Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Not to belabor a point Edgar, but wood gathering for 1.7 billion does incur forest chopping. Yes it is renewable, but if one is focus not only on flora, but fauna, giving this 1.7 billion a good substitute seems to be the way to go. My own personal favorite is wind, sun, and molten salt, but I am neither an engineer nor, an economist, to see how well my proposal might work. As for us, I would lead by example. However, please note, I have no influence, no pull, no money. Therefore, the world will continue onward despite what I state. My status is that of a particle on a particle. My political influence is confined to the planck width. Cheers, Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 7:16 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, If only dead wood is cut for firewood and cooking you are just recycling a sustainable resource. Unlike coal and oil, firewood quickly and sustainably regenerates. And basically burning dead wood is just speeding up the natural process of the decay of dead trees. So burning dead wood for heat is NOT the problem. It's a completely sustainable process. The problem is way too many people so they are forced to cut LIVE wood and denude forests. So again it's a human overpopulation problem, not a firewood problem... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last le ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
1. Germany, when they shut down their nukes in 2011, restarted the old coal burners using US coal, and dirtied their skies. 2. The German government has just began firing up their uranium burners. 3. 25% renewables sound like a great start, but this focuses attention on the remaining 75% Here's a new article just out from New Scientist speaking to AGW. New Scientist is a solid supporter of AGW finding and research. Read it carefully, because its interesting and informs our arguments on the forum. No wonder we are fighting. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25272-less-gloopy-oceans-will-slow-climate-change.html#.UzBIaaPD-dI -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 9:44 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; True for media. But non-100% consensus on trends and models, even given disagreements about particularities, scopes, use of models etc. point to simple commonsense notion of not polluting the sphere you live on. - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; Behavior and market dominantly presuppose however: absolute certainty that it doesn't matter. That this sparks hyperbolic reaction in non rigorous contexts is natural. - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance; - retroactive cherry picking of models; - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags. You can only run with best accessible models and levels, so anybody can be wrong. Given the vast overlap of so many systems and models interacting, producing shocks and spikes, I'll bet you can only do worse by accelerating all kinds of imbalance, pollutions, pacific garbage islands and all the side effects of multiplying, accelerating cherry picked natural/chemical processes for the whims of the free individual and his market. Ok, I'm not a climate scientist, but I still bet the above is stupid. :-) I do not believe in conspiracy either... I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to implement total surveillance. Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical fluctuation on the level of individual decades, Well now, it would be pretty difficult for that prediction to be proven wrong. It reminds me of the famous and vacuous quote from J P Morgan regarding stocks: I Believe the Market Is going to fluctuate. Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? I don't think there's any widespread agreement among scientists that this would halt all the problems associated with high CO2 levels or on what the side effects would be So because there is uncertainty about what the effects of Myhrvold's plan would be we shouldn't even consider it (even though it's effects could be reversed just by turning a valve on a hose) but we should consider putting the world on a energy starvation diet because we are certain that the computer models predictions about what things will be like a century from now are correct and are certain that the changes would be so bad for humanity we should take DRASTIC action right now. Also, if you commit to this plan then you're less likely to make any attempt to reduce CO2 That's it! The real problem with Myhrvold's plan is it involves no suffering, even the wicked over-consumer is not punished for his extravagant ways. It reminds me of preachers who opposed giving painkillers to women in childbirth because it was against God's plan. From Genesis 3:15 To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Getting more into sci-fi territory, my hope is that within a few decades robotics may have advanced to the point where industrial robots can manufacture and assemble almost any mass-produced good without any significant human labor needed, given the necessary raw materials and energy--this would include additional industrial robots, so in this case you'd have self-replicating machines so you could start with a small number and soon have as large a number as you had land zoned to put them on. If this is achieved I expect it would drastically reduce the cost of almost all manufactured goods (probably down to not much more than the cost of the raw materials and energy they were made from), to the the point where rapid construction of vast number of solar panels or carbon capture devices could be far less costly than it would be today. Yes, and the robots would likely be very very small and very very numerous. And unlike some sci-fi ideas like faster than light spaceships or time travel there is nothing in advanced nanotechnology and molecular scale self reproducing robots that would violate the known laws of physics. New science is not needed to accomplish it, just better technology. there's no way of knowing how long it would take to reach such a point, I certainly don't know when it will happen, all I can say is I'd be astonished if it happened in the next 10 years and equally astonished if it didn't happen in the next 100. I don't think this hope should be an excuse for taking no action today Why not? I think it's a damn good excuse. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 25 March 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical fluctuation on the level of individual decades, Well now, it would be pretty difficult for that prediction to be proven wrong. It reminds me of the famous and vacuous quote from J P Morgan regarding stocks: I Believe the Market Is going to fluctuate. I suppose if the climate went into (say) a runaway feedback and entered an ice age (or became far hotter so the Earth was perpetually cloud covered and racke with storms), either of those would prove it wrong, because neither of those could be called a statistical fluctuation... What is Myhrvold's plan? Oh wait I have google :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold#Advocacy Hmm. Does it HAVE to be sulphur dioxide? (Maybe something that doesn't turn into acid rain would work just as well?) An evaluation of the potential negative impact of releasing large amounts of sulfur dioxide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere, which, when combined with water moisture ( H2O ) can produce sulfuric acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid ( H2SO4 ) is needed. Significant environmental efforts aimed at scrubbing SO2 from automobile exhausts and coal-burning power plants over since the 1970s have been largely successful in eliminating acid rainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rainas an environmental pollutant. Introducing large amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere could have very detrimental effects. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance; - retroactive cherry picking of models; - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags. I do not believe in conspiracy either... I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to implement total surveillance. Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. and all the comments about the all or nothing are complete BS... I don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable source of energy... I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion. I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal), being destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power. Meanwhile, more and more people are falling below the poverty line while not even the middle class can afford to remain warm in winter (energy is too expensive because 80% of the energy bill subsidises the wind mills). I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and having a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just that beliefs... not facts. The green parties in europe certainly don't advocate such policies... and certainly not in my country (belgium) can't talk much for other countries, but they seems to be more or less the same views... No one is advocating to transition tomorrow (as in tomorrow tomorrow) to a full solar power (or other) and shut down all nuclear power plants... Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher. In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know. they are even people (green or not) considering the LFTR reactor we were talking about... climate and policies arount the mitigation of the global warming are not binary... either we do everything or nothing even if we were really doomed, that's not a reason not to try to mitigate things... even slowly, slow extinction seems better than dying
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher. In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know. Well that is just mad. These are not Greens I would support. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance; - retroactive cherry picking of models; - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags. I agree with this. I also agree that, as long as we are carbon made, and live on a planet, that we have to be utterly cautious in handling our environment. I fear more pollution than climate change, but those can be related. I do not believe in conspiracy either... I don't understand this position. Nor do I. Since prohibition (of alcohol, and then cannabis), it is clear for me that democracy is not immune against propaganda. Biased by my quality of classical logician, perhaps, if someone lie once, I stop trusting him. There are too much evidence of systematic lies, notably in the food and drug domain. Then in 2009 I heard about the NDAA bill, which was said to be in preparation. I completely dismissed this as conspiracy theories, like for 9/11. But the 31 december 2011, Obama signed it, and his administration refused to add the commas asked to clarify it, and I change my mind: the war on terror now seems to me based on a fear exploitation to make anti-constitutional and anti-democratic possible moves. In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to implement total surveillance. Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Absolutely. There is a general mocking of the very notion of conspiracy, and that is a strong evidence of real conspiracy. When an idea is mocked, instead of attempted to be refuted, you can suspect some lies are there. I have today more evidence that 9/11 was planned in advance by the US, than for a terrorist acts by enemy of America. In fact, the evidences have become overwhelming. Just look at all investigation crash: the one on the 9/11 planes does not ring like any other one. The thinness of the NIST reports, like not mentioning the building seven crashing, and the hardness to get any more information, makes me suspecting that fear of terrorism is exploited in a very similar way than the fear of drugs. Now, I do find some consensus on climate change suspect, but this does not mean that there is no climate change, but that some
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. Only if by discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective you mean cast vague aspersions at various scientific claims (use of climate models to predict future climates, analyze prehistoric glaciation thresholds, predict how climate would respond to specific GHG reduction scenarios like RCP4.5) and technical projections (like the specific plan to get 69% of electricity from solar by 2050), based on whatever verbal argument appeals to him and without any expert opinion of his own to cite in support of this skepticism. But the problem is that this all sounds like politics disguised as science. Here I understand why John makes fun of the acronyms. Why care about any of this? Create a truly efficient renewable energy source or sources, demand the right to use them without being regulatory red tape and the problem is solved. No? He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. I haven't talked about such political issues at all, Ok, I apologize for my sweeping generalisation. although John seems to have plenty of enthusiasm for politically-based caricature of what environmentalists believe, based on cherry-picking the worst plans he can find trawling various websites rather than attempting any fair-minded survey of how many groups and prominent climate activists would agree with those plans. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical fluctuation on the level of individual decades, so this amount of uncertainty is already incorporated into the range of predictions made by an ensemble of such models. And current temperatures do still fall within the range predicted by models from earlier dates like 2000 and 1988. I addressed both the issue of how well models have done in their predictions and the issue of the 15-year warming pause (which climate scientists seem to think they understand the causes of fairly well) in this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg50488.html The page at http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/(from the series of responses to common climate skeptic arguments at http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ ) also has a basic summary of some of the evidence supporting the reliability of climate models. More generally, I would repeat the general point that I think the only Bayesian prior when looking at scientific questions is assign a high a priori likelihood that experts in the field are correct when they broadly agree on the answer to some question, only revise that in light of changes in expert opinion, obvious failed predictions that don't line up with their theories, or acquiring enough expertise in the subject yourself to have an informed opinion on the detailed evidence. I adopted this prior for a long time, and still do to a large degree. The problem is that people notice the prior, and then game theory kicks in. So if the experts in climate science are in broad agreement about climate models being reliable in the sense that actual temperatures will very likely fall within the *range* that they predict over many different runs (a statistical prediction rather than an exact one obviously), given the right emissions scenario, my default is to trust their judgment. To ignore expert opinion and think that you, as a layman, are just as qualified to draw conclusions about the reliability of models in *any* area of natural science seems to me to be a basically anti-scientific, anti-intellectual attitude. Climate science
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher. In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know. Well that is just mad. These are not Greens I would support. To be fair, there is another environmentalist group there that is much more sensible (and less politicised). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance; - retroactive cherry picking of models; - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags. Here is what I consider to be the most serious red flag: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg I have proposed that AGW may trigger global cooling on several lists based on the Vostok ice core data without any response except on the Climate Change Forum where a climatologist presented the above link to a comparison of that data (and some supporting climate data) to the solar isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles and claimed that those cycles explained the cusp-like Vostok data. I would like youall to look at the comparison on that link and tell me if you think the cycles explain the data. I of course do not think so. Yet the climatologists, almost all as far as I can tell, have been claiming for years that ice age data is explained by Milankovitch cycles. So I can only presume that I am missing something. Richard I do not believe in conspiracy either... I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to implement total surveillance. Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. and all the comments about the all or nothing are complete BS... I don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable source of energy... I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion. I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal), being destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power. Meanwhile, more and more people are falling below the poverty line while not even the middle class can afford to remain warm in winter (energy is too expensive because 80% of the energy bill subsidises the wind mills). I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and having a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just that beliefs... not facts. The green parties in europe certainly don't advocate such policies... and certainly not in my country (belgium) can't talk much for other countries, but they seems to be more or less the same views... No
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in atm CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global temp. The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years more or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not a good explanation after all. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now. “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained, dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon dioxide–sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean’s food chain. Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Edgar, What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition from extreme warming to cooling? I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility based on plate movement. But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream known to result from arctic warming. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in atm CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global temp. The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years more or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not a good explanation after all. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven't had strong evidence--until now. This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field, says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn't directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past--information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained, dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon dioxide-sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean's food chain. Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice ages.. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition from extreme warming to cooling? I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility based on plate movement. But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream known to result from arctic warming. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Edgar, I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as comparable data over a longer time. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg Please do so and tell me if you think the cycles support the conclusion that the ice ages were caused by such cycles. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice ages.. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition from extreme warming to cooling? I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility based on plate movement. But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream known to result from arctic warming. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Veering for a moment back to public policy, this is an example on why I prefer tech solutions as opposed to public policy, which is really control. This scientist aim to reduce stunting via plant breeding. http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/make-plants-more-nutritious-to-prevent.html -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 9:34 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Edgar, I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as comparable data over a longer time. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg Please do so and tell me if you think the cycles support the conclusion that the ice ages were caused by such cycles. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice ages.. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition from extreme warming to cooling? I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility based on plate movement. But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream known to result from arctic warming. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Here is a much better graph showing the correlation. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as comparable data over a longer time. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,'Helvetica Neue#3 ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536 Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now. “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Edgar, It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and we can expect global cooling to occur again. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535-536 Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven't had strong evidence--until now. This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field, says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn't directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past--information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Failed is a relative term Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the probability that the models are correct -- especially given the potentially horrible side-effects of the cure. and decade is too short to constitute climate. Yes, what constitutes climate appears to be: larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what can be observed in the Vostok data. So what exactly do you mean by failed. I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer would accept these models for publication at this point: http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/ My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so accurate about others. Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict, taking into account the amount of models that have been proposed? They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient. Have they failed if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement measures that could cause immense human suffering. It's not so abnormal that people get nervous when there is no tangible evidence that the models are even correct. As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully. As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation. Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us. The technique has been to use separate models just of cloud formation and dissipation to determine which GCM state would produce or dissipate clouds. Those models are being improved by including the effects of aerosols and freezing/thawing. Another source of uncertainty in *weather* is how the extra energy absorbed due to greenhouse gases is distributed. How much goes into warming the ocean vs the atmosphere? Model projections have to make assumptions about human activity too. Right, and all of this is an awful lot of uncertainty when we're dealing with complex non-linear systems. - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? Read Donald McKay's book Without Hot Air, which is free online at withouthotair.org. He has detailed estimates of what it would take for the U.K. to almost eliminate fossil fuel consumption and still retain the same standard of living. It takes a lot of change, but it is less per capita than, for example, the U.S. war in Iraq over a time scale of a few decades. Ok, thanks. Far from me to defend the war on Iraq (by the way). That was another shady business, for sure. What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Another reason to favor something robust as a true answer, (technology) rather then orders from above. If we need an example of the biggest human-created disaster in history, it would be Mao's Great Leap Forward (1958-62) where Mao ordered the peasants to chase birds around and make sure that they didn't eat up the rice and wheat crops. Millions of birds died of exhaustion, being chased around by peasants and all, and with less birds to eat locusts, the crops were devoured by pestilence. 40 million dead, and perhaps almost 60 million depending on who we ask. Technology for energy and water purification is the way to go, in Africa and here, too. Governments can do a lot, including turning individuals into lemmings. Its quicker and more flexible than government edicts too. Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 11:08 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM,Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, thatmeans Regional Climate
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Agreed, Edgar. I remember the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, that destroyed a US air force base (Subic Bay?) and provided the continental US with, a year without a summer. There were a couple of large meteor strikes in the 3rd and 5th century, the later in northern Italy, the previous in the Baltic. One scholar believes that the Viking Gotterdamerung feature of the old, Nordic, faith, evolved from that strike. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 10:19 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536 Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now. “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, The correlation is actually pretty solid, though the discrepancies may indicate some other factors at play also. And what makes you think another ice age isn't coming? it's more or less time for the next one. Or perhaps global warming is what will either stop it or make it less intense, and thus may be the best thing to happen for the preservation of civilization? :-) Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:41:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and we can expect global cooling to occur again. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See a href=http://en.wikipedia.o ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Failed is a relative term Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the probability that the models are correct -- especially given the potentially horrible side-effects of the cure. and decade is too short to constitute climate. Yes, what constitutes climate appears to be: larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what can be observed in the Vostok data. So what exactly do you mean by failed. I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer would accept these models for publication at this point: http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/ My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so accurate about others. Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict, taking into account the amount of models that have been proposed? They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient. That's simply false. Hansen's prediction in 1980 already included error margins. Every IPCC report has included uncertainty ranges. In fact it's very annoying to read because every almost every assertion has likely or probabale or very likely in it. Have they failed if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement measures that could cause immense human suffering. Jim Hansen is asking for power? You're just spreading FUD. NOT implementing any measures is very likely to cause immense human suffering. It's not so abnormal that people get nervous when there is no tangible evidence that the models are even correct. AGW doesn't depend on the accuracy of models. It is observed. It is consistent with the most basic science. Models are only needed to predict exactly how big the problem will be - not whether there's a problem. As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully. As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation. Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us. Show me where climate scientists claimed 100% certainty. The consensus on AGW (97% by count) is that human burning of fossil fuel is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and that is raising the Earth's temperature. Consensus on AGW is not the same as agreeing about every aspect of every model. You're just trying to pick at gaps in knowledge in an
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:45:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript: : On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; Any such claims are heavily contextualized. There is only an effectively 100% consensus through three basic points (a) Co2 is a greenhouse gas (b) Co2 is increasing in the atm (c) the world has warmed. All three are heavily empirical. The past 30 years science has focussed on the question of climate sensitivity and there is no consensus on that matter. On the question of whether the warming is human caused, this is given as a consensus probability. It was about 90% and I think it's about 95% at the moment. - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; There aren't any such claims. There is on the other hand a large body of science now for co2 as a dominant greenhouse gas. As a scientist are you aware of the basics of why this is? - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; There's a case for the existence of an organized campaign to disrupt the ability of science to inform the public, along the same lines as that which existed for 30 years regarding the evidence for links between smoking and cancer. Thinking about that tobacco campaign, would you agree that it existed? Was it a strategy to sow doubt in legitimate or illegitimate ways? If you do acknowledge such a campaign existed, then this should shed some light on basis for regarding one section of scepticism as denialism. - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance This looks pretty uninformed on the nature of the models, in terms of which ways they are the same and which ways different. For example, models are almost the same, save for exploring different theories about the effects of clouds. The reason for doing it that way makes scientific sense as one way to resolve the matter based on which ones work better over time. - retroactive cherry picking of models; Models differ in small ways regarding matters that are regarded as unresolved but likely influential in the question of sensitivity. It isn't clear what your allegations are or their basis in fact. - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Which level of hypothesis? That Co2 is a greenhouse gas? That Co2 is rising? That industrial emissions since 1850 are roughly equivalent to co2 increases in the air and oceans allowing for other known factors? That the world has warmed since 1850? That the warming is tied to increased co2? Are you aware of the structure of
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Failed is a relative term Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the probability that the models are correct -- especially given the potentially horrible side-effects of the cure. and decade is too short to constitute climate. Yes, what constitutes climate appears to be: larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what can be observed in the Vostok data. So what exactly do you mean by failed. I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer would accept these models for publication at this point: http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/ My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so accurate about others. Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict, taking into account the amount of models that have been proposed? They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient. That's simply false. Hansen's prediction in 1980 already included error margins. Every IPCC report has included uncertainty ranges. In fact it's very annoying to read because every almost every assertion has likely or probabale or very likely in it. I have no doubt. I meant that error margins where never part of the public discourse, as far as I can tell. Notice that error margins matter mostly a priori. It's not logical to hold models in the same regard when observations deviate considerably from the prediction, even if still inside some error margin. Have they failed if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement measures that could cause immense human suffering. Jim Hansen is asking for power? You're just spreading FUD. I don't have the power or the influence to spread anything. I'm just stating my opinion in an obscure mailing list. NOT implementing any measures is very likely to cause immense human suffering. It's not so abnormal that people get nervous when there is no tangible evidence that the models are even correct. AGW doesn't depend on the accuracy of models. It is observed. It is consistent with the most basic science. Models are only needed to predict exactly how big the problem will be - not whether there's a problem. As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully. As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation. Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us. Show me where climate scientists claimed 100% certainty. Famously this was claimed in An Inconvenient Truth, a movie that was endorsed by climate scientists to the point of becoming part
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to have an informed opinion. But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes. In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, the major ones are: - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science; True for media. But non-100% consensus on trends and models, even given disagreements about particularities, scopes, use of models etc. point to simple commonsense notion of not polluting the sphere you live on. - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this; Behavior and market dominantly presuppose however: absolute certainty that it doesn't matter. That this sparks hyperbolic reaction in non rigorous contexts is natural. - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like deniers; - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have statistical significance; - retroactive cherry picking of models; - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis; Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags. You can only run with best accessible models and levels, so anybody can be wrong. Given the vast overlap of so many systems and models interacting, producing shocks and spikes, I'll bet you can only do worse by accelerating all kinds of imbalance, pollutions, pacific garbage islands and all the side effects of multiplying, accelerating cherry picked natural/chemical processes for the whims of the free individual and his market. Ok, I'm not a climate scientist, but I still bet the above is stupid. :-) I do not believe in conspiracy either... I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to implement total surveillance. Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Conspiracy is too strong and particular for self-serving idiocy we practice globally in this regard. Sure, dominant idiots/interests will work together; but there is no intricate plan beyond rather obvious self serving dominance and gain I can parse. and all the comments about the all or nothing are complete BS... I don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable source of energy... I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion. I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal), being destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power. Meanwhile, more and more people are falling below the poverty line while not even the middle class can afford to remain warm in winter (energy is too expensive because 80% of the energy bill subsidises the wind mills). Yes, we have to learn to adjust and adapt to this kind of problem and the question is how to
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, If only dead wood is cut for firewood and cooking you are just recycling a sustainable resource. Unlike coal and oil, firewood quickly and sustainably regenerates. And basically burning dead wood is just speeding up the natural process of the decay of dead trees. So burning dead wood for heat is NOT the problem. It's a completely sustainable process. The problem is way too many people so they are forced to cut LIVE wood and denude forests. So again it's a human overpopulation problem, not a firewood problem... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last le ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:59:36 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. div style=col... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
You are picking up the inconsistencies given off by the Greens (red greens) and the ruling class that funds them. If we are doomed as even he NASA funded report assures us, then what's the use? If the calamity is not upon us, then we have time to rationally develop and install the clean and phase out the dirty. If the calamity is not upon us, we also have time to save the forests and the seas by technical means. But rather then address the problem directly, and seriously, the environmentalists, billionaires and their pols demand control. The control is rule over the serfs, not to better the serfs lives, or sustain the seas and forests, using rational technical means. To quote the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, A crisis is a bad thing to waste. To wit: If you have a broken toilet, get it fixed, rather than make a law about toilet use. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spudboy100, I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on. And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing. On 21 March 2014 13:59, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I fear the control they want only exist in your mind... You should consult... seriously. You live in a delusional paranoia. 2014-03-21 12:20 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: You are picking up the inconsistencies given off by the Greens (red greens) and the ruling class that funds them. If we are doomed as even he NASA funded report assures us, then what's the use? If the calamity is not upon us, then we have time to rationally develop and install the clean and phase out the dirty. If the calamity is not upon us, we also have time to save the forests and the seas by technical means. But rather then address the problem directly, and seriously, the environmentalists, billionaires and their pols demand control. The control is rule over the serfs, not to better the serfs lives, or sustain the seas and forests, using rational technical means. To quote the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, A crisis is a bad thing to waste. To wit: If you have a broken toilet, get it fixed, rather than make a law about toilet use. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spudboy100, I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on. And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing. On 21 March 2014 13:59, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. What observation? Forest gathering? Bobby Bureaucrat? Evil government on every level? Green conspiracy of the rich billionaires? I don't know if I'd call these points arguments. They are more black and white cartoons from Hannity, Fox, Limbaugh etc. I can't see what you want as you are aware that there is long term need for sustainable energy + you praise romantically sky, forest, oceans etc. and yet you checkmate yourself because this would be playing into the hand of the green-marxist government conspiracy theory. Ok, it's easy to call everybody names and defend nothing really, with such position. But I do not see technical observations, a solid position to argue from, or where you're going with this. PGC -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? You are one of the people who decides things. Energy costs are on the rise, no matter our political outlooks. You can decide to take a risk to try and mitigate this, which is complex and not as easy as listing your political preferences and intolerance. You talk I'm in minority, which does not make sense because the majority of the world is not taking steps to make energy and environment more sustainable. You are in the majority, talking/chatting and not doing. Even if you feel you're in the minority: do something. You talk liberating people... then do it and save us the sermon. You talk anti-state but you advocate inaction. So basically the right for us to live in the effects of our trash/wasteful behavior, complaining about powerful interests, that through your inaction and ideological fox chanting extend their range by just another person. You talk technical solutions and you hope for some revolution among engineers. Good luck with that, but why judge people with a more nuanced and differentiated approach to the problems you state, who will not hope/wait for instructions or engineer revolution and start to plan and invest in transition means to mitigating energy's rising costs? The question has long shifted from your black and white yes-no to the grey complexities of real life with how on local, personal, and global levels. If you don't see this, then why keep preaching your political stance? Just be as wasteful as you can for as long as you can, before somebody shows up and says: Business as usual will keep costs rising and poverty increasing, which we can't sustain long term; this behavior is stupid. Join fossil fuel lobby or something. Well paid job and you'll be more effective there than on this list, regarding this set of problems. PGC No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar Most demographers project that the population will level off at around 10 billion, because of various trends that tend to reduce the number of children like populations becoming more urban and women being more educated--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projectionsfor some info. Of course predicting human behavior is never purely scientific and there are some who think this projection is too optimistic, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_if_experts_are_wrong_on_world_population_growth/2444/ Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP (And I didn't know it before doing the search) Who did? 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it And still is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... using google correctly and not as an asshole... you would have found what you were looking for (if you genuinely were looking for it... but you weren't, you were trolling as usual). So blabla as usual... no point arguing with you. Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP (And I didn't know it before doing the search) Who did? 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it And still is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Well, as far as the impact of the extremely wealthy, on our politics, I would simply point to this Obama-friendly blog, which has been spun off from the Washington Post, also Obama friendly. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/barach-obama-tech-ceos-nsa-104881.html?hp=l1 - a few other items on billionaires, greens (reds) and politics. The Koch's appear to be amateurs, but why should I trust them either? http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/03/02/rich-donors-press-democrats-climate-change/hzqwCqUh4CPz5Voz3abiSL/story.html http://www.worth.com/index.php/component/content/article/4-live/926-top-10-billionaires-saving-the-planet http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/03/20130326-075201.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/tom-steyer-2014-elections_n_4809013.html http://www.mensjournal.com/expert-advice/americas-billionaire-environmentalists-20140210/george-soros Here are your rulers and the Master's funders, and may they rule you well. On wood gathering in the third world,by folks who have no other means of cooking food, the magic word is deforestation. Often, the 1.7 billion people who need wood to cook, also do what the people of the Medieval Warm Period, just before the Little Ice Age, did. It was called assarting, and was the expansion of croplands into forests, and burn the wood for fuel, and plant crops for subsistence agriculture. This does diminish forests and wildlife, just like Georgia Pacific does when it does clear cutting, on old growth forests. GP does it with technology, Third world folks do it with any means at hand. Occasionally, GP plants saplings and the regular folks are too busy taking care of their kids to accomplish this. None the less many hands make short work, and if the quality of life was improved for these folk, then there is less need for wood from forests. If we want less impact on land by agriculture, then we can look to the technology of greenhouses, which do not consume lots and lots of land. But this is a different topic. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 11:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. What observation? Forest gathering? Bobby Bureaucrat? Evil government on every level? Green conspiracy of the rich billionaires? I don't know if I'd call these points arguments. They are more black and white cartoons from Hannity, Fox, Limbaugh etc. I can't see what you want as you are aware that there is long term need for sustainable energy + you praise romantically sky, forest, oceans etc. and yet you checkmate yourself because this would be playing into the hand of the green-marxist government conspiracy theory. Ok, it's easy to call everybody names and defend nothing really, with such position. But I do not see technical observations, a solid position to argue from, or where you're going with this. PGC -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP It seems you're correct here, the RCP4.5 scenario I discussed was one of four reprentative concentration pathway scenarios as indicated by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways wiki page. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that you chose to use a rhetorical question about the meaning of the acronym as a lame excuse to totally duck my point that it shows emissions being reduced in a non-drastic way but with a significantly better range of projected temperature rises by 2100 than the business-as-usual scenarios. But this was in keeping with your 100% non-substantive response which ducked every single issue I brought up, like the fact that plenty of people who want to take action on the climate are pro-nuclear (your only response was smartass-teenager style mockery of my use of the word strawman, ignoring the actual case I made that your characterization of environmentalist views was entirely cherry-picked and non-representative), or the fact that water vapor is not a climate forcing factor like CO2, or the question of what general standard you use to judge the merit of scientific claims in areas you have no expertise in (though your various ignorant claims about physics suggest your standard is something like treat scientific expertise as worthless whenever it doesn't match what I'd prefer to believe, and place unerring faith in whatever handwavey verbal analysis of a scientific question happens to pop into my head, arguing for this view with supreme confidence regardless of whether I can find any expert support for it). Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-21 17:52 GMT+01:00 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP It seems you're correct here, the RCP4.5 scenario I discussed was one of four reprentative concentration pathway scenarios as indicated by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways wiki page. Well then sorry I was the dumb here... I'm too much accustomed that John says BS... But anyway this == Of course, this doesn't change the fact that you chose to use a rhetorical question about the meaning of the acronym as a lame excuse to totally duck my point was what John wanted to do and do in every discussion he can have... he doesn't want to argue, he likes reading himself... he doesn't care if there is a genuine point of discussion... at least up until now. that it shows emissions being reduced in a non-drastic way but with a significantly better range of projected temperature rises by 2100 than the business-as-usual scenarios. But this was in keeping with your 100% non-substantive response which ducked every single issue I brought up, like the fact that plenty of people who want to take action on the climate are pro-nuclear (your only response was smartass-teenager style mockery of my use of the word strawman, ignoring the actual case I made that your characterization of environmentalist views was entirely cherry-picked and non-representative), or the fact that water vapor is not a climate forcing factor like CO2, or the question of what general standard you use to judge the merit of scientific claims in areas you have no expertise in (though your various ignorant claims about physics suggest your standard is something like treat scientific expertise as worthless whenever it doesn't match what I'd prefer to believe, and place unerring faith in whatever handwavey verbal analysis of a scientific question happens to pop into my head, arguing for this view with supreme confidence regardless of whether I can find any expert support for it). Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. - What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs. the probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable sources would create a human catastrophe itself? - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? Also this: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning Telmo. using google correctly and not as an asshole... you would have found what you were looking for (if you genuinely were looking for it... but you weren't, you were trolling as usual). So blabla as usual... no point arguing with you. Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP (And I didn't know it before doing the search) Who did? 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it And still is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these. I do not believe in conspiracy either... and all the comments about the all or nothing are complete BS... I don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable source of energy... I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and having a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just that beliefs... not facts. The green parties in europe certainly don't advocate such policies... and certainly not in my country (belgium) can't talk much for other countries, but they seems to be more or less the same views... No one is advocating to transition tomorrow (as in tomorrow tomorrow) to a full solar power (or other) and shut down all nuclear power plants... they are even people (green or not) considering the LFTR reactor we were talking about... climate and policies arount the mitigation of the global warming are not binary... either we do everything or nothing even if we were really doomed, that's not a reason not to try to mitigate things... even slowly, slow extinction seems better than dying tomorrow... and starting today even if today we thing we're doomed, doesn't mean tomorrow (and because we started today) we won't find a solution escaping this predicted doom... so I can't agree with an argument saying we should do nothing just because new form of energy production cannot currently totally replace the current form of production. Quentin - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. - What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs. the probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable sources would create a human catastrophe itself? - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? Also this: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning Telmo. using google correctly and not as an asshole... you would have found what you were looking for (if you genuinely were looking for it... but you weren't, you were trolling as usual). So blabla as usual... no point arguing with you. Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP (And I didn't know it before doing the search) Who did? 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it And still is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Jesse, Sure, I'm well aware of these predictions, but my point is that many necessary global resources are being rapidly depleted by just the current human population, so even that is not sustainable. In general the standard demographic predictions don't pay much attention to the dwindling resources upon which population is dependent. Edgar On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar Most demographers project that the population will level off at around 10 billion, because of various trends that tend to reduce the number of children like populations becoming more urban and women being more educated--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projectionsfor some info. Of course predicting human behavior is never purely scientific and there are some who think this projection is too optimistic, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_if_experts_are_wrong_on_world_population_growth/2444/ Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. Only if by discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective you mean cast vague aspersions at various scientific claims (use of climate models to predict future climates, analyze prehistoric glaciation thresholds, predict how climate would respond to specific GHG reduction scenarios like RCP4.5) and technical projections (like the specific plan to get 69% of electricity from solar by 2050), based on whatever verbal argument appeals to him and without any expert opinion of his own to cite in support of this skepticism. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. I haven't talked about such political issues at all, although John seems to have plenty of enthusiasm for politically-based caricature of what environmentalists believe, based on cherry-picking the worst plans he can find trawling various websites rather than attempting any fair-minded survey of how many groups and prominent climate activists would agree with those plans. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical fluctuation on the level of individual decades, so this amount of uncertainty is already incorporated into the range of predictions made by an ensemble of such models. And current temperatures do still fall within the range predicted by models from earlier dates like 2000 and 1988. I addressed both the issue of how well models have done in their predictions and the issue of the 15-year warming pause (which climate scientists seem to think they understand the causes of fairly well) in this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg50488.html The page at http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/(from the series of responses to common climate skeptic arguments at http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ ) also has a basic summary of some of the evidence supporting the reliability of climate models. More generally, I would repeat the general point that I think the only Bayesian prior when looking at scientific questions is assign a high a priori likelihood that experts in the field are correct when they broadly agree on the answer to some question, only revise that in light of changes in expert opinion, obvious failed predictions that don't line up with their theories, or acquiring enough expertise in the subject yourself to have an informed opinion on the detailed evidence. So if the experts in climate science are in broad agreement about climate models being reliable in the sense that actual temperatures will very likely fall within the *range* that they predict over many different runs (a statistical prediction rather than an exact one obviously), given the right emissions scenario, my default is to trust their judgment. To ignore expert opinion and think that you, as a layman, are just as qualified to draw conclusions about the reliability of models in *any* area of natural science seems to me to be a basically anti-scientific, anti-intellectual attitude. - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. The usual idea is not to significantly shrink the global energy budget (although some shrinkage may be possible without sacrificing living standards if we can find more energy-efficient ways of achieving the same goals, as with things like hybrid vehicles
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Failed is a relative term and decade is too short to constitute climate. So what exactly do you mean by failed. My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so accurate about others. They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. Have they failed if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation. The technique has been to use separate models just of cloud formation and dissipation to determine which GCM state would produce or dissipate clouds. Those models are being improved by including the effects of aerosols and freezing/thawing. Another source of uncertainty in *weather* is how the extra energy absorbed due to greenhouse gases is distributed. How much goes into warming the ocean vs the atmosphere? Model projections have to make assumptions about human activity too. - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? Read Donald McKay's book Without Hot Air, which is free online at withouthotair.org. He has detailed estimates of what it would take for the U.K. to almost eliminate fossil fuel consumption and still retain the same standard of living. It takes a lot of change, but it is less per capita than, for example, the U.S. war in Iraq over a time scale of a few decades. What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. - What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs. the probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable sources would create a human catastrophe itself? What's abrupt. You're raising spudboy's bugaboo. NOBODY wants to do something abrupt. It's just a Faux News scare point. Isn't is obvious that the longer we wait to address a problem the shorter will be the time to solve it. - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? It's being considered just as seriously as any other unproven technology to address the problem - which is to say, hardly at all. If we started penalizing ExxonMobil, BP, Texaco, and Shell for the cost they are externalizing maybe they'd fund Myhrvold's scheme. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group,
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:10 PM Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. I must disagree with you on this. John injects highly charged political views -- such as insinuating that environmentalists are genocidal maniacs for example, who advocate genocide because of their green ideology -- according to his view, not mine. There is nothing scientific about that. I have tried on numerous occasions to get John to engage on specifics -- such as the depletion rates of fracked wells. He avoids talking about hard numbers and returns to his fall back position of equating environmentalists with 1) fools 2) genocidal maniacs 3) Stalinists That is not what I would characterize as an attempt to have a reasonable discussion. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. He also has so far very much avoided addressing the data on the decline rates of fossil energy supplies; the rapidly falling return of capital invested for new fossil energy projects (both traditional and tar and shale); as well as the rapidly falling EROI for these projects. John has an ideological perspective that dominates his replies on this thread. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? Failed is a relative term and decade is too short to constitute climate. So what exactly do you mean by failed. My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so accurate about others. They all include a calculated range of uncertainty. Have they failed if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty. The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways. As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set) of these models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models. As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty. Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation. The technique has been to use separate models just of cloud formation and dissipation to determine which GCM state would produce or dissipate clouds. Those models are being improved by including the effects of aerosols and freezing/thawing. Another source of uncertainty in *weather* is how the extra energy absorbed due to greenhouse gases is distributed. How much goes into warming the ocean vs the atmosphere? Model projections have to make assumptions about human activity too. - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? Read Donald McKay's book Without Hot Air, which is free online at withouthotair.org. He has detailed estimates of what it would take for the U.K. to almost eliminate fossil fuel consumption and still retain the same standard of living. It takes a lot of change, but it is less per capita than, for example, the U.S. war in Iraq over a time scale of a few decades. Agreed -- the several trillion dollars that the Iraq war will end up costing the US over the next decades as the long term costs of veteran disability care begin adding up -- presents a massive opportunity cost. That same treasure could have literally transformed the US energy landscape and built out a very substantial and diversified energy supply infrastructure that could
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I agree with JM on this, because it appears that the higher the quality of life, the tendency is for selecting reduced family sizes. But turning away from technology and somehow using it sustainably, would, I believe wind up with a redistribution of wealth, just using the tech we have now, and siphoning it away from the poor to the middle serfs and the rich. Its wiser to use better technology and make it attractive (cheaper) for everyone to use. It would reduce effluence, and make people's lives better. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 11:49 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar Most demographers project that the population will level off at around 10 billion, because of various trends that tend to reduce the number of children like populations becoming more urban and women being more educated--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projections for some info. Of course predicting human behavior is never purely scientific and there are some who think this projection is too optimistic, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_if_experts_are_wrong_on_world_population_growth/2444/ Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I understand where you're coming from, Telmo, and yes, the most recent study from a NASA sponsored climate analysis does indicate that we are doomed (their wording not mine) and I disagree of course. Reducing energy consumption can get us through the short term, but the intermediate term, and longer term, surrenders the Third World to permanent poverty. Supplying them with clean tech, that's cheap, or less laborious then wood gathering and forest chopping, seems to be the better path. Geoengineering is interesting, but it terrifies me. Who do we trust, what experts, what leaders, and what if they are wrong? Why should we trust them, given the ruling classes incongruous political behavior, versus their language of 'emergency' cause me to doubt their trustworthiness. - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction I'm pretty sure it's not Russian Communist Party but are you sure it's not Representative Concentration Pathways? I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I see we are in a thread talking about climate... This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective. He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention. - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in further predictions? - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global energy budget to transition to sustainable sources? What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issue for wishful thinking. Theres 7 billion of us and counting. We need hard numbers here, that take into account the energy investment necessary to bootstrap the renewable sources, their efficiency and so on. - What is the probability that a climate catastrophe awaits us vs. the probability that an abrupt attempt to convert to sustainable sources would create a human catastrophe itself? - Given that environmentalists are claiming that it might even be too late to advert disaster, why aren't we seriously considering geoengineering approaches, as the one proposed by Nathan Myhrvold, which can be easily and cheaply tested and turned off at any moment? Also this: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning Telmo. using google correctly and not as an asshole... you would have found what you were looking for (if you genuinely were looking for it... but you weren't, you were trolling as usual). So blabla as usual... no point arguing with you. Wikipedia lists 21 possible meanings of the acronym RCP and that's the only one that has anything at all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of Regional Climate Prediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP (And I didn't know it before doing the search) Who did? 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it And still is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Yes, or neomarxist, neostalinst, die-offs. Billionaire, elites, pols, greens, Marxists, sort of a toxic stew. Obama, the UN, the EU. Good problems to attack, but merely using them as an excuse for control and exploitation. No technical responses, only, more totalitarianism. Paint and troll your fox cartoons on this list if you want. The green party as Marxist cult? -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 4:01 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them If I wanted lectures from the Green Party, the International Socialist Movement. or any Marxist cult, I'd have joined them and would be agreeing with you. I want technical solutions while some demand, in essence, a dictatorship that is conducive to themselves. Your point seems to be you don't really desire answers that would benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies, but instead simply insist on total government rule. It goes to my point earlier, about using troubles as an excuse to gain more power, rather then trouble shoot. Paint and troll your fox cartoons on this list if you want. The green party as Marxist cult? You seem to have your political ideas sorted. Here, the conservatives are accused of stealing the green agenda, the left is accused by the ecologists of not being green enough etc. So the fox cartoons only hold in your bubble far from helpful or clarifying data. I don't care about your answers to benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies because I do the things, even shoulder the economic risk, you chat about. Thus I really have no time to quibble politics with you or read your stuff. If you can point to solutions or re-frame current sustainability issues outside of the standard literature, please do, because up to now, you haven't. But go ahead with trolling of fox cartoons if you want. PGC To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them. Your posts are just redundant because skimming them, I see all the same word groups as the above media channels; thus I don't even bother to read. I appreciate rational posts that are not naive to global systemic imbalances, how they can be formulated by which data, how they can be accelerated, mitigated etc. So grind your political axes elsewhere please or open political threads, that I and the members that feel similarly on the issue, can ignore. From Europe, I don't really care for the whole US progressives vs. conservatives thing... Just data concerning sustainability of energy, ecological systems etc. on specified levels, and what can/could be done about it, and not some preaching for how liberated ego should do all the ugly and stupid things it wants because this is what freedom means and scientists are flawed, complexity makes everything relative/undecidable etc. kind of junk. It's the same voice that rings through those media channels: I don't need a lesson in freedom from the lobbies that eavesdrop and conduct unilateral military stuff on the entire world for the security of said freedom; again: I can buy those subscriptions to dictatorship propaganda of those interests myself, if I cared. PGC -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM To: everything
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s. So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s. So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Good point, but this is what things are veering towards, or we are already there! Plutocracy, rule by the rich, who influence purchased politicians, who know how to successfully bribe people who want food stamps (in the US), who need free cell phones, who need free health services (no matter how awfully thought out) and then get screwed when the gravy train runs dry. This is why, I prefer technical solutions that by-pass the oligarchs. Some of these billionaires are, I am certain, accidental oligarchs, taking advantage of our stupidity, or willingness to trade freedoms for goodies. Yes, I remember Voltaire's cynical comment that both the rich and the poor have the right to sleep under bridges. Perhaps the only thing anyone can do, barring being a billionaire yourself, is to follow the works of remediation that have been proposed by scientists and engineers. It seems to me that you are for the management of ALL people(s) by the very small constricted oligarchy of globally dominant crime families. What kind of freedom is that? The freedom to live under the rule of psychopaths? -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 11:01 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com I heartily agree, but I was focusing on technological remediation for AGW, for energy, etc. I am against the management of people by government edict. Yes, computer and electronics engineers are abetting a fascist system worldwide, but I am hoping that physicists, mechanical and chemical engineers, will step up, where the electronics engineers have failed us. It seems to me that you are for the management of ALL people(s) by the very small constricted oligarchy of globally dominant crime families. What kind of freedom is that? The freedom to live under the rule of psychopaths? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 7:12 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, Technology is being used to place almost everything under government control right now. At the risk of repeating myself... http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22635-focus-former-top-nsa-official-qwe-are-now-in-a-police-stateq -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s. So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-20 14:55 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can you just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your mind ? Quentin Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s. So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I am pragmatic enough to see that if government worked best on tackling a problem, I would endorse it. There does seem to be a rule of elites, a ruling class, in effect, worldwide, that consists of billionaires, their politicians, and academics, media, union leaders, and their choices in governance, seem off the mark. These seems especially true, concerning the environment, energy (closely related) and economics. Hence, unless one is very rich, or directly benefits from the beneficence of the billionaires and the paid political agents, what's one to do? This is why I ask for technical solutions to things like overpopulation, resource depletion, AGW, and what have you. The elites seem more focused on corralling the serfs, who put such a strain on resources, than shooting for workarounds or even trade offs. The NASA proclamation of a kind of global communism, for want of a better word, is an example of corralling the serfs-for their own good. Very weird. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 8:27 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 3/18/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.comwrote: Breaking your ideas down,I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 isimprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focuson accurate measures, and I say that whats beenpresented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation,sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes anexcuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense offixing a problem. It's not an *excuse* nor a *pretense* because there is no plausibleway that the problem will be addressed without government action. When there is an air pollutant that it costs money to avoid orremove (like automobile exhaust pollutants) it is only a*disadvantage* to individuals and enterprises to spend their moneyto clean up. But the government can provide incentives to makecleaner energy production cheaper. This is only forcing costs thathad been externalized to be internalized. There is also the development of technologies which are tooexpensive, too riskly, or too likely to be stopped by litigation forany private organization to develop. LFTRs are the obvious example,but also various CO2 sequestering schemes and insolation reductionby aerosols. So, I try to focus on technology and askwhat do you want to do, what technology? I getsuspicious when, if I receive any response at all, itsvague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, But technology development takes money and sometimes protection. rather than having bureaucratic fascistsrule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. Few agree with your ridiculous equation of all bureaucrats withfascists and all government programs with communism. They want everything under governmentcontrol, as long as they agree with the dictator. Whenit becomes apparent that people are after the control ofothers, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer tohuman freedom then government rule, but it is not to betrusted completely. Again, technology first please, The market means you can have as much freedom as you can pay for. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? You are one of the people who decides things. Energy costs are on the rise, no matter our political outlooks. You can decide to take a risk to try and mitigate this, which is complex and not as easy as listing your political preferences and intolerance. You talk I'm in minority, which does not make sense because the majority of the world is not taking steps to make energy and environment more sustainable. You are in the majority, talking/chatting and not doing. Even if you feel you're in the minority: do something. You talk liberating people... then do it and save us the sermon. You talk anti-state but you advocate inaction. So basically the right for us to live in the effects of our trash/wasteful behavior, complaining about powerful interests, that through your inaction and ideological fox chanting extend their range by just another person. You talk technical solutions and you hope for some revolution among engineers. Good luck with that, but why judge people with a more nuanced and differentiated approach to the problems you state, who will not hope/wait for instructions or engineer revolution and start to plan and invest in transition means to mitigating energy's rising costs? The question has long shifted from your black and white yes-no to the grey complexities of real life with how on local, personal, and global levels. If you don't see this, then why keep preaching your political stance? Just be as wasteful as you can for as long as you can, before somebody shows up and says: Business as usual will keep costs rising and poverty increasing, which we can't sustain long term; this behavior is stupid. Join fossil fuel lobby or something. Well paid job and you'll be more effective there than on this list, regarding this set of problems. PGC No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Quentin, simply make your choice. Are you trusting of this mix of politicians and billionaires doing what is smart on energy and the environment, or are you suspicious of these guys because they appear to be doing poor job on either? Inconsistencies in behavior regarding public policy, a lack of cause and effect? If you are good with their rule, life goes on, and if you're suspicious that they are lying like a rug on several issues, then, you are more or less in my camp. I don't believe after reading the science documents released by people who ought to know better, that we are getting an incomplete picture to address their political ends. On the human side of things, are you content with resolving problems through new laws controlling people, or would you rather have peoples' and the environment's quality of life improved? There is no false dichotomy here. What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can you just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your mind ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:59 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:55 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can you just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your mind ? Quentin Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what would you do? You are one of the people who decides things. Energy costs are on the rise, no matter our political outlooks. You can decide to take a risk to try and mitigate this, which is complex and not as easy as listing your political preferences and intolerance. You talk I'm in minority, which does not make sense because the majority of the world is not taking steps to make energy and environment more sustainable. You are in the majority, talking/chatting and not doing. Even if you feel you're in the minority: do something. You talk liberating people... then do it and save us the sermon. You talk anti-state but you advocate inaction. So basically the right for us to live in the effects of our trash/wasteful behavior, complaining about powerful interests, that through your inaction and ideological fox chanting extend their range by just another person. You talk technical solutions and you hope for some revolution among engineers. Good luck with that, but why judge people with a more nuanced and differentiated approach to the problems you state, who will not hope/wait for instructions or engineer revolution and start to plan and invest in transition means to mitigating energy's rising costs? The question has long shifted from your black and white yes-no to the grey complexities of real life with how on local, personal, and global levels. If you don't see this, then why keep preaching your political stance? Just be as wasteful as you can for as long as you can, before somebody shows up and says: Business as usual will keep costs rising and poverty increasing, which we can't sustain long term; this behavior is stupid. Join fossil fuel lobby or something. Well paid job and you'll be more effective there than on this list, regarding this set of problems. PGC No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who decide things. Quentin There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land. This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multipl...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 21 March 2014 02:34, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above? I'm sorry but you haven't really answered my post at all. The above is directed at a straw man, and you've then ignored everything else I said. Maybe I should be used to this... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 21 March 2014 06:24, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land. This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives Great if you own a forest. Some of us aren't so lucky. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). No, nobody says it cannot wait and therefore we have to shut off all fossil fuel based power now, what some people say cannot wait is adopting some long-term plan that will transition away from fossil fuel gradually over several decades. I'm sure virtually all those concerned about global warming would be happy if we adopted any one of a number of plans which would end with a transition to majority-renewables by 2050, such as the ones below: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004072 (the solar grand plan I mentioned to you earlier which is summarized at http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf) http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ (articles summarizing this one at http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/07/09/renewable-energy/5430/ and http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428284/the-us-could-run-on-80-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2050/ ) http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.htmland http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html(other articles discussing this plan at http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/charting-the-course-to-a-100-percent-renewable-energy-future/and http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/352551/another-blueprint-100-percent-renewables-mid-centuryand a Scientific American summary by the authors at http://books.google.com/books?id=pGfQmBtXYx0Clpg=PP1pg=PT11) http://www.udel.edu/V2G/resources/BudischakEtAl-2013-CostMinimizedWindSolarPJM.pdf(discussed at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-about-99.9-percent-renewables) Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority By technical solutions do you just mean technical plans laying out in detail how the transition to a renewable-dominated power grid would work, and how much it would cost? If so, see above. On the other hand, maybe you mean I'm waiting for some technological breakthrough that will make renewable energy so cost-effective that the free market will rush to abandon fossil fuels without the government having to lift a finger, until then we should do nothing to cut back on emissions even if it would be economically feasible. In that case, no that hasn't happened, but at least the plans above show that fearmongering about how trying to curb emissions would destroy the economy don't have any basis in fact. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land. This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives Edgar -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 1:24 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land. This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multipl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Oh we can. However the environmentalists and their funders indicate that its all over, and kiss it all goodbye I profoundly disagree and guess that there's plenty of time before the shit hits the fan. Panic is the tool or those wishing to benefit from political rush to judgment. I submit that these types are not doing this primarily for public benefit. We can do several things as well, like carbon capture, efficiency, solar and wind energy storage, amid other things. But panic serves those who use problems to attain more power over the serfs. Their intentions are not benign. Also, if the war to save ourselves is already lost, as the NASA report indicates then what's the point. Last, the ruling class, for example, are not ordering us to build artificial reefs and dams to protect New Zealand from the permanent tsunamis. This day may come, but not today, nor, are they preparing for such. Incongruity city. What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:11 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 21 March 2014 02:34, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above? I'm sorry but you haven't really answered my post at all. The above is directed at a straw man, and you've then ignored everything else I said. Maybe I should be used to this... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I am very ok with a transition, I believe we have the time. But I maintain that we won't get there with controlling people, but we can with innovations in technology. What I oppose is using AGW as an excuse to rule the serfs. Here's a break down from The Guardian, which you may guess is not my kind of paper, but it gives up with the notion of redistributed wealth worldwide and so forth. Conclusion: civilizational collapse is inevitable. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists I disagree with this forecast. Color me anti-scientific. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). No, nobody says it cannot wait and therefore we have to shut off all fossil fuel based power now, what some people say cannot wait is adopting some long-term plan that will transition away from fossil fuel gradually over several decades. I'm sure virtually all those concerned about global warming would be happy if we adopted any one of a number of plans which would end with a transition to majority-renewables by 2050, such as the ones below: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004072 (the solar grand plan I mentioned to you earlier which is summarized at http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf ) http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ (articles summarizing this one at http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/07/09/renewable-energy/5430/ and http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428284/the-us-could-run-on-80-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2050/ ) http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html and http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html (other articles discussing this plan at http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/charting-the-course-to-a-100-percent-renewable-energy-future/ and http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/352551/another-blueprint-100-percent-renewables-mid-century and a Scientific American summary by the authors at http://books.google.com/books?id=pGfQmBtXYx0Clpg=PP1pg=PT11) http://www.udel.edu/V2G/resources/BudischakEtAl-2013-CostMinimizedWindSolarPJM.pdf (discussed at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-about-99.9-percent-renewables ) Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority By technical solutions do you just mean technical plans laying out in detail how the transition to a renewable-dominated power grid would work, and how much it would cost? If so, see above. On the other hand, maybe you mean I'm waiting for some technological breakthrough that will make renewable energy so cost-effective that the free market will rush to abandon fossil fuels without the government having to lift a finger, until then we should do nothing to cut back on emissions even if it would be economically feasible. In that case, no that hasn't happened, but at least the plans above show that fearmongering about how trying to curb emissions would destroy the economy don't have any basis in fact. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spudboy100, I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on. And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing. On 21 March 2014 13:59, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Sorry that should read equal opportunitie*d* - serves me right for throwing in a neologism. On 21 March 2014 14:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Spudboy100, I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on. And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing. On 21 March 2014 13:59, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look like the general policy recommendations that most of those who see an urgent need to curb global warming could agree on? Yes. And what is this belief based on? The web pages of the most famous and powerful environmental organizations on the planet. the even more ridiculous strawman on your list saying that all nuclear power plants should be shut down immediately Ridiculous yes strawman no, except in the sense of them having straw for brains. And the sad thing is the governments of Germany and Japan seem on the verge of accepting the advice of these strawmen. So you're just going to make evidence-free assertions and ignore my substantive question about whether the RCP4.5 scenario, which clearly DOES make a measurable reduction in global warming by 2100 The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. This article from Scientific American details a proposal by a group of engineers for a major investment in solar energy which they estimate would allow the U.S. to get 69% of its electricity, and 35% of total energy including transportation, from solar power by 2050, for an estimated cost of $420 billion spread out over 40 years In a era where even a simple helicopter gunship can have a 400% cost overrun I'm supposed to take a cost estimate like this about changing the engine room of the entire world economy seriously?? A gargantuan scientific breakthrough would be required for the above scenario to occur, and the record for correctly predicting one is not good and you can't just order one up no matter how much money you spend. I think those cost estimates were pulled directly out of somebody's ass. Even if their cost estimate was off by an order of magnitude, 4 trillion dollars spread out over 40 years would be unlikely to devastate the economy, I wouldn't bet my life that the estimate is correct within 3 orders of magnitude. And given the fact that any reduction in CO2 emissions made today will take at least 40 years to show up as lower temperatures (if it ever does) I say the best policy is to just wait tell we know for sure the warming will continue and is a bad thing or until technology improves. After all it's not as if this is the first time the human race has had to deal with climate change, if we got through an Ice Age we can get through a little warming without panicking. if we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years every human on earth would have clean potable water and this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. I agree entirely that we should spend the money to give everyone clean water, and what's really sad is that we aren't bothering to do it even though the price would actually be a hell of a lot lower than $400 billion, only about $10 billion a year would be needed And yet environmentalist said we should have spent $400 billion a year to implement the Kyoto Protocols. And if we had what would we have gotten for our money? If you believe the climate models, and you do, we would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20-0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/effect-kyoto-protocol-global-warming and you believe that science and technology will not find far better ways to deal with the problem in the next century as technology improves, Another strawman, Your new favorite word. the IPCC's own emissions reductions scenarios specifically mentioned the idea of technological improvements alongside policy changes. And did they consider Nathan Myhrvold's solution or anything even remotely like it? Of course not, that would be blasphemy. and if you believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be used Another strawman, And the magic word is... strawman. as seen in the links on pro-nuclear environmentalists and climate scientists I provided It is not necessary to show that every member of a movement is deluded to show there is a systemic problem. The Sierra Club is against nuclear power and so is Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it's mainstream and the few that have another opinion (like Stewart Brand) are treated as traitors by other environmentalists. I don't actually believe it's anything more than John Clark's baseless fantasy that their lives would be at risk from an investment of, say, a few hundred billion dollars per decade in solar power or nuclear energy to balance out the decreased fossil fuel use. And I believe it's a pleasant but baseless fantasy to believe we're just on the verge of replacing fossil fuel with solar energy as the powerhouse that drives the economy and we
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-19 15:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look like the general policy recommendations that most of those who see an urgent need to curb global warming could agree on? Yes. And what is this belief based on? The web pages of the most famous and powerful environmental organizations on the planet. the even more ridiculous strawman on your list saying that all nuclear power plants should be shut down immediately Ridiculous yes strawman no, except in the sense of them having straw for brains. And the sad thing is the governments of Germany and Japan seem on the verge of accepting the advice of these strawmen. So you're just going to make evidence-free assertions and ignore my substantive question about whether the RCP4.5 scenario, which clearly DOES make a measurable reduction in global warming by 2100 The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=RCP4.5+temperature+climatel=1 This article from Scientific American details a proposal by a group of engineers for a major investment in solar energy which they estimate would allow the U.S. to get 69% of its electricity, and 35% of total energy including transportation, from solar power by 2050, for an estimated cost of $420 billion spread out over 40 years In a era where even a simple helicopter gunship can have a 400% cost overrun I'm supposed to take a cost estimate like this about changing the engine room of the entire world economy seriously?? A gargantuan scientific breakthrough would be required for the above scenario to occur, and the record for correctly predicting one is not good and you can't just order one up no matter how much money you spend. I think those cost estimates were pulled directly out of somebody's ass. Even if their cost estimate was off by an order of magnitude, 4 trillion dollars spread out over 40 years would be unlikely to devastate the economy, I wouldn't bet my life that the estimate is correct within 3 orders of magnitude. And given the fact that any reduction in CO2 emissions made today will take at least 40 years to show up as lower temperatures (if it ever does) I say the best policy is to just wait tell we know for sure the warming will continue and is a bad thing or until technology improves. After all it's not as if this is the first time the human race has had to deal with climate change, if we got through an Ice Age we can get through a little warming without panicking. if we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years every human on earth would have clean potable water and this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. I agree entirely that we should spend the money to give everyone clean water, and what's really sad is that we aren't bothering to do it even though the price would actually be a hell of a lot lower than $400 billion, only about $10 billion a year would be needed And yet environmentalist said we should have spent $400 billion a year to implement the Kyoto Protocols. And if we had what would we have gotten for our money? If you believe the climate models, and you do, we would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20–0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/effect-kyoto-protocol-global-warming and you believe that science and technology will not find far better ways to deal with the problem in the next century as technology improves, Another strawman, Your new favorite word. the IPCC's own emissions reductions scenarios specifically mentioned the idea of technological improvements alongside policy changes. And did they consider Nathan Myhrvold's solution or anything even remotely like it? Of course not, that would be blasphemy. and if you believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be used Another strawman, And the magic word is... strawman. as seen in the links on pro-nuclear environmentalists and climate scientists I provided It is not necessary to show that every member of a movement is deluded to show there is a systemic problem. The Sierra Club is against nuclear power and so is Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it's mainstream and the few that have another opinion (like Stewart Brand) are treated as traitors by other environmentalists. I don't actually believe it's anything more than John Clark's baseless fantasy that their lives would be at risk from an investment of, say, a few hundred billion dollars per decade in solar power or nuclear energy to balance out the decreased fossil fuel use. And I believe
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
2014-03-19 15:48 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-03-19 15:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look like the general policy recommendations that most of those who see an urgent need to curb global warming could agree on? Yes. And what is this belief based on? The web pages of the most famous and powerful environmental organizations on the planet. the even more ridiculous strawman on your list saying that all nuclear power plants should be shut down immediately Ridiculous yes strawman no, except in the sense of them having straw for brains. And the sad thing is the governments of Germany and Japan seem on the verge of accepting the advice of these strawmen. So you're just going to make evidence-free assertions and ignore my substantive question about whether the RCP4.5 scenario, which clearly DOES make a measurable reduction in global warming by 2100 The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=RCP4.5+temperature+climatel=1 For your information, that means Regional Climate Prediction (And I didn't know it before doing the search)... 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it... must mean something. Quentin This article from Scientific American details a proposal by a group of engineers for a major investment in solar energy which they estimate would allow the U.S. to get 69% of its electricity, and 35% of total energy including transportation, from solar power by 2050, for an estimated cost of $420 billion spread out over 40 years In a era where even a simple helicopter gunship can have a 400% cost overrun I'm supposed to take a cost estimate like this about changing the engine room of the entire world economy seriously?? A gargantuan scientific breakthrough would be required for the above scenario to occur, and the record for correctly predicting one is not good and you can't just order one up no matter how much money you spend. I think those cost estimates were pulled directly out of somebody's ass. Even if their cost estimate was off by an order of magnitude, 4 trillion dollars spread out over 40 years would be unlikely to devastate the economy, I wouldn't bet my life that the estimate is correct within 3 orders of magnitude. And given the fact that any reduction in CO2 emissions made today will take at least 40 years to show up as lower temperatures (if it ever does) I say the best policy is to just wait tell we know for sure the warming will continue and is a bad thing or until technology improves. After all it's not as if this is the first time the human race has had to deal with climate change, if we got through an Ice Age we can get through a little warming without panicking. if we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years every human on earth would have clean potable water and this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. I agree entirely that we should spend the money to give everyone clean water, and what's really sad is that we aren't bothering to do it even though the price would actually be a hell of a lot lower than $400 billion, only about $10 billion a year would be needed And yet environmentalist said we should have spent $400 billion a year to implement the Kyoto Protocols. And if we had what would we have gotten for our money? If you believe the climate models, and you do, we would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20–0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/effect-kyoto-protocol-global-warming and you believe that science and technology will not find far better ways to deal with the problem in the next century as technology improves, Another strawman, Your new favorite word. the IPCC's own emissions reductions scenarios specifically mentioned the idea of technological improvements alongside policy changes. And did they consider Nathan Myhrvold's solution or anything even remotely like it? Of course not, that would be blasphemy. and if you believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be used Another strawman, And the magic word is... strawman. as seen in the links on pro-nuclear environmentalists and climate scientists I provided It is not necessary to show that every member of a movement is deluded to show there is a systemic problem. The Sierra Club is against nuclear power and so is Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it's mainstream and the few that have another opinion (like Stewart Brand) are treated as traitors by other
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions - none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. and are hostile to energy harvesting - the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. All the various threads of our world's problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
John, If human overpopulation is not drastically reduced humanely it will inevitably be drastically reduced INhumanely... There are a number of ways to reduce human overpopulation humanely. Mainly by offering sufficient financial incentives to women of child bearing age to undergo voluntary sterilization. There are a number of ways this could be fine tuned to work quite well. Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:16:16 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.comjavascript: wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions – none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. and are hostile to energy harvesting – the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. All the various threads of our world’s problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions - none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. Bull shit! Billions will die if we continue along our current course of consuming resources as fast as the global market can possibly manage. Don't give me your righteous crap. Your - do nothing attitude is a guarantee that billions of people will die and that most species on earth will go extinct. In just fifty years or so the market driven industrial economies of the Oil Age have managed to burn through around half of everything - and John Clark - says full speed ahead. You are so full of it John I am amazed you do not just burst in a giant shit storm. So fuck you asshole, and your incendiary accusations of genocide that you level - without any basis - at those who do not share your magical thinking cornucopian ideology of eternally and magically self-replenishing resource base. This world has limits and we have reached them. and are hostile to energy harvesting - the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. Screw you. The facts on the ground tell a different story. The pace and scale of the global solar PV rollout proves that you are full of shit Mr. Clark. All the various threads of our world's problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are. And you should have been a propagandist, but then come to think of it you already are. Asshole. Chris de Morsella John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I heartily agree, but I was focusing on technological remediation for AGW, for energy, etc. I am against the management of people by government edict. Yes, computer and electronics engineers are abetting a fascist system worldwide, but I am hoping that physicists, mechanical and chemical engineers, will step up, where the electronics engineers have failed us. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 7:12 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, Technology is being used to place almost everything under government control right now. At the risk of repeating myself... http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22635-focus-former-top-nsa-official-qwe-are-now-in-a-police-stateq -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions – none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. Bull shit! Billions will die if we continue along our current course of consuming resources as fast as the global market can possibly manage. Don’t give me your righteous crap. Your – do nothing attitude is a guarantee that billions of people will die and that most species on earth will go extinct. In just fifty years or so the market driven industrial economies of the Oil Age have managed to burn through around half of everything – and John Clark – says full speed ahead. You are so full of it John I am amazed you do not just burst in a giant shit storm. So fuck you asshole, and your incendiary accusations of genocide that you level – without any basis – at those who do not share your magical thinking cornucopian ideology of eternally and magically self-replenishing resource base. This world has limits and we have reached them. and are hostile to energy harvesting – the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. Screw you. The facts on the ground tell a different story. The pace and scale of the global solar PV rollout proves that you are full of shit Mr. Clark. All the various threads of our world’s problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are. And you should have been a propagandist, but then come to think of it you already are. Asshole. Chris de Morsella John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them. Your posts are just redundant because skimming them, I see all the same word groups as the above media channels; thus I don't even bother to read. I appreciate rational posts that are not naive to global systemic imbalances, how they can be formulated by which data, how they can be accelerated, mitigated etc. So grind your political axes elsewhere please or open political threads, that I and the members that feel similarly on the issue, can ignore. From Europe, I don't really care for the whole US progressives vs. conservatives thing... Just data concerning sustainability of energy, ecological systems etc. on specified levels, and what can/could be done about it, and not some preaching for how liberated ego should do all the ugly and stupid things it wants because this is what freedom means and scientists are flawed, complexity makes everything relative/undecidable etc. kind of junk. It's the same voice that rings through those media channels: I don't need a lesson in freedom from the lobbies that eavesdrop and conduct unilateral military stuff on the entire world for the security of said freedom; again: I can buy those subscriptions to dictatorship propaganda of those interests myself, if I cared. PGC -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com?] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions - none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. Bull shit! Billions will die if we continue along our current course of consuming resources as fast as the global market can possibly manage. Don't give me your righteous crap. Your - do nothing attitude is a guarantee that billions of people will die and that most species on earth will go extinct. In just fifty years or so the market driven industrial economies of the Oil Age have managed to burn through around half of everything - and John Clark - says full speed ahead. You are so full of it John I am amazed you do not just burst in a giant shit storm. So fuck you asshole, and your incendiary accusations of genocide that you level - without any basis - at those who do not share your magical thinking cornucopian ideology of eternally and magically self-replenishing resource base. This world has limits and we have reached them. and are hostile to energy harvesting - the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. Screw you. The facts on the ground tell a different story. The pace and scale of the global solar PV rollout proves that you are full of shit Mr. Clark. All the various threads of our world's problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them If I wanted lectures from the Green Party, the International Socialist Movement. or any Marxist cult, I'd have joined them and would be agreeing with you. I want technical solutions while some demand, in essence, a dictatorship that is conducive to themselves. Your point seems to be you don't really desire answers that would benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies, but instead simply insist on total government rule. It goes to my point earlier, about using troubles as an excuse to gain more power, rather then trouble shoot. To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them. Your posts are just redundant because skimming them, I see all the same word groups as the above media channels; thus I don't even bother to read. I appreciate rational posts that are not naive to global systemic imbalances, how they can be formulated by which data, how they can be accelerated, mitigated etc. So grind your political axes elsewhere please or open political threads, that I and the members that feel similarly on the issue, can ignore. From Europe, I don't really care for the whole US progressives vs. conservatives thing... Just data concerning sustainability of energy, ecological systems etc. on specified levels, and what can/could be done about it, and not some preaching for how liberated ego should do all the ugly and stupid things it wants because this is what freedom means and scientists are flawed, complexity makes everything relative/undecidable etc. kind of junk. It's the same voice that rings through those media channels: I don't need a lesson in freedom from the lobbies that eavesdrop and conduct unilateral military stuff on the entire world for the security of said freedom; again: I can buy those subscriptions to dictatorship propaganda of those interests myself, if I cared. PGC -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions – none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. Bull shit! Billions will die if we continue along our current course of consuming resources as fast as the global market can possibly manage. Don’t give me your righteous crap. Your – do nothing attitude is a guarantee that billions of people will die and that most species on earth will go extinct. In just fifty years or so the market driven industrial economies of the Oil Age have managed to burn through around half of everything – and John Clark – says full speed ahead. You are so full of it John I am amazed you do not just burst in a giant shit storm. So fuck you asshole, and your incendiary accusations of genocide that you level – without any basis – at those who do not share your magical thinking cornucopian ideology
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them If I wanted lectures from the Green Party, the International Socialist Movement. or any Marxist cult, I'd have joined them and would be agreeing with you. I want technical solutions while some demand, in essence, a dictatorship that is conducive to themselves. Your point seems to be you don't really desire answers that would benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies, but instead simply insist on total government rule. It goes to my point earlier, about using troubles as an excuse to gain more power, rather then trouble shoot. Paint and troll your fox cartoons on this list if you want. The green party as Marxist cult? You seem to have your political ideas sorted. Here, the conservatives are accused of stealing the green agenda, the left is accused by the ecologists of not being green enough etc. So the fox cartoons only hold in your bubble far from helpful or clarifying data. I don't care about your answers to benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies because I do the things, even shoulder the economic risk, you chat about. Thus I really have no time to quibble politics with you or read your stuff. If you can point to solutions or re-frame current sustainability issues outside of the standard literature, please do, because up to now, you haven't. But go ahead with trolling of fox cartoons if you want. PGC To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them. Your posts are just redundant because skimming them, I see all the same word groups as the above media channels; thus I don't even bother to read. I appreciate rational posts that are not naive to global systemic imbalances, how they can be formulated by which data, how they can be accelerated, mitigated etc. So grind your political axes elsewhere please or open political threads, that I and the members that feel similarly on the issue, can ignore. From Europe, I don't really care for the whole US progressives vs. conservatives thing... Just data concerning sustainability of energy, ecological systems etc. on specified levels, and what can/could be done about it, and not some preaching for how liberated ego should do all the ugly and stupid things it wants because this is what freedom means and scientists are flawed, complexity makes everything relative/undecidable etc. kind of junk. It's the same voice that rings through those media channels: I don't need a lesson in freedom from the lobbies that eavesdrop and conduct unilateral military stuff on the entire world for the security of said freedom; again: I can buy those subscriptions to dictatorship propaganda of those interests myself, if I cared. PGC -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com?] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions - none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 20 March 2014 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate thing is. http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living down, to fit the ideal environmental foot print. Improving the standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example. If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s. So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com I heartily agree, but I was focusing on technological remediation for AGW, for energy, etc. I am against the management of people by government edict. Yes, computer and electronics engineers are abetting a fascist system worldwide, but I am hoping that physicists, mechanical and chemical engineers, will step up, where the electronics engineers have failed us. It seems to me that you are for the management of ALL people(s) by the very small constricted oligarchy of globally dominant crime families. What kind of freedom is that? The freedom to live under the rule of psychopaths? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 7:12 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, Technology is being used to place almost everything under government control right now. At the risk of repeating myself... http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22635-focus-former-top-n sa-official-qwe-are-now-in-a-police-stateq -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:36:25 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote: At some point, Pierz, one has to use one's senses. Quite so, but you were making a completely invalid leap of reasoning from your sense data - something along the lines of I see birds singing in the trees, so mass species extinction is humbug. That is obviously fallacious. The species extinction rate is estimated at 0.01% per annum by the WWF, so of course there is still a vast majority of species left, including those starlings out your window. 1-10K times background does not translate necessarily to a large proportion of observed species, especially in the near-monoculture inhabited by urban humans. That is just so blindingly clear and indisputable that you should really just retract that remark. This is part or the scientific endeavor as well. Observe, record, and measure, hopefully in common units, milibars, meters, kilograms, parsecs. But one must observe and try to make sense of things. Just as the oil companies say no, no, no, we pollute nothing, the environmentalists push for a common goal as well. One is driven by greed to lie, the other by a hunger for power-to save the world. Of the two sets of bastards, I have learned to mistrust the environmentalist even more so than the petro kings. Environmentalists get things wrong due to knee-jerk, party-line responses to issues - the objection to all nuclear power may be an example. But the motivation to preserve the life of all beings on this planet is always going to trump naked, short-term greed in my book when it comes to which bastard I trust. On another note, I think you have probably heard of the physical anthropological papers indicating that the paleo-south americans, did an excellent job of sustaining the rain forests, by simply doing what was in their interests. Damming streams using logs and boulders, and mud, removing natural dams in the uplands by digging using tree branches, crude shovels, their hands. I hear the (not-so) faint background anthem of right-wing ideology. Self-interest can be trusted to bring us all the best possible result. Let's all get out of the way and let the market save us all. You can bet the corporations will be building sea-walls if the ocean does start to rise dramatically, but the fact is the interests of corporations are way too short-term. CEOs care about this year's balance sheet, next year's, and maybe, just maybe the balance sheet in five years' time. Beyond their own retirement horizon they couldn't give a damn (or a dam). And corporations are enmeshed in the inertia of how things have always been done. Finally, with regard to saving the planet even at the expense of humanity, that's like talking about saving the ocean even at the expense of the fish. We are utterly dependent on the health of this planet. Certainly there are real tensions between environmental and human concerns - do we let community X clear-fell a certain forest? If we don't the community will suffer economically. But ultimately if we let every community log every forest at will, we will end up with an atmosphere that can't regenerate its own oxygen supply. Those Amerindians couldn't do too much damage through their self-interested actions precisely because they only had their hands and a few primitive tools. It's the power of modern technology that is the game changer. We can't be one-sidedly environmentalist and just ban all logging. Rather we need to work with the tension of these competing concerns and use all our human ingenuity to find technical and social solutions to these immensely challenging problems. The world is complex - no simple-minded ideology like trust the market is likely to hold the answer. Remember Paul Ehrlich the population biologist who wrote The Population Bomb, and made dramatic extinction scenarios? His scenarios seem to be stimulus-response in their inception/purpose. Get the lemmings to jump to the ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 5:19 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:36:25 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote: At some point, Pierz, one has to use one's senses. Quite so, but you were making a completely invalid leap of reasoning from your sense data - something along the lines of I see birds singing in the trees, so mass species extinction is humbug. That is obviously fallacious. The species extinction rate is estimated at 0.01% per annum by the WWF, so of course there is still a vast majority of species left, including those starlings out your window. 1-10K times background does not translate necessarily to a large proportion of observed species, especially in the near-monoculture inhabited by urban humans. That is just so blindingly clear and indisputable that you should really just retract that remark. This is part or the scientific endeavor as well. Observe, record, and measure, hopefully in common units, milibars, meters, kilograms, parsecs. But one must observe and try to make sense of things. Just as the oil companies say no, no, no, we pollute nothing, the environmentalists push for a common goal as well. One is driven by greed to lie, the other by a hunger for power-to save the world. Of the two sets of bastards, I have learned to mistrust the environmentalist even more so than the petro kings. Environmentalists get things wrong due to knee-jerk, party-line responses to issues - the objection to all nuclear power may be an example. But the motivation to preserve the life of all beings on this planet is always going to trump naked, short-term greed in my book when it comes to which bastard I trust. On another note, I think you have probably heard of the physical anthropological papers indicating that the paleo-south americans, did an excellent job of sustaining the rain forests, by simply doing what was in their interests. Damming streams using logs and boulders, and mud, removing natural dams in the uplands by digging using tree branches, crude shovels, their hands. I hear the (not-so) faint background anthem of right-wing ideology. Self-interest can be trusted to bring us all the best possible result. Let's all get out of the way and let the market save us all. You can bet the corporations will be building sea-walls if the ocean does start to rise dramatically, but the fact is the interests of corporations are way too short-term. CEOs care about this year's balance sheet, next year's, and maybe, just maybe the balance sheet in five years' time. Beyond their own retirement horizon they couldn't give a damn (or a dam). And corporations are enmeshed in the inertia of how things have always been done. Finally, with regard to saving the planet even at the expense of humanity, that's like talking about saving the ocean even at the expense of the fish. We are utterly dependent on the health of this planet. Certainly there are real tensions between environmental and human concerns - do we let community X clear-fell a certain forest? If we don't the community will suffer economically. But ultimately if we let every community log every forest at will, we will end up with an atmosphere that can't regenerate its own oxygen supply. Those Amerindians couldn't do too much damage through their self-interested actions precisely because they only had their hands and a few primitive tools. It's the power of modern technology that is the game changer. We can't be one-sidedly environmentalist and just ban all logging. Rather we need to work with the tension of these competing concerns and use all our human ingenuity to find technical and social solutions to these immensely challenging problems. The world is complex
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, Technology is being used to place almost everything under government control right now. At the risk of repeating myself... http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22635-focus-former-top-nsa-official-qwe-are-now-in-a-police-stateq -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 3/18/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. It's not an *excuse* nor a *pretense* because there is no plausible way that the problem will be addressed without government action. When there is an air pollutant that it costs money to avoid or remove (like automobile exhaust pollutants) it is only a *disadvantage* to individuals and enterprises to spend their money to clean up. But the government can provide incentives to make cleaner energy production cheaper. This is only forcing costs that had been externalized to be internalized. There is also the development of technologies which are too expensive, too riskly, or too likely to be stopped by litigation for any private organization to develop. LFTRs are the obvious example, but also various CO2 sequestering schemes and insolation reduction by aerosols. So, I try to focus on technology and ask what do you want to do, what technology? I get suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I would fix issues with tech, But technology development takes money and sometimes protection. rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us all, Few on this list agree with this approach. Few agree with your ridiculous equation of all bureaucrats with fascists and all government programs with communism. They want everything under government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be trusted completely. Again, technology first please, The market means you can have as much freedom as you can pay for. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 19 March 2014 13:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The market means you can have as much freedom as you can pay for. Nicely put. I may put that in my collection of quotes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
At some point, Pierz, one has to use one's senses. This is part or the scientific endeavor as well. Observe, record, and measure, hopefully in common units, milibars, meters, kilograms, parsecs. But one must observe and try to make sense of things. Just as the oil companies say no, no, no, we pollute nothing, the environmentalists push for a common goal as well. One is driven by greed to lie, the other by a hunger for power-to save the world. Of the two sets of bastards, I have learned to mistrust the environmentalist even more so than the petro kings. On another note, I think you have probably heard of the physical anthropological papers indicating that the paleo-south americans, did an excellent job of sustaining the rain forests, by simply doing what was in their interests. Damming streams using logs and boulders, and mud, removing natural dams in the uplands by digging using tree branches, crude shovels, their hands. Remember Paul Ehrlich the population biologist who wrote The Population Bomb, and made dramatic extinction scenarios? His scenarios seem to be stimulus-response in their inception/purpose. Get the lemmings to jump to the tune of government control (by the ideologically correct party), because we don't want the world do die, do we? Stimulus-response. If even simple peoples can save the rainforest for their own harvestings, which they did, then a motorized culture like our own can do even better, given the technology and the incentive. We don't see, round the world, nations elites, for their own self-interests, demanding setting up artificial reefs and dams to block incoming sea. We don't see a rush to make clean power a priority, and there's no sense of panic with the worlds elites, and the politicians they fund, to do anything like this at all. The billionaires in China, Russia, the US, Europe, everywhere are not behaving as they were trying to save their asses, and assets. They are real good at doing this, far better than we posters on this mailing group. I am more interested in generating workable ideas on what to do for species extinction, energy, AGW, then arguing about faulty green ideology. So, lets go with the Green ideology that its doom city today, now what do we do? This is where its gets interesting, because the emails then become about technical problem solving and not dictatorship-plutocracy worship. WHA?? You think that? Based on what analysis? I imagine that you, like me, live in a metropolis where in the course of a day you are exposed to about three or four animal species: humans, your cat, and the sparrow that just flew past your window. So you look out your window and go, Oh business as usual! Cats aren't extinct yet! Extinction rate looks pretty normal to me. But consider the Amazon, where there are many thousands of species of organism living in every tree. -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 3:41 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:55:41 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I think that if extinction rates was 10k, you would already see silent spring round the globe. WHA?? You think that? Based on what analysis? I imagine that you, like me, live in a metropolis where in the course of a day you are exposed to about three or four animal species: humans, your cat, and the sparrow that just flew past your window. So you look out your window and go, Oh business as usual! Cats aren't extinct yet! Extinction rate looks pretty normal to me. But consider the Amazon, where there are many thousands of species of organism living in every tree. The Amazon was deforested in the early 2000s at a rate of 22,000 square kms a year. You may not have noticed the species extinctions from your office. But of course, you should trust your eyes, not the alarmist proclamations of those evil greenies. Then consider that the global extinction rate is about 0.01% per annum (according to WWF, bunch of power-hungry communists that they are). If the number of species on the planet is at the upper end of estimates, then that means about 10,000 species a year are going extinct. That's about 10,000 times the background rate. The lower estimate puts it at about 1000x the background rate. And you're surprised by that? Done any travelling lately? The world is a parking lot. I saw the Astrolabe Reef in Fiji in the 80s when I was 14, and it was the most beautiful, spectacular, abundant thing I've ever seen. I saw it again two years ago and the change defied belief. People were swimming about going ooh aah, but they had no idea what it had been before. It was a paradise. I don't need to be told by an expert that bioversity is under massive threat. It's plain as day the moment I leave my little human monoculture. And then you come up with a line about 'dur fuhrer' (sic
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On the subject of environmentalists wanting to save the planet even at the expense of the human race, it's heartening to see the latest missive from Greenpeace, which starts... Nobody wants tigers to go extinct, but consider this; *without healthy forests our own survival may also be under threat.* (Their emphasis). Note their main affiliation lies not with tigers but humanity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:55:41 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I think that if extinction rates was 10k, you would already see silent spring round the globe. WHA?? You think that? Based on what analysis? I imagine that you, like me, live in a metropolis where in the course of a day you are exposed to about three or four animal species: humans, your cat, and the sparrow that just flew past your window. So you look out your window and go, Oh business as usual! Cats aren't extinct yet! Extinction rate looks pretty normal to me. But consider the Amazon, where there are many thousands of species of organism living in every tree. The Amazon was deforested in the early 2000s at a rate of 22,000 square kms a year. You may not have noticed the species extinctions from your office. But of course, you should trust your eyes, not the alarmist proclamations of those evil greenies. Then consider that the global extinction rate is about 0.01% per annum (according to WWF, bunch of power-hungry communists that they are). If the number of species on the planet is at the upper end of estimates, then that means about 10,000 species a year are going extinct. That's about 10,000 times the background rate. The lower estimate puts it at about 1000x the background rate. And you're surprised by that? Done any travelling lately? The world is a parking lot. I saw the Astrolabe Reef in Fiji in the 80s when I was 14, and it was the most beautiful, spectacular, abundant thing I've ever seen. I saw it again two years ago and the change defied belief. People were swimming about going ooh aah, but they had no idea what it had been before. It was a paradise. I don't need to be told by an expert that bioversity is under massive threat. It's plain as day the moment I leave my little human monoculture. And then you come up with a line about 'dur fuhrer' (sic), comparing environmentalists to fascists. WTF? I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but wherever you are, you're fast asleep. It smells of alarmism, to get people to march to the fearless leaders tune. Its like the Marx brothers joke: who are you going to believe, you own two eyes or me! The academics, I suspect, are doing their hockey stick lie again, so things can roll their way with jobs for life, lots of cash from dur fuhrer, and appointments to jobs in the EPA, and such. Theres an inconsistency with the dire observations predicted, and the public policy resonse of the ruling class. To me, this is a tip off that fibs are being told and exaggerations sold. But fear not, I am a mere particle in the sandstorm of history. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on each other even more viciously! So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing the dumping? :-) Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: div class=gmai ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Umm... no. It was you. Great big smiley face. On Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15:24 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Richard, Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on each other even more viciously! So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing the dumping? :-) Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: div class=gmai ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com on Sat, Mar 15, 2014 wrote: I think debate is like a sport where it's OK to be aggressive within some very circumscribed bounds, do you see it differently? No I agree. And I don't mind if you call me an asshole but don't call me a creationist, that's going too far. Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look like the general policy recommendations that most of those who see an urgent need to curb global warming could agree on? Yes. And if it is bad should we do something about it now or wait until we find a solution that doesn't cause more problems than it solves? You seem to think that doing something right now is the safe conservative approach but it's not because any dramatic reduction in fossil fuel without big increases in nuclear power will kill millions of people and impoverish billions. How do you define dramatic reduction? I would define a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel emissions as anything that will make a measurable reduction in global warming by 2100 according to those very climate models you love so very much. The moderate stuff you keep talking about like the 100 billion dollar stuff Germany is doing or even the suggestions of the Kyoto Protocol are all just gestures according to the very computer models that you like and are far far too small to have any notable effect on the climate by the end of the century. By the way, implementing the useless Kyoto Protocol would cost 432 billion dollars EACH YEAR, if we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years every human on earth would have clean potable water and this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. But if you really believe that the climate models are correct and you believe that science and technology will not find far better ways to deal with the problem in the next century as technology improves, and if you believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be used, and if you believe that the resulting global warming poses a credible existential threat to the human race if not life on the entire planet then it's time to forget about cheap gestures and moderation and gradualism and get serious and immediately put the world on a energy starvation diet and be brave enough to face the fact that there is no way 7 billion people can be kept alive on such a diet and no way to keep more than a very tiny fraction of them happy and prosperous. But before you do anything that dramatic you'd better be correct! So I repeat my question, are you willing to bet your life and that of billions of your neighbors that you're not just sure, but also correct? you can see that the average expected rise of all the model runs for RCP4.5 was around 2 degrees by 2100 Big deal. I doubt if a 2 degree temperature rise would kill billions of people, but a starvation energy diet, the only solution to global warming environmentalists say we should even consider, most certainly would. I repeat--do you have some reason to think climate scientists are using a bad explanation in terms of their claims And I repeat it's not my responsibility to provide evidence that climate models are bad, it's climate scientists responsibility to provide evidence that they're good; although I will say that a year ago those same climate scientists predicted that the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season would be much more active than average, but it turned out to be the quietest season in a century. That might not prove they're totally full of shit but it does make me reluctant to bet my life that their next prediction will be better. I said entropy is proportional to the LOGARITHM of the number of states OK, I was speaking loosely and really meant something more like a function of rather than proportional to, I certainly didn't mean to suggest your error was thinking it was directly proportional when actually it's proportional to the logarithm. Rather, the error I was pointing to here was that you repeatedly argued that the entropy depended on the number of ways a state could be generated, implying that it depends on the number of PAST histories that could lead up to the present state, when actually it depends only on the number of possible PRESENT microstates the system might be in Today the deepest understanding of entropy comes from the study of Black Holes. From: http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~luca/Topics/bh/entropy_origin.html S [entropy ] is the log of the number of quantum mechanically distinct ways that the black hole could have been made, or information lost in the creation of the black hole I would even more strongly recommend physicist Kip Thorne's masterful Book Black Holes and Timewarps. From page 446: A Black Hole's entropy is the logarithm of the number of ways that the hole could have been made this error There was no error. led you to argue that in the Game of Life cellular automaton, a macrostate consisting
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com on Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM Are you trying to imply that species are not dying off at alarming rate? I hate to see any species go extinct (except for the Smallpox virus) but there are other things that alarm me more. I don't think so but even if you're right do you have a solution that doesn't involve the extinction or at least a major culling of my very favorite animal? If so let's hear it. What a total false choice you offer. If I disagree with your views then unless I have all the answers... what John? If you don't know of a cure for global warming that isn't worse than the disease then it's pointless to continue to wring your hands about it and you should concentrate on problems that you might actually be able to solve. I give us a 50% chance of going out with nuclear war I think the possibility of nuclear war is much less than it was a few decades ago but it's still the single greatest threat facing the human race. But hey, look on the bright side, if we're all incinerated in a nuclear fireball we don't have to sweat about a little thing like global warming. I put our probability of avoiding planetary economic collapse and a die off of the like no one has experienced since the eruption of Toba on the low side. If we're all doomed then environmentalists should stop bugging us over trivialities and let us enjoy the little time we have left. Does that mean I wish for this? Hell no it doesn't; it means I am realistic Dramatist would be a better word. and it is a mess whether you choose to believe it is or not. Look at any metric: deforestation; desertification, loss of top soil, loss of organic matter content in farmed soils. Add to this the impending downslope for all fossil fuels and all fossil water. Add to this the blow back effects of loss of watershed; climate change; ocean ecology collapse Don't bother me with the small stuff, the nukes are about to fly! Anything we try to do is going to take energy to do - and lots and lots of energy. Even to build - say to pick your fav a Nuclear power complex. It takes huge quantities of fossil fuel to make the cement, steel, to operate the mines, to transport everything. Exactly, so unless you can't wait to see billions die to continue to behave as if fossil fuel is the personification of evil is just dumb. We are in the twilight of the oil age I prefer the Harry Potter books. and have become petro-junkies. [..] I give it even odds that we will do what junkies do and self-destruct If you think there is only one chance in four that we won't nuke ourselves or die as a junkie then why the hell are you losing sleep over a little thing like global warming? Do, I have hope... yes, as a matter of fact I do maybe about 1%-5% chance we will get our shit together in time. And I would estimate that there is about a 1% to 5% chance your estimate of a 1% to 5% chance we will survive is correct. What do you think the real reason is for the globally very anemic recovery from the collapse of 2007-2008? Does it perhaps dawn on you that peak oil might have something to do with it? I hate to disappoint you but the second coming and the peak oil Armageddon that will punish the profligate for their sinful ways is still a ways off. The USA has embraced fracking technology as no other part of the world has and as a result oil production in the USA is the highest it's been in 24 years and it now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia. In 2012 oil production increased in the USA by 760,000 barrels a day, the largest yearly increase since records about oil production started in 1859. And the increase in natural gas production is every bit as dramatic. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 16 March 2014 15:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating. Teehee. Time to send in the clean-up squad...? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com on Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM Are you trying to imply that species are not dying off at alarming rate? I hate to see any species go extinct (except for the Smallpox virus) but there are other things that alarm me more. I don't think so but even if you're right do you have a solution that doesn't involve the extinction or at least a major culling of my very favorite animal? If so let's hear it. What a total false choice you offer. If I disagree with your views then unless I have all the answers. what John? If you don't know of a cure for global warming that isn't worse than the disease then it's pointless to continue to wring your hands about it and you should concentrate on problems that you might actually be able to solve. BS - raising awareness of a problem is the first step towards addressing it. I realize you are more comfortable with a cornucopian magical thinking cap protecting you from the harsh light of reality, but to say that one should not speak of planetary scale problems, such as say for example the utterly unsustainable nature of our current petro-chemical dependent large scale mechanized mono-cropping agro system; because one does not have every solution at one's fingertips is not only ridiculous - in and of itself - but is an attempt to discourage even discussing things that John Clark does not approve of or want to hear mentioned. I have offered quite a few prescriptions - none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic and are hostile to energy harvesting - the solar flux, the wind. If we do not adapt and change - at a fundamental core level the ways and manners in which we live - we will go as you would have us all go full speed ahead straight over a cliff! I give us a 50% chance of going out with nuclear war I think the possibility of nuclear war is much less than it was a few decades ago but it's still the single greatest threat facing the human race. But hey, look on the bright side, if we're all incinerated in a nuclear fireball we don't have to sweat about a little thing like global warming. I put our probability of avoiding planetary economic collapse and a die off of the like no one has experienced since the eruption of Toba on the low side. If we're all doomed then environmentalists should stop bugging us over trivialities and let us enjoy the little time we have left. So you are one who favors the Ostrich strategy.. Interesting, by the bark of your voice I thought your more a Hyena. say, than an Ostrich. Again, may I point out that awareness of a problem is the necessary first step in addressing it or mitigating it or avoiding it. Does that mean I wish for this? Hell no it doesn't; it means I am realistic Dramatist would be a better word. You are. to use a parable for a quick second. the yeast that is yelling to all the other yeast there is infinite sugar for us yeast to eat in our vat.. Look my fellow yeast all these naysayers have always been wrong before, so continue eating as much sugar as you can. many yeast look at the work of these past yeast and see that there still seems to be lots of sugar and conclude that they must be wrong.. Eating is good, because yeast like to eat sugar. And then, quite suddenly as the yeast population booms. that wall is hit, and in a very brief period of time an almost total collapse of the yeast population in that vat happens.. And happens every time.. No matter what the yeast cornucopeans try to pretend up until the very moment their vat world goes over its cliff. If you do not think the situation of our planetary biosphere is dramatic, you are asleep at the wheel John. and it is a mess whether you choose to believe it is or not. Look at any metric: deforestation; desertification, loss of top soil, loss of organic matter content in farmed soils. Add to this the impending downslope for all fossil fuels and all fossil water. Add to this the blow back effects of loss of watershed; climate change; ocean ecology collapse Don't bother me with the small stuff, the nukes are about to fly! Your flippant attitude gets you nowhere. Anything we try to do is going to take energy to do - and lots and lots of energy. Even to build - say to pick your fav a Nuclear power complex. It takes huge quantities of fossil fuel to make the cement, steel, to operate the mines, to transport everything. Exactly, so unless you can't wait to see
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
All, In terms of the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions the theory I find most compelling in both cases is asteroid strikes whose resulting strike energies were also focused at the antipodes. The energy of the Cretaceous strike off the Yucatan was focused in India where it ruptured the crust resulting in the Deccan Traps. The even larger Permian asteroid strike occurred in the South Pacific and its energy was focused in Siberia where it ruptured the crust there resulting in the Siberian Traps. The time frames are roughly consistent though in both cases the traps persisted long after the asteroid strikes which initiated them. So in both cases you would have double whammies whose persistent effects lasted for much longer than the effects of the original asteroid impacts which initiated them. Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 1:44:49 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:29 AM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.comjavascript: wrote: 66 million years ago 2/3 of all species, not individual animals but entire species, became extinct quite literally ove ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar L. Owen Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 5:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating All, In terms of the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions the theory I find most compelling in both cases is asteroid strikes whose resulting strike energies were also focused at the antipodes. The energy of the Cretaceous strike off the Yucatan was focused in India where it ruptured the crust resulting in the Deccan Traps. The even larger Permian asteroid strike occurred in the South Pacific and its energy was focused in Siberia where it ruptured the crust there resulting in the Siberian Traps. The time frames are roughly consistent though in both cases the traps persisted long after the asteroid strikes which initiated them. For the Cretaceous certainly that asteroid strike left a clear global geologic fingerprint in the KT boundary. For the Permian event it is harder to say – as tectonics long ago sub-ducted the crime scene – so to speak, but it seems a reasonable hypothesis that an asteroid strike is the cause (or maybe trigger event) for the Siberian traps, on the other hand the earth (the internal mass of it) was significantly hotter back in the Permian era, due to higher quantities of radioactive material that has subsequently decayed. Could the Siberian Traps event have been caused instead by a massive rising deep mantle plume – as has been hypothesized? As far as I know there is still a debate going on as to the proximate cause. Chris So in both cases you would have double whammies whose persistent effects lasted for much longer than the effects of the original asteroid impacts which initiated them. Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 1:44:49 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:29 AM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.com javascript: wrote: 66 million years ago 2/3 of all species, not individual animals but entire species, became extinct quite literally ove ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Friday, March 14, 2014 9:35:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: So, like a creationist You need a new insult, you've used that one before. It's not an insult Of course not, I'm sure that being insulting was the furthest thing from your mind. This focus on occasional anomalies while ignoring all the successes is certainly characteristic of your own style of argument If we didn't focus on occasional anomalies the old theories would be good enough and we'd never learn anything new. Another such oddity is why OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions sweet jesus...why do you bother yourself johnny boy, with such slobbering drivel when your hearts not in it. Get an evil little mini-me sidekick... Go Johnny boy it's an observation of how various specific modes of argument you use are analogous to those of creationists. I have noticed that all people who confidently argue for fringe positions on scientific issues What fringe position on a scientific issue have I taken? All I've said it that it's clear that things have been getting warmer and it's not clear how much warmer they will get in the future and it's even less clear what if anything we should do about it. I actually think that's pretty damn non-controversial. The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and the draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or decommissioning of many other d ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 16 March 2014 12:19, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: sweet jesus...why do you bother yourself johnny boy, with such slobbering drivel when your hearts not in it. Get an evil little mini-me sidekick... Looks like someone has discovered a new insult! Whatever happened to netiquette? I found that article rather interesting. If climate change turns out not to be as bad as anticipated I will be over the moon (since as bad as anticipated could include a methane burp stagnating the oceans and turning most land based life extinct). But this isn't a good enough reason to stop agitating for cleaner and more sustainable power asap, and if fear of climate change helps us get there before the oil runs out or the environment becomes fatally toxified I won't complain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 March 2014 12:19, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: sweet jesus...why do you bother yourself johnny boy, with such slobbering drivel when your hearts not in it. Get an evil little mini-me sidekick... Looks like someone has discovered a new insult! Whatever happened to netiquette? I found that article rather interesting. If climate change turns out not to be as bad as anticipated I will be over the moon (since as bad as anticipated could include a methane burp stagnating the oceans and turning most land based life extinct). But this isn't a good enough reason to stop agitating for cleaner and more sustainable power asap, and if fear of climate change helps us get there before the oil runs out or the environment becomes fatally toxified I won't complain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:08:13 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 16 March 2014 12:19, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: sweet jesus...why do you bother yourself johnny boy, with such slobbering drivel when your hearts not in it. Get an evil little mini-me sidekick... Looks like someone has discovered a new insult! Whatever happened to netiquette? I love Johnny...I wrote him out a post that helped with all the questions and issues he raised to me as on his mind. But it didn't help...he stood me up. I thought maybe he'd walked out of climate science. Hopefully not lurking back over on Chinese Room, he's always there when the graffiti shows up on the toilet wall. I was on my way over to look at that new gig on high street hell on earth. The fancy titles so rarely deliver on expectations. Everything's about being seen, where what threads. It's getting very clicky Liz, I won't name names but I know people who are now saying they won't be seen dead on fukishima, and I suppose you know about Edgar and the flashing incident. Whatever, but say what you want about him but that man has 72 pairs of shoes, four more and his shoes will overtake his theories. And at least he doesn't go on Tegmarc, he might not have Standish's youth and looks - and he knows it throwing himself at every thread like that always says he's getting a new model - Bruno's getting fed up with stalways borrowing his. Anyway I'll be round tegmark step three, there's supposed to be a punch-up with the compheads. So embarassoing, Bruno was wearing last fall's philosophy last night, doesn't he know it's anything now so long as it's black I found that article rather interesting. If climate change turns out not to be as bad as anticipated I will be over the moon (since as bad as anticipated could include a methane burp stagnating the oceans and turning most land based life extinct). But this isn't a good enough reason to stop agitating for cleaner and more sustainable power asap, and if fear of climate change helps us get there before the oil runs out or the environment becomes fatally toxified I won't complain. It's not the global warming that defines how bad, but all the other stuff. Insurance companies think it's a major problem...their having meetings across the world, claims for extreme weaither damage multiple times up now on 20 years ago. The people -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.