yu7ujIf you actually talked to a climate scientist (I have) then you'd find out that they think AGW is bad, and would love it not to be true. But wishing it is not true doesn't make it not true. It's like going to see the doctor and them telling you that you have to give up smoking or you'll end up with COPD. The doctor doesn't WANT you to have COPD, and it doesn't mean that they thing COPD is good, it's just a risk you are running. The stance you are taking, though, is anti-science and to me utterly baffling.
I think AGW is happening and I also wish it wasn't happening.
I live in the UK. It used to snow just about every winter. Not so much now. A few years ago I harvested by second crop of tomatoes in late November... If I still had a greenhouse I could be again. I probably wouldn't have got a summer crop this year, as the heat would probably have killed it if it was in a greenhouse. Maybe I should have got some grow bags and tried in the open, but my partner doesn't eat the evil fruit, so I'd be having tomatoes with milk for breakfast all winter just to use them up.
You do realise that European nations were burning coal back into the high middle ages at least? The first bit of clean air legislation is from the 12th century York.
Those windmills and natural gas plants will wear out,/p>
So? They will replace them. Turbines in nuclear plants also wear out, and the cooling systems, etc. It's hardly unique to wind or natural gas. In fact if you are using turbine-based peaking plants, they are pretty simple and reliable.
new capacity will be needed as populations and standards of living grow
Denmark's population is pretty static, standards of living increasing don't always require lots of additional power.
Natural gas is not low CO2
It is compared to coal, and 7% of energy from natural gas is tiny, so it doesn't make very much difference if it is replaced with nuclear (which still has some CO2 footprint up until the point that uranium springs from the ground and refines itself). I think you are also confusing the overall CO2 footprint of natural gas, and the issue of leakage from reservoirs of it, which depends very much on the type of reservoir.
If Denmark builds nuclear power then they can help their neighbors in reducing their CO2 by exporting natural gas and electricity from nuclear to displace the coal and oil that's being burned now.
I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.
So Denmark has a large natural gas installed base (great for power when required) but rarely uses it (great for the environment). This means they don't need to go to the trouble of building nuclear, as they have it covered.
No, the EU courts have not done any such thing. The EU courts have backed the requirement to follow the UN human rights regulations on refugees that European nations signed up to. In large part those regulations were drawn up by the USA and European nations after the mess of mass migrations at the end of the WW2 that led to up to 300,000 people dying. As I understand it Merkel is particularly sensitive to this, as her parents were some of those forced to migrate.
The people anywhere in lower latitudes where it is 40C or higher will complain, and will likely move in mass migrations to places like Norway. Be careful what you wish for. Also at 30C year round, the elderly will be under heat stress and die more quickly. Maybe that appeals to you.
I'd be incredibly surprised if it was 100 times. 250 years ago China was almost certainly the lead (in aggregate) in the world, but the rest of the world then industrialised. The UK, France, Germany, put out a lot of CO2 pollution compared to the USA up until around 1880, when the USA started to surpass them in industrial capacity. European countries, on average, have about half the footprint per capita of the USA, but constitute 1.5 times the population, roughly, so the overall footprint isn't so different, and this has been the case for most of the last 100 years. So on that basis there is absolutely no way that the USA could have put out 100 times the rest of the world.
The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals.
It's both. Individual decisions affect CO2 footprint (I don't make the best ones - I am lazy). Also governments can affect that. In democracies we get to vote in or out the government, so we bear some additional responsibility for that, although the range of choice isn't always huge. But we could vote for governments that massively expand renewables, although that comes with a price tag which might not be enjoyable. To square the circle of CO2, and various other issues, is going to be difficult.
The correct per capita measure would include the goods and services consumed by a nation, irrespective of where the carbon is emitted. About a decade ago I remember something about this being calculated for the UK and the vaunted reduction in CO2 footprint turning out to actually be a very slight rise. At the moment Denmark has the smallest CO2 per capita footprint on the planet, except that pretty much all the consumer goods used there come from outside Denmark, and I don't think Netflix or Amazon have any server farms there, so in reality it is much, much higher.
Indeed. If China decided to break itself up into its provinces and form the CU (China Union) the CO2 issue for the world would be solved, yes, as each new nation in the CU would have less emissions as the USA as a whole.
The USA has not added states since 1959. On that basis it would seem fair
It's not a question of "fairness", it's a question of comparing apples to apples.
And including states that were in the communist block less than 30 years ago certainly isn't comparing apples to apples.
You seem to feel the best policy is to ignore it because of some unlikely risk of authoritarianism.
The basis of modern European government is that the state has the right to infringe on individual liberties and property rights for the common good. This is implemented by a political elite that rejects both classical liberalism and popular political choices. How is that not already authoritarianism?
Rather than defining as authoritarianism being the ability of the government to infringe any personal liberty, I would define it as one of extent. The exact point where authoritarianism begins would thus be difficult. The USSR under Stalin or Nazi Germany would be strongly authoritarian, and even tending to towards totalitarianism. Western European democracies would score fairly low on the authoritarian scale, as they promote individual rights through their laws and membership of the EHCR.
Your statement would also cover the US Constitution, which also indicates that the common good can be used to justify various actions.
How can something that is explicitly stated be a "conspiracy theory"?
Because you seem to be suggesting that the underlying reason for your perceived authoritarianism is some cabal intent on destroying rights, as opposed to maintaining the planet in some habitable condition with the minimum of imposition on people's lives.
It's not about fairness, it's about what the boundaries of an economy are. Since EU members, just like the US, are part of a structure with free movement of goods and services and a common regulatory regime, it makes little sense to treat them as separate economies.
The USA has not added states since 1959. On that basis it would seem fair to only consider the states in the EU in that were in it in (or its antecedents) in 1959 (mostly France and Germany). Adding in countries that were under communism less than 30 years ago seems absurd. In 20 years' time I would agree with you, though, but it is not that time yet. If there are places in the USA not well developed then the blame lies with the USA. Lack of investment in Poland in the 80s isn't exactly a fault of the EU.
Glad you noticed. I'd like to keep it that way. And you know how dictatorships come into power? Usually through claiming that there is an imminent threat that only strong centralized action can address and through getting people upset over unequal distribution of resources. The climate change brouhaha is pretty much textbook "how to grab power"
The issue is not what might be done in the worse circumstances, but looking at what the threat actually is. You seem to feel the best policy is to ignore it because of some unlikely risk of authoritarianism.
The strategy is explicitly to grab power incrementally
So you think nothing should be done ever to promote new technologies or to ease their adoption, as anything new is small scale initially? How is that buggy whip business going?
That is wrong: all blood flows through the feet and the hands.
We are talking about Watts, thus J/second. Are you saying all the blood in the body flows through the feet every second (and the hands)? Really? Seriously? If so, I give up. You even use a figure "The heart can move 5 to 7 liters of blood in one minute and 7600 liters (2000 gallons) per day", so per second through the whole body this is (on average) 6000ml / 60 seconds, or 0.1 litres per second through the whole body. Blood flow through the feet is about 3% of this. (10% through the hands) when the hands and feet are at the same temperature as the body as a whole. That drops a bit if the feet are cooler. So let's say the body is overall warm, then 0.1*0.02*4184J per C drop of the blood temperature. Then we have to go to Newton and some assumptions. Let's assume water at 5C, and the area of both feet is 0.1m, and the feet as plates with laminar flow. dQ/dT=hAdeltaT. Or dQ/dt=0.1*0.54*(37-5)=1.7C/s, so now we have a heat loss of 0.1*0.02*4184*1.7=14 Watts. And this is assuming that the blood is actually going over a surface at 5C, so the feet are at 5C (which would be very uncomfortable). The evaporative heat loss, even without sweating is 30W (and we've just knocked 5% off that by putting our feet in water), so net it's 12.5W. When sweating fully you can lose 100W. So whilst putting your feet in cold water feels great (and I sometimes do it myself), it's not the most effective way to keep cool. It's certainly less messy than spraying your naked body with water, and easier to do in company.
And no, blood, at 37C, would keep the tissues of your feet warm, but it seems it cannot (although partly because blood flow to the feet shuts down). Again, do you really believe what you are saying?
Putting your feed and hands into water implies your pour a bit water over your legs and forearms:
Well, that's a definition of 'putting your feet into' that is new to me. Here, where they use English, it means taking a body of water, and placing your feet into it, not pouring things over it. Again, do you really believe what you are saying?
Well, you can write significant amounts off against tax, but tax is only a fraction of the cost, so you don't end up ahead, just less behind than you might be. I'd be interested to see a break down of the revenue into employees and O/Os and the actual effective take home of an O/O (granted you might leave some of the business rather than drawing it, but I am trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison) to see if $100k works out as $100k wage, or maybe effectively a $50k wage when including costs.
Some of the things you claim people said were impossible were said to be impossible with the engineering available at the time, not due to theoretical constraints. There's a huge difference. For example, Maxim (he of the machine gun) said that flight was possible in the late 19th century, just not with current engine power:weight ratios. He'd managed to get a steam plane to lift off a bit, in an uncontrolled way, so had an idea what he was talking about. That was pretty much the objection to the moon landings being possible - not with 1960s technology many believed, although they were wrong. But apart from flat earthers basically no one was saying with wasn't possible at all. But there are some things we can say with pretty much certainty, such as it not being possible to simulate the whole of the universe in arbitrary detail within this universe (and that comes down to thermodynamics, as well as information theory).
Slashdot Mirror
yu7ujIf you actually talked to a climate scientist (I have) then you'd find out that they think AGW is bad, and would love it not to be true. But wishing it is not true doesn't make it not true. It's like going to see the doctor and them telling you that you have to give up smoking or you'll end up with COPD. The doctor doesn't WANT you to have COPD, and it doesn't mean that they thing COPD is good, it's just a risk you are running. The stance you are taking, though, is anti-science and to me utterly baffling.
I think AGW is happening and I also wish it wasn't happening.
How on earth do you derive that nonsense statement from what the GP said?
That and bacteria.
I live in the UK. It used to snow just about every winter. Not so much now. A few years ago I harvested by second crop of tomatoes in late November... If I still had a greenhouse I could be again. I probably wouldn't have got a summer crop this year, as the heat would probably have killed it if it was in a greenhouse. Maybe I should have got some grow bags and tried in the open, but my partner doesn't eat the evil fruit, so I'd be having tomatoes with milk for breakfast all winter just to use them up.
Kilotons of CO2? Try gigatons.
You do realise that European nations were burning coal back into the high middle ages at least? The first bit of clean air legislation is from the 12th century York.
Those windmills and natural gas plants will wear out,/p>
So? They will replace them. Turbines in nuclear plants also wear out, and the cooling systems, etc. It's hardly unique to wind or natural gas. In fact if you are using turbine-based peaking plants, they are pretty simple and reliable.
new capacity will be needed as populations and standards of living grow
Denmark's population is pretty static, standards of living increasing don't always require lots of additional power.
Natural gas is not low CO2
It is compared to coal, and 7% of energy from natural gas is tiny, so it doesn't make very much difference if it is replaced with nuclear (which still has some CO2 footprint up until the point that uranium springs from the ground and refines itself). I think you are also confusing the overall CO2 footprint of natural gas, and the issue of leakage from reservoirs of it, which depends very much on the type of reservoir.
If Denmark builds nuclear power then they can help their neighbors in reducing their CO2 by exporting natural gas and electricity from nuclear to displace the coal and oil that's being burned now.
I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.
So Denmark has a large natural gas installed base (great for power when required) but rarely uses it (great for the environment). This means they don't need to go to the trouble of building nuclear, as they have it covered.
It's not acclimitisation (I won't use the non-word acclimate) in terms of heat tolerance, so much as behavioural changes and air con.
No, the EU courts have not done any such thing. The EU courts have backed the requirement to follow the UN human rights regulations on refugees that European nations signed up to. In large part those regulations were drawn up by the USA and European nations after the mess of mass migrations at the end of the WW2 that led to up to 300,000 people dying. As I understand it Merkel is particularly sensitive to this, as her parents were some of those forced to migrate.
The people anywhere in lower latitudes where it is 40C or higher will complain, and will likely move in mass migrations to places like Norway. Be careful what you wish for. Also at 30C year round, the elderly will be under heat stress and die more quickly. Maybe that appeals to you.
I'd be incredibly surprised if it was 100 times. 250 years ago China was almost certainly the lead (in aggregate) in the world, but the rest of the world then industrialised. The UK, France, Germany, put out a lot of CO2 pollution compared to the USA up until around 1880, when the USA started to surpass them in industrial capacity. European countries, on average, have about half the footprint per capita of the USA, but constitute 1.5 times the population, roughly, so the overall footprint isn't so different, and this has been the case for most of the last 100 years. So on that basis there is absolutely no way that the USA could have put out 100 times the rest of the world.
The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals.
It's both. Individual decisions affect CO2 footprint (I don't make the best ones - I am lazy). Also governments can affect that. In democracies we get to vote in or out the government, so we bear some additional responsibility for that, although the range of choice isn't always huge. But we could vote for governments that massively expand renewables, although that comes with a price tag which might not be enjoyable. To square the circle of CO2, and various other issues, is going to be difficult.
The correct per capita measure would include the goods and services consumed by a nation, irrespective of where the carbon is emitted. About a decade ago I remember something about this being calculated for the UK and the vaunted reduction in CO2 footprint turning out to actually be a very slight rise. At the moment Denmark has the smallest CO2 per capita footprint on the planet, except that pretty much all the consumer goods used there come from outside Denmark, and I don't think Netflix or Amazon have any server farms there, so in reality it is much, much higher.
Indeed. If China decided to break itself up into its provinces and form the CU (China Union) the CO2 issue for the world would be solved, yes, as each new nation in the CU would have less emissions as the USA as a whole.
Because there is no evidence SDCs can WORK
What is the basis for your assertion?
Yes, tax dollars should go to building those labs, and do in the USA, and most Western countries.
When I go to the hospital, should I pay a fee to support experimental drugs?
You pay to support the hospital system, which supports the administration of experimental drugs. You just don't see that as a line item in your bill.
It's not a question of "fairness", it's a question of comparing apples to apples.
And including states that were in the communist block less than 30 years ago certainly isn't comparing apples to apples.
The basis of modern European government is that the state has the right to infringe on individual liberties and property rights for the common good. This is implemented by a political elite that rejects both classical liberalism and popular political choices. How is that not already authoritarianism?
Rather than defining as authoritarianism being the ability of the government to infringe any personal liberty, I would define it as one of extent. The exact point where authoritarianism begins would thus be difficult. The USSR under Stalin or Nazi Germany would be strongly authoritarian, and even tending to towards totalitarianism. Western European democracies would score fairly low on the authoritarian scale, as they promote individual rights through their laws and membership of the EHCR.
Your statement would also cover the US Constitution, which also indicates that the common good can be used to justify various actions.
How can something that is explicitly stated be a "conspiracy theory"?
Because you seem to be suggesting that the underlying reason for your perceived authoritarianism is some cabal intent on destroying rights, as opposed to maintaining the planet in some habitable condition with the minimum of imposition on people's lives.
People have more leisure time now then 100 years ago. Birth rates are lower.
It's not about fairness, it's about what the boundaries of an economy are. Since EU members, just like the US, are part of a structure with free movement of goods and services and a common regulatory regime, it makes little sense to treat them as separate economies.
The USA has not added states since 1959. On that basis it would seem fair to only consider the states in the EU in that were in it in (or its antecedents) in 1959 (mostly France and Germany). Adding in countries that were under communism less than 30 years ago seems absurd. In 20 years' time I would agree with you, though, but it is not that time yet. If there are places in the USA not well developed then the blame lies with the USA. Lack of investment in Poland in the 80s isn't exactly a fault of the EU.
Glad you noticed. I'd like to keep it that way. And you know how dictatorships come into power? Usually through claiming that there is an imminent threat that only strong centralized action can address and through getting people upset over unequal distribution of resources. The climate change brouhaha is pretty much textbook "how to grab power"
The issue is not what might be done in the worse circumstances, but looking at what the threat actually is. You seem to feel the best policy is to ignore it because of some unlikely risk of authoritarianism.
The strategy is explicitly to grab power incrementally
Ah... you're a conspiracy theorist. Never mind.
So you think nothing should be done ever to promote new technologies or to ease their adoption, as anything new is small scale initially? How is that buggy whip business going?
That is wrong: all blood flows through the feet and the hands.
We are talking about Watts, thus J/second. Are you saying all the blood in the body flows through the feet every second (and the hands)? Really? Seriously? If so, I give up. You even use a figure "The heart can move 5 to 7 liters of blood in one minute and 7600 liters (2000 gallons) per day", so per second through the whole body this is (on average) 6000ml / 60 seconds, or 0.1 litres per second through the whole body. Blood flow through the feet is about 3% of this. (10% through the hands) when the hands and feet are at the same temperature as the body as a whole. That drops a bit if the feet are cooler. So let's say the body is overall warm, then 0.1*0.02*4184J per C drop of the blood temperature. Then we have to go to Newton and some assumptions. Let's assume water at 5C, and the area of both feet is 0.1m, and the feet as plates with laminar flow. dQ/dT=hAdeltaT. Or dQ/dt=0.1*0.54*(37-5)=1.7C/s, so now we have a heat loss of 0.1*0.02*4184*1.7=14 Watts. And this is assuming that the blood is actually going over a surface at 5C, so the feet are at 5C (which would be very uncomfortable). The evaporative heat loss, even without sweating is 30W (and we've just knocked 5% off that by putting our feet in water), so net it's 12.5W. When sweating fully you can lose 100W. So whilst putting your feet in cold water feels great (and I sometimes do it myself), it's not the most effective way to keep cool. It's certainly less messy than spraying your naked body with water, and easier to do in company.
And no, blood, at 37C, would keep the tissues of your feet warm, but it seems it cannot (although partly because blood flow to the feet shuts down). Again, do you really believe what you are saying?
Putting your feed and hands into water implies your pour a bit water over your legs and forearms:
Well, that's a definition of 'putting your feet into' that is new to me. Here, where they use English, it means taking a body of water, and placing your feet into it, not pouring things over it. Again, do you really believe what you are saying?
Well, you can write significant amounts off against tax, but tax is only a fraction of the cost, so you don't end up ahead, just less behind than you might be. I'd be interested to see a break down of the revenue into employees and O/Os and the actual effective take home of an O/O (granted you might leave some of the business rather than drawing it, but I am trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison) to see if $100k works out as $100k wage, or maybe effectively a $50k wage when including costs.
Some of the things you claim people said were impossible were said to be impossible with the engineering available at the time, not due to theoretical constraints. There's a huge difference. For example, Maxim (he of the machine gun) said that flight was possible in the late 19th century, just not with current engine power:weight ratios. He'd managed to get a steam plane to lift off a bit, in an uncontrolled way, so had an idea what he was talking about. That was pretty much the objection to the moon landings being possible - not with 1960s technology many believed, although they were wrong. But apart from flat earthers basically no one was saying with wasn't possible at all. But there are some things we can say with pretty much certainty, such as it not being possible to simulate the whole of the universe in arbitrary detail within this universe (and that comes down to thermodynamics, as well as information theory).