The world goes Green

[olofscience 421]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

When one is correct, there is no need to modify one’s argument.

You wish. You've already demonstrated your inability to read, inability to do simple maths, inability to understand the simplest concepts. About the only ability you've demonstrated is to cherry-pick, and also bring in one of the craziest posters we've had in a while.

[olofscience 421]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, climate related deaths are a fraction of what they were a hundred years.  Down more than 95%.  Cold kills more than heat and we produce more food than ever.  Deaths from insect borne diseases are a fraction of what they used to be.  Where are you getting your information?

So wait - if your main argument now is that "it has warmed up, but not by much" then the benefits of warming shouldn't be much either.

When you're talking about the benefits of warming, it's as if we had a massive amount of warming. Which is it?

[brenthutch 383]

Just now, olofscience said:

You wish. You've already demonstrated your inability to read, inability to do simple maths, inability to understand the simplest concepts. About the only ability you've demonstrated is to cherry-pick, and also bring in one of the craziest posters we've had in a while.

I didn’t bring anybody in I just linked to that graph.  I do admit I can’t read, I can’t cypher, and I fail to grasp the most basic concepts.  All I can do is cherry-pick inconvenient facts.   It must be terribly discouraging you guys to have a rube like me occupy so much bandwidth.  

[olofscience 421]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I didn’t bring anybody in I just linked to that graph.  I do admit I can’t read, I can’t cypher, and I fail to grasp the most basic concepts.  All I can do is cherry-pick inconvenient facts.   It must be terribly discouraging you guys to have a rube like me occupy so much bandwidth.  

Aww, why are you now distancing yourself from your most entertaining contribution to this forum? Her page was one of the sources of your "facts" right?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

So wait - if your main argument now is that "it has warmed up, but not by much" then the benefits of warming shouldn't be much either.

When you're talking about the benefits of warming, it's as if we had a massive amount of warming. Which is it?

The benefits are not solely the modest warming.  The benefits, primarily, are a result of the exploitation of fossil fuels and the CO2 that comes with it.

[olofscience 421]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The benefits are not solely the modest warming.  The benefits, primarily, are a result of the exploitation of fossil fuels and the CO2 that comes with it.

The benefits primarily are from technological progress, and fossil fuels powered most of that progress.

But when an improved technology not using fossil fuels comes out, like electric with numerous other benefits, you're strangely against it. I think you're doing it just because 1) you're emotionally attached to fossil fuels somehow, and 2) you just want to oppose anything the AGW proponents like.

Even if climate change wasn't an issue, I'd still be very interested in electrics because of their performance potential. I'd still be interested in electric aircraft because of the potential in massive savings in operations and maintenance costs. But you seem to revel in the possibility that they're very far into the future. Why?

Edited March 2, 2021 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Aww, why are you now distancing yourself from your most entertaining contribution to this forum? Her page was one of the sources of your "facts" right?

You don’t like her how about 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The benefits primarily are from technological progress, and fossil fuels powered most of that progress.

But when an improved technology not using fossil fuels comes out, like electric with numerous other benefits, you're strangely against it. I think you're doing it just because 1) you're emotionally attached to fossil fuels somehow, and 2) you just want to oppose anything the AGW proponents like.

Even if climate change wasn't an issue, I'd still be very interested in electrics because of their performance potential. I'd still be interested in electric aircraft because of the potential in massive savings in operations and maintenance costs. But you seem to revel in the possibility that they're very far into the future. Why?

I am all for technology.  I have nothing against electric anything (my wife’s GLS 450 is a hybrid) what I am against is wasting trillions of dollars on boondoggles that attempt to fix a non-problem while lining the pockets of politicians and their cronies.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 421]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I am all for technology.  I have nothing against electric anything (my wife’s GLS 450 is a hybrid) what I am against is wasting trillions of dollars on boondoggles that attempt to fix a non-problem while lining the pockets of politicians and their cronies.

 

Yeah you keep saying that, but you dance around every time a non-fossil fuel technology encounters a setback, no matter if they were entirely private enterprises without any taxpayer backing.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yet the world wide average life expectancy has more than doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The same event that began the rise in CO2. Without our carbon emitting activities most of those 150K extra deaths would not happen because those people would never have been born. It is complicated.

I agree; it's quite complicated.  If we never had slavery the country would not have grown as quickly as it did; I heard one argument that we would have lost the Revolutionary War if not for the economic powerhouse that slavery provided.  Perhaps.

But that doesn't make slavery OK even if it benefited us in the past.  Likewise, continuing to emit CO2 when we know what it can do is not OK just because fossil fuels helped us in the past.  As an example, we are switching to natural gas because it's a cleaner fuel - but in the future we will be getting away from that as well; we know it's an interim fuel.  It's not really valid to say "once you support natural gas you have to support it forever or you're a hypocrite!"  As you said, it's more complicated than that.

[Zoe Phin 0]

18 hours ago, olofscience said:

You didn't bother to click the second link, did you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDS_70#Protoplanetary_disk

LOL. You're showing a computer generated image. Read the paper. There is no actual photo. There's plenty of image data processing, but NO ACTUAL image.

It's another example of how desparate mainstream astronomy is.

They did the same thing with the first "photo" of a black hole. 

Why do you need terabytes of data to capture a low res image? It's NOT done for REAL things.

Sorry, olof, but you have NOTHING. Keep pretending. Cite pretenders. lol

[Zoe Phin 0]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You don’t like her

Ouch.

[olofscience 421]

5 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

LOL. You're showing a computer generated image. Read the paper. There is no actual photo. There's plenty of image data processing, but NO ACTUAL image.

You're getting desperate are you? Nice try, but that's definitely an image. A composite image from 2 different telescopes (ALMA and VLT) , but no computer generation going on.

The first line of the article even being "it's the first protoplanet to be directly imaged".

The paper says:

Quote

We analyse new and archival near-infrared (NIR) images of the transition disk PDS 70 obtained with the VLT/SPHERE, VLT/NaCo and Gemini/NICI instruments in polarimetric differential imaging (PDI) and angular differential imaging (ADI) modes. We detect a point source within the gap of the disk at about 195 mas (about 22 au) projected separation. The detection is confirmed at five different epochs, in three filter bands and using different instruments.

 

[olofscience 421]

5 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

It's another example of how desparate mainstream astronomy is.

They did the same thing with the first "photo" of a black hole. 

Why do you need terabytes of data to capture a low res image? It's NOT done for REAL things.

Oh wow. Jealous of the EHT team much?

They needed terabytes of data, because they're doing interferometry.

If you think their data is made up, why do you keep using their data?

[olofscience 421]

5 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

Sorry, olof, but you have NOTHING. Keep pretending. Cite pretenders. lol

By the way, you've definitely given ZERO evidence for your gravitational capture theory so far. Still waiting. Photos would be great (even from interferometers that you distrust due to your inability to understand them)

[brenthutch 383]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

I agree; it's quite complicated.  If we never had slavery the country would not have grown as quickly as it did; I heard one argument that we would have lost the Revolutionary War if not for the economic powerhouse that slavery provided.  Perhaps.

 

I would like to see where you heard that argument, source please.

If that argument made any sense, the South, where slavery was most prevalent, would be the richest region.  But they weren’t, so there goes that red herring.

If anything, fossil fuels are the great emancipator of humanity, freeing us from the bonds of physical labor.  Fossil fuels are literally bringing billions of people out of poverty.  To somehow equate that to slavery is not only stupid, it verges on evil.

Edited March 2, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 421]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

If anything, fossil fuels are the great emancipator of humanity, freeing us from the bonds of physical labor.  Fossil fuels are literally bringing billions of people out of poverty.  To somehow equate that to slavery is not only stupid, it verges on evil.

But you keep confusing the benefits of technology with the benefits of CO2.

They're completely separate things. You just keep lumping them together so CO2 rides on the coattails of those benefits, which is a very dishonest technique.

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But you keep confusing the benefits of technology with the benefits of CO2.

They're completely separate things. You just keep lumping them together so CO2 rides on the coattails of those benefits, which is a very dishonest technique.

The benefits of technology powered by fossil fuels, the CO2 is just a byproduct.

[olofscience 421]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The benefits of technology powered by fossil fuels, the CO2 is just a byproduct.

The benefits of technology. Does it even matter what's the fuel behind it?

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The benefits of technology. Does it even matter what's the fuel behind it?

Yes.  The technology powered by cheep reliable and abundant energy sources will always out perform the same technology powered by expensive, intermittent and sometimes unavailable power sources.  I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.

[olofscience 421]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

will always out perform

So...this is the hill you choose to die on?

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.

You don't get technology very much you see.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

I think it's cute that you think interferometry is like taking a picture and that there is no computer processing involved, and hence computer generated images. Even though that is exactly what it is.

What paper did you just cite there?

I looked at a different one from the link you gave and it's highly speculative and based on "models".

You do realize we can see farther with normal telescopes, right?

370 light years is nothing. Why can't you just show a normal image from a normal telescope?

Why rely on RADIO telescope arrays that need models for processing data?

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So...this is the hill you choose to die on?

I said “The technology powered by cheep reliable and abundant energy sources will always out perform the same technology powered by expensive, intermittent and sometimes unavailable power sources.”

Are you arguing, expensive, intermittent and unavailable is better than cheep reliable and abundant?
Is that really the hill you choose to die on?  

[olofscience 421]

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What paper did you just cite there?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11568

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

370 light years is nothing. Why can't you just show a normal image from a normal telescope?

 It's pretty far. VLT is a normal telescope. It's NOT a radio telescope.

9 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I looked at a different one from the link you gave and it's highly speculative and based on "models".

Your interpretation of any paper is as trustworthy as your knowledge of the basics. Which is, not at all. Post a link here please.

Also while you're at it, post a link to your gravitational capture evidence.

[olofscience 421]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I said “The technology powered by cheep reliable and abundant energy sources will always out perform the same technology powered by expensive, intermittent and sometimes unavailable power sources.”

Are you arguing, expensive, intermittent and unavailable is better than cheep reliable and abundant?
Is that really the hill you choose to die on?  

First, it's spelled "cheap".

Second, I'm not arguing that, you're making stuff up again. If you keep making up my arguments then you can keep arguing with yourself (and winning), but I'll not be a part of that.