Climate risks dwarf Europe\'s energy crisis, space chief warns...

[server]

On 14 Aug 2022 09:50:34 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Actually the usual meaning of \"tipping point\" in this context is where global
warming has gone far enough to generate enough environmental change that
global warming would keep on getting worse even if we managed to reduce
atmospheric CO2 levels below 270 ppm.

When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays ice-free
all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a bit - that
kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence of
the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been swinging
back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with what amounts
to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may survive such
swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work. Positive
feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:45:50 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 23:14:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:58:18 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

They still have the geoengineering option-.It\'s more than just the survival of mankind, it\'s the entire biosphere that must be saved because mankind can\'t live without it.

Have you been outside lately? It\'s green and beautiful.

\'the entire biosphere\' isn\'t represented by a wind-from-the-ocean coastal site.
Po river valley, and the Rhine, aren\'t looking \'green and beautiful\'
just now.

Weather happens \"just now\".

Climate is long term average of \"just nows\". Longer than your attention span.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Wyke-_Thames_frost_fair.JPG

1683-84 - not \"just now\".

> And not very long ago Michigan was under a mile of ice.

Through most of the most recent ice age, which ended more than ten thousand years ago . Climate scientist have a pretty exact idea of how and why, but you don\'t.

> But irrational fear, and profiteering from same, gets even deeper.

Anything John Larkin can\'t understand is \"irrational\". He want to rationalise stuff for himself, but he\'s not that good at doing it and he doesn\'t know anything like enough to do it properly, even if he had the capacity to do it at all.

> Be as afraid as you enjoy. Stay under your bed and leave more hiking trails for us.

If they haven\'t got burnt out by the most recent forest fires. Nobody enjoys being afraid, but having the capacity to appreciate that things can go wrong is what saves some of us from being foolhardy and worse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 14 Aug 2022 09:50:34 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Actually the usual meaning of \"tipping point\" in this context is where global
warming has gone far enough to generate enough environmental change that
global warming would keep on getting worse even if we managed to reduce
atmospheric CO2 levels below 270 ppm.

When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays ice-free
all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a bit - that
kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence of
the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been swinging
back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with what amounts
to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may survive such
swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

And kept on doing it so we can see Milankovitch cycles between ice age and interglacials with a roughly 100,000 year period.
Climate scientist have worked this out in quite a lot of detail. Anthony Watts isn\'t one, so he won\'t tell you about it.

> Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

Even if it seems to work for you

> Positive feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

So what. Most people get lots of stuff wrong. You can use a little bit of it to get better linearity out of a platinum resistance temperature sensor.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 6:45:50 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 23:14:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:58:18 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Have you been outside lately? It\'s green and beautiful.

\'the entire biosphere\' isn\'t represented by a wind-from-the-ocean coastal site.
Po river valley, and the Rhine, aren\'t looking \'green and beautiful\'
just now.

Weather happens \"just now\".
Well, yeah; that\'s why weather is reported on site-by-site basis, with dates and times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Wyke-_Thames_frost_fair.JPG

And not very long ago Michigan was under a mile of ice.

In human terms, it WAS very long ago. What\'s your point?

> But irrational fear, and profiteering from same, gets even deeper.

Non sequitur. There\'s no irrationality or profiteering in your rants, nor in mine.

 

[rbowman]

On 08/14/2022 03:50 AM, Robert Latest wrote:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Actually the usual meaning of \"tipping point\" in this context is where global
warming has gone far enough to generate enough environmental change that
global warming would keep on getting worse even if we managed to reduce
atmospheric CO2 levels below 270 ppm.

When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays ice-free
all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a bit - that
kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence of
the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been swinging
back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with what amounts
to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may survive such
swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that I want to.

If the genetic Just So Stories can be believed, my ancestors chased the
glaciers north after the last ice age and made a living hunting and
gathering. They obviously survived although it might have been touch and
go when the damn farmers arrived.

 

[rbowman]

On 08/14/2022 07:45 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 23:14:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:58:18 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

They still have the geoengineering option-.It\'s more than just the survival of mankind, it\'s the entire biosphere that must be saved because mankind can\'t live without it.

Have you been outside lately? It\'s green and beautiful.

\'the entire biosphere\' isn\'t represented by a wind-from-the-ocean coastal site.
Po river valley, and the Rhine, aren\'t looking \'green and beautiful\'
just now.

Weather happens \"just now\".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Wyke-_Thames_frost_fair.JPG

And not very long ago Michigan was under a mile of ice.

https://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/

I have a photo I took from one of the mountains one Thanksgiving. The
valley suffers from temperature inversions and while it was bright and
sunny at 5800\', the valley was covered with an unbroken mass of white
clouds a couple of hundred feet down the trail. Looking out over the
clouds with only the mountains showing it was close to a sunny day at
Lake Missoula 12,000 years ago.

Several of the trails have makers at 4200\', 1200\' above the valley floor.

 

[Robert Latest]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (14 Aug 2022 09:50:34 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in <jlrur9Fgg1pU1@mid.individual.net>:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays
ice-free all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a
bit - that kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

We have technology these day to help us survive.

Those will be the \"pockets\" of survival that I meant. No technology will be
able to sustain several billions of humans under conditions that might be
classified as \"human.\" This is not about long-term biological survival of a
species, I\'m not too worried about that. I\'m worried about the civilization(s)
that makes all the difference for this particlular species, and which
incidentally is the foundation of the very technology that you think will help
us survive.

That is if the green idiots did not kill all power generating methods by then.
nuclear, coal, oil, what have you

All limited resources, even if you ignore environmental impact. Long-term
energy generation can only use sunlight. What is your proposal?

> Else a big setback for humans..

 

[Robert Latest]

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> We have currently no way to store that much energy,

We don\'t need to. We need more flexible strategies for energy *consumption*.
Everything nowadays is still based on the \"base load + peak load\" paradigm.

> the climate and weather will create periods without sun (volcanic eruptions)

Not everywhere at the same time.

> and windmills will fly apart in decent storms

They don\'t today, why should they in the future?

> It is all about redundancy

Correct.

> The electric grid will break down again and again as it always does,

If constructed cheaply wnd without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

> the solar panels will be blown of the roofs and land as happened many times.

If constructed cheaply wnd without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

> How incredible stupid can you get >>> warming >>> needs >>> cooling

Powered >>> by >>> energy >>> that >>> generates >>> more >>> warming,
according to your ideas. Tell you what: Cooling is only needed when the sun
shines. No electric energy storage necessary. Why not just slap solar cells
onto those sprawling cardboard shacks that Arizonians call \"single family
homes\" and keep them cooled to 60°F all day. It could be so easy. You don\'t
even need a thermostat.

 

[Robert Latest]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

I don\'t know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
too slow for most complex species to wait out.

> Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
doesn\'t make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
less than a day.

> Positive feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
all practical purposes. If we knew for a fact that without any CO2 limit the
average temperatures would peak at +6°C in 200 years and be back at today\'s
level in another 200 it should not make a difference for today\'s decision
making at all.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (14 Aug 2022 09:50:34 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote in <jlrur9...@mid.individual.net>:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays
ice-free all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a
bit - that kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

We have technology these day to help us survive.

Those will be the \"pockets\" of survival that I meant. No technology will be
able to sustain several billions of humans under conditions that might be
classified as \"human.\"

That\'s nonsense. You just have to move your population further away from the equator.

This is not about long-term biological survival of a species, I\'m not too worried about that.
I\'m worried about the civilization(s) that makes all the difference for this particlular species, and which incidentally is the foundation of the very technology that you think will help us survive.

So a high technology energy intensive civilisation, which could run fine on solar cells, wind turbines and grid storage to cover the gaps when the sun isn\'t shining and the wind isn\'t blowing. It wouldn\'t run quite the same as the current arrangements, but it could be close enough

That is if the green idiots did not kill all power generating methods by then.
nuclear, coal, oil, what have you

All limited resources, even if you ignore environmental impact. Long-term
energy generation can only use sunlight. What is your proposal?

He hasn\'t got one. He\'s just recycling climate change denial propaganda pushed out by the fossil fuel extraction industry. It doesn\'t make a lot of sense, but it doesn\'t have to to appeal to Jan Panteltje and John Larkin.

> > Else a big setback for humans..

As if Jan could speak for actual rational humans.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (15 Aug 2022 09:19:43 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
<boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in <jluhdfFsck0U1@mid.individual.net>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (14 Aug 2022 09:50:34 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in <jlrur9Fgg1pU1@mid.individual.net>:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
When the Arctic sea ice finally goes away and the Arctic Ocean stays
ice-free all the year round the albedo of that region will go up quite a
bit - that kind of thing. It\'s talking about an irreversible result.

\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

We have technology these day to help us survive.

Those will be the \"pockets\" of survival that I meant. No technology will be
able to sustain several billions of humans under conditions that might be
classified as \"human.\"

Much the situation already, say Africa
while we eat our stomach full, many there have no food,

This is not about long-term biological survival of a
species, I\'m not too worried about that. I\'m worried about the civilization(s)

Sure, US will go the same way as the Aztecs etc
Statute Of Glibbery will be dug up by the archaeologists like we now look at those pyramids in Mexico
Eskimos will have nice orange fruit gardens where now is the arctic...

that makes all the difference for this particlular species, and which
incidentally is the foundation of the very technology that you think will help
us survive.

That is if the green idiots did not kill all power generating methods by then.
nuclear, coal, oil, what have you

All limited resources, even if you ignore environmental impact. Long-term
energy generation can only use sunlight. What is your proposal?

Well fusion energy is only - and was only 30 years into the future ;-)

Maybe underground buildings and nuclear power .. few hundred years ago nobody
could imagine todays technology..

We WILL have to look for other planets / moons of our planets, other solar systems
but us, being [just] a chemical reaction, life omnipresent in what we call universe
makes us not so important, [we] just a transient ..

Maybe Musk will sell SpaceX shares next to pay for Twitter and then with the way NASA
proceeds few ice-ages may pass before US jumps to space.

Good chance China will have nice Chinese restaurants on Mars by the time the first US astronuts make it there.

What \'system\' is better? Or will it be everybody for themselves?
Mass migration will happen, already happens..
Maybe the countries and systems will unite if it get really critical
Kissinger on
https://www.rt.com/news/560780-henry-kissinger-ukraine-taiwan/

I think we can do it, how many generations it will take?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:49:38 PM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

I don\'t know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
too slow for most complex species to wait out.

We\'ve been switching between ice ages and interglacials and back again over about every hundred thousand years for the past couple of million years.

Most complex species have survived lots of such switches. Our genus has been around for a couple of million year and mitochondrial Eve lived about 155,000 years ago, so she was around in the interglacial before the last ice age, so we qualify.

> > Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

Unless John Larkin is doing it.

As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
doesn\'t make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
less than a day.

Positive feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
all practical purposes. If we knew for a fact that without any CO2 limit the
average temperatures would peak at +6°C in 200 years and be back at today\'s
level in another 200 it should not make a difference for today\'s decision
making at all.

There\'s not a lot of decision making going on at the moment. Lots of posturing, but the CO2 output keeps on rising.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (15 Aug 2022 09:29:36 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
<boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in <jlui00Fsck0U2@mid.individual.net>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
We have currently no way to store that much energy,

We don\'t need to. We need more flexible strategies for energy *consumption*.
Everything nowadays is still based on the \"base load + peak load\" paradigm.

the climate and weather will create periods without sun (volcanic eruptions)

Not everywhere at the same time.

and windmills will fly apart in decent storms

They don\'t today, why should they in the future?

Well I remember seeing one of the blades on the ground after a storm when I drove by one here.

It is all about redundancy

Correct.

The electric grid will break down again and again as it always does,

If constructed cheaply wnd without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

the solar panels will be blown of the roofs and land as happened many times.

If constructed cheaply wnd without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

How incredible stupid can you get >>> warming >>> needs >>> cooling

Powered >>> by >>> energy >>> that >>> generates >>> more >>> warming,
according to your ideas. Tell you what: Cooling is only needed when the sun
shines. No electric energy storage necessary. Why not just slap solar cells
onto those sprawling cardboard shacks that Arizonians call \"single family
homes\" and keep them cooled to 60°F all day. It could be so easy. You don\'t
even need a thermostat.

In theory yes,
You need a _lot_ of those cells, I just bought and tried a set of 350 W flex solar panels in my garden
have 250 Ah lifepo4 storage and a pure sine wave to 230 V 50 Hz converter, works perfectly!
Worked OK during the last power outage that lasted a few hours.

But cloudy skies .. not so much.. you need a LOT for washing machine, microwave, cooking plate, TV, radio,
charge phones, internet, monitors, lights, heating / cooling / tools .
Nuclear is the only thing that can be made big enough and steady / reliable enough to supply all that for all people.

Not even counting electric cars!!

I would like a small RTG, would work.
But then some clown would drill a hole in his.. radioactive contaminate his place.
Of course after WW3 everything glows anyways ...
But this fear for nuclear power is something put there by all that US war propaganda I\'d think ;-)[1]
[1] yes I know.. ;-)

 

[Robert Latest]

rbowman wrote:

Pockets of humans may survive such
swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that I want to.


If the genetic Just So Stories can be believed, my ancestors chased the
glaciers north after the last ice age and made a living hunting and
gathering. They obviously survived although it might have been touch and
go when the damn farmers arrived.

That\'s exactly what I meant. I don\'t give a rat\'s ass about long-term
biological survival of humans. They can go extinct for all I care. What I do
care about is the conditions under which I, my kids, and my (potential)
grandkids have to live. Some time between now and the Sun surning into a red
giant, humans will go extinct (first culturally, then biologically), and it
won\'t be pretty. I want that point in time to be as far removed from today as
possible.

 

[Robert Latest]

Anthony William Sloman wrote:

That\'s nonsense. You just have to move your population further away from the
equator.

\"Just move\" -- yeah right. Thousands od people from South America and Africa
are trying to \"just move\" further away from the equator right now, to North
America and Europe, for instance. Works really well.

This is not about long-term biological survival of a species, I\'m not too
worried about that. I\'m worried about the civilization(s) that makes all
the difference for this particlular species, and which incidentally is the
foundation of the very technology that you think will help us survive.
V
So a high technology energy intensive civilisation, which could run fine on
solar cells, wind turbines and grid storage to cover the gaps when the sun
isn\'t shining and the wind isn\'t blowing. It wouldn\'t run quite the same as
the current arrangements, but it could be close enough

Of course. The technology is there. Some forms of energy consumption will
become permanently unfeasible. Problem is, today\'s political and financial
power has developed in the past decades and is therefore doing its damndest to
prevent any changes to the status quo (which is true for any system, anywhere).

That is if the green idiots did not kill all power generating methods by
then.
nuclear, coal, oil, what have you

All limited resources, even if you ignore environmental impact. Long-term
energy generation can only use sunlight. What is your proposal?

He hasn\'t got one. He\'s just recycling climate change denial propaganda
pushed out by the fossil fuel extraction industry. It doesn\'t make a lot of
sense, but it doesn\'t have to to appeal to Jan Panteltje and John Larkin.

Else a big setback for humans..

As if Jan could speak for actual rational humans.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:20:02 PM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (15 Aug 2022 09:29:36 GMT) it happened Robert Latest
bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote in <jlui00...@mid.individual.net>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

and windmills will fly apart in decent storms

They don\'t today, why should they in the future?
Well I remember seeing one of the blades on the ground after a storm when I drove by one here.

One did once. They don\'t make a habit of it. The first gasoline powered cars broke down quite frequently, but they did improve the engineering.

It is all about redundancy

Correct.

The electric grid will break down again and again as it always does,

If constructed cheaply without without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

the solar panels will be blown of the roofs and land as happened many times.

If constructed cheaply wnd without regulatory oversight like in Texas, yes.

How incredible stupid can you get >>> warming >>> needs >>> cooling

Powered >>> by >>> energy >>> that >>> generates >>> more >>> warming,
according to your ideas. Tell you what: Cooling is only needed when the sun
shines. No electric energy storage necessary. Why not just slap solar cells
onto those sprawling cardboard shacks that Arizonians call \"single family
homes\" and keep them cooled to 60°F all day. It could be so easy. You don\'t
even need a thermostat.

In theory yes,
You need a _lot_ of those cells, I just bought and tried a set of 350 W flex solar panels in my garden
have 250 Ah lifepo4 storage and a pure sine wave to 230 V 50 Hz converter, works perfectly!
Worked OK during the last power outage that lasted a few hours.

But cloudy skies .. not so much.. you need a LOT for washing machine, microwave, cooking plate, TV, radio,
charge phones, internet, monitors, lights, heating / cooling / tools .
Nuclear is the only thing that can be made big enough and steady / reliable enough to supply all that for all people.

What a load of rubbish. Solar farms can certainly be made big enough to power the entire grid. It would take up about 1% of the land area, which is a lot of land, but nothing like unattainable.

Not even counting electric cars!!

They are expected to add about 30% to the current grid load. A lot of power, but nothing like unattainable.

I would like a small RTG, would work.
But then some clown would drill a hole in his.. radioactive contaminate his place.
Of course after WW3 everything glows anyways ...
But this fear for nuclear power is something put there by all that US war propaganda I\'d think ;-)[1]
[1] yes I know.. ;-)

Chernobyl had an effect. You should be old enough to remember that, though you don\'t seem to have grown up enough to have understood it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On 15 Aug 2022 09:49:30 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

I don\'t know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
too slow for most complex species to wait out.

Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
doesn\'t make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
less than a day.

I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.

Positive feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
all practical purposes.

Absurd. You can use positive feedback to double the gain of an
amplifier and it\'s perfectly stable.

Guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

 

[Robert Latest]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

and windmills will fly apart in decent storms

They don\'t today, why should they in the future?

Well I remember seeing one of the blades on the ground after a storm when I
drove by one here.

You saw a piece of technical equipment that failed? Unbelievable. Good thing
that can\'t happen with coal / nuclear.

Tell you what: Cooling is only needed when the sun shines. No electric energy
storage necessary. Why not just slap solar cells onto those sprawling
cardboard shacks that Arizonians call \"single family homes\" and keep them
cooled to 60°F all day. It could be so easy. You don\'t even need a
thermostat.

But cloudy skies .. not so much.. you need a LOT for washing machine,
microwave, cooking plate, TV, radio, charge phones, internet, monitors,
lights, heating / cooling / tools .

For starters I was aiming for the lowest-hanging fruits there are: Air
conditioning in a sun-soaked desert in an affluent country. If we aren\'t
picking those, why bother with the complicated stuff? A one-person middle class
Texas household I know has about ten times the monthly electricity bill that I
have with a five-person household (300$ versus 30$). With energy prices about
half those of Germany, that household uses about 20 times my energy. Main
difference is A/C. Solar-powered A/C would go a looong way.

Nuclear is the only thing that can be made big enough and steady / reliable
enough to supply all that for all people.

Yeah super reliable. France has shut down half its thermoelectrical (nuclear)
power plants because the rivers are to warm / too low. When people in middle
Europe start installing A/C, that\'s not going to get better.

> Not even counting electric cars!!

Oh, those run completely emission-free, haven\'t you heard? Zero environment
impact during manufacture, operation, and disposal.

 

[Robert Latest]

Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Most complex species have survived lots of such switches. Our genus has been
around for a couple of million year and mitochondrial Eve lived about 155,000
years ago, so she was around in the interglacial before the last ice age, so
we qualify.

Like stated elsewhere, the survival of our genus doesn\'t worry me. Smaller
things than a climate crisis have brought down civilizations. I don\'t want
that.

 

[server]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 06:59:49 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On 15 Aug 2022 09:49:30 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
\"Irreversible\" in this context means: within the time frame of the existence
of the human species, or human civilization as we know it. Which is maybe
thousands of years (species) or decades (civilization). Earth has been
swinging back and forth between more extreme conditions, but each time with
what amounts to a complete overhaul of the biosphere. Pockets of humans may
survive such swings in some parts of the world, but not under conditions that
I want to.

How did earth ever emerge from irreversible ice-age albedo feedback?

I don\'t know how it happened, except that it happened on a time scale that was
too slow for most complex species to wait out.

Emotional guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

As somebody who claims to know about control theory you are familiar with time
constants associated with feedback loops, and if the time constant is orders of
magnitude too large for the task at hand the controller is worthless. The fact
that your mains supply is controlled to deliver 60*3600*24 cycles per day
doesn\'t make it suitable for a high-accuracy reference clock on a time scale of
less than a day.

I connected a good time-interval counter to the 60 Hz line. Most of
the time it displayed 16.666x milliseconds on single periods.


Positive feedback doesn\'t necessarily latch, but most people think it does.

If positive feedback goes on for long enough you can consider it latched for
all practical purposes.

Absurd. You can use positive feedback to double the gain of an
amplifier and it\'s perfectly stable.

Guessing about control theory doesn\'t work.

Actually, it works for a few people. Not many.