subject:"\"Re\\\: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating\""

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>>
>>>


  On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 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.
>

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? Becaus

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread ghibbsa


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 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes 
> >:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark >:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > 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 this science at basic?

>
>  
>

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread meekerdb

On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux
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.

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
ideologically motivated attempt to discredit the science. Exactly the same t

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 
> > 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.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

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

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 
To: everything-list 
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 
To: everything-list 
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

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

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 
To: everything-list 
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  wrote:

  

On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:


  



  
  
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM,Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:

  



  
  
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark 
:

  


  



  On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin 
 Anciaux   
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

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> 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.


>   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 issu

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  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 
>> To: everything-list 
>> 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

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 >
> To: everything-list >
> 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

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

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 
To: everything-list 
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  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  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
> 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  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  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

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 
> > 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,

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  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  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

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 
> > 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

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :


>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 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.
>

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 part

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes  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 Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>>
>>>


 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 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.
>>
>
> 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 reliabi

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:




2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:




2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :




On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 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 people are ready to exploit it, and we have to  
be vigilant.







and all the

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread LizR

On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes  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 Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>>
>>>

 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 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 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'

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 
To: everything-list 
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  wrote:

2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux  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 
"Everythi

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 
To: everything-list 
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  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

2014-03-21 Thread Chris de Morsella






 From: meekerdb 
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  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark : 
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux  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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread meekerdb

On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:

2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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, send email to everything-list@googlegroups

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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.
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Edgar L. Owen

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 
> > 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

2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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 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 i

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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 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 17:52 GMT+01:00 Jesse Mazer :

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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"?  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

2014-03-21 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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"?  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


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 
To: everything-list 
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,   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 


To: everything-list 
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,   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 some

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :

>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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... 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

2014-03-21 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 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"?  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 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen  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

2014-03-21 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:16 PM,  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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,  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 fossi

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 :

>  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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,  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 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  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.

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 
To: everything-list 
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,   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 
To: everything-list 

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-21 Thread Edgar L. Owen

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. 
>  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 Thread Edgar L. Owen

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

Sorry that should read "equal opportunitie*d*" - serves me right for
throwing in a neologism.


On 21 March 2014 14:23, LizR  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,  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 
>> To: everything-list 
>> 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

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,  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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


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 
To: everything-list 
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


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 
To: everything-list 
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,   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=pGfQmBtXYx0C&lpg=PP1&pg=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


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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 21 March 2014 02:34,   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

2014-03-20 Thread Edgar L. Owen

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


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 
To: everything-list 
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 
To: everything-list 
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,   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

2014-03-20 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM,  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=pGfQmBtXYx0C&lpg=PP1&pg=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

On 21 March 2014 06:24, Edgar L. Owen  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 21 March 2014 02:34,  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

2014-03-20 Thread Edgar L. Owen

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 >
> To: everything-list >
> 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, > 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


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 
To: everything-list 
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,   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 
To: everything-list 
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  :

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 o

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 
To: everything-list 
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  :

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 
To: everything-list 
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  :

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 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating




On 20 March 2014 07:10,   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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM,  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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 :
>
>>  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 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>On 20 March 2014 07:10,  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

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 
To: everything-list 
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, wrote:

  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 ask"what 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, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-03-20 14:55 GMT+01:00 :

>  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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 :
>
>>  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 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>On 20 March 2014 07:10,  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 a

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 
To: everything-list 
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  :

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 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating




On 20 March 2014 07:10,   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

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 
To: everything-list 
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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


On 19 March 2014 08:46,  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 are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything Li

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 :

>  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 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>   On 20 March 2014 07:10,  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


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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 20 March 2014 07:10,   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