Vaccine

Grace T. said:
Red states are recovering faster than blue states, some of which are in a technical recession....

townhall.com

Red States Beat Blue States in Lowering Unemployment, Recovering Jobs

The latest state employment data for December 2021 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on T
townhall.com townhall.com

Also the restaurant surveys show a huge difference between red and blue.....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486089132095029255
Click to expand...
I wonder if takeout is making up for the decrease in in person dining?

Oh wait...no it isn't.
 
Desert Hound said:
- electric vehicles? Most of our power in the US and other places come from power plants utilizing fossil fuels. When that happens it is said an electric vehicle has a long tailpipe...ie to the power plant.
Click to expand...

At the moment you posted that, more than half of California's electricity was being produced by renewables.

California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook

View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.
www.caiso.com
 
If N95s filter so well, why are respirators an ineffective intervention? Because masking is a behavioral intervention as much as a physical one. For respirators to work, they must be well fitting, must be tested by OSHA, and must be used for only short time windows as their effectiveness diminishes as they get wet from breathing.

--

What is the evidence for respirators stopping the spread of covid19? Studies on Influenza provide guidance. Though respirators provide better filtration in perfect laboratory conditions, people who wear them are just as likely to catch flu whether they are wearing a surgical mask or a respirator. Though respirators have higher filtration capabilities, a Cochrane review and an independent metanalysis both revealed there were not clear differences between the effectiveness of surgical masks and respirators in preventing infections like Influenza. The Influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 virus are of comparable size and rates of transmission of infection between close contacts are similar.

--

www.newsweek.com

We're a physician and mathematician and a data scientist. N95s won't work for kids | Opinion

The truth is, the burdens of these masks outweigh their benefits for kids. We need to consider more effective, less harmful interventions as we come together to keep schools open and safe.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Grace T. said:
Kinda like exponential virus growth huh?

I worry much more about the Cylon uprising, the SMOD, Planet of the Apes (original) or Planet of the Apes (reboot) than I do about climate change. If we can't solve Climate Change with tech, the other 4 will doom us sooner, and as I said, we have all that lovely Canadian tundra up there....if it were really such an immediate ending cataclysm, the PRC would be much more worried about it (considering that unlike the Russians and Americans, they have no where to go and don't have to answer to a constituency unwilling to make sacrifices, as COVID has shown).
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer the question.

If we do not voluntarily reduce CO2 emissions, what keeps atmospheric CO2 levels from exceeding 600 or 900 ppm?

The answer for covid was that eventually we all get it. The number of naive infections cannot exceed the population of the planet.

What, if anything, causes an upper bound for CO2?
 
dad4 said:
You didn’t answer the question.

If we do not voluntarily reduce CO2 emissions, what keeps atmospheric CO2 levels from exceeding 600 or 900 ppm?

The answer for covid was that eventually we all get it. The number of naive infections cannot exceed the population of the planet.

What, if anything, causes an upper bound for CO2?
Click to expand...
For Covid - think of the children
For Climate Change - f the children ( and future generations)

Common thread - I don't want anything to spoil my comfortable life
 
Desert Hound said:
The other major problem is that the models they use keep showing to be unreliable.

They have difficulty recreating past events that are known.

Think about all the experts telling us by 2020 this or that country wouldn't have snow, etc.

Further even under the most optimistic projections ...ie if everyplace did as they want, the temp reduction is less than a degree by 2100.

As many point out it is again a cost benefit issue. For the amount of money proposed you could solve the water/food issue in a lot of poor countries thereby taking 100s of millions out of abject poverty.

Etc etc.

People adapt. Rising sea or taking back the sea...the Dutch have been doing this for 100s of years as just one example.

Climate has always changed. It is why in the SW Indian groups that thrived 600 to 1k years ago moved on. Climate change forced that.

People mistakenly believe what is today temp/climate was will always be the same.

As the snow has receded in certain mountain areas in Norway they are now finding that ancient people used to be up there using those routes. The articles always mention it is because climate change they know that now. But the writer(s) conveniently leave out the part that the area in the past was once warm enough where people where there. ETC.

Go back and look at all the predictions the experts made regarding things that would happen in just the past 20 yrs. And yet they didn't come to pass. People seem to forget that...and then get the vapors when those same experts who have been wrong time and time again make other catastrophic predictions.

As a number of scientists have complained about...these predictions are rather political in many cases and do more harm than good in terms of informing the public.

The modeling is at best in its infancy.

That said tech and adaptation are really what will get us through anything. Year by year 1st world countries become more efficient and pollute less. This trend will continue which is a good thing.



The problem is fossil fuels drive everything in the world. There is nothing now that has a chance of replacing our reliance on it.

People just think cars when they think fossil fuels.

- The reality is fossil fuels are in or responsible for about everything we do or have. An amazing high percentage of products have some type of fossil fuel in or used in their manufacturing process.

- Extracting the materials to make almost everything we have requires fossil fuels
- Getting them to market, etc requires fossil fuels...etc.

Look around your office/house etc. Pretty much every single item in there would not be possible without fossil fuels be in in the manufacture, materials, transport, etc.

There is no energy source on the horizon that can replace that or come close in the coming decades.

- electric vehicles? Most of our power in the US and other places come from power plants utilizing fossil fuels. When that happens it is said an electric vehicle has a long tailpipe...ie to the power plant.
Click to expand...

The everything would be fine if everyone had a Telsa and we switched to all renewables people are the worst of the worst when it comes to being delusional (particularly if they oppose nuclear).

 
dad4 said:
You didn’t answer the question.

If we do not voluntarily reduce CO2 emissions, what keeps atmospheric CO2 levels from exceeding 600 or 900 ppm?

The answer for covid was that eventually we all get it. The number of naive infections cannot exceed the population of the planet.

What, if anything, causes an upper bound for CO2?
Click to expand...

Either: a) the tech becomes more efficient as time goes on, b) warp drive is invented and we all move off planet, c) SMOD/Cylons/Planet of the Apes 1/Planet of the Apes 2 get us. Again, the thing you ALWAYS miss (because you always are limited in your thinking and think 3 dimensionally instead of 4) is time....on a long enough time horizon (we are talking maybe a millenia or less) either our tech keeps our heads above water or we are all extinct (and again, climate change is the least of that worry).

The separate question is what can we do about it? Other than incentivizing tech development, the answer is nothing, because no we aren't going to scrap the planes, give up hot showers, stop eating meat and shoot all the dogs. So if it's not tech, than the answer is nothing....we are doomed (by something eventually) and the only question is how long we got. In the meantime there's always Canada!
 
whatithink said:
For Covid - think of the children
For Climate Change - f the children ( and future generations)

Common thread - I don't want anything to spoil my comfortable life
Click to expand...

No you are missing the primary point. The futility of some actions. Sometimes the question of "what's to be done" is "nothing". The facts don't care about your feelings to the contrary.
 
Grace T. said:
Either: a) the tech becomes more efficient as time goes on, b) warp drive is invented and we all move off planet, c) SMOD/Cylons/Planet of the Apes 1/Planet of the Apes 2 get us. Again, the thing you ALWAYS miss (because you always are limited in your thinking and think 3 dimensionally instead of 4) is time....on a long enough time horizon (we are talking maybe a millenia or less) either our tech keeps our heads above water or we are all extinct (and again, climate change is the least of that worry).

The separate question is what can we do about it? Other than incentivizing tech development, the answer is nothing, because no we aren't going to scrap the planes, give up hot showers, stop eating meat and shoot all the dogs. So if it's not tech, than the answer is nothing....we are doomed (by something eventually) and the only question is how long we got. In the meantime there's always Canada!
Click to expand...

p.s. on a long enough time horizon we will also RUN OUT OF OIL which is going to happen potentially sooner than we breach through liveable temperatures along the tropics zones. Again, if the tech doesn't keep us above water we're doomed. The biggest tech breakthroughs that would make the biggest difference are battery capacity to keep the renewables working, transmission improvements (if you care to cover the Sahara in mirrors...you could even put them in space) and fusion reactors.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Like I always ask, how long with fossil fuels last? Shouldn’t we get out ahead of this issue?
Click to expand...
Proven coal reserves are over a trillion tons. That’s enough for another 100 years of current CO2 emissions.

The problem isn’t whether we have enough fossil fuels. We have lots.
 
dad4 said:
Proven coal reserves are over a trillion tons. That’s enough for another 100 years of current CO2 emissions.

The problem isn’t whether we have enough fossil fuels. We have lots.
Click to expand...

Eventually they no longer become cost efficient to produce and we aren't going to blow through liveable temperatures before then. Hate to say it but Husker is right here...the twin problem is you eventually run out of fossil fuels. which means tech is the ONLY solution.
 
Grace T. said:
p.s. on a long enough time horizon we will also RUN OUT OF OIL which is going to happen potentially sooner than we breach through liveable temperatures along the tropics zones. Again, if the tech doesn't keep us above water we're doomed. The biggest tech breakthroughs that would make the biggest difference are battery capacity to keep the renewables working, transmission improvements (if you care to cover the Sahara in mirrors...you could even put them in space) and fusion reactors.
Click to expand...
Run out of oil? How? We know how to turn coal into crude.

Coal liquefaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If our goal is to cook ourselves, we have plenty of fuel for the oven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top