| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:53:11 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,025 |
| Messages: | 90,706 |
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with
much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to
wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the
various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand:
Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on
Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists
and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). ><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the
question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and
its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density
(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with
much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to
wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the
various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists
and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the
question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and
its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density
(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin,
I'd go for 750.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with
much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to
wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the
various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the
capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand:
Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on
Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists
and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019).
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the
question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the
inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler
question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and
its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density
(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is
correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin,
I'd go for 750.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with
much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to
wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the
various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists
and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the
question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and
its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density
(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin,
I'd go for 750.
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of >>>>atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are >>>>simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by >>>>volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental >>>>carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and >>>nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin,
I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...Hang a number on it. What is the total emitted power for all
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>>to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>>river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>>circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>>>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of >>>>>atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are >>>>>simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at >>>>>least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>>and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>>the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by >>>>>volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>>of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>>to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value >>>>>one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>>its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the >>>>>atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>>or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>>2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>>ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental >>>>>carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people >>>>were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and >>>>nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>>I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
broadcast stations in the world?
Compare with the heat content of the
atmosphere.
Joe
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of >>>>atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are >>>>simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by >>>>volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental >>>>carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and >>>nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>>to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>>river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>>circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>>>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of >>>>>atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are >>>>>simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at >>>>>least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>>and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>>the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by >>>>>volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>>of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>>to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value >>>>>one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>>its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the >>>>>atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>>or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>>2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>>ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental >>>>>carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people >>>>were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and >>>>nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>>I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
A 1979 paper on the subject which I still have somewhere upstairs. I
saved it even though I wasn't at that point studying the subject -
that was to come later. Nevertheless, there must have been evidential
value in it for me to have retained it.
Incidentally, you can't have a
proper discussion on the matter all the time Bill Sloman's around, sententiously dispensing his own novel form of 'wisdom' in his
customary supercilious manner.
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
A 1979 paper on the subject which I still have somewhere upstairs. I
saved it even though I wasn't at that point studying the subject -
that was to come later. Nevertheless, there must have been evidential
value in it for me to have retained it. Incidentally, you can't have a
proper discussion on the matter all the time Bill Sloman's around, sententiously dispensing his own novel form of 'wisdom' in his
customary supercilious manner.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
All possibly true, but irrelevant. The intent of the engineering
analysis is to see what will actually be needed. In other words, I'm
showing the scale of what's required to move the needle. Hint: Bring
a BIG calculator.
"Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message news:24rf1k93u6kq8figh66209a27fs2edm2il@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...Hang a number on it. What is the total emitted power for all
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>>> to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>>> much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>>> wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>>> various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the
capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand:
Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on
Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>>> river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>>> circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>>> and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019).
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>>> question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>>> inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>>> question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>>> and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>>> the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>>> of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>>> its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>>> to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value >>>>>> one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>>> its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item. >>>>>>
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>>> or 5.148 million metric gigatons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>>> (they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>>> correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>>> 2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>>> ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high >>>>> as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>>> I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
broadcast stations in the world?
I don't see a way to determine it, even assuming all radiated power causes heating.
Compare with the heat content of the
atmosphere.
That might be easier, approximately.
The total mass of the atmosphere appears to be about 5.148e+18 kg
The heat capacity appears to be about 1012 J/(kg*K)
So if I multiply those I get 5.21e+21 J/K
So if I want to heat by 2K I need about 1.042e+22 J
Anyone should feel free to point out any errors in my not very highly sophisticated calculations.
Joe
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:eouf1k1nvkrlqtu5gctjkumqf2nl00qmf1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful >>>>>>to hang some numbers on the problem.
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with >>>>>>much overlap.
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to >>>>>>wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the >>>>>>various climate models and thus their predictions.
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the >>>>>>capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: >>>>>>Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on >>>>>>Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing >>>>>>river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year >>>>>>circa 2015, and growing.
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in >>>>>>scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists >>>>>>and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019). >>>>>><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of >>>>>>atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are >>>>>>simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the >>>>>>question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at >>>>>>least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the >>>>>>inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler >>>>>>question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify >>>>>>and predict.
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, >>>>>>the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by >>>>>>volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious >>>>>>of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and >>>>>>its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual >>>>>>to verify.
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value >>>>>>one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and >>>>>>its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item. >>>>>>
The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the >>>>>>atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, >>>>>>or 5.148 million metric gigatons. >>>>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density >>>>>>(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of >>>>>>elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is >>>>>>correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated >>>>>>2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 >>>>>>ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental >>>>>>carbon in the atmosphere.
Joe Gwinn
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people >>>>>were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and >>>>>nasty.
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high >>>>>as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, >>>>>I'd go for 750.
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?
A 1979 paper on the subject which I still have somewhere upstairs. I
saved it even though I wasn't at that point studying the subject -
that was to come later. Nevertheless, there must have been evidential
value in it for me to have retained it.
When you find it, please scan it and make it downloadable. Thank you.
Incidentally, you can't have a
proper discussion on the matter all the time Bill Sloman's around,
sententiously dispensing his own novel form of 'wisdom' in his
customary supercilious manner.
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Jeroen Belleman
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. >>> The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. >>>> The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
Read about life in 1900, before washing machines and antibiotics. Or
1500, with average life spans around 30. People had lots of kids and
most died young.
You think progress has stopped?
The really gigantic progress in the next few hundred years will be in biology.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too
bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. >>>> The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
Read about life in 1900, before washing machines and antibiotics. Or
1500, with average life spans around 30. People had lots of kids and
most died young.
You think progress has stopped?
The really gigantic progress in the next few hundred years will be in biology.
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should >repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. >>>>> The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far
from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
Read about life in 1900, before washing machines and antibiotics. Or
1500, with average life spans around 30. People had lots of kids and
most died young.
You think progress has stopped?
The really gigantic progress in the next few hundred years will be in
biology.
Yes, I believe so too.
Jeroen Belleman
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
Read about life in 1900, before washing machines and antibiotics. Or
1500, with average life spans around 30. People had lots of kids and
most died young.
You think progress has stopped?
The really gigantic progress in the next few hundred years will be in
biology.
Yes, I believe so too.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 10:10:17 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should
repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
Bicycles need paved roads to be efficient. And farmers won't take tons
of fertilizer or kilotons of water to the farm on bicycles, or tons of
rice to market on bicycles.
People who live way up the food chain imagine all sorts of crazy
things. They should spend a year working on a farm.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
On 7/05/2025 7:10 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
It doesn't have to generate any CO2.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and >>>>>>>>>>> the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>What constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What?
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, >>>>>>>>> all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually
merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>>>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to
continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. >>>>>> The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a
drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that >>>>>>>>>> in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to >>>>>>>> be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 7/05/2025 7:10 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
an e-bike doesn't
generate any CO2.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should
repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
It doesn't have to generate any CO2.
I must confess my ignorance of the flora of Australia, electric bikes
don't grow on trees in the UK.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made) >>>>>>>>>>>> problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for >>>>>>>>>>> trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
On 5/7/2025 2:10 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation; road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
But most of those things are present -- in greater quantities -- in
any sort of mechanized transportation.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 5/7/2025 2:10 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should
repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
But most of those things are present -- in greater quantities -- in
any sort of mechanized transportation.
Bill Sloman's original claim was: "... an e-bike doesn't generate any
CO2.", which is patently untrue. Had he said : " ...an e-bike doesn't generate any more CO2 than other comparable modes of transport, that
would have been nearer the truth.
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone >>>>>>>>>>>>> hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these >>>>>>>>>>>>> (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, >>>>>>>>>>>> without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, >>>>>>>>>>>> and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I >>>>>>>>>>>> expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, >>>>>>>>>>>> ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in >>>>>>>>>> the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine >>>>>>>>>> seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge
increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps
declining.
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as
much as
the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling
daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with
a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't
even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly
confused.
On 5/7/2025 2:10 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should
repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
But most of those things are present -- in greater quantities -- in
any sort of mechanized transportation.
I think the more significant (and longer term) difference is in
how you think about transportation. If traveling long distances >(inefficiently) is your mindset, you will inherently be more
wasteful than if constrained to traveling shorter distances
(more efficiently).
How you lay out cities, neighborhoods, services, etc. all
change when you alter the means of transportation. People who
expect to walk or ride public transportation obviously limit
the goods and services that they can reach.
For me to drag 4000 pounds of steel across town to pick up
an item that's only sold there is ridiculously inefficient.
OTOH, if the store's clientele was limited by a more efficient
transportation range, it might opt for smaller "branches"
or offer some form of delivery service -- where *it* incurs
the extra cost for transportation instead of EVERYONE having it.
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And, >>>>>>>>>>>>> emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last >>>>>>>>>> 300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider.
But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining. >>>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling
daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with
a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't
even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly
confused.
Jeroen Belleman
On Thu, 8 May 2025 12:09:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider. >>>>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling
daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
google daylight savings time road deaths
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed.
He didn't suggest drinking bleach. Look it up.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with
a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Sounds good to me. If a play is any good, let the audience pay to see
it.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't
even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly >>confused.
Don't confuse bluffing (Trump) with senility (Biden.)
A lot of countries are making trade deals; sounds like we have one
with the UK now. We and the Israelis are pounding the Houthis and
Hamas. Illegal immigration is way down.
I expect some serious peace deals between Israel and its neighbors, in
the next year or so.
The Chinese situation will be interesting.
Jeroen Belleman
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 5/7/2025 2:10 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
I am surprised that someone with your intelligence and knowledge should
repeat such a fallacy.
Manufacture of vehicle
Manufacture of batteries
Consumables (tyres, battery etc.)
Electricity generations (and the cost of making and maintaining the
plant)
Road making and maintenance (tarmac refining, transport & installation;
road 'wetal'; concrete; street furniture; lighting )
Disposal
But most of those things are present -- in greater quantities -- in
any sort of mechanized transportation.
Bill Sloman's original claim was: "... an e-bike doesn't generate any
CO2.", which is patently untrue.
Had he said : " ...an e-bike doesn't
generate any more CO2 than other comparable modes of transport, that
would have been nearer the truth.
On Thu, 08 May 2025 06:51:14 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2025 12:09:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider. >>>>>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save >>>> a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling >>>daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
google daylight savings time road deaths
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed.
He didn't suggest drinking bleach. Look it up.
Non US folk may not know how or where to look.
Here is the actual news conference. View from 28:34 to 30:50. Or
search for bleach.
.<https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-with-coronavirus-task-force-briefing/545222>
Joe
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with
a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Sounds good to me. If a play is any good, let the audience pay to see
it.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't >>>even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly >>>confused.
Don't confuse bluffing (Trump) with senility (Biden.)
A lot of countries are making trade deals; sounds like we have one
with the UK now. We and the Israelis are pounding the Houthis and
Hamas. Illegal immigration is way down.
I expect some serious peace deals between Israel and its neighbors, in
the next year or so.
The Chinese situation will be interesting.
Jeroen Belleman
On Thu, 8 May 2025 12:09:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without >>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider. >>>>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as >>>>>>>>> the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and
export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save
a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling
daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
google daylight savings time road deaths
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't
invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed.
He didn't suggest drinking bleach. Look it up.
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people.
They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with
a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Sounds good to me. If a play is any good, let the audience pay to see
it.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't
even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly
confused.
Don't confuse bluffing (Trump) with senility (Biden.)
A lot of countries are making trade deals; sounds like we have one
with the UK now.
We and the Israelis are pounding the Houthis and
Hamas. Illegal immigration is way down.
I expect some serious peace deals between Israel and its neighbors, in
the next year or so.
The Chinese situation will be interesting.
On Thu, 08 May 2025 10:53:13 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2025 06:51:14 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2025 12:09:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/8/25 01:07, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:43:05 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 16:00, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 09:41:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/7/25 00:56, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 23:26:56 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 22:40, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:14:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 21:09, john larkin wrote:But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 5/6/25 18:47, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change andWhat constitutes "soon enough to matter"? To who? What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole). And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.
Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.
If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bellicose.
Jeroen Belleman
We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last
300. I expect continued progress.
Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually >>>>>>>>>>>>> merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to
be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to >>>>>>>>>>>>> continue.
Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly.
The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider. >>>>>>>>>>>
Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>
Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a >>>>>>>>>>> drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as
the average person.
We're far we ever will.
Things keep getting better.
You sound like Trump.
Jeroen Belleman
Thanks for the compliment.
It wasn't intended as one.
I knew that. Insults are normal here.
The guy is deluded, crazy and dangerous.
He's smart, has common sense, and is winning.
If his sense passes for common sense in the US, ... never mind.
I suppose you're just rationalizing your poor choice. It's a well
known psychological defense mechanism. Trump is proudly leading
the US into a catastrophe.
Jeroen Belleman
Not my choice; I don't vote.
We'll see about the catastrophe. If he can shut down the fentanyl and >>>>> export the cartel thugs and cancel Daylight Savings Time, he will save >>>>> a lot of lives.
OK about the drugs and cartels, but I fail to see how cancelling
daylaight savings time contributes to saving lives.
google daylight savings time road deaths
He didn't suggest drinking bleach. Look it up.
Last time he was President, the catastrophe was Covid, and he didn't >>>>> invent Covid.
He suggested drinking bleach might help. Smart and common sense, indeed. >>>
Non US folk may not know how or where to look.
Here is the actual news conference. View from 28:34 to 30:50. Or
search for bleach.
.<https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-with-coronavirus-task-force-briefing/545222>
Joe
Reducing funding for The Arts will be a catastrophe for some people. >>>>> They will have to find real jobs.
There are certainly areas where funding is wasted, but going at it with >>>> a blunt axe is not going to do any good.
Sounds good to me. If a play is any good, let the audience pay to see
it.
Lets hope he'll run out of steam soon. The signs are good: He doesn't
even remember he swore to uphold the constitution. He seems utterly
confused.
Don't confuse bluffing (Trump) with senility (Biden.)
A lot of countries are making trade deals; sounds like we have one
with the UK now. We and the Israelis are pounding the Houthis and
Hamas. Illegal immigration is way down.
I expect some serious peace deals between Israel and its neighbors, in
the next year or so.
The Chinese situation will be interesting.
Jeroen Belleman
And now we have an American pope!
Even the Vatican wants to make a deal.
