuclear 8-13%
Gas 29-33% ( >half CCS share is assumed)
Oil 16-21%
Coal 5-9%
Therefore years from now, they are estimating fossil fuels are still accounting for over 50% of total energy demand in 2060. Today FF is about an 80% share of total energy demand.
I can’t see how anything newly announced at COP26 would change much in this analysis. Especially given none of those announcements are underpinned with serious detailed implementation policies or backed by Laws. They certainly are not guaranteed to be implemented as “promoted” last week.
EP,
Your note on windage prodded me to delve a bit deeper into rotor shape. So now the rotor is bi-material: the functional rotor and then lightweight nonmagnetic fill that completes the circle inside the stator.
This helps with the “pointy end might crash into the rotor” thing while largely eliminating windage.
Speaking of functional rotor shape, “raindrop” was the default, but a rounded Y with the same pointy-and-close north end and two rounded south ends that arc around smells right to me. This really accentuates the side-to-side cancellation of the twin south poles’ forces.
Thoughts? Anyone? (I’m keeping track of assistance. For example, should the TTTD fly EP just earned $1000 with his windage prodding. Thanks, guy.)
Typo: should be “pointy end of the rotor crashing into the stator”
the UN said the country Madagascar was facing the world’s first climate change famine…
there is a psychological distance to the problem …
there was a dissonance between the behaviour of Europeans and Americans and the consequences for people in the global south…..
People from the deep south of Madagascar are victims of something that they didn’t do…
cheap flights in the global north should be banned ….
shocked to see people dining outside restaurants that they are heating [with gas]. This should be illegal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/06/madagascar-paying-price-for-cheap-european-flights-says-climate-minister
“There are many things that should be changed in the way of life of many European or North American or Chinese people. You have to make a choice or have to make a sacrifice.”
Comment: Ha! In your dreams Raharinirina, they do not “have to” do anything. You do not get to tell others how to live. European, North American & Chinese people get to tell you how to live, and die.
Do get with the UNFCCC program deary! :)
Such sad satire.
“#NetZero greenwashes business-as-usual and makes it look like countries are meeting their #climate commitments. A lot of people are surprised when they unpick what is behind Net Zero and realise there is not a lot behind it at all.” -@KevinClimate
It’s a matter of physics. All these pledges fall short of what needs to be done.
The high emitters, the great and the good… ‘this group encapsulates all that is wrong in our response to climate change. We’re unprepared to recognise that this is an issue of consumption … the High Emitters are the obstacle to meaningful change.’ — @kevinclimate
“Unpick the top down view of leadership and replace it with something much messier and more collaborative. The voices outside the Blue Zone need to be heard inside it.”
@KevinClimate
@Alice_C_Hill , Sir David King, @KevinClimate , Pooran Desai and Jakapita Kandanga. ‘Leadership is a partnership btwn bottom up & top down. Hope is in the communities outside the blue zone’
@OnePlanet x ATP ‘Adapt, now!’ Panel discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA9_dbJykio&t=1812s
I don’t think we’re going to bend the emissions curve, unless we hit another pandemic.
leadership has not been demonstrated top down at COP26, it’s not been demonstrated by and large by the top academics, it;s been completely abrogated by the journalists …
civil society and youth movements their demands are much more inline with what the science is calling for than (most of) the climate scientists themselves are prepared to say in relation to their own work..
Not all scientists but many scientists are mitigation deniers …. in terms of what we need to do about it.
COP26 is bound to fail … because of two words … Net Zero …
when we use that expression now then anything fits into it…. Saudi Arabia net zero, BP net zero, Shell net zero, now any country aims into net zero …
It has undermined the need for immediate and pressing action ; through a whole set of things that net zero captures…
and now it is a requirement for all us academics to pour over the spread sheets which underpin the net zero statements made by countries …. if those spreadsheets exist at all.
So India says net zero in 2070. There is nothing behind that. It’s pulled out of the air at the last minute. (same for Australia .. there is nothing behind it’s net zero pledges.)
China’s pledges net zero by 2060, and peaking emissions before 2030, that virtually blows 1.5C out of the water by itself.
The USA their emissions remain really high for years to come, because it is not prepared to tackle the real challenges ….
———————————–
comment: and on and on it goes. Some folks are saying “real progress has been made” at COP26 already so it’s not a failure, and it;s bad to say so; and yet others including Nick Breeze and KA in this video and of course the poor nations bloc, the island nations, the African nations, and many many more say COP26 is a failure.
I had no idea KA was suggesting the same thing as I have that these NDCs “the net zero statements made by countries” must be checked by academics/scientists! Great to see I am not the only one pointing out this really obvious rational requirement. That old chestnut of trust but verify, yeah?
Real progress being made or a Failure? The writing is on the wall already.
First draft of Glasgow decision text contains zero mention of phasing out fossil fuels – against expert guidance.
This glaring omission comes despite the fact that experts at the International Energy Agency have made clear there can be no new fossil fuel projects, beyond those already underway this year, …. the UN Secretary General has said that the latest climate science must sound a “death knell for fossil fuels” and that countries should end all new fossil fuel exploration and production.
Campaigners are calling on negotiators to stand up to fossil fuel producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Australia, which have blocked fossil fuel reduction even being mentioned in the last 25 COP texts and are crippling ambition in the negotiations at Glasgow.
countries have so far announced a string of voluntary agreements that contain vague language and big loopholes.
Getting there means: no cheating, no loopholes, no offset scams, and no greenwash.
Governments must isolate Saudi Arabia, Australia and Brazil, a loophole champion, and climate vulnerable countries must be supported.
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/50582/glasgow-first-draft-text-revealed-exceptionally-weak-with-no-mention-of-fossil-fuel-phaseout-greenpeace-response/
DRAFTING TEXT
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Non-paper%20on%20possible%20elements.pdf
Many see greenpeace as an extreme radical org and obviously too biased. Few will care one bit what they think or say. Actually, few will care what the COP26 Glasgow final text will say either.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1457814404708323335
and
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1457815783195783175
Are you a friend of Mike Mann’s? Could you help him out, because his extreme Optimism Bias and Cognitive Dissonance appears to be dragging him headlong into a dire state of self-delusions. Including a kind of self-referential awe and excessive admiration as a “know-it-all expert” far beyond his field of training.
Greta Thunberg Nov 7
Unless we achieve immediate, drastic, unprecedented, annual emission cuts at the source then that means we’re failing when it comes to this climate crisis. “Small steps in the right direction”, “making some progress” or “winning slowly” equals loosing [ = Failure! ]
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1457294636423290880
The 2020’s was the decade that emissions were meant to drop ~50% to be on a 1.5°C pathway (according to IPCC SR15). Well despite all the promises at #COP26, fossil CO₂ emissions are basically back to 2019 levels.
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1457627645856858112
“Behind every murder that happens in the Amazon, every killing that happens to a land defender, there is (a bank and) a company behind that, there is a government behind that, there is a name behind that.”
https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1457705569951825923
The legitimacy of the Cop26 climate summit has been called into question by civil society participants who say restrictions on access to negotiations are unprecedented and unjust.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/08/cop26-legitimacy-questioned-as-groups-excluded-from-crucial-talks?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Mailibu Beach News Live:
The Life Saver Captain reiterated their belief that they are making great progress in making life saving rescues despite another child drowning yesterday after an on duty life guard failed to reach him in time. Mr Mann-Up said, “Last week that same guard failed when they only got within 75 yards before the woman drowned in the sea.” However yesterday, in the failed rescue attempt, the same life guard managed to “swim within 22 yards before that child drowned. So this shows that “some real progress” has been made.” he said.
Meanwhile back at COP26 via Zoom … the Minister from Tuvalu in the South Pacific delivered his speech to #COP26 from the sea to illustrate the crisis they face with rising sea levels.
https://twitter.com/sophiehowe/status/1457050679994900485
Mrkia: You are jealous of wealth inherited by others? Why?
What is wrong with inheriting,
Richard: Dude, my family is rich.
I still haven’t heard what is wrong with inheriting assets that your parents or other relatives worked for. Can you explain? Whether you or your family are rich or not makes no difference.
I’m guessing that the objection is either due to jealousy that others might get the assets with little or no effort; OR it is the thinking of a communist that wants to confiscate it for taxes so they can distribute the assets to others who would then get the assets with no effort.
But maybe it is something else?
Unregulated inheritance increases economic inequality, which is bad for society. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality
OK, that’s what I thought. So y’all think the benefits of everyone’s work should be divided equally among all, so we all have the same amount of wealth, right? That’s called communism and it doesn’t work.
Concentrating power into fewer and fewer hands rarely works out for long either if you have any knowledge of history.
Or it might be Christianity, why don’t you ask Jesus? You know the guy what fed the masses with the fishies and the loaves of bread? You might also consider his answer to the question “when Lord did we not feed you” I was hingry and you fed me not, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I was naked……
You spread an ideology of greed, and expect others to thank you for it, how sad!
It can work on a small scale at least. I am one of a group of volunteers who works on a community allotment. Together we work the land and maintain it (e.g. keep weeds under control), and during the growing season we harvest crops and share them out. On occasions there is a glut of one or more crops, I take the excess and gave it out to people at my local bridge club (or my other friends and family). There is no-one in charge and all plans throughout the year are discussed at periodic meetings and through electronic communication. This works very well as we are all like minded and get on with each other, and we work in harmony. Isn’t that how an ideal communist or community scheme should work?
The problem with communism on a country scale is that you end up incorporating those with less desirable personality traits i.e. the greedy, lazy and selfish. If you have the population working together to generate wealth (however you want to define that), which is then redistributed fairly, someone has to do the dishing out or you let people take a share what they think is fair and reasoable. There will always be those who take a bigger slice of the pie (greed), and there will always be those who try to shirk out of the work as much as possible whilst taking an equal share of the wealth as those who have worked much harder (laziness). Communism on a country scale is a brilliant system if it weren’t for the worst of human personality traits.
Capitalism suffers the same problem with greed, in that the people at the bottom do the work to make the fat cats at the top even fatter. The Juice Media sums it up in a comical manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwQkQxvWilk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yzeOqV7eKI
Mrkia, no. A thousand times no. The solution is blatantly obvious:
You want to enter Public Service? Agree to a middle class life for life and agree that no incumbent can run for any office. You serve your six years, then you can run for office as a non-officeholder over the next two (or four or six or eight should you lose).
What do you say, Mrkia?
Liar. I bet my $1000 to your $0 that you can’t find a regular’s post that says what you accuse us of.
The dude was talking about every person starting from an equal footing, whether their were spawned by a rich womb and sperm or a poor set.
A free $1000 I offer. No risk to you.
Find ONE post by a reg that supports your slander.
One.
I don’t lie and I pay up.