Discussion:
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-02 17:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02

Are the seas going to rise or fall ?

Will gravity change ?

Lynn
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-02 21:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
Lynn
No, but apparently the magnetic field will reverse.

I hope that doesn't make anything relying on the current state of
electromagnetics (like the various grids this computer is connected to,
/not to mention the computer itself,/ stop functioning properly.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter Trei
2019-10-02 22:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
Lynn
No, but apparently the magnetic field will reverse.
I hope that doesn't make anything relying on the current state of
electromagnetics (like the various grids this computer is connected to,
/not to mention the computer itself,/ stop functioning properly.
Statistically, we're overdue for a flip. However, the flip will probably take a period measured in decades or centuries, with an interregnum of weak chaotic fields.

Pt
m***@sky.com
2019-10-03 04:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
Lynn
No, but apparently the magnetic field will reverse.
I hope that doesn't make anything relying on the current state of
electromagnetics (like the various grids this computer is connected to,
/not to mention the computer itself,/ stop functioning properly.
Statistically, we're overdue for a flip. However, the flip will probably take a period measured in decades or centuries, with an interregnum of weak chaotic fields.
Pt
Since the magnetic field helps protect us from radiation, surges in power lines are not the only things to worry about.
Peter Trei
2019-10-04 04:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
Lynn
No, but apparently the magnetic field will reverse.
I hope that doesn't make anything relying on the current state of
electromagnetics (like the various grids this computer is connected to,
/not to mention the computer itself,/ stop functioning properly.
Statistically, we're overdue for a flip. However, the flip will probably take a period measured in decades or centuries, with an interregnum of weak chaotic fields.
Pt
Since the magnetic field helps protect us from radiation, surges in power lines are not the only things to worry about.
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago. During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength. It isn't really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.

Pt
Juho Julkunen
2019-10-04 20:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by m***@sky.com
Since the magnetic field helps protect us from radiation, surges in power lines are not the only things to worry about.
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago. During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength. It isn't really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
I think I'm a more nervous fellow than you. I even worry about outcomes
more benign than the literal extinction of the human species.
--
Juho Julkunen
Quadibloc
2019-10-10 01:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength. It isn't
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-10 02:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-10 18:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect. Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?

The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.

Lynn
David DeLaney
2019-10-11 04:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Climate Change is fake science.
Thank you, once again, for your unqualified opinion.

Your business is important to us.

Plesse continue to hold. Onto your beliefs.

While you wait, we ask that you fill out a small survey, which will not affect
your chances of surviving any forthcoming unforeseen apocalypse. We swear.

Dave, press 2 for Spanish or 3 for Mandarin
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-11 17:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lynn McGuire
Climate Change is fake science.
Thank you, once again, for your unqualified opinion.
Your business is important to us.
Plesse continue to hold. Onto your beliefs.
While you wait, we ask that you fill out a small survey, which will not affect
your chances of surviving any forthcoming unforeseen apocalypse. We swear.
Dave, press 2 for Spanish or 3 for Mandarin
What, no German ?

Lynn
Juho Julkunen
2019-10-11 12:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect. Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
Let's say there is such a thing. Does it matter? We only need to go a
fraction of the way towards Venus to render the planet inhabitable.

"Warmer is better" ceases to be true long before the oceans boil.
--
Juho Julkunen
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-13 03:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect. Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
Let's say there is such a thing. Does it matter? We only need to go a
fraction of the way towards Venus to render the planet inhabitable.
"Warmer is better" ceases to be true long before the oceans boil.
Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than the Earth. I am not even sure if
Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. BTW, if you read the article, you will
find out that the author says that "At the current level of ~400 ppmv,
~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is exhausted."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

I'll leave the thermodynamic calculations to you.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2019-10-14 11:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect. Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
Let's say there is such a thing. Does it matter? We only need to go a
fraction of the way towards Venus to render the planet inhabitable.
"Warmer is better" ceases to be true long before the oceans boil.
Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than the Earth.
True, but it's a lot further out than Mercury and Venus' average temperature is higher than Mercury's highest temperature.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I am not even sure if
Venus is in the Goldilocks zone.
Pioneer suggested that Venus used to have na ocean.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/
suggests that it could have had an ocean for 2 billion years.
Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, if you read the article, you will
find out that the author says that "At the current level of ~400 ppmv,
~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is exhausted."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I'll leave the thermodynamic calculations to you.
If you believe that complete bullshit propaganda you should leave anything scientific to other people.
It's a sad combination of restating what people implying that climate experts warning of global warming are ignorant of it and completely unjustified assertions, such as the claim that 87% of possible greenhouse effect of CO2 has been reached.

"But what if we could switch the orbits of these planets to put Mars on a warmer path and Venus on a cooler one? Would we find that we were no longer the only habitable world in the solar system?

From https://dailygalaxy.com/2018/11/nasas-timely-question-if-venus-switched-places-with-mars-would-it-be-habitable/
“Modern Mars at Venus’s orbit would be fairly toasty by Earth standards,” Colose. Dragging the current Mars into Venus’s orbit would increase the amount of sunlight hitting the red planet. As the thin atmosphere does little to affect the surface temperature, average conditions should rise to about 90°F (32°C), similar to the Earth’s tropics. However, Mars’s thin atmosphere continues to present a problem."

So the greenhouse effect on venus raises the average temperature from 32 degrees celsius to over 460 celsius
The venus atmosprhere is almost all CO2 so where's the evidence that increases in CO2 on earth won't increase the temperature more?
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 00:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.  Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness.  Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
Let's say there is such a thing. Does it matter? We only need to go a
fraction of the way towards Venus to render the planet inhabitable.
"Warmer is better" ceases to be true long before the oceans boil.
Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than the Earth.  I am not even sure if
Venus is in the Goldilocks zone.  BTW, if you read the article, you will
find out that the author says that "At the current level of ~400 ppmv,
~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is exhausted."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I'll leave the thermodynamic calculations to you.
Lynn
Because you're utterly unqualified to make them?
h***@gmail.com
2019-10-11 14:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
Referencing WattsUpWithThat is equivalent of referencing Jenny McCarthy on Vaccine safety

Using it as a source to quote your own comment is just weird.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
People thought for a long time they should be able to transmute lead to gold...
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
Venus is 462 degrees celsius
Mercury's day side hits up to 427 degrees celsius with the average temperature 167 celsius
Earth's average temperature is about 15 celsius

Mercury is 57.1 million miles from the sun
Venus is 108 million miles from the sun.

Mercury receives from 6,272 up to 14,446 W/m2 solar radiation
Venus receives 2576 to 2647 W/m2 solar radiation
Earth receives 1321 to 1413 @/m2 solar radiation

so mercury receives a lot more energy than venus but venus is hotter than the peak temperature on mercury and about 300 degrees hotter than the average temperature

so while there might be a point at which additional CO2 stops adding to the greenhouse effect it's fairly suggestive that the world would change massively before it cuts in.

It's also interesting that Lynn says he can't accept human driven climate change until there's a perfect model with a perfect energy balance but his argument against it is "well this could happen"
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=398&&a=53
William Hyde
2019-10-11 22:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.


Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.

And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.

Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.


William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-12 00:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.

Lynn
William Hyde
2019-10-12 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.

I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.

It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.

Young people have at least that to look forward to.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-13 04:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
"How I changed my mind… about global warming"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/

"Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were
wrong, and how to improve them (some climate scientists claim that with
a better understanding of multi-decade variations in speed of warming
“the long-term warming trend in response to human emission of greenhouse
gases is found remarkably steady since 1910 at 0.07°–0.08°C decade”)."

Lynn
William Hyde
2019-10-13 20:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
"How I changed my mind… about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/
"Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were
wrong,
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere cool. Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming would be greater in the Arctic than in temperate zones. Scientists predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater at night than during the day, in winter than in summer.

We should all be so wrong.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-14 02:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
"How I changed my mind… about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/
"Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were
wrong,
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere cool. Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming would be greater in the Arctic than in temperate zones. Scientists predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater at night than during the day, in winter than in summer.
We should all be so wrong.
William Hyde
Now you are just making stuff up.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-14 04:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has
survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about
41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil
record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science.  "What if there is no Climate
Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
     Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness.  Why
should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail.  In language
that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale.
Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had
been in place at the  time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato
crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd
hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong.  Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning.  You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s.  I will enjoy
seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on
the liberals.
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
"How I changed my mind… about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/
"Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were
wrong,
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the
stratosphere cool.  Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming
would be greater in  the Arctic than in temperate zones.  Scientists
predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater at
night than during the day, in winter than in summer.
We should all be so wrong.
William Hyde
Now you are just making stuff up.
Lynn, you do realize, don't you, that Climatology is the field Mr. Hyde
works in?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Quadibloc
2019-10-14 15:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the
stratosphere cool.
Manabe, S. and Strickler, R. F.: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convecitve Adjustment, Journal of Atmospheric Science, 21, 361-385, 1964.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming would be greater in the > > Arctic than in temperate zones.
J. Murray Mitchell, Jr.: The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities, Quarternary Research, 2(3), 436-445, November 1972

Also, the expected rate of temperature change in response to the current level of carbon dioxide output was already being accurately predicted by this paper from 1972:

J. S. Sawyer: Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the "Greenhouse" Effect, Nature 239, 23-26, 1972
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater
at night than during the day, in winter than in summer.
S. Manabe, R. T. Wetherald, On the distribution of climate change resulting from an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, Journal of Atmospheric Science 37, 99-118, 1980
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
We should all be so wrong.
Now you are just making stuff up.
Apparently not.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-14 16:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the
stratosphere cool.
Manabe, S. and Strickler, R. F.: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convecitve Adjustment, Journal of Atmospheric Science, 21, 361-385, 1964.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming would be greater in the > > Arctic than in temperate zones.
J. Murray Mitchell, Jr.: The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities, Quarternary Research, 2(3), 436-445, November 1972
J. S. Sawyer: Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the "Greenhouse" Effect, Nature 239, 23-26, 1972
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Scientists predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater
at night than during the day, in winter than in summer.
S. Manabe, R. T. Wetherald, On the distribution of climate change resulting from an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, Journal of Atmospheric Science 37, 99-118, 1980
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
We should all be so wrong.
Now you are just making stuff up.
Apparently not.
Don't confuse Lynn with, you know, facts.
William Hyde
2019-10-16 18:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
"How I changed my mind… about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming/
"Climate scientists are now working out why their predictions were
wrong,
Scientists predicted, in 1965, that the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere cool. Scientists predicted, circa 1972, that the warming would be greater in the Arctic than in temperate zones. Scientists predicted, a few years later, that the warming would be greater at night than during the day, in winter than in summer.
We should all be so wrong.
William Hyde
Now you are just making stuff up.
Mr Savard documents it all below.

But of course you already knew I wasn't making this up, as I have cited it all many times, and provided references.

William Hyde
David DeLaney
2019-10-14 09:56:34 UTC
Permalink
"How I changed my mind??? about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/[snip]
Dude.

You realize that tossing stuff from this website at people who are giving you
facts and tested science is a lot like tossing stuff from cracked.com at folks
who are looking for recipes to serve at a formal dinner for twelve that their
boss is gonna be at, right?

It's wasting their time, it's wasting YOUR time, it doesn't have ANYTHING to
do with the science under discussion even if it does contain some of the same
words, and it makes you look like a worse idiot than Shawn Wilson for even
THINKING that these articles are anywhere near usable in a discussion about
actual causes or effects of climate change.

Dave, in other words, SHUT UP ABOUT THIS until you've realized that you
literally DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TYPING ABOUT and have gotten some actual
education on it. being a computer programmer for the oil biz does NOT by
itself qualify you to take part in the discussion. so SHUT IT, Lynn.

ps: obSheesh: sheesh
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-14 13:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
"How I changed my mind??? about global warming"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/[snip]
Dude.
You realize that tossing stuff from this website at people who are giving you
facts and tested science is a lot like tossing stuff from cracked.com at folks
who are looking for recipes to serve at a formal dinner for twelve that their
boss is gonna be at, right?
It's wasting their time, it's wasting YOUR time, it doesn't have ANYTHING to
do with the science under discussion even if it does contain some of the same
words, and it makes you look like a worse idiot than Shawn Wilson for even
THINKING that these articles are anywhere near usable in a discussion about
actual causes or effects of climate change.
Dave, in other words, SHUT UP ABOUT THIS until you've realized that you
literally DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TYPING ABOUT and have gotten some actual
education on it. being a computer programmer for the oil biz does NOT by
itself qualify you to take part in the discussion. so SHUT IT, Lynn.
ps: obSheesh: sheesh
Oh, Lynn has long since admitted that his only reason for calling
Climate Change "fake science" is because he thinks that it will hurt his
business if it is true. He's not only stuck his head in the sand, he's
shoved his whole hands in his ears and is screaming "NO! YOU'RE WRONG!
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2019-10-13 16:22:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.

So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-13 19:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
I guess since the conservatives have all the guns, the liberals will shot.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-10-15 05:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I guess since the conservatives have all the guns, the liberals will
[be]
Post by Lynn McGuire
shot.
Provided all the black people have already been killed by the effects of global
warming, perhaps. (The stereotype - conservatives have guns, liberals don't - has
a great deal of validity when applied to _white_ Americans, but not all Americans
are white.)

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 01:15:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:11:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
I guess since the conservatives have all the guns, the liberals will
[be]
Post by Lynn McGuire
shot.
Provided all the black people have already been killed by the effects of global
warming, perhaps. (The stereotype - conservatives have guns, liberals don't - has
a great deal of validity when applied to _white_ Americans, but not all Americans
are white.)
Of course you have statistics that demonstrate that black people,
despite discriminatory licensing, have more guns than white people.

I didn't think so.
J. Clarke
2019-10-13 19:18:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 09:22:35 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Typical American, thinks that his country is the world. The major
emitter of greenhouse gases in the world today is China. China is
nominally a Communist country, run by people who are by US standards
extreme liberals. The Chinese would happily line up all their
conservatives against a wall and shoot them, the two or three that
haven't already been lined up against a wall and shot that is.

So the Chinese don't have the option of blaming conservatives. If the
Chinese don't get their emissions under control nothing the rest of us
do will matter.

The fact is that the US produces 14 percent of the world's greenhouse
emissions. Doing away with that completely is not going to come close
to the world meeting the IPCC objectives. So no matter what happens,
blaming US conservatives is pointless unless the rest of the world has
all cut back to the 45 percent of 2010 levels that the IPCC wants.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-13 19:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
As usual, violence is the first resort of the weak minded.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-10-14 16:21:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:21:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
As usual, violence is the first resort of the weak minded.
If you say so.

But I am surprised by the tepidness of the response. I guess the
outrageousness of it made most people ignore it.

But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-14 19:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:21:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
As usual, violence is the first resort of the weak minded.
If you say so.
But I am surprised by the tepidness of the response. I guess the
outrageousness of it made most people ignore it.
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
...No? By which I mean, yes. I think you over-negatived,
and not in a straightforward way.

I think you meant to offer to kill everyone who promoted
climate change, as the carbon dioxide focuses sun rays
and the Earth catches fire, but you actually said you want
to save those people?
Paul S Person
2019-10-15 16:12:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:21:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science. "What if there is no Climate Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
Chemical reactions almost
Post by Lynn McGuire
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail. In language that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
Post by Lynn McGuire
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale. Ice ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in place at the time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong. Fake science and all that.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I've provided evidence and reasoning. You've nothing but denial.
It is unfortunate that I won't be alive in the 2050s. I will enjoy seeing how the conservatives of that time blame global warming on the liberals.
Actually, once the sh*t hits the fan, I would think every single
person who blocked efforts to avoid the disaster will be put up
against a wall and shot.
So there won't be any conservatives left to blame the liberals. They
will all have been shot.
Post by William Hyde
Young people have at least that to look forward to.
William Hyde
As usual, violence is the first resort of the weak minded.
If you say so.
But I am surprised by the tepidness of the response. I guess the
outrageousness of it made most people ignore it.
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
...No? By which I mean, yes. I think you over-negatived,
and not in a straightforward way.
I agree. I do occasionally lose track of what I am saying. And
sometimes it actually matters. As in this case!
Post by Robert Carnegie
I think you meant to offer to kill everyone who promoted
climate change, as the carbon dioxide focuses sun rays
and the Earth catches fire, but you actually said you want
to save those people?
I said they should be killed. I don't actually expect to be around
when it happens, being 72 at the moment.

Killed as traitors to humanity, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-15 21:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
...No? By which I mean, yes. I think you over-negatived,
and not in a straightforward way.
I agree. I do occasionally lose track of what I am saying. And
sometimes it actually matters. As in this case!
Post by Robert Carnegie
I think you meant to offer to kill everyone who promoted
climate change, as the carbon dioxide focuses sun rays
and the Earth catches fire, but you actually said you want
to save those people?
I said they should be killed. I don't actually expect to be around
when it happens, being 72 at the moment.
Killed as traitors to humanity, of course.
Just to be clear: I'm generally against killing people
at all. And this seems hasty.

But /if/ people will have to justify their being
amongst the remnant saved from the climate apocalypse -
which generally is unedifying to see done and doesn't
bring out the best side of anybody - then someone who
has "voted to burn more coal, oil and gas" will
have to be an eloquent pleader.

No doubt anyone who disagrees with birth control,
religiously or otherwise, also is in the dock.
Most of the current Popes... actually I haven't
checked. Francis doesn't seem to be hardline.
James Nicoll
2019-10-16 01:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
...No? By which I mean, yes. I think you over-negatived,
and not in a straightforward way.
I agree. I do occasionally lose track of what I am saying. And
sometimes it actually matters. As in this case!
Post by Robert Carnegie
I think you meant to offer to kill everyone who promoted
climate change, as the carbon dioxide focuses sun rays
and the Earth catches fire, but you actually said you want
to save those people?
I said they should be killed. I don't actually expect to be around
when it happens, being 72 at the moment.
Killed as traitors to humanity, of course.
Just to be clear: I'm generally against killing people
at all. And this seems hasty.
But /if/ people will have to justify their being
amongst the remnant saved from the climate apocalypse -
which generally is unedifying to see done and doesn't
bring out the best side of anybody - then someone who
has "voted to burn more coal, oil and gas" will
have to be an eloquent pleader.
Or they can just lie, about what they did and what
caused the problems.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
William Hyde
2019-10-16 18:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
...No? By which I mean, yes. I think you over-negatived,
and not in a straightforward way.
I agree. I do occasionally lose track of what I am saying. And
sometimes it actually matters. As in this case!
Post by Robert Carnegie
I think you meant to offer to kill everyone who promoted
climate change, as the carbon dioxide focuses sun rays
and the Earth catches fire, but you actually said you want
to save those people?
I said they should be killed. I don't actually expect to be around
when it happens, being 72 at the moment.
Killed as traitors to humanity, of course.
Just to be clear: I'm generally against killing people
at all. And this seems hasty.
But /if/ people will have to justify their being
amongst the remnant saved from the climate apocalypse -
which generally is unedifying to see done and doesn't
bring out the best side of anybody - then someone who
has "voted to burn more coal, oil and gas" will
have to be an eloquent pleader.
Or they can just lie, about what they did and what
caused the problems.
I don't expect an existential problem by 2050. I expect we'll still be coping. But I chose that date on the assumption that by then the change will be so clear that a huge majority will acknowledge it.

I expect the spin will follow the classic mold: It will all be the fault of liberals and "radical" environmentalists. See: Gulf War II.

But it would be amusing to watch. In a sick sort of way.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 18:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
I don't expect an existential problem by 2050. I expect we'll still be coping.
But I chose that date on the assumption that by then the change will be so clear
that a huge majority will acknowledge it.
Of course, if it takes until 2050 for us to actually start *doing* something
about it, then it is at least possible that by 2100, despite our best efforts,
the problem will become existential. Since the greenhouse effect works by making
what the Earth gains by day a tiny bit greater than what it loses by night, the
equilibrium temperature lags well behind changes in the carbon dioxide level.

So the world might be warming up much slower by 2100, but it will also still be
a lot warmer.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-10-15 05:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.

I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-10-15 16:14:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
That would be the preferred result, yes. Particularly since their
credibility now is ... not that great (except with other
conservatives, of course).

Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 19:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.

Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.

Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.

*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!

So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 19:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to. Space umbrellas !

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-16 19:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to. Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.

Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-16 21:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to. Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
Even huger oil company profits?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 22:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to. Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 00:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Lynn
Ummmm... ...no.

They have a grand total of 74 launches.

What a pity you're ignorant of... ...everything.
Scott Lurndal
2019-10-17 13:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Lynn
Ummmm... ...no.
They have a grand total of 74 launches.
What a pity you're ignorant of... ...everything.
Although they have asked permission to launch 30,000 into LEO.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 22:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Lynn
Ummmm... ...no.
They have a grand total of 74 launches.
What a pity you're ignorant of... ...everything.
Although they have asked permission to launch 30,000 into LEO.
SpaceX already has permission to launch 11,943 Starlink satellites into
LEO. They plan on having all of these in orbit by 2027, with half of
them being in orbit by 2024.

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation) :

"In November 2018, SpaceX received US regulatory approval to deploy
7,518 broadband satellites, in addition to the 4,425 approved earlier.
SpaceX's initial 4,425 satellites had been requested in the 2016
regulatory filings to orbit at altitudes of 1,110-kilometer (690 mi) to
1,325-kilometer (823 mi), well above the ISS. The new approval was for
the addition of a very-low Earth orbit NGSO [non-geostationary satellite
orbit] constellation, consisting of 7,518 satellites operating at
altitudes from 335-kilometer (208 mi) to 346-kilometer (215 mi), below
the ISS.[34] Also in November, SpaceX made new regulatory filings with
the US FCC to request the ability to alter its previously granted
license in order to operate approximately 1,600 of the 4,425 Ka-/
Ku-band satellites approved for operation at 1,150 km (710 mi) in a "new
lower shell of the constellation" at only 550 km (340 mi) orbital
altitude.[35][36] These satellites would effectively operate in a third
orbital shell, a 550-kilometer (340 mi) orbit, while the higher and
lower orbits at ~1,200-kilometer (750 mi) and ~340-kilometer (210 mi)
would be used only later, once a considerably larger deployment of
satellites becomes possible in the later years of the deployment
process. The FCC approved the request in April 2019, giving approval to
place nearly 12,000 satellites in three orbital shells: initially
approximately 1,600 in a 550-kilometer (340 mi)-altitude shell, and
subsequently placing ~2800 Ku- and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,150
km (710 mi) and ~7500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi).[8]"

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-17 00:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 00:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
Huh ? The Starlink satellites are 227 kg (500 lb) each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-17 03:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
Huh ?  The Starlink satellites are 227 kg (500 lb) each.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
I thought you meant 144 satellites in a single launch. Any rate, so far
SpaceX has only put 62 Starlink satellites up and they might get another
60 up before the end of the year.

We can start considering Space Umbrellas when they get to 1,000s a month
on a regular basis.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 22:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such
credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate
global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the
objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence
of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their
beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
Huh ?  The Starlink satellites are 227 kg (500 lb) each.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
I thought you meant 144 satellites in a single launch.  Any rate, so far
SpaceX has only put 62 Starlink satellites up and they might get another
60 up before the end of the year.
We can start considering Space Umbrellas when they get to 1,000s a month
on a regular basis.
The point being that SpaceX is close to having a heavy lifter available,
Falcon Heavy.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 23:32:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:36:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such
credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate
global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real
conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the
objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence
of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their
beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
Huh ?  The Starlink satellites are 227 kg (500 lb) each.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
I thought you meant 144 satellites in a single launch.  Any rate, so far
SpaceX has only put 62 Starlink satellites up and they might get another
60 up before the end of the year.
We can start considering Space Umbrellas when they get to 1,000s a month
on a regular basis.
The point being that SpaceX is close to having a heavy lifter available,
Falcon Heavy.
Close?

Falcon Heavy has succesfully launched:
A Tesla into an orbit extending past Mars
Arabsat 6A into GEO
DOD Payload STP-2

There are five more on the launch manifest.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 01:07:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:43:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
"By the gross" is a bit of an exaggeration--currently it's 60
Starlinks per launch, but they weigh a lot more than a pound or so.
For that matter, Falcon 9 reusable can launch a gross of 256 pound
satellites, or for not a whole lot more money, Falcon Heavy can launch
a gross of 458 pounders.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 01:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:43:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
"By the gross" is a bit of an exaggeration--currently it's 60
Starlinks per launch, but they weigh a lot more than a pound or so.
For that matter, Falcon 9 reusable can launch a gross of 256 pound
satellites, or for not a whole lot more money, Falcon Heavy can launch
a gross of 458 pounders.
"A gross refers to a group of 144 items (a dozen dozen or a square
dozen, 122)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_(unit)

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-10-17 16:39:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:53:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:43:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Well, actually, the /preferred/ result would be for global warming to
abated, even if it leaves the conservatives with such credibility as
they currently have.
Yes, but I do not expect some miracle to reduce the light output of the Sun.
Hence, the conservatives will *have* to lose some credibility to reduce their
effectiveness in obstructing the required human actions to abate
global warming.
Of course, _today's_ conservatives are plain nuts, and I speak as someone who
would normally be considered an extreme right-winger.
*Real* conservatives _could_ keep their credibility, because real conservatives
would build a strong and prosperous (but carbon-free) America by building
nuclear power plants all over the place, never mind the objections of those
obviously Commie-brainwashed greenies!
So the conservatives just need to shake off the baleful influence of
unpatriotic
moneyed interests in the oil industry that have exploited their
beliefs in order
to find a clever way to hoodwink them!
John Savard
Actually, we can dilute the sun's solar energy strength on the Earth
should we actually need to.  Space umbrellas !
For some value of "can" that doesn't include current technology.
Besides, what really really bad second-order effects might follow
from such a large engineering exercise?
SpaceX is launching satellites by the gross nowadays.
Only as long as they weigh a pound or so each.
"By the gross" is a bit of an exaggeration--currently it's 60
Starlinks per launch, but they weigh a lot more than a pound or so.
For that matter, Falcon 9 reusable can launch a gross of 256 pound
satellites, or for not a whole lot more money, Falcon Heavy can launch
a gross of 458 pounders.
"A gross refers to a group of 144 items (a dozen dozen or a square
dozen, 122)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_(unit)
Well, of course it does. When used precisely.

But, when used less precisely, it means "a heck of a lot".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 01:16:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 06:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away. He would really enjoy this.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 19:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away. He would really enjoy this.
I was not aware that Terry Austin had passed away. That, of course, would
explain why he has not posted here recently.

John Savard
Jay E. Morris
2019-10-16 19:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility?  Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away.  He would really enjoy this.
Lynn
I was looking to see if I could find anything on why Terry hadn't been
around but could not. How'd you find out? Thanks
James Nicoll
2019-10-17 02:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility?  Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away.  He would really enjoy this.
Lynn
I was looking to see if I could find anything on why Terry hadn't been
around but could not. How'd you find out? Thanks
And did his family find a sufficiently commodius porta-potty into which to
deposit him?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Joy Beeson
2019-10-17 04:08:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 02:41:47 +0000 (UTC), ***@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote.

James, you are the only person who has been in both my watch file and
my kill file.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Moriarty
2019-10-16 22:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is clear that
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the human
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to ensure that
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be among the
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away.
Did he?

-Moriarty
Quadibloc
2019-10-16 18:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
I did not think that Xi Jinping had any credibility *to* lose.

Of course, he does have a sort of credibility with the Chinese people, but that
sort of credibility is not subject to change due to the accuracy of his
statements:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/i-think-i-may-say-carl-rose.html

As for the Communists being liberals: in one sense, they _are_ liberals gone
wild. Thus, under Stalin, evolution was taught in the schools in Russia.

Hitler, on the other hand, doesn't _remotely_ resemble a conservative... *or* a
liberal, for those who think the "Socialist" in National Socialist defines him.
He was a *populist* gone wild, a social conservative happy to run a command
economy.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-10-17 16:41:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility? Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
I did not think that Xi Jinping had any credibility *to* lose.
Of course, he does have a sort of credibility with the Chinese people, but that
sort of credibility is not subject to change due to the accuracy of his
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/i-think-i-may-say-carl-rose.html
As for the Communists being liberals: in one sense, they _are_ liberals gone
wild. Thus, under Stalin, evolution was taught in the schools in Russia.
And Lamarckism.

But then, he was a monster.
Post by Quadibloc
Hitler, on the other hand, doesn't _remotely_ resemble a conservative... *or* a
liberal, for those who think the "Socialist" in National Socialist defines him.
He was a *populist* gone wild, a social conservative happy to run a command
economy.
Another monster. <<omits obvious political statement>>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2019-10-17 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Climate Change is fake science.  "What if there is no Climate
Emergency?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect.
And you have long been wrong.
   Chemical reactions almost
always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness.  Why should CO2
and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?
For reasons I have explained to you in great detail.  In language
that, as a competent engineer, you are fully able to understand.
And kindly stop making up "natural rules".
The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age.
Which, is overdue.
Anthropogenic climate change operates on a decadal time scale.  Ice
ages act on millennial time scales.
Or to put it another way, if the onset of an ice age cycle had been in
place at the  time Archbishop Becket was offed, the potato crop in
Alaska's Delta valley might be down but othewise we'd hardly notice it.
William Hyde
Sorry dude but, you are wrong.  Fake science and all that.
Sorry, "dude", but you are ignorant.

That's sad.

What's unforgivable is that you CHOOSE to be ignorant.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-10 18:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Stolen from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."

"WARMER IS BETTER. FIGHT THE ICE."

Lynn
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-11 01:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Stolen from
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2.  Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2.  That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."
"WARMER IS BETTER.  FIGHT THE ICE."
Lynn
But it's NOT just "warmer". Asuuming we don't kill the Atlantic
Conveyor, it's _still_ "warmer in the summer--sufficiently that there's
no permafrost anywhere south of Fairbanks", BUT significantly, while
winters may or /may not/ be shorter, they /will/ have lower 'lows', at
least for several days at a time for anywhere that was previously south
of the polar vortex. That's because the air that /had/ been trapped over
the permafrost region by the vortex quickly invades the entire temperate
zone (thus even Florida is likely to be prone to yearly frost in the
future, let alone the rest of the South).

More importantly for Trump's liege-lord, it will make Northern Russia
one of the most productive agricultural regions on the planet in the
summer, and it will also have ice-free summers on the Arctic Ocean so
that said produce can be shipped anywhere much more quickly than before.
At the same time, however, it's likely to make those same areas even
LESS livable than before in the winters, so it'll either be a place of
internal exile, or the Russians will take up a semi-nomadic lifestyle
where the entire farming community becomes "snowbirds".

If we DO kill the Atlantic Conveyor (and the influx of COLD freshwater
right where it turns east, as Greenland begins living up to its name,
means it's a real possibility), the Mediterranean will cease having a
"Mediterranean climate" relatively quickly and become much more like the
Great Lakes region, since it's at a similar latitude. That...would be
/very/ hard on North Africa in particular, though it /might/ mean the
Sahara begins shrinking as one thing NO one will accuse /it/ of being is
a "cold desert".

Anthropogenic climate change is not something you want to invite unless
you want to tell me where we're supposed to grow citrus and avocado when
there are yearly frosts in Winter Haven and the Baja.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Quadibloc
2019-10-11 06:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary to life. And an ice age would be a bad
thing.

However: in 1958, the composition of the atmosphere was such that carbon dioxide
was present in a quantity of 315 parts per million. Now, it is at 407 parts per
million.

The composition of the atmosphere ought to be a fundamental constant of nature;
something that, except for increased precision in our measurements, is the same
in today's textbooks as in textbooks written 100 years ago. That human activity
can actually *change* something like this is... unusual, and alarming *in
itself*. (And the "ozone hole" established that human activity has now reached
the level where bad worldwide pollution consequences, instead of strictly local
ones, are possible.)

As for an ice age; when one *is* coming, then we should start burning fossil
fuels to prevent it. Using them all up now, when the natural changes that
initiate an ice age hasn't started... is

a) likely to leave us with a problem when an ice age is coming, and

b) may even trigger an ice age, what with the thermohaline current.

As I've pointed out, we can halt net CO2 emissions without weakening the economy
or the nation's defence capabilities, since breeder reactors have been invented;
they'll do until we get fusion power.

Carbon dioxide _is_ a greenhouse gas; a warmer climate will have significant
adverse effects for tropical Third World countries and Pacific Islands
initially... but eventually it will be the turn of China... and the United
States. That Russia, and Canada, would experience some net benefit would be cold
comfort in such a world.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-10-12 01:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary to life. And an ice age would be a bad
thing.
However: in 1958, the composition of the atmosphere was such that carbon dioxide
was present in a quantity of 315 parts per million. Now, it is at 407 parts per
million.
The composition of the atmosphere ought to be a fundamental constant of nature;
Whatever leads you to _that_ conclusion?
Post by Quadibloc
something that, except for increased precision in our measurements, is the same
in today's textbooks as in textbooks written 100 years ago. That human activity
can actually *change* something like this is... unusual, and alarming *in
itself*.
Assuming that human activity is what is changing it. While this seems
plausible to many, the fact is that it has changed before over a
rather wide range with no humans in existence.
Post by Quadibloc
(And the "ozone hole" established that human activity has now reached
the level where bad worldwide pollution consequences, instead of strictly local
ones, are possible.)
Or has some cause unrelated to human activity.
Post by Quadibloc
As for an ice age; when one *is* coming, then we should start burning fossil
fuels to prevent it. Using them all up now, when the natural changes that
initiate an ice age hasn't started... is
You do realize that burning every bit of carbon on the planet won't
prevent an ice age, do you not? Ice ages happen on a time scale much
larger than all of human history.
Post by Quadibloc
a) likely to leave us with a problem when an ice age is coming, and
Which is according to the ice core data, about now.
Post by Quadibloc
b) may even trigger an ice age, what with the thermohaline current.
And so the "global warming" problem goes away.
Post by Quadibloc
As I've pointed out, we can halt net CO2 emissions without weakening the economy
or the nation's defence capabilities, since breeder reactors have been invented;
they'll do until we get fusion power.
Fine, you convince the Democrats to do that.
Post by Quadibloc
Carbon dioxide _is_ a greenhouse gas; a warmer climate will have significant
adverse effects for tropical Third World countries and Pacific Islands
initially... but eventually it will be the turn of China... and the United
States. That Russia, and Canada, would experience some net benefit would be cold
comfort in such a world.
Dinosaurs thrived when the CO2 level was much higher than at present.
They were eating _something_. You likely are grossly overestimating
the harm to agriculture.
Quadibloc
2019-10-13 11:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And so the "global warming" problem goes away.
An ice age that we didn't need to have is as bad, or worse, than a warmer Earth,
and so if our carbon dioxide emissions will cause that instead, they need to be
reduced even more urgently.
Post by J. Clarke
Dinosaurs thrived when the CO2 level was much higher than at present.
They were eating _something_. You likely are grossly overestimating
the harm to agriculture.
Dinosaurs didn't have to worry about visa requirements when migrating to new
areas. Also, since they weren't burning fossil fuels, the climate of the planet
wasn't _rapidly changing_, making it necessary to move vast distances in order
to continue eating the _same_ thing.

Any change in climate will disrupt existing patterns of agriculture. This will
have serious negative consequences to people living in poor countries, since,
for one thing, their diet includes little meat; over long periods of time, they
developed cuisines which embody the principle of protein complementarity. So if
they have to start eating different crops, adapted to a warmer climate, it will
be harder for them to eat adequately.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-10-13 11:46:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 04:28:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so the "global warming" problem goes away.
An ice age that we didn't need to have is as bad, or worse, than a warmer Earth,
and so if our carbon dioxide emissions will cause that instead, they need to be
reduced even more urgently.
The default is that the ice age starts right about now. If there were
not now and had never been humans on this planet that is what would be
happening. Maybe this year, maybe this decade, maybe this century,
maybe this millennium, but sometime around now. There is a pattern
and we are at the point in the pattern where something that we don't
understand changes and warming switches to cooling.

If you want to avoid an ice age you have to interfere with that
mechanism that we don't understand and prevent the switch from warming
to cooling. Maybe human industry is doing something to prevent that.
Maybe not. I would bet not.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Dinosaurs thrived when the CO2 level was much higher than at present.
They were eating _something_. You likely are grossly overestimating
the harm to agriculture.
Dinosaurs didn't have to worry about visa requirements when migrating to new
areas.
So? The argument is that people will starve because there won't be
any food. There is not now on this planet enough food to support a
population of dinosaurs--the environment in Africa has trouble keeping
up with elephants. And yet at the time that dinosaurs were
commonplace there was enough food to support those vastly larger
animals. So the notion that elevated CO2 automatically means less
food just does not convince.
Post by Quadibloc
Also, since they weren't burning fossil fuels, the climate of the planet
wasn't _rapidly changing_, making it necessary to move vast distances in order
to continue eating the _same_ thing.
And they did not have jet airliners. So that was much more of an
issue for them than it is for us.
Post by Quadibloc
Any change in climate will disrupt existing patterns of agriculture.
Or not as the case may be. However, what happens if all the places
that can't grow food now all of a sudden can. You're taking as a
given that increase the temperature a couple of degrees is going to
destroy agriculture over most of the world.
Post by Quadibloc
This will
have serious negative consequences to people living in poor countries, since,
for one thing, their diet includes little meat;
Uh, how is that an issue. Growing meat takes more plant food than
eating the plant food directly.
Post by Quadibloc
over long periods of time, they
developed cuisines which embody the principle of protein complementarity. So if
they have to start eating different crops, adapted to a warmer climate, it will
be harder for them to eat adequately.
Or easier, depending on the crops.
Quadibloc
2019-10-13 11:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
As I've pointed out, we can halt net CO2 emissions without weakening the economy
or the nation's defence capabilities, since breeder reactors have been invented;
they'll do until we get fusion power.
Fine, you convince the Democrats to do that.
I don't deny that overcoming the current anti-nuclear hysteria will be
difficult.

However, compared to getting people to accept gutting national defense to the
point the Russians or Chinese take over, or crippling the economy when people
are already angry over its decline... it doesn't seem like the most difficult
path.

And compared to changing the laws of physics, it's also easier.

I am not responsible for how the Universe works. We're all responsible for
finding a way to survive that fits within its rules.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-10-13 11:53:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
As I've pointed out, we can halt net CO2 emissions without weakening the economy
or the nation's defence capabilities, since breeder reactors have been invented;
they'll do until we get fusion power.
Fine, you convince the Democrats to do that.
I don't deny that overcoming the current anti-nuclear hysteria will be
difficult.
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
Post by Quadibloc
However, compared to getting people to accept gutting national defense to the
point the Russians or Chinese take over, or crippling the economy when people
are already angry over its decline... it doesn't seem like the most difficult
path.
It is sufficiently difficult that it will prevent achieving the IPCC
objective.
Post by Quadibloc
And compared to changing the laws of physics, it's also easier.
What do the laws of physics have to do with anything? What we have is
a bunch of people with unvalidated computer models telling us that the
sky is falling and assuming we believe that they are correct then we
must convince the politicians that they are correct, and the
politicians don't believe them any more than your garden-variety
greenie who thinks we can fix this by changing light bulbs and turning
down the thermostat.
Post by Quadibloc
I am not responsible for how the Universe works. We're all responsible for
finding a way to survive that fits within its rules.
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Quadibloc
2019-10-15 12:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.

But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 01:17:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
One nuclear power plant isn't going to do it.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it,
So show us an example of successfully changing it. Not the trappings
of it but the actual mechanisms.
Post by Quadibloc
the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 14:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so
that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
One nuclear power plant isn't going to do it.
Yes, that is true. However, the time required to build 10,000 houses on 10,000
lots across the United States is the same as the time required to build one
house on one lot.

In other words, no one is asking nine women to have one baby in one month.

Thus, the time required to build all the nuclear power plants required is the
same as the time required to build one, unless there is some critical step in
the construction of a nuclear power plant for which only a limited number of
qualified people or companies are available. And if that _is_ the case, steps
can be taken to minimize the delay resulting from it; train lots of people,
build lots of any specialized tools required, and so on and so forth.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2019-10-17 20:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Thus, the time required to build all the nuclear power plants required is the
same as the time required to build one, unless there is some critical step in
the construction of a nuclear power plant for which only a limited number of
qualified people or companies are available.
As luck would have it, there is. Expertise. The long moratorium on
nuclear power has left the knowhow in woefully short supply.

There's also budget, supplies, and the availability of permits.
--
Juho Julkunen
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 22:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so
that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
One nuclear power plant isn't going to do it.
Yes, that is true. However, the time required to build 10,000 houses on 10,000
lots across the United States is the same as the time required to build one
house on one lot.
In other words, no one is asking nine women to have one baby in one month.
Thus, the time required to build all the nuclear power plants required is the
same as the time required to build one, unless there is some critical step in
the construction of a nuclear power plant for which only a limited number of
qualified people or companies are available. And if that _is_ the case, steps
can be taken to minimize the delay resulting from it; train lots of people,
build lots of any specialized tools required, and so on and so forth.
John Savard
The current time to build a nuclear power plant in the USA is anywhere
from 8 years to 20+ years. Just the siting engineering is a disaster
from the NIMBY people. And the SAFE reactor design is not locked into
place as much as it needs to be.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 14:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it,
So show us an example of successfully changing it. Not the trappings
of it but the actual mechanisms.
You're not going to like my *existence proof*.

Joseph Stalin.

I certainly hope that milder methods, consistent with democracy, will serve
instead.

My preferred method is something like this:

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party filter *out* anyone who is a
science denier from any responsible position, in much the same way as they
filtered out anyone who didn't see the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a
threat.

And so if somebody doesn't like replacing all the coal-fired power plants with
nuclear reactors, well, they can always start a third party the way George
Wallace once tried to, and see how that works out.

A possible first step would be to replace the surviving Koch brother with a more
traditional conservative.

In general, though, I am puzzled by the pattern of your responses. Of course it
is possible that the human race is so dumb that, in general, it hardly
*deserves* to survive. Giving up hope, though, is not a rational response to the
situation where the possibility of this begins to be in question.

Directing one's efforts wisely, though, is a rational response. But human
behavior is obviously easier to change than the physical consequences of lots of
extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; therefore, how am I proposing
misdirected effort?

John Savard
Jack Bohn
2019-10-17 20:42:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:18:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote: 
So show us an example of successfully changing it.  Not the trappings 
of it but the actual mechanisms. 
You're not going to like my *existence proof*. 
Joseph Stalin. 
I certainly hope that milder methods, consistent with democracy, will serve 
instead. 
My preferred method is something like this: 
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party filter *out* anyone who is a 
science denier from any responsible position, in much the same way as they 
filtered out anyone who didn't see the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a 
threat.
Are you talking a House Unscientific Activities Committee (HUSAC)?
--
-Jack
Quadibloc
2019-10-17 21:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
My preferred method is something like this: 
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party filter *out* anyone who is a 
science denier from any responsible position, in much the same way as they 
filtered out anyone who didn't see the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a 
threat.
Are you talking a House Unscientific Activities Committee (HUSAC)?
No, not repression, just vetting of candidates who would get support from the
party organization. Like the early 1960s, not the 1950s.

John Savard
Kevrob
2019-10-17 22:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jack Bohn
My preferred method is something like this: 
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party filter *out* anyone who is a 
science denier from any responsible position, in much the same way as they 
filtered out anyone who didn't see the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a 
threat.
Are you talking a House Unscientific Activities Committee (HUSAC)?
No, not repression, just vetting of candidates who would get support from the
party organization. Like the early 1960s, not the 1950s.
The various states have passed laws regarding primaries and caucuses,
which remove from the parties the ability to expel "members" who hold
views outside the pale. All it takes to be a 'member of the party"
in some US states is registering with the state to vote.

How this is consistent with freedom of association - the right to
peaceably assemble - and to petition for grievances, when partisans
who start a party organization can have it wrested from them by
non-dues-paying "members" forced on them by the state? As a
former dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, at the federal, state
and local level, and having held various offices at the state level and
being sent to national conventions as a delegate, I remember real concer
that a local or state party with "low activism" could be taken over by
a cadre with non-libertarian ideals, who just wanted the ballot position
that might have been earned by LPers previous shoe leather, sweat and cash.
The Larouche-ites were one group we were wary of, as they pulled a "hijack"
in Illinois of the Democrats, back in 1986.

https://www.sj-r.com/opinion/20190216/schoenburg-larouche-followers-roiled-illinois-democrats-in-crazy-1986-race

The GOP had this problem in at least 5 races in 2018, with Nazis
and white supremacists of the admitted kind.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

Kevin R
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-16 06:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Once the current 3 or 4 nuclear power plants under construction are
completed in the USA, I doubt any more will be started. The price of
natural gas is almost free in comparison and the equipment is 10X cheaper.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-16 23:41:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:40:58 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Once the current 3 or 4 nuclear power plants under construction are
completed in the USA, I doubt any more will be started. The price of
natural gas is almost free in comparison and the equipment is 10X cheaper.
But natural gas is not a means of meeting the IPCC objectives. If
that is a concern then we need to quit doing half-measures. If it not
a concern then we don't need to change _anything_.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 00:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:40:58 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Once the current 3 or 4 nuclear power plants under construction are
completed in the USA, I doubt any more will be started. The price of
natural gas is almost free in comparison and the equipment is 10X cheaper.
But natural gas is not a means of meeting the IPCC objectives. If
that is a concern then we need to quit doing half-measures. If it not
a concern then we don't need to change _anything_.
The natural gas fired peakers (gas turbines) are replacing base load
(mostly coal) power plants. With all the wind turbines making power
during the night and the solar power making power during the day, base
load plants are no longer needed. Only peakers. Texas has added almost
20 GW of new peaker power plants in the last decade.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-17 01:08:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:22:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:40:58 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Once the current 3 or 4 nuclear power plants under construction are
completed in the USA, I doubt any more will be started. The price of
natural gas is almost free in comparison and the equipment is 10X cheaper.
But natural gas is not a means of meeting the IPCC objectives. If
that is a concern then we need to quit doing half-measures. If it not
a concern then we don't need to change _anything_.
The natural gas fired peakers (gas turbines) are replacing base load
(mostly coal) power plants. With all the wind turbines making power
during the night and the solar power making power during the day, base
load plants are no longer needed. Only peakers. Texas has added almost
20 GW of new peaker power plants in the last decade.
So you're saying that the entire base electrical load in Texas is from
solar power and wind?
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-17 02:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:22:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:40:58 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
You have 10 years to build enough reactors to reduce carbon emissions
to 45 percent of their 2010 levels. Barring global thermonuclear war
or a major asteroid strike or the like, it's not going to happen.
If one changes enough laws to sweep regulatory obstacles out of the way so that one nuclear power plant can be built in 10 years, the problem is solved.
Post by J. Clarke
The way human politics works is part of the way the universe works.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Politics is indeed part of reality.
But it is not an _immutable_ part, completely immune to any attempts on the part
of anyone to change it, the way the laws of physics are. Faced with a choice
between what is absolutely impossible, and what is merely difficult, obviously
the alternative to take is the one that is merely difficult.
John Savard
Once the current 3 or 4 nuclear power plants under construction are
completed in the USA, I doubt any more will be started. The price of
natural gas is almost free in comparison and the equipment is 10X cheaper.
But natural gas is not a means of meeting the IPCC objectives. If
that is a concern then we need to quit doing half-measures. If it not
a concern then we don't need to change _anything_.
The natural gas fired peakers (gas turbines) are replacing base load
(mostly coal) power plants. With all the wind turbines making power
during the night and the solar power making power during the day, base
load plants are no longer needed. Only peakers. Texas has added almost
20 GW of new peaker power plants in the last decade.
So you're saying that the entire base electrical load in Texas is from
solar power and wind?
Not yet but we are headed that direction, maybe another ten years. The
bottom base load is handled by four nuclear power units in two plants
that are almost 5,000 MW (5 GW).

"Texas has a wide variety of energy sources. Once dominated by natural
gas and coal,[1] the power mix has been changing rapidly. Wind
generation replaced coal in the number two position in 2017.[2] ERCOT
has also approved the planned connection of much new generation capacity
to the Texas electric grid, none of it coal. The permitted new
connections to the grid include 2,000 megawatts from solar sources,
8,700 megawatts from wind generation, and more than 10,000 megawatts
from natural gas.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Texas

Look at all those wind farms and solar farms in Texas. Well over 20 GW
in capacity now. The entire generating capacity of Texas is around 80 GW.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2019-10-14 11:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary to life. And an ice age would be a bad
thing.
However: in 1958, the composition of the atmosphere was such that carbon dioxide
was present in a quantity of 315 parts per million. Now, it is at 407 parts per
million.
The composition of the atmosphere ought to be a fundamental constant of nature;
Whatever leads you to _that_ conclusion?
It's been in the range 180 (ice ages) - 280 (interglacial) ppm for the last 800,000 years.
It's not a fundamental constant of nature but we're about 50% over the highest value of the last 800,000 years.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
something that, except for increased precision in our measurements, is the same
in today's textbooks as in textbooks written 100 years ago. That human activity
can actually *change* something like this is... unusual, and alarming *in
itself*.
Assuming that human activity is what is changing it. While this seems
plausible to many, the fact is that it has changed before over a
rather wide range with no humans in existence.
Got any other mechanism to explain it?
Note that http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

explains that the isotope ratio shows where the extra CO2 is coming from.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
(And the "ozone hole" established that human activity has now reached
the level where bad worldwide pollution consequences, instead of strictly local
ones, are possible.)
Or has some cause unrelated to human activity.
Provide another mechanism that fits the observed facts
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
As for an ice age; when one *is* coming, then we should start burning fossil
fuels to prevent it. Using them all up now, when the natural changes that
initiate an ice age hasn't started... is
You do realize that burning every bit of carbon on the planet won't
prevent an ice age, do you not? Ice ages happen on a time scale much
larger than all of human history.
Post by Quadibloc
a) likely to leave us with a problem when an ice age is coming, and
Which is according to the ice core data, about now.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=398&&a=53
"So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years."

2) is pointing out that despite natural factors pushing towards cooling since the 50s temperatures are actually up due to greenhouse gasses.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
b) may even trigger an ice age, what with the thermohaline current.
And so the "global warming" problem goes away.
Post by Quadibloc
Carbon dioxide _is_ a greenhouse gas; a warmer climate will have significant
adverse effects for tropical Third World countries and Pacific Islands
initially... but eventually it will be the turn of China... and the United
States. That Russia, and Canada, would experience some net benefit would be cold
comfort in such a world.
Dinosaurs thrived when the CO2 level was much higher than at present.
Yes, but solar output was less.
Post by J. Clarke
They were eating _something_. You likely are grossly overestimating
the harm to agriculture.
The average temperature back then was somewhere between 2 & 8 degrees higher than now.
But the temperature didn't change that significantly in a matter of decades Slower changes gives more time for animals and plants to adjust to temperature changes or move to areas with a more comfortable temperature.
h***@gmail.com
2019-10-11 14:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
The human race (along with all other life on Earth) has survived through many
reversals. The most recent was the Laschamp event, about 41,400 years ago.
During the transitions, the field fell to 5% of its current strength.
It isn't
Post by Peter Trei
really noticeable in the fossil record, so I'm not worried.
Considering that the events that _are_ noticeable in the fossil record involve
killing off like 99% of all living creatures, in order to kill off 90% of
species... I don't quite find that fact as reassuring as you do.
We could get a rerun of the Permian Terminal Event if we don't do
something about climate change; would that satisfy you?
Stolen from
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/07/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
still a crap site but at least you aren't quoting your own comment this time...
Post by Lynn McGuire
"An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once
atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once
atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2
is to all life."
If anybody ever argues that we should remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere feel free to laugh at them.

As it is this argument makes about as much sense as
"we all need water to live so a kid can't drown in a swimming pool"
Post by Lynn McGuire
"WARMER IS BETTER. FIGHT THE ICE."
Cool, jump into a blast furnace and tell us how that goes for you.
Quadibloc
2019-10-10 01:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
No, but apparently the magnetic field will reverse.
I hope that doesn't make anything relying on the current state of
electromagnetics (like the various grids this computer is connected to,
/not to mention the computer itself,/ stop functioning properly.
No. For that you need a coronal mass ejection hitting the Earth, like the
Carrington Event.

A geomagnetid field reversal, instead, will just let more radiation in from
space. Human beings and other _living_ things will bear the brunt.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-10-05 16:49:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:16:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
ISTR a Doonesbury strip from the 90s.
Duke was involved with (captain of?) Trump's yacht (yes, /that/
Trump).
Elvis, pretending to be an Elvis impersonator, was singing the songs
he /really/ liked in the main ballroom (and, no, they weren't Rock &
Roll).
Duke said to another character (paraphrased):
"See, this is why I gave up drugs. You can't tell the difference any
more".
Which is basically the same point.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
Lynn
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jack Bohn
2019-10-05 19:28:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:16:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: 
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point 
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02 
ISTR a Doonesbury strip from the 90s. 
[snip story]
Duke said to another character (paraphrased): 
"See, this is why I gave up drugs. You can't tell the difference any
more". 
Which is basically the same point. 
I like that someone has had the awareness to tell Dilbert that there's been no inversion point, only that *he* has just noticed it.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-04

...then it starts to get weird.
--
-Jack
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-10-06 03:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:16:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote: 
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point 
   https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02 
ISTR a Doonesbury strip from the 90s. 
[snip story]
Duke said to another character (paraphrased): 
"See, this is why I gave up drugs. You can't tell the difference any
more".
Which is basically the same point.
I like that someone has had the awareness to tell Dilbert that there's
been no inversion point, only that *he* has just noticed it.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-04
...then it starts to get weird.
Just for the record, that's not "someone"; that's a continuing character,
"The World's Smartest Garbageman". He's established as much smarter than
Dilbert and a good source for various philosophical and technical issues.

As for parody inversion points -- it's an old concept. Theres a famous
Brit quote from sometime in the cold-war era. Let me see if I can google
it out..

Ah, ok, Wolfe:

Tom Wolfe on "Muggeridge's Law:"

While Malcolm Muggeridge was the editor of Punch,
it was announced that Khrushchev and Bulganin were
coming to England. Muggeridge hit upon the idea of
a mock itinerary, a lineup of the most ludicrous
places the two paunchy pear-shaped little Soviet
leaders could possibly be paraded through during
the solemn process of a state visit. Shortly before
press time, half the feature had to be scrapped.
It coincided exactly with the official itinerary,
just released, prompting Muggeridge to observe: We
live in an age in which it is no longer possible
to be funny. There is nothing you can imagine, no
matter how ludicrous, that will not promptly be
enacted before your very eyes, probably by someone
well known.

-- From Wolfe's "Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast:
A literary manifesto for the new social novel,"
Harpers, November, 1989.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Quadibloc
2019-10-10 01:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
The secret has now been revealed!

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-04

The Fourth Wall is well and truly broken!

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-10 02:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Dilbert: Parody Inversion Point
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-02
Are the seas going to rise or fall ?
Will gravity change ?
The secret has now been revealed!
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-10-04
The Fourth Wall is well and truly broken!
It's been in fragments at least since Thornton Wilder, and
probably longer.

/googles

"The Skin of Our Teeth," 1942. But E. E. Cummings, "Him," 1927,
which is even earlier.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-17 03:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
But think about this: if a point is reached at which it is
clear that
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
irreversible changes have occurred that will kill of 90% of the
human
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
race in the next ten years, would it not be reasonable to
ensure that
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
nobody who prevented actions to avoid those changes /not/ be
among the
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
10% who survive?
I don't expect global warming to get that bad.
I expect the conservatives to simply lose their credibility, not
their lives.
Do you also expect the extreme liberals who run China to lose their
credibility?  Or do you deny the characterization of self-proclaimed
Communists as "liberals"?
It is too bad that GUCS passed away.  He would really enjoy this.
Lynn
I was looking to see if I could find anything on why Terry hadn't been
around but could not. How'd you find out? Thanks
And did his family find a sufficiently commodius porta-potty into
which to
Post by James Nicoll
deposit him?
--
James!

That's /terrible/ of you!

He hated me even more than he hated Alan or Shawn--which is saying a
LOT!-- and I'm more inclined to mourn him than to say good riddance!

I'd still like to find out how Lynn found out that Terry passed, BTW.

We're gonna be in real straits keeping up the content without both him
and Shawn, after all.

(OTOH, if only Starfaker would cancel his newsgroup account...)
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Loading...