OT: Solar farm with batteries, to power LA

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:37:22 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

China is sending a great many students overseas to get educated at foreign universities, and their researchers are collaborating with people around the world. As a rule, American researchers don't read paper published in non-American journals, or at least they didn't for most of my career.

That puts China ahead of the game in any cultural conflict. It wasn't true some years ago, but they've made an effort recently.

The fact that Europe and the US have off-shored a lot of their manufacturing to China doesn't put China at any disadvantage in a trade war, even if Trump doesn't want to get well-informed enough to find that out.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

Neither was the USSR, which is why they won the war for the rest of us.

John Larkin didn't get taught about that in school, and seems incapable of learning that his education had gaps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:09:31 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 19:38:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:37:09 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Nothing has ever changed. Nothing will ever change. The crops that we
grown now are as good as they ever were and can never be better.
Farmers are ignorant and will never change. More water and more CO2
can only make things worse.

Silly. Your body temperature is comfortable at 98.6F. Give it a one percent increase, it's 103F fever, and one percent less, it's 94 degrees chill.

While both are possible, neither is comfortable; you would seek a doctor..

'more water' ???

'more CO2' - that's an accumulation of waste gas, and yes, that CAN make things worse, if it acidifies oceans worldwide (for instance). Because that would be a discomfort for an entire WORLD of lifeforms, not just an individual.

Get yourself a good bed to hide under.

John Larkin's solution is more like a pair of blinkers.

He gets his information about anthropogenic global warming from denialist propaganda websites, and is too gullible to notice that the people who pay for those web-sites have a financial interests in being able to keep on digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel for as long as possible.

It's not in their long term financial interest either, but rich people do have an overriding interest in staying as rich as possible for as long as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

does make the point that people at the top of the tree seem to be more interested in staying at the top than they are in the state of the tree that they are at the top of.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 19:38:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:37:09 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Nothing has ever changed. Nothing will ever change. The crops that we
grown now are as good as they ever were and can never be better.
Farmers are ignorant and will never change. More water and more CO2
can only make things worse.

Silly. Your body temperature is comfortable at 98.6F. Give it a one percent
increase, it's 103F fever, and one percent less, it's 94 degrees chill.

While both are possible, neither is comfortable; you would seek a doctor.

'more water' ???

'more CO2' - that's an accumulation of waste gas, and yes, that CAN make things
worse, if it acidifies oceans worldwide (for instance). Because that would be
a discomfort for an entire WORLD of lifeforms, not just an individual.

Get yourself a good bed to hide under.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:41:57 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

Then it wouldn't be called a war between China and the USA. It might perhaps look like the Vietnam War, or the Korean War.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 6:25:59 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 12:48 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:35:25 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 11:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

My girl friend works in the field of America-educating the children of
some of China's well-to-do. I mean, those kids have a "culture" such as
it is. It's mostly indistinguishable from "American" culture the kids
mostly enjoy the same movies and foods and clothes and cars and TV shows
etc.

But on average way more ignorant of their own country's history and
culture and art and religion and politics (or anyone else's for that
matter) than the average American or European student. Which would seem
hard to achieve. mind you most of these students are _graduate_ students
going for advanced degrees


WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.


The US is somewhat less constrained in the arable-land dept so long as
the climate change situation and water resources situation can be
controlled to preserve the advantages we got.

More CO2 and more precip and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.



More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

The same higher temperatures that make more water evaporate from the oceans make more water evaporate from the land that the extra rain falls on.

Of course the land warms up more than the oceans, so the evaporation rate from the land is increased more than the evaporation rate from the oceans.

John Larkin didn't pay enough attention to his science lectures at Tulane, which do seem to have included some "creation science" if what he posts here about "intelligent design" is any kind of evidence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:59:20 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

Trader4 hasn't thought about the direct effects of letting off a lot of nuclear weapons, let alone the side effects.

The survivors would be more interested in staying alive than fighting any kind of war.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:50:08 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote:

On 9/14/19 12:16 PM, Rick C wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from. At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Another point, the Chinese population growth is down to 0.6%, only half again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.

Like I said before, world dominance isn't about making war today, it's about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he said, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.


One of China's main issue is that it desires to present itself as a
“strong, democratic, civilised, harmonious and modern socialist country”
but in reality like the Holy Roman Empire it's none of those things and
they have to put a shit ton of economic energy and military effort into
keeping up appearances. It all looks pretty good on paper! and then one
day tens of thousands of people rioting in the streets burning
government buildings and shit.

That's Hong Kong, not China. China doesn't waste any time trying to look democratic - it's a one party state, and while the party does listen to the voices of the population, it also pays attention to lots of other factors, and doesn't tolerate violent protest.

America likes to present itself as...um...America, such as it is. Sorta
like a lady who rolls out of bed in her yoga pants and no makeup or
shower to go to the grocery store it's more honest and way less effort.

America doesn't pretend to be democratic. The voters are represented by elected politicians, but - as James Arthur points out - the founding tax evaders equated democracy with mob rule, and took care that system produced the right sort of representatives.

I think it's an advantage. Of a sort. China government has to constantly
police its citizens and American citizens tend to police themselves and
each other.

Nixon and Spiro Agnew were forced to resign. Reagan got away with Contragate, though Oliver North went to prison. Dubbya and Cheney never got charged with anything, though they lied through their teeth to get the US to invade Irak.

This isn't "policing".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

Instead of being cryptic, what type of war are you talking about?

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.

Then why are we subsidizing US farmers who used to sell to China? I suppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

Who started the trade war is irrelevant. It's a simple truth that the
US didn't cut China off from any food supplies. China chose to levy
tariffs on US food and/or to stop buying US food. That's why US
shipments into China declined. We didn't cut them off.

Who started the war absolutely is relevant. Did anyone expect the Chinese to just take the crap dished out by Trump? Of course they were going to retaliate with the result of every lessening trade hurting both countries.

At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs
to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related.

Except that the tarrifs aren't all on agricultural imports.

Which is irrelevant. You were claiming the the $32 bil paid to
farmers was with borrowed money. It's not fair to look at only one
side of the equation. The trade war necessitated the welfare for
farmers, but it was waged with tariffs and those tariffs have
put money into the US treasury, ergo it's false to claim that it's
borrowed money.

If it's not borrowed from the Chinese, it is taxed from US tax payers by paying the tarrifs. Which foot do you want to stand on? Either we are borrowing the money from the Chinese or we are taxing our own people, pick one.

You and I are being taxed through the tarrifs to pay farmers to not grow crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government price support programs that no one likes?


I didn't say or imply that it's different, but the reason it was needed
was because Trump levied tariffs on Chinese goods. That brought in money
more than sufficient to pay the farmers. Now, if you had some new welfare
program, where it had some means to bring in the revenue to pay for it,
then I would admit that and not say that the new welfare program is
being paid with borrowed money. do you have any such program?

It was a TAX increase on the US!!! When you simplify it to "it brought in money" you are dissing the intelligence of the US tax payer.

Our debt is increasing because
most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running
for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year
giveaway for all adults.

Our debt is increasing because we are spending more than we take in through taxes.

No, it's increasing because we are spending too much, govt is too big,
there are too many govt programs. Oh, and who wants more? Why the
Democrats. Funny you're here complaining about $32 bil for the farmers,
but not about all the new free stuff all the Democrats running for
president want. Like free healthcare for illegal aliens, that's a
classic. Or free $12K income for everyone over the age of 18.
That's orders of magnitude more than $32 bil.

Those things are not part of the current system. How can they be causing our increasing debt problem??? This is a Republican administration and the debt is increasing just as fast as it did under the previous administration where they were fighting the Great Recession.

Clinton was able to actually reduce the debt because business boomed and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Yeah it was the extension of the great boom that began in the 80s
when Reagan got rid of the stupid, confiscatory 70% federal tax
rates. You Democrats want to go back there. And Clinton only
briefly had a balanced budget, it didn't even register in terms
of any national debt reduction.

LOL! I like your criteria, it has to be a significant debt reduction in order to be of any value. lol

So you are good with the continuing to increase the debt in order to save the wealthy taxes? Doesn't seem to be working much. Signs are we are edging toward an economic slow down.

A good portion of it was driven
by the extraordinary stock market, internet bubble that could not
last. In fact, the recession started in his last year in office.

The stock market is a leading indicator of the economy (although not perfect by any means) but it is *not* the economy. The internet bubble had nothing to do with the subsequent recession which actually happened some five years later.

I like the way you connect the good times in Clinton's term to Bush, the second worst economic times in the country's history in the second half of Bush Jr.'s term to Clinton and I suspect you will attribute any good economic times which clearly started during Obama's term, to Trump? All good comes from Republicans and all bad comes from Democrats? Then you are going to be hating 2021.

Trump simply wants to see business grow while cutting the tax rate so government revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.


Govt revenue has increased.

What you call "increase" others call stagnation. 2017 - $3.32 trillion, 2018 - $3.33 trillion. These "increases" aren't even keeping up with inflation.

It's just that govt SPENDING has increased
even more. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. And when you
tax businesses, who do you think really winds up paying that tax?

So you wish to ignore the fact that present policies have hurt business and reduced revenues from what they otherwise should be???

Ok, I get it. You bury your head in the sand for what you don't wish to see.

BTW, I'm willing to bet the spending you are talking about has nothing to do with taxes anyway.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 8:09:31 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Get yourself a good bed to hide under.

Nope, that'd be the bad-planner solution. I'm a homo sapiens.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap" is a motto of my species; we look ahead and make future plans,
and don't take kindly to air/water/temperature specifications being changed by the
actions of others.

Parts we will use in our future plans are NOT to be respecified by third parties,
sometimes a 'change without notice' for air composition is an intolerable offense.

Future by design, and no reason to hide. What species are you?

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/09/19 23:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to
the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted
them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is
not a guide to future performance" also applies in other
areas!

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 12:46:51 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 5:41:57 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

Instead of being cryptic, what type of war are you talking about?

Open a history book for examples of wars.

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.

Then why are we subsidizing US farmers who used to sell to China? I suppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

No and I never implied that.

Who started the trade war is irrelevant. It's a simple truth that the
US didn't cut China off from any food supplies. China chose to levy
tariffs on US food and/or to stop buying US food. That's why US
shipments into China declined. We didn't cut them off.

Who started the war absolutely is relevant. Did anyone expect the Chinese to just take the crap dished out by Trump? Of course they were going to retaliate with the result of every lessening trade hurting both countries.

Well then, it was by their choice to retaliate, the specific form
to retaliate, that had CHINA declining to purchase US food supplies.
The US did not "cut them off", that's simply false.

At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs
to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related.

Except that the tarrifs aren't all on agricultural imports.

Which is irrelevant. You were claiming the the $32 bil paid to
farmers was with borrowed money. It's not fair to look at only one
side of the equation. The trade war necessitated the welfare for
farmers, but it was waged with tariffs and those tariffs have
put money into the US treasury, ergo it's false to claim that it's
borrowed money.

If it's not borrowed from the Chinese,

Geez, again, one more time. The new tariffs Trump put on have generated
TWICE the revenue as what was given to the farmers. You can't look at
one side of the equation, ignore the other and falsely claim that
somehow the money given to farmers is borrowed money.




> it is taxed from US tax payers by paying the tarrifs. Which foot do you want to stand on? Either we are borrowing the money from the Chinese or we are taxing our own people, pick one.

You don't "pick", you look at the actual facts. And the simple fact
is that the new tariffs have generated twice the amount that was
given to the farmers. So, it's pure BS that the money had to be
borrowed. It's helping lessen borrowing, without the tariff money
the govt would have had to borrow even more. Capiche?

You and I are being taxed through the tarrifs to pay farmers to not grow crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government price support programs that no one likes?


I didn't say or imply that it's different, but the reason it was needed
was because Trump levied tariffs on Chinese goods. That brought in money
more than sufficient to pay the farmers. Now, if you had some new welfare
program, where it had some means to bring in the revenue to pay for it,
then I would admit that and not say that the new welfare program is
being paid with borrowed money. do you have any such program?

It was a TAX increase on the US!!! When you simplify it to "it brought in money" you are dissing the intelligence of the US tax payer.

Try reading what I write instead of responding emotionally to the
voices in your head. I did not say that US citizens and companies
are not paying most of the new tariffs. Once again, I said that
the money to the farmers, was not borrowed, the tariffs raised
twice what the farmers have been given. So, the tariffs are actually
allowed the US govt to borrow less, by about $30 bil so far.
And that's not counting the other $32 bil given to the farmers.
The tariffs have raised $60 bil.

Our debt is increasing because
most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running
for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year
giveaway for all adults.

Our debt is increasing because we are spending more than we take in through taxes.

No, it's increasing because we are spending too much, govt is too big,
there are too many govt programs. Oh, and who wants more? Why the
Democrats. Funny you're here complaining about $32 bil for the farmers,
but not about all the new free stuff all the Democrats running for
president want. Like free healthcare for illegal aliens, that's a
classic. Or free $12K income for everyone over the age of 18.
That's orders of magnitude more than $32 bil.

Those things are not part of the current system. How can they be causing our increasing debt problem???

Geez, again, I never said they were causing our debt problem.
I simply said the crazy lib Democrats want to greatly add to the
spending with $12K giveaways to all and free healthcare for illegal
aliens.




> This is a Republican administration and the debt is increasing just as fast as it did under the previous administration where they were fighting the Great Recession.

Correct, with a but. It's not the WH that sets spending, it's a
combined process that originates in the House. And both parties
have been spending money like drunk sailors. One party has a bunch
running for president that want to increase it drastically more,
so of the two, I say they are worse.

Clinton was able to actually reduce the debt because business boomed and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Yeah it was the extension of the great boom that began in the 80s
when Reagan got rid of the stupid, confiscatory 70% federal tax
rates. You Democrats want to go back there. And Clinton only
briefly had a balanced budget, it didn't even register in terms
of any national debt reduction.

LOL! I like your criteria, it has to be a significant debt reduction in order to be of any value. lol

Well, that's true. If you were 250K in debt and you reduced it one
time by $10, would you call that significant? Geez.

So you are good with the continuing to increase the debt in order to save the wealthy taxes? Doesn't seem to be working much. Signs are we are edging toward an economic slow down.

The economy slowing has nothing to do with taxes being too low.
Under even Keynesian economics, govt deficits, govt spending is
STIMULATIVE. And this expansion has been going since 2009, it's
now the longest on record. Expansions don't last forever.
And no, I'm not good with increasing the national
debt, which is why those stupid libs running for president are
so shocking, calling for greatly increasing govt spending.

A good portion of it was driven
by the extraordinary stock market, internet bubble that could not
last. In fact, the recession started in his last year in office.

The stock market is a leading indicator of the economy (although not perfect by any means) but it is *not* the economy.

I never said it was.



> The internet bubble had nothing to do with the subsequent recession which actually happened some five years later.

That's wrong on two counts. First, the recession started in Mar 2001,
just two months after Bush took office.
The internet stock bubble peaked about a year earlier. And of course
the internet bubble had a lot to do with the economy, both propelling
it up and then leading it into recession. You don't vaporize trillions
in wealth without it having a negative effect. You think someone is
as likely to go buy a new car, new house, spend money, give out
raises when they
think they are worth a lot less than they were a month ago and it
now looks like that stock that was $300 is now $150 and looks headed
even lower?

I like the way you connect the good times in Clinton's term to Bush,
the second worst economic times in the country's history in the second half of Bush Jr.'s term to Clinton

Wrong again. I didn't connect the good times in Clinton's term
to Bush, I connected it to Reagan ending confiscatory 70% tax
rates. The rates in effect during Clinton's two terms were
far closer to Reagan's rates, than they were to 70%. But then
Clinton was one of the last Democrats that was reasonable, before
the current crop of nutty libs fully took over.




and I suspect you will attribute any good economic times which clearly started during Obama's term, to Trump? All good comes from Republicans and all bad comes from Democrats? Then you are going to be hating 2021.

Well, you'd be wrong. I recognize that the economy has been improving
pretty much in a straight line since 2009. I'm not like Trump, Hannity
and most Republicans, comparing economic stats for 8 years of Obama
with Trump and not admitting that OBama came into office in a
severe economic decline, while Trump took office with a growing
economy.

Trump simply wants to see business grow while cutting the tax rate so government revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.


Govt revenue has increased.

What you call "increase" others call stagnation.

Yes, the libs who want to suck the life blood out of the economy
and American taxpayers would call it that. Most of those Democrat
nuts, with the possible exception of Biden, would call it that.



2017 - $3.32 trillion, 2018 - $3.33 trillion. These "increases" aren't even keeping up with inflation.

Nice try, but those numbers are wrong. Here is the actual US govt
spending by year:

2016 3.85 tril
17 3.982
18 4.11
19 4.4 est That's up 14% in three years
20 4.6 est

Here, data from the latest CBO report just last month:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/federal-budget-deficit-hits-1t-through-11-months-of-2019-fiscal-year

'The federal government’s revenue went up by 3% in the first 11 months of the 2019 fiscal year. The increase was attributable to more money coming in from individual income and payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and other sources such as customs duties revenue from President Trump’s tariffs on imported goods from China.

In contrast, the total amount spent by the federal government went up by 7% in the first 11 months of the 2019 fiscal year. The higher spending was mostly due to increases in spending on mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. "


Got that? Revenue went up by 3%, more than the rate of inflation.
Govt spending went up by 7%. There is your problem.

It's just that govt SPENDING has increased
even more. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. And when you
tax businesses, who do you think really winds up paying that tax?

So you wish to ignore the fact that present policies have hurt business and reduced revenues from what they otherwise should be???

What present policies have hurt businesses? Trump at least is friendly
to businesses, unlike Democrats who think they are the evil empire.

Ok, I get it. You bury your head in the sand for what you don't wish to see.

You're talking about yourself, not me.

BTW, I'm willing to bet the spending you are talking about has nothing to do with taxes anyway.

No idea what you're talking about there and I suspect you don't know
either.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:05:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:41:57 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

Then it wouldn't be called a war between China and the USA. It might perhaps look like the Vietnam War, or the Korean War.

That's stupid even for you. The Vietnam War and the Korean War
were both called wars. You're the kind of trolling jerk where
someone could say the oceans are full of salt water and you'd
dispute that too, just to try to create an endless thread of
BS.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:18:59 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

> A lot of people must be disappointed to still be alive.

ROTFL!!
Seriously, I think you're on to something there. :-D



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:32:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 23:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to
the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted
them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is
not a guide to future performance" also applies in other
areas!

I've been hearing how we'll all be dead in 10 or so years, for about
50 years now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

It sells books and wins elections, I suppose.

10 years from today seems to be the standard for doomsday. Like Free
Beer Tomorrow.

A lot of people must be disappointed to still be alive.

 

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 6:36:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:55:45 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will deliver that for
two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

They need to get HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) installed in their homes. It
works the same in summer as it does in winter. Completely passive except for
fans.

How efficient is that? What's the savings?

It's not a heating system, it's a ventilation system. It provides fresh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

I see the system wikipedia shows includes a ground heat exchanger which are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.


Ontario, Canada has made it mandantory for all new home construction.. Huge
energy savings in summer and winter.

Commercial systems typically have fresh air requirements and so often include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't provide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

Did I miss something about these systems?

--

Rick C.



No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end homes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss..

Just because some confused person, who doesn't know anything, introduced recovery ventilation under the topic of energy efficiency, doesn't mean it is an efficiency issue. Ventilation is first and foremost a health issue.

You really need to change your handle to Whoey Loony.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/09/19 18:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:32:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 23:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to
the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted
them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is
not a guide to future performance" also applies in other
areas!


I've been hearing how we'll all be dead in 10 or so years, for about
50 years now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

It sells books and wins elections, I suppose.

10 years from today seems to be the standard for doomsday. Like Free
Beer Tomorrow.

Just like 2 years before a product takes off.

But none of your subsequent points have anything to do
with the temperature dependence of precipitation vs
evaporation.

 

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:57:19 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/09/19 18:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:32:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 23:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to
the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted
them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is
not a guide to future performance" also applies in other
areas!


I've been hearing how we'll all be dead in 10 or so years, for about
50 years now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

It sells books and wins elections, I suppose.

10 years from today seems to be the standard for doomsday. Like Free
Beer Tomorrow.

Just like 2 years before a product takes off.

But none of your subsequent points have anything to do
with the temperature dependence of precipitation vs
evaporation.

It has to do with the general case of doomsday predictions; whatever
happens must be bad. That appeals to some people, goodness knows why.

I'm struggling to deal with the promised California Perpetual Drought.
Our big reservoir is at its lowest point of the year... 93% full. It
might rain tomorrow, about a month early. Snow season starts soon.
There wasn't going to be any more snow, either. I need new ski boots.

Why can't people look at the facts: things keep getting better.

Electronics, too. GaN rocks.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:29:10 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:18:59 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

A lot of people must be disappointed to still be alive.

ROTFL!!
Seriously, I think you're on to something there. :-D

As if Cursitor Doom could do "serious". He even more superficial than John Larkin, and probably even more gullible - though this is arguing precedence between a louse and flea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:26:27 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:05:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:41:57 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

Then it wouldn't be called a war between China and the USA. It might perhaps look like the Vietnam War, or the Korean War.

That's stupid even for you. The Vietnam War and the Korean War
were both called wars.

But not wars between the US and China, even though China was involved in the Korean War though its support for North Korea.

The stupidity here is all yours.

<snipped more stupidity>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:19:11 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:32:49 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 23:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

I'm sure all of those graphs are real.

I'm sure *none* of them have any relevance whatsoever to
the simple point I made. I really don't see why you posted
them.

The standard retail financial disclaimer "past performance is
not a guide to future performance" also applies in other
areas!

I've been hearing how we'll all be dead in 10 or so years, for about
50 years now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

That's because you never understood what was actually being said. "The Population Bomb" did predict mass starvation, but not in the US population - it never said that the human population would die out, merely that it might crash to an appreciably lower level.

> It sells books and wins elections, I suppose.

It's certainly attention-getting.

10 years from today seems to be the standard for doomsday. Like Free
Beer Tomorrow.

John Larkin does seem to be the maximally superficial observer.

> A lot of people must be disappointed to still be alive.

Why? Most doomsday books go to the trouble to spell out ways of avoiding doomsday, but John Larkin doesn't seem to have the attention span to get to those parts of the books.

He gets his emotional high from the doomsday prediction, then tunes out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney