Driving Too Slow...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 3:26:12 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:00:56 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 8:34:35 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:11:19 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:31:53 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Energy costs and supply intermittents drive energy-intensive things to
imports, usually from countries that burn coal.

That sort of thing is, in the long term, a worldwide income equalizer.
And a good source of CO2.

The quality of life that we currently enjoy is dependent on an ecosphere that
evolved with vulcanism as the only supplemetal source of CO2. Excess CO2 in the atmophere is
noted at a few mass extinctions...

\"During the Cambrian explosion, when multi-cellular life first came on
the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are
today.\"

At that time, there was a very different ecosystem (if it can even be called that)
and certainly didn\'t support human life.

It would have. We just hadn\'t evolved yet.

John Larkin claims to believe in evolution. He doesn\'t seem to understand it, or appreciate that he\'s coming across as the kind of random variation that needs to be selected out as quickly as possible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

As the earth is greening now. CO2 levels got dangerously low, but
things are improving.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-gr
eening-earth

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

The other benefit of extracting gas and oil is that fertilizers and
farm machines and irrigation and transport are good for agriculture.

Sorry to disappoint, but things are getting better.

I guess you have never heard of Global Warming. Things are not getting
better.

Look it up.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[David Brown]

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

As the earth is greening now. CO2 levels got dangerously low, but
things are improving.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-gr
eening-earth

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

The other benefit of extracting gas and oil is that fertilizers and
farm machines and irrigation and transport are good for agriculture.

Sorry to disappoint, but things are getting better.

I guess you have never heard of Global Warming. Things are not getting
better.

Look it up.

You are not serious, are you? You have to be living under a rock on a
flat earth ruled by lizard people to still deny global climate change
and its effects.

Yes, CO₂ levels, temperature, sea levels and all sorts of other things
have gone up and down over the billions of years of earth\'s history.
Life has survived and adapted. It will do so again if CO₂ levels
continue to increase. And we can be optimistic that the levels will
eventually stop rising, no matter how much we ignore the problem -
because human society as we know it will collapse and then the burning
will stop. Life on earth will continue, but there\'s no guarantee about
our particular species.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

That\'s the long-term level, not the acute level.

..<https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf>

Joe Gwinn

 

[server]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

That\'s the long-term level, not the acute level.

.<https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Joe Gwinn

We\'ll probably level off well below 1000 PPM.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in
acetone is a nice -78c.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 6:08:55 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 5:00:35 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 9:14:31 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 10:54:13 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 1:42:21 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 2:39:38 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:48:26 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 2:06:19 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:38:03 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 6:41:48 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 1:01:18 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-01-21, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:46:49 -0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:30:11 -0500, \"Tom Del Rosso\" <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip
It takes a bit of time. Even so, no one likes having cold air blown on them in the winter time. You are talking as if this has to do with bringing down the temperature of the house, it doesn\'t. It has to do with the furnace blowing cold air rather than hot air.

Heat pumps aren\'t furnaces. You\'ve got to pump the gaseous working fluid out to the heat exchanger in the indoor room where it can condense and release heat into the room. If you don\'t want to use one of the room heat exchangers to boil off the refrigerant that has heated up the outside radiator, use one in a more isolated indoor space which you can let cool off a bit without worrying anybody, or maybe even a electric heater. Wittering on as if heat pumps work the same way as furnaces is a bit silly.

You need to look up the definition of \"furnace\".

\"a container that is heated to a very high temperature, so that substances that are put inside it, such as metal, will melt or burn\"
In case you aren\'t familiar with dictionaries, they often list more than one definition to cover all cases of usage.

\"a piece of equipment for heating a building\"

I could go on, but I\'m sure you know how to use the Internet thing even if only to support your view.

Americans also use the term to cover \"an appliance fired by gas or oil in which air or water is heated to be circulated throughout a building in a heating system\"
Indeed, perhaps you are not aware I am in the US. So you acknowledge my use of the word, thank you.
So you claim that I can\'t use a dictionary, then immediately afterwards acknowledge that I have. This is a Flyguy-level performance.

LOL! I OWN SNIPPERMAN and am living in his brain RENT FREE!

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

That\'s the long-term level, not the acute level.

.<https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Joe Gwinn
We\'ll probably level off well below 1000 PPM.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in
acetone is a nice -78c.
--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

Some 3 billion people in the world depend on wood for cooking (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00028/full#:~:text=About%203%20billion%20people%20worldwide,fuelwood%2Dbased%20forms%20of%20energy.). And it is not delivered: they have to walk long distances to get it. The greenies should apply their energies to correcting this since even burning charcoal would reduce CO2 emissions (https://www.nature.com/articles/news050328-7) besides reducing deaths by millions (the greenies don\'t give a damn about that - screw Black Lives Matter!).

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

That\'s the long-term level, not the acute level.

.<https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Joe Gwinn
We\'ll probably level off well below 1000 PPM.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in
acetone is a nice -78c.
--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

Some 3 billion people in the world depend on wood for cooking (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00028/full#:~:text=About%203%20billion%20people%20worldwide,fuelwood%2Dbased%20forms%20of%20energy.). And it is not delivered: they have to walk long distances to get it. The greenies should apply their energies to correcting this since even burning charcoal would reduce CO2 emissions (https://www.nature.com/articles/news050328-7) besides reducing deaths by millions (the greenies don\'t give a damn about that - screw Black Lives Matter!).

Yes. The greenies tend to be elistist and selfish and cruel. They want
to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.



--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[David Brown]

On 31/01/2022 17:53, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 16:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:
[...]

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era.

Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Are we allowed to still day \"duh\" ?

\"The Cambrian explosion, Cambrian radiation or Cambrian
diversification refers to an interval of time approximately 541
million years ago in the Cambrian Period when practically all major
animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.\"

As you stated, Late Precambrian is not Cambrian. Duh!

Wikipedia

These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/


Plant and animal Life flourished when it was warm and we had lots of
CO2. Thousands of PPM.

Too much CO2 is lethal to animals.

Around 100,000 PPM.

A 1% (10,000 ppm, if you prefer) concentration is lethal to some
animals, and is used as a way to eliminate some insects, mites and other
bugs in greenhouses. 10% is perhaps the level you need to kill people
fairly quickly, but levels as low as 0.1% (1000 ppm) for a few hours is
enough to lower cognitive performance.

That\'s the long-term level, not the acute level.

.<https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Sure. But when we are talking about the atmosphere, rather than the
effects of sticking your head inside a giant balloon, it is all
long-term effects. Killing you slowly is still lethal.

 

[David Brown]

On 31/01/2022 18:15, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We\'ll probably level off well below 1000 PPM.

Hopefully, yes. But we won\'t manage that by wishful thinking and a
stubborn determination to ignore science and reality. We\'ll get there
by doing something about it.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.

Again, I hope so. But if they get it with coal-fired power stations and
diesel generators, a lot of those people will die in heat waves, lose
their land to rising sea levels, and suffer other consequences.

If they - and the rest of the world - can get most of their power from
sources that don\'t emit CO₂, we\'ll all be better off.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

There is no point in going /extreme/ low-carbon. Much of that kind of
thing is counter-productive anyway, such as excessive use of batteries
despite the enormous CO₂ cost to make them. (/Appropriate/ use of
batteries is a positive thing.)

However, many small improvements gradually makes big ones, or encourages
big users to change their ways.

I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in
acetone is a nice -78c.

If only Antarctica were a little colder, we could store excess CO₂ there
as dry ice.

 

[David Brown]

On 31/01/2022 00:32, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:11:19 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:31:53 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Energy costs and supply intermittents drive energy-intensive things to
imports, usually from countries that burn coal.

That sort of thing is, in the long term, a worldwide income equalizer.
And a good source of CO2.

The quality of life that we currently enjoy is dependent on an ecosphere
that evolved with vulcanism as the only supplemetal source of CO2.
Excess CO2 in the atmophere is noted at a few mass extinctions...
quality of life was low at those times, and that\'s more important to a
dinosaur than income equality. More than income, actually. Suffering
the cost is better than suffering a mass extinction.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

and

\"During the Cambrian explosion, when multi-cellular life first came on
the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are
today.\"

Multi-cellular life existed at least 1600 million years ago. The
Cambrian explosion brought new types, and has the ancestors of most
modern branches of life.

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era. These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/

I don\'t think that\'s right. Animals are critters that eat other
critters, versus using photosynthesis. Critters that live off
chemical gradients are probably considered animals.

The term \"Animal\" is now used just for multi-cellular animals -
organisms that were known as \"single-celled animals\" are now referred to
as \"protozoa\". I\'m not sure of the exact definition of the term, but
animals get their nutrition by eating organic matter (plants, fungi,
bacteria, other animals, etc.) and move around - that separates them
from fungi and plants.

The earliest animals are around 600 million years old, while the
Cambrian explosion was about 540 million years ago. Animals evolved
very rapidly in the early days.

Viruses appear to have evolved very early as well, along with
bacteria.

Possibly before, possibly later, possibly simultaneously - there are
various theories, but evidence is hard to find.

Anyway, there were lots of one-cell critters that ate other one-celled
critters, long before multi cellular animals evolved.

Yes, but those are not classified as \"animals\".

Here is the
early store, the three kingdoms.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea

Archaea are not animals either. They are prokaryotes, like bacteria,
but with a metabolism and biology that bears some resemblance to
eukaryotes. There are vast numbers of archaea species, including some
that photosynthesise, some that eat rocks and inorganic matter, some
that eat organic matter.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 1:33:58 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Some 3 billion people in the world depend on wood for cooking ...they have to walk long distances to get it. The greenies should apply their energies...

Yes. The greenies tend to be elistist and selfish and cruel. They want
to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

An craptastic reference to \'greenies\' gets an approving response in the midst of incomprehension.

Trees are greenery, are you talking about folk who cut and burn \'em or about folk
who protect them? Or, both at once?

That nomenclature ruins the message, if there is one.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:14:19 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 18:15, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


We\'ll probably level off well below 1000 PPM.


Hopefully, yes. But we won\'t manage that by wishful thinking and a
stubborn determination to ignore science and reality. We\'ll get there
by doing something about it.

As poor people get less poor, the long-term effect is a drop in birth
rate. Most developed countries are near or below replacement rate.

The humane thing to do is lift people out of extreme poverty. CO2
production will jump for a while but won\'t kill too many Tesla-driving
woke urbanites.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.


Again, I hope so. But if they get it with coal-fired power stations and
diesel generators, a lot of those people will die in heat waves, lose
their land to rising sea levels, and suffer other consequences.

Cold kills many times what heat waves do. Sea level is rising a couple
of mm per year, hardly a Great Flood.

If they - and the rest of the world - can get most of their power from
sources that don\'t emit CO?, we\'ll all be better off.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

There is no point in going /extreme/ low-carbon. Much of that kind of
thing is counter-productive anyway, such as excessive use of batteries
despite the enormous CO? cost to make them. (/Appropriate/ use of
batteries is a positive thing.)

However, many small improvements gradually makes big ones, or encourages
big users to change their ways.


I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in
acetone is a nice -78c.


If only Antarctica were a little colder, we could store excess CO? there
as dry ice.

Sounds expensive. Even making solid carbonates would be more
practical.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:37:24 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 31/01/2022 00:32, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:11:19 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:31:53 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Energy costs and supply intermittents drive energy-intensive things to
imports, usually from countries that burn coal.

That sort of thing is, in the long term, a worldwide income equalizer.
And a good source of CO2.

The quality of life that we currently enjoy is dependent on an ecosphere
that evolved with vulcanism as the only supplemetal source of CO2.
Excess CO2 in the atmophere is noted at a few mass extinctions...
quality of life was low at those times, and that\'s more important to a
dinosaur than income equality. More than income, actually. Suffering
the cost is better than suffering a mass extinction.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

and

\"During the Cambrian explosion, when multi-cellular life first came on
the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are
today.\"



Multi-cellular life existed at least 1600 million years ago. The
Cambrian explosion brought new types, and has the ancestors of most
modern branches of life.

Yes.

CO2 is plant food. Animals eat plants.

There were no animals in the Cambrian era. These did not appear until the
Mesozoic Era which occurred much later. See

https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-human-biology/section/6.8/

I don\'t think that\'s right. Animals are critters that eat other
critters, versus using photosynthesis. Critters that live off
chemical gradients are probably considered animals.


The term \"Animal\" is now used just for multi-cellular animals -
organisms that were known as \"single-celled animals\" are now referred to
as \"protozoa\". I\'m not sure of the exact definition of the term, but
animals get their nutrition by eating organic matter (plants, fungi,
bacteria, other animals, etc.) and move around - that separates them
from fungi and plants.

Hmm. So they changed the name. I learned the prior definition in
school. At the same times as I learned of amoebas, and watched them
hunt using a microscope in the bio lab. This was the standard \"drop
of pond water\" lesson.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba>

But the basic point remains.

The earliest animals are around 600 million years old, while the
Cambrian explosion was about 540 million years ago. Animals evolved
very rapidly in the early days.

Viruses appear to have evolved very early as well, along with
bacteria.


Possibly before, possibly later, possibly simultaneously - there are
various theories, but evidence is hard to find.

Yes. May well be unknowable.

Anyway, there were lots of one-cell critters that ate other one-celled
critters, long before multi cellular animals evolved.

Yes, but those are not classified as \"animals\".

Hairsplitting, don\'t you think?

Here is the
early store, the three kingdoms.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea


Archaea are not animals either. They are prokaryotes, like bacteria,
but with a metabolism and biology that bears some resemblance to
eukaryotes. There are vast numbers of archaea species, including some
that photosynthesise, some that eat rocks and inorganic matter, some
that eat organic matter.

Well, I bet that they had their predators, by whatever name, and some
of them did eat one another.

Which lifestyle may not have survived the great oxygen crisis, the
greatest environmental catastrophe of all time:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event>

I\'d hazard that the renaming of what is an animal was fallout from the
discovery of the Archaea.


Joe Gwinn

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 8:24:26 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com
wrote:

I guess you have never heard of Global Warming. Things are not getting
better.
Of course they are. Nutrition is up. Lifespans are up. Democracy is
spreading. Human misery is down.

Huh? How about starvation in Yemen, Sudan in turmoil, India in agricultural
revolt, ethnic violence Turkey-on-Kurds, Hutu on Tutsi, where populations
have grown and bumped into innocent unarmed native villages.
Democracy in China, Turkey, Russia, Myanmar, Cuba, Haiti? Or Crimea?
Maybe San Francisco has nutrition, lifespan, democracy, and that\'s
why JL isn\'t getting on a leaky boat to emigrate to Canada.

The \'better\' effect is a fluctuation. Climate change is a bias.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:00:56 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 8:34:35 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

\"During the Cambrian explosion, when multi-cellular life first came on
the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are
today.\"

At that time, there was a very different ecosystem (if it can even be called that)
and certainly didn\'t support human life.

It would have. We just hadn\'t evolved yet.

Silly; ecology doesn\'t have will. Your fairy tale, not suitable for
betting lives on.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 4:15:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:

<snip>

> The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat, fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.

Probably from solar cells and the occasional windmill. Roof-top solar is getting popular in Africa. You just buy the number of solar cells you need, the inverter to turn the output into current at a voltage you can use to charge your battery, and you have a neat self-contained setup. You don\'t a distribution network delivering tanker loads of diesel fuel very few weeks (and taking it\'s own mark-up at every stage along the route). Remote Australian communities are going the same way - they\'ve got the network, but the solar cells deliver the power more cheaply, and the battery is cheaper than a tank that will hold a couple of weeks worth of diesel fuel.

> It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global warming\" was local.

It\'s amusing to see clowns like John Larkin thinking that they are doing it just because they are fanatical greenies (not a species that actually exists , any more than John Doe\'s cannibal leftists). There are sound economic arguments for getting your power locally, from solar cells and windmills, even if John Larkin doesn\'t know about them.

> I was pleased to see that our Safeway now sells dry ice. Dry ice in> acetone is a nice -78C.

Acetone is decidedly inflammable. Methyl cyclohexane stays liquid down to -126.3 C, and doesn\'t boil until it gets to 101 C, which makes it a bit safer.

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

I preferred it for slush baths when I was a graduate student, but tended to cool it off with liquid nitrogen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 5:32:56 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not..com> wrote:

<snip>

> Some 3 billion people in the world depend on wood for cooking (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00028/full#:~:text=About%203%20billion%20people%20worldwide,fuelwood%2Dbased%20forms%20of%20energy.). And it is not delivered: they have to walk long distances to get it.

With rooftop solar cells and a decent sized battery they could move over to cooking with electricity. No long walks to get the wood, and no toxic smoke when they burn it. Domestic solar power is getting popular in Africa, but I\'ve not heard that it\'s much used for cooking - charging mobile phones is mentioned from time to time.

> The greenies should apply their energies to correcting this since even burning charcoal would reduce CO2 emissions (https://www.nature.com/articles/news050328-7) besides reducing deaths by millions (the greenies don\'t give a damn about that - screw Black Lives Matter!).

What John Larkin and Flyguy claim about \"greeny\" attitudes is what suits them. The climate change denial propaganda that they do seem to read does demonise the green movement. The actual green movement does seem reasonably sane, but the mythical greenies invented by the denialists do have a lot in commons with John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 8:33:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:32:52 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:15:13 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:53:18 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:09:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 16:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:10:46 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:09 -0000 (UTC), Arnie Dwyer <spa...@not.com> wrote:

<snipped Flyguy being as moronic as ever>

> Yes. The greenies tend to be elitist and selfish and cruel. They want to keep the poor people poor so they don\'t make CO2.

The actual green movement is perfectly sane.

The mythical anti-technology green movement invented by the climate change denial machine is quite as ugly and repulsive as you\'d expect in an invented opposition, much like John Doe\'s equally mythical cannibal leftists.

John Larkin may be silly enough to believe in these implausible inventions, Flyguy definitely is. Cursitor Doom demands that his conspiracy theories are grossly implausible, so he\'d insist on it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:50:51 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 00:14:19 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 31/01/2022 18:15, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> The humane thing to do is lift people out of extreme poverty. CO2 production will jump for a while but won\'t kill too many Tesla-driving woke urbanites.

Generating electricity from solar cells is cheaper than generating it any other way. If you install a bank of solar cells, and inverter and decent sized battery in a remote settlement, you\'ve set up a self-contained generator that will keep on working with out external input for several decades.

Australia\'s more remote communities are starting to go in for this. It\'s cheaper and more reliable that shipping in diesel fuel for a motor generator.
The more remote mines are gong the same way - finding big electric-powered trucks is a problem at the moment, but thye are working on it.

The billions of ultra-poor people of the world want electricity, heat,
fuel to cook with, clean hot and cold water, transport, food. The
stuff we have too much of. And they will get it.


Again, I hope so. But if they get it with coal-fired power stations and
diesel generators, a lot of those people will die in heat waves, lose
their land to rising sea levels, and suffer other consequences.

Cold kills many times what heat waves do. Sea level is rising a couple of mm per year, hardly a Great Flood.

At the moment. Heat waves are killing move people than they used to,and current sea level rise is essentially thermal expansion of a warmer ocean.

When the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets decide to slide off into the ocean, sea level will rise some 10 metres. If the end f the most recent ice age is anything to go by, seal levels will rise quite rapidly while it is happening.

If they - and the rest of the world - can get most of their power from
sources that don\'t emit CO?, we\'ll all be better off.

It\'s amusing to see small towns go extreme low-carbon. As if \"global
warming\" was local.

The remote communities that do it in Australia do it to save money, Solar cells and decent sized batteries give them cheaper power than they can generate locally from trucked in diesel fuel. It\'s also a bit more reliable.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney