RE: Global warming silliness

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

>>I would like to see us switch away from fossil fuels completely, of
course, but the road may be long and hard. I guess if there is an
alternative to the ICE it will come on line as people replace their
vehicles, and of course as you say power plants are a major part of this -
being localised  they can be replaced more easily than the vehicle
infrastructure, but at quite high initial cost.

Electric motors are far superior to ICE motors in a lot of ways. They have
far fewer moving parts, can be built to last almost forever; they deliver a
far higher percentage of their potential power into the drive shaft and
hence useful work than an ICE engine or in fact any combustion engine
including the most efficient gas turbines. An electric motor is in the area
of 80% an  ICE 20% 

 

Electric motors suffer from the Achilles Heel of low energy density of
available electric power storage. Chemical batteries basically suck as
energy stores, pound for pound. Even lithium ion batteries - while viable
even today for automobiles in most use cases - still do not have the energy
density that is really needed. But advanced battery technology is not
sitting still. Zinc-air batteries seem tantalizingly close - they have
achieved 400 Wh/kg, which is very impressive figure and would make an
all-electric vehicle equipped with them not only equivalent to a gasoline
powered ICE vehicle, but probably even superior - because one has to factor
in the much higher efficiency of electric motors.

Battery technology does not have to reach the same energy density per pound
as gasoline, at around one fourth the energy density it becomes equivalent
pound for pound to liquid fuels in terms of the amount of useful work that
can be delivered to the wheels on the ground.

 

About generating more petrol from the air than we burn - we'd have to
generate a lot before we got ahead of the curve on this, of course! Probably
far easier to do something else...

 

Perhaps if we discovered an alternate use for carbon dioxide removed from
circulation through the biosphere the operation could become a carbon sink -
as opposed to a transitional store of potential energy that returns the CO2
into the biosphere the second it is burnt. If we do stand on the cusp of the
age of carbon, with carbon fiber, and the exotic nano scale crystalline
carbon: buckminsterfullerene, nano-tubes, graphene replacing steel and many
other industrial era materials.

Some of the properties of the crystalline carbon forms are amazing and even
more so when doped or as containers of other things.

IMO - the sooner we dump the industrial era mind-sets and evolve into a more
systems aware and bio-mimetic approach to our human systems the better off
we, as well as every other remaining living thing that has not been driven
into extinction by our human greed and human folly on a grand scale. The
ways of the industrial era seem so wrong. For example things are made by
grinding away at big chunks of stuff. that is milled and otherwise produced
by removing excess material. We stand on the cusp of an era of digitally
controlled additive manufacturing. Even NASA is building complex rocket
engine sub-assemblies using additive manufacturing with exotic materials and
laser sintering. We use brute force bulk chemistry to try to make complex
molecules with limited success and purity and at great cost in terms of
pollution, waste. Plants, funghi, animals - our own cells -- have all
mastered molecular assembly. Step by step we are solving the impediments
that stand in the way of an era of molecular assembly. 

Why should we all crowd the freeways twice a day? That mentality is
destructive and unproductive. The technologies for enabling the
virtualization of much of what we now do by moving physically from place to
place in order to accomplish the goal are here now. 

To believe that the future is going to resemble the present - and I am not
saying that this is what you are doing, but speaking in general - is a
guarantee to be unprepared for it when it does arrive. I seriously doubt
that the future societies of earth in say fifty years from today will have
economies that look like the current day advanced industrialized world. No
matter how it turns out - because it is also possible we will go out with a
thermonuclear bang in one final war for oil - the future is not going to
resemble today. Nor will our cities. 

And I wonder if we will resemble ourselves? Or will be we cyborgs with
co-nano-nets joining in a billion places with our neural cortex. tied into a
global hive mind perhaps (a dark outcome), but certainly tied into the vast
network including the interplanetary one. Could beings of this nature and us
bio-humans even be said to be of the same species? I see no particu

Re: Global warming silliness

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

Hi Chris

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow who is saying 
what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss anything.


The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course very 
hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course realise that this 
would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short term, and assuming it's possible) 
would be to avoid having to reconfigure the existing infrastructure that has been built 
up over decades to supply petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost 
any alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral) overhaul 
to much of the world.


Of course if you could do it reasonably efficiently, using say nuclear or solar power, 
then you could just make a lot more oil and petrol than is consumed and store the excess 
in underground reservoirs.  This would be sequestration and reduce the net CO2 while using 
existing vehicles and infrastructure.  It's an excellent idea - if you can get past that 
first step.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 6:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *meekerdb

*Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:29 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

On 11/14/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Telmo and other 'experts':

why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in 
huge Q-s
and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high 
pressure
ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil 
wells may
provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as 
driving
force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water,
agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - 
pollution-free
transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) .

I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't 
provide
as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know.

It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar 
is more
readily available overall.


>>It might blend well with solar.  There have been proposals to store solar energy by 
heating underground reservoirs.


Large scale CSPs (concentrating solar (thermal) power) such as the new GW complex they 
have built in southern California use molten salt as their energy carrier. This facility 
can keep generating electricity well after the sun has gone down because it stores the 
hot molten salt (saltpeter I believe) in insulated vats. This is one of the advantages 
of large scale solar thermal has over PV; as soon as the sun is occulted solar PV output 
drops precipitously (though newer PV cells that also have band-gaps tuned for infrared 
energy would continue to produce some output even when clouds came overhead, because of 
the infrared energy.)


There is a lot of money and R&D being thrown at the energy storage problem and a fair 
number of utility scale battery types are on the R&D pipeline as well as some other 
interesting ideas for energy storage. CSP is unique in that because it is harvesting 
heat it can store its energy with the same energy carrier it uses to harvest the solar 
energy -- i.e. the molten salt. Wind, PV, etc. need to transform the electricity into 
another medium (unless using supercapacitors) in order to store the energy and this 
invariably (second law of thermodynamics) entails a process loss -- and in both directions.




I don't think there's any thermodynamic advantage though to a solar/molten-salt system as 
compared to a PV.  When the sun is shining the PV produces electricity (low entropy 
energy) directly while the solar/salt system has to use a heat engine to get electricity.  
If there is excess energy the PV systems could also store in molten salt.  The 
disadvantage for the PV system is then that it needs a heat engine too.  It then incurs 
the same thermodynamic inefficiency when the heat engine runs off the molten salt.


Most electricity storage -- and by a huge margin -- is accomplished by pumped storage. 
Japan, in particular leads in this area. But traditional pumped storage suffers from 
siting issues. I have looked at some novel pumped storage proposals that instead bore 
deep cylinders with a moving and very massive (heavy) piston. The system would have a 
low pressure upper reservoir and a high pressure lower reservoir below the piston. To 
draw energy down water from the high pressure reservoir is run through a turbine to 
generate electricity and flows into the spent reservoir above the piston (which descends 
towards the bottom of the cylinder); to re-charge the "battery" electricity is consumed 
to run the generator/turbine in reverse and pump the water (or other working fluid) from 
the low pressure reservoir, back into the high pressure one. Air pressure is also used 
(Alabama).




So the energy would be stored in the potential energy of the heavy piston and the water 
would just be a working medium?  Why not put the weight on a cable and use a purely 
mechanical system?  I'd think that could be more efficient that a water turbine.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[LizR]

I would like to see us switch away from fossil fuels completely, of course,
but the road may be long and hard. I guess if there is an alternative to
the ICE it will come on line as people replace their vehicles, and of
course as you say power plants are a major part of this - being localised
 they can be replaced more easily than the vehicle infrastructure, but at
quite high initial cost.

About generating more petrol from the air than we burn - we'd have to
generate a lot before we got ahead of the curve on this, of course!
Probably far easier to do something else...

Apparently diamonds aren't forever, they burn at some relatively low
temperature - at last I've been told Fleming got that wrong in the
helicopter crash scene.




On 15 November 2013 16:43, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
>
>
>
> Hi Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Liz
>
>
>
> I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
> who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
> anything.
>
>
>
> >> The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of
> course very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of
> course realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the
> short term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to
> reconfigure the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades
> to supply petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
> alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
> overhaul to much of the world.
>
>
>
> True for vehicles – large thermal plants are a different matter. The
> existing deployed fleet of vehicles might have problems burning the
> particular hydrocarbon – for example alcohol as a fuel requires engines
> that can handle high ethanol content. My point: The hypothetical kinds of
> liquid hydrocarbons that could be synthesized might be impossible to burn
> in ICE engines designed for combusting gasoline (or diesel) I am arguing
> that the current fleet of vehicles is probably going to be obsoleted – even
> by a switch to a different liquid fuel (unless it is compatible with
> existing engines).
>
> Why not make the switch to all electric for ground vehicles – Ellon Musk
> apparently wants to make an electric airplane so maybe in the air as well.
> Of course current lithium ion battery technology does not have the
> volumetric or gravimetric density required, but battery technology is
> moving fast and lithium (and also zinc air) battery technologies are being
> developed that promise much higher energy densities (maybe Ellon Musk knows
> something).
>
>
>
> >>Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
> problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
> actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
> tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
> full of electricity.
>
>
>
> I hear what you are saying and have said the exact same thing, when I have
> mentioned energy density of liquid fuels as being a reason one could make
> the argument for investing greater amounts of energy than could ever be
> extracted from burning them. It is because they are a high quality energy
> carrier – in terms of being able to stuff a lot of it – i.e. potential
> energy -- in a tank.
>
>
>
> >>There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise
> transport - the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction
> from buried wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine,
> except that it doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on
> a road equipped with the wires! And even getting it up and running for
> motorways would require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling
> it in again, not to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary
> whatever.
>
>
>
> Interesting. Zinc or Lithium air batteries though would have the energy
> density to work for long distance air travel. Electric powered turbofan
> jets.
>
>
>
> >> One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear,
> solar, etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A
> good solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in
> the air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you can
> do it - very hypothetical at present - then maybe eventually you will even
> be able to get more carbon out of the air than is being emitted.
>
>
>
> How? As soon as you burn it you put it back into the atmosphere.
>
>
>
> >>On the subject of sequestration, plants are top of my list, but
> assuming that isn't possible, or not possible enough, is there no way to
> sp

RE: Global warming silliness

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

Hi Chris

 

 

Hi Liz

 

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
anything.

 

>> The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course
very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course
realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short
term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to reconfigure
the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades to supply
petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
overhaul to much of the world.

 

True for vehicles - large thermal plants are a different matter. The
existing deployed fleet of vehicles might have problems burning the
particular hydrocarbon - for example alcohol as a fuel requires engines that
can handle high ethanol content. My point: The hypothetical kinds of liquid
hydrocarbons that could be synthesized might be impossible to burn in ICE
engines designed for combusting gasoline (or diesel) I am arguing that the
current fleet of vehicles is probably going to be obsoleted - even by a
switch to a different liquid fuel (unless it is compatible with existing
engines).

Why not make the switch to all electric for ground vehicles - Ellon Musk
apparently wants to make an electric airplane so maybe in the air as well.
Of course current lithium ion battery technology does not have the
volumetric or gravimetric density required, but battery technology is moving
fast and lithium (and also zinc air) battery technologies are being
developed that promise much higher energy densities (maybe Ellon Musk knows
something). 

 

>>Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
full of electricity.

 

I hear what you are saying and have said the exact same thing, when I have
mentioned energy density of liquid fuels as being a reason one could make
the argument for investing greater amounts of energy than could ever be
extracted from burning them. It is because they are a high quality energy
carrier - in terms of being able to stuff a lot of it - i.e. potential
energy -- in a tank.

 

>>There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise transport
- the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction from buried
wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine, except that it
doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on a road equipped
with the wires! And even getting it up and running for motorways would
require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling it in again, not
to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary whatever.

 

Interesting. Zinc or Lithium air batteries though would have the energy
density to work for long distance air travel. Electric powered turbofan
jets.

 

>> One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear, solar,
etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A good
solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in the
air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you can do it
- very hypothetical at present - then maybe eventually you will even be able
to get more carbon out of the air than is being emitted.

 

How? As soon as you burn it you put it back into the atmosphere.

 

>>On the subject of sequestration, plants are top of my list, but assuming
that isn't possible, or not possible enough, is there no way to split the
carbon atoms off from the oxygen (assuming lots of available energy, as
usual!) and to turn it into - oh, I don't know. Diamonds, perhaps!

 

Now diamonds are forever LOL

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.g

Re: Global warming silliness

[LizR]

Hi Chris

I won't interleave my replies as I'm finding it quite confusing to follow
who is saying what in reply to what, so apologies in advance if I miss
anything.

The suggestion about synthesising petrol from the atmosphere is of course
very hypothetical at the moment. Supposing it could be done, I do of course
realise that this would be recycling. The reasons to do it (in the short
term, and assuming it's possible) would be to avoid having to reconfigure
the existing infrastructure that has been built up over decades to supply
petrol to cars, boats, planes, power plants, etc. With almost any
alternative fuel supply this would need a massive (and non carbon neutral)
overhaul to much of the world.

Why not use the energy more directly? - only because of the storage
problem. One of petrol's big plus points is its high energy density (and
actual density). It's a lot easier to cart around a tank of petrol than a
tank of hydrogen or methane or some other gas, for example, or a battery
full of electricity.

There are many schemes afoot which could in theory revolutionise transport
- the latest I saw was a New Zealand based idea to use induction from
buried wires to charge electric cars as they move. This is fine, except
that it doesn't work for planes or boats or for cars that aren't on a road
equipped with the wires! And even getting it up and running for motorways
would require digging up thousands of miles of road and filling it in
again, not to mention equipping millions of cars with the necessary
whatever.

One has the same supply problem with any power source - nuclear, solar,
etc. You have to get the energy into cars, planes, trains etc. A good
solution, in my opinion, would be to use the power plus the carbon in the
air to create a fuel that cars, planes etc can run on. And if you can do it
- very hypothetical at present - then maybe eventually you will even be
able to get more carbon out of the air than is being emitted.

On the subject of sequestration, plants are top of my list, but assuming
that isn't possible, or not possible enough, is there no way to split the
carbon atoms off from the oxygen (assuming lots of available energy, as
usual!) and to turn it into - oh, I don't know. Diamonds, perhaps!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

 

On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote:





On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:

On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and
then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels
and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on
the time scale we need to make the transition.

 

Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?


A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we need to
wait until we're sure.  

 

>>That's why it would help if people understand that science, by its very
nature, is uncertain, and so "being uncertain" is NOT a reason for not
taking decision.

 

Exactly. Speaking in terms of probability makes for poor headlines. People
can easily be fooled by the uncertainty that science couches just about
everything it states (probabilistic outcomes) and convinced by clever
well-funded propagandists who can amplify their messaging across all media
channels, injecting doubt (the "junk science" strategy perfected by the
tobacco lobbyists) and therein succeed in paralyzing the public space into a
study it to death default mode.

The counter-argument I propose to people who have been swayed by the "the
science is unsure, so we need to study it more before doing anything"
argument is to use the example of insurance, which almost everyone gets.

If you take out fire insurance on your house (or are even required to do so
by law) it is not because you know your house will burn down (well, unless
you are about to commit insurance fraud that is). But it is quite
uncontroversial & accepted by almost all people that it is a very good idea
to do so. While the actuarial probability of your particular house burning
down is very low, the event would be catastrophic and so getting coverage is
a good idea.

Even if we cannot be certain global climate change could have such
unimaginably catastrophic effects (in the case of a massive methane hydrate
release triggered by the inexorable rise of the deep sea water temperatures
as heat transfers into this massive heat sink. The costs of reducing our
carbon footprint should be viewed as an insurance policy, and we insure
ourselves everyday against stuff we hope never happens to us.

Besides we need to start building other energy infrastructures now. What not
many people realize is how we have probably passed the global peak of
recoverable carbon fossil energy. This is hard to see in the US now - in the
middle of a shale play bubble that has created a short term unsustainable
gas supply surplus in this country which has lowered market prices. But coal
reserves globally and also in the USA are far below the commonly cited
figures and new reserves reports are down grading reserves - this is a
highly politically charged figure as literally hundreds of billions of
dollars of fortunes ride on these reserves (and the perception of these
reserves)  A large part of what had been counted as reserves cannot be
recovered - it is under far too much overburden. Global oil supply has
already peaked; as has traditional gas. Now for the shale play - the Eagle
Ford, Bakken, Marcellus. yeah it sure smellslike boom times now. And the
drillers are getting rich for sure. The entire supply chain that supports
the drilling, supplies the poppants, the witches brew of chemicals, that is
all booming now - and sucking in a huge portion of the available energy
capital as well by the way.

What is not mentioned by the bubble boosters is the high decline rates for
fracked wells. Right now everything is being sustained by a huge river of
new capital investment driven by this speculative bubble. But once investors
begin to come back down to earth and privately begin to figure things out
they will realize that far from being engines of future profit what they own
are money pits.

What they are realizing is that fracked fields also reclose up. In other
words the poppants and the noxious surficants and solvents that have been
pumped down in a slurry mix also requiring vast quantities of water.. After
a few years salts and other deposits clog up the micro-fissures and the flow
gums up. So just to keep the wells operating they will require more water,
more poppants, more noxious chemical proprietary secret sauces - all of
which bite into the bottom line.

The Bakken, for example is sucking SD dry - the fracking operations there
are buying out farmers and ranchers to pump the water into the shale
formations below.

Chris

 

The use of science by government of science is of the type of
pseudo-religion abuse. 

 

Bruno

 

 

 





We can't take action that will have negative economic effects on the basis
of imperfect climate mod

RE: Our Demon-Haunted World

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:29 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

 

On 11/14/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes  wrote:

Telmo and other 'experts': 

why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge
Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high
pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil
wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could
serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g.
potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now -
pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) . 

 

I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't
provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know.

 

It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar
is more readily available overall.


>> It might blend well with solar.  There have been proposals to store solar
energy by heating underground reservoirs.

 

Large scale CSPs (concentrating solar (thermal) power) such as the new GW
complex they have built in southern California use molten salt as their
energy carrier. This facility can keep generating electricity well after the
sun has gone down because it stores the hot molten salt (saltpeter I
believe) in insulated vats. This is one of the advantages of large scale
solar thermal has over PV; as soon as the sun is occulted solar PV output
drops precipitously (though newer PV cells that also have band-gaps tuned
for infrared energy would continue to produce some output even when clouds
came overhead, because of the infrared energy.) 

There is a lot of money and R&D being thrown at the energy storage problem
and a fair number of utility scale battery types are on the R&D pipeline as
well as some other interesting ideas for energy storage. CSP is unique in
that because it is harvesting heat it can store its energy with the same
energy carrier it uses to harvest the solar energy - i.e. the molten salt.
Wind, PV, etc. need to transform the electricity into another medium (unless
using supercapacitors) in order to store the energy and this invariably
(second law of thermodynamics) entails a process loss - and in both
directions.

Most electricity storage - and by a huge margin - is accomplished by pumped
storage. Japan, in particular leads in this area. But traditional pumped
storage suffers from siting issues. I have looked at some novel pumped
storage proposals that instead bore deep cylinders with a moving and very
massive (heavy) piston. The system would have a low pressure upper reservoir
and a high pressure lower reservoir below the piston. To draw energy down
water from the high pressure reservoir is run through a turbine to generate
electricity and flows into the spent reservoir above the piston (which
descends towards the bottom of the cylinder); to re-charge the "battery"
electricity is consumed to run the generator/turbine in reverse and pump the
water (or other working fluid) from the low pressure reservoir, back into
the high pressure one. Air pressure is also used (Alabama).

Chris



Brent 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:26 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

From:  
everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of the
geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps) --
often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
precedent.

>> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.

 

That's not removing it - it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
the fuel is burnt). 

 

"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we should
remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2 from the
atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to others to
judge.

>> Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried
down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from
the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?

That is what I was responding to Liz - synthesizing hydrocarbons in some
chemical process from CO2 and water + copious amounts of needed energy in
order to reduce both the CO2 and H2O - would return CO2 into the biosphere
as soon as the fuel was burnt. It is rec-cycling carbon through the
biosphere; not removing it. IMO - I am not certain that this is the best use
of the energy inputs that would be required in order to synthesize the
hydrocarbon from CO2 + H2O. Why not just use the energy directly. Remember
no process is 100% efficient so more energy is going to go in to making the
fuel by a substantial factor than will ever be extracted from that fuel by
burning it - transforming it into heat and then finally useful work. An ICE
engine - a very efficient one operates at around 20-25% efficiency - and
that is a modern efficient ICE. Do the math. Lets say it takes 200% the
energy in inputs to produce one energy unit of synthesized fuel - even if by
burning it you could turn it into 100% work the efficiency would still be
50%. Now multiply the 50% by the efficiency of an ICE engine and you are
getting in a good case about 10% maybe at the very best 15% of the energy
you are putting into to this artificial hydrocarbon fuel system.

Why not just use the energy directly? Sometimes there can be other factors
that make it make sense to produce a liquid fuel even though it takes far
more energy to produce it than can ever be extracted from it as useful work.
For example, liquid fuels are essential for aviation for example - because
of their power density; some energy is of low quality - for example wind
energy (or nuclear or other big thermal electric power plant) that is being
generated at 3:30 am. So there is an argument for doing so, but it is a for
niche reasons.

 

>>If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to
petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is
that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy
more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new
infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a
suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use
solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.

 

It would require a whole new infrastructure - the infrastructure to
synthesize the liquid fuels from CO2 gas + water. The massive energy
production infrastructure required in order to supply these huge refineries
with their energy inputs. Etc.



(Unless of course we can remove more CO2 from the air than we burn, in which
case we might even have "negative emissions". But this is all, if you'll
forgive the pun, a pipe dream at present).

 

What if we discover that we need to sequester large numbers of gigatons of
CO2 in a n

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[LizR]

On 15 November 2013 13:29, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/14/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Telmo and other 'experts':
>> why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in
>> huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The
>> high pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the
>> exhausted oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs,
>> so it could serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing
>> technology. (E.g. potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes
>> scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in
>> asylum, etc.) .
>>
>
>  I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but
> doesn't provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know.
>
>  It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say
> solar is more readily available overall.
>
>
> It might blend well with solar.  There have been proposals to store solar
> energy by heating underground reservoirs.
>

That sounds good. The problem with it is of course night (and clouds) so
methods of storage (or a world-wide power grid?) are important.

(Although despite being intermittent, it could still take up some of the
load and reduce emissions.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Telmo and other 'experts':
why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge 
Q-s and
so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high pressure
ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted oil wells 
may
provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could serve as 
driving force
for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g. potable water, 
agri-irrigation,
when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now - pollution-free transportation, 
keeping
politicians in asylum, etc.) .


I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't provide as 
much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know.


It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar is more 
readily available overall.


It might blend well with solar.  There have been proposals to store solar energy by 
heating underground reservoirs.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Yes.

I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste 
of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the 
end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:


Alas, some people just can't be relied on.



Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters looking at the 
climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for manufacturing 
models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said.


First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of a dozen or 
more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and paper 
calculation of Arhennius.  In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased CO2 will 
raise the earth's temperature.  CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands that are 
otherwise transparent.  Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human habitation (as 
already realized by Fourier).  The difficulty in making accurate predictions of how much 
the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the positive 
feedback effect of water vapor.  Most models assume the world average relative humidity 
will stay the same.  Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to shallow and assume 
water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface.  But these don't make 
any difference to the long term conclusion.


There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it behaves like 
the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want to fire up 
the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model.


Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching past 
data.



What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial eras started 
when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the free water 
movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water flow regimes 
and resulted in the two polar ice caps.


It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what happens in 
each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?. Because they know 
that their models are lacking decades of research to get accurate enough for the 
simplest long term prediction.


More obfuscation.  If more solar energy is retained by the atmosphere the planet will get 
hotter until it can radiate as much as received.  Moving continents around can only affect 
the local distribution. This is the same tactic as Creationists who point to the clotting 
sequence or the flagellum and declare, "Let's see evolution explain THAT."


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
>  wrote:
> 
> > The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
> > tremendous cost after all.
> 
> I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
> be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
> their efficiency?

The following is an article dealing with the economics in Australia of
PV vs coal fired stations

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

And here is one for wind power:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-risk-prices-out-new-coalfired-plants-report-20130207-2e0s4.html

These figure also do not include the existing carbon price of $20 per tonne.

Existing fossil fuel generators will continue for a while, though, of
course, particularly as renewables have not yet solved the baseload
supply problem. Vanadium batteries may be good for that.




> 
> >> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> >> > we'd have to do something.
> >>
> >> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> >> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> >> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
> >>
> >
> > The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
> > _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
> > can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
> > pay less now, and have steeper rises later.
> 
> I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
> that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
> it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
> become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
> sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
> highly correlated with prosperity.
> 
> > A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
> > will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
> > restoration down the track.
> 
> Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?
> 

Nothing earth-scale will be cheap, or easy to understand all the
consequences. Ultimately, it will need to come down to a cost-benefit
analysis, factoring in the unknowns as some kind of risk factor.

> > Seems like quite an astute investment to
> > me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
> > so.
> >
> >> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> >> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> >> of religious moralism.
> >>
> >> Telmo.
> >>
> >
> > They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
> > research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.
> 
> I never see this as part of the discussion. I'm very skeptical that
> this is being seriously pursued.
> 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering

amongst many other similar experiments.

I can see why certain environmental movements have put geoengineering
off the table for political reasons, but this doesn't mean it
shouldn't be researched theoretically, and experimented practically on
a small scale so that we better understand the costs, efficacy and
risks if (or more likely when) it becomes a necessary part of the
total solution.

As for carbon pricing, which is the current hot topic in Australia. As
a philosophical point, I am in favour of some sort of carbon pricing,
but I'm not enough of an economist and energy technologist to know the
ideal timing for its introduction, nor the amount of the pricing. The
current fixed price scheme we have amounts to an increase of 10-20% on
fuel costs, which I would have thought to be "too little, too late". I
don't know how the price of $20 per tonne was arrived at. I do know
that the Eurpoean market price is even lower, at around $8 per tonne,
so I can't see economics providing much of a push.

The problem is that when our current newly elected government was in
opposition, they went around denying that there is even a problem. I
wouldn't have minded if they kept the political discussion to whether
a carbon price was appropriate right now, or questioned the economic
modelling used to set the price, or whether it should be set by a
market mechanism. Instead they denied the scientific consensus,
labelled the carbon price as a "tax", and stood on a platform of
"scrap the tax", which will be one of the first bills they will
introduce in parliament in the next week. It makes me mad -
effectively they have shut down much needed debate on how best we should
address climate change, and resorted to slogaineering and ideology.

I just hope that the opposition and independent parties act to block
this behaviour, and hopefully return discussion ba

Re: Global warming silliness

[LizR]

I haven't been able to find a source for the idea that the earth's warming
trend has stalled. This is a typical set of data. There seems to be a
slight dip in the last couple of years, but that's all.

[image: Inline images 1]


On 15 November 2013 12:34, chris peck  wrote:

> I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.
>
> I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet
> might be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed
> models of the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst
> flawed and not being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst
> scientists that they are the best available models. They may not actually
> be the best available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang
> on target, but there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists
> within a bunch of people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long
> time thinking about the models. This consensus has largely be reached
> independently.
>
> I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads
> to make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given
> that, it would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the
> consensus. I know I must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride
> the consensus because I love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome'
> and support the consensus because I love hugging trees. That would be
> silly. I act in accordance with the consensus because there is one, because
> it is a scientific one, and because it is born of minds that are fairly
> brainy.
>
> The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus
> academically are being irrational if they do not support it politically.
> Again, this is because there is amongst brainy people like themselves a
> consensus which disagrees with their academic work. They should recognize
> their own personal fallibility. Equally though, the larger community should
> recognize the fallibility of the consensus and ensure that the attempt to
> refute the consensus continues with full financial support. But their
> studies should not be acted upon politically until it becomes a consensus.
> This oils the gears of progress.
>
> There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a
> few years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was
> imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the
> consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it
> would have been irrational to act in contradiction to it.
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800
> From: meeke...@verizon.net
>
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
>
> On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The use of science by government of science is of the type of
> pseudo-religion abuse.
>
>
> ?? Does not parse.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[LizR]

On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes  wrote:

> Telmo and other 'experts':
> why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge
> Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high
> pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted
> oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could
> serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g.
> potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now
> - pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) .
>

I assume you mean geothermal energy. It is used in New Zealand but doesn't
provide as much energy as wind and hydro as far as I know.

It's an option in some parts of the world, certainly, but I would say solar
is more readily available overall.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: We need to bring Leibniz out of the closet

[LizR]

You should talk to Bruno.


On 15 November 2013 02:54, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi - Roger Clough
>
> All current theories of mind are objective (materialist) since they do not
> include the first person singular.
>
> Consciousness or Mind is nonobjective or subjective, since it is the
> perceptions by the first person singular.
>
> Only Leibniz has a philosophy of mind (subjectivity).
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
>
> So we (all welcome) need to bring Leibniz out of the closet.
>
> This would revolutionize neurophiolsophy.
>
>  Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> See my Leibniz site at
>  http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Global warming silliness

[chris peck]

I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.

I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might 
be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of 
the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst flawed and not 
being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst scientists that 
they are the best available models. They may not actually be the best 
available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang on target, but 
there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists within a bunch of 
people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long time thinking about the 
models. This consensus has largely be reached independently.

I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads to 
make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given that, it 
would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the consensus. I know I 
must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride the consensus because I 
love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome' and support the consensus 
because I love hugging trees. That would be silly. I act in accordance with the 
consensus because there is one, because it is a scientific one, and because it 
is born of minds that are fairly brainy.

The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus academically are 
being irrational if they do not support it politically. Again, this is because 
there is amongst brainy people like themselves a consensus which disagrees with 
their academic work. They should recognize their own personal fallibility. 
Equally though, the larger community should recognize the fallibility of the 
consensus and ensure that the attempt to refute the consensus continues with 
full financial support. But their studies should not be acted upon politically 
until it becomes a consensus. This oils the gears of progress.

There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a few 
years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was 
imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the 
consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it would 
have been irrational to act in contradiction to it.

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness


  

  
  
On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
  wrote:


The use of science by government of science is of the
  type of pseudo-religion abuse.


?? Does not parse.

  

  Brent


  





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[John Mikes]

Telmo and other 'experts':
why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge
Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high
pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted
oil wells may provide much much more energy than today's needs, so it could
serve as driving force for more than we think by ongoing technology. (E.g.
potable water, agri-irrigation, when fresh-water becomes scarce - like now
- pollution-free transportation, keeping politicians in asylum, etc.) .
JM




On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Chris de Morsella
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:07 AM
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:49 AM, LizR  wrote:
> >> On 13 November 2013 10:55,  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> if you want us to give up the bad, dirty, power, then please provide
> >>> a clean, affordable, abundant substitute. Faster, please.
> >>
> >>
> >> The Sun, of course. Produces millions of times more power than we need.
> >>
> >> Trouble is the fossil fuel industry doesn't want us to use it. Given
> >> the sort of effort ut into that that has been put into the "space
> >> race" or warfare we'd have this sorted by next week.
> >
> > I have no doubt that the fossil fuel industry will try to prevent this. I
> > also agree that the effort put into wars is a horrible misuse of human
> > potential and that great things could be achieved instead.
> >
> > Regarding solar power -- this could be the solution but it's sci-fi at
> the
> > moment. It's intuitive to look at solar panels and imagine fossil fuels
> > being replaced by this. It's less intuitive to visualise the scale of the
> > problem and the limitations of current technology. We have a world
> > population of about 7 billion now. It has doubled since I was born, in
> 1976.
> > It continues to grow at more than 1% a year and this is an important
> part of
> > the equation. Ultimately, the world's energy budget is mostly spent on
> > providing basic necessities to all of these people. Food, heating, health
> > care, schools and so on. I'm not arguing that the resources are correctly
> > distributed, but I am arguing that this is what we mostly use the energy
> > for. A lot of energy. The large chunk of it currently comes from oil,
> coal
> > and natural gas.
> >
> > So the problems, according to my limited knowledge: current solar panels
> are
> > based on silicon, which is a scarce resource. The amount of silicon
> > available might not be enough for the total solar panel surface area
> that we
> > would need to remove our dependency on fossil fuels. In fact, some people
> > are suggesting that we already reached peak silicon.
> >
> > Another other issue is energy efficiency. Mining the raw materials and
> then
> > transforming them into solar panels takes a certain energy budget. Then
> > these panels last for some years. Then you have to build new ones. The
> more
> > you remove fossil fuel from the equation, the more you have to rely on
> the
> > solar panels energy to pay for the energy budget of the next generation.
> > Notice that you also have to store a lot of energy because of seasonal
> > effects, day an night and so on.
> > This takes some sort of capacitor with its own energy budget. I don't
> think
> > it's clear that all this could become self-sustainable with our current
> > technology. Remember that we still have to provide for the 7 billion
> humans
> > while paying these energy investments -- and I mean paying in terms of
> > energy, doesn't matter if we're under cut-throat capitalism or a
> socialist
> > utopia, this economic fact remains.
> >
> > In fact, defeating our dependency on fossil fuels and curbing our CO2
> > emissions are antagonistic goals. To bootstrap the great solar panel
> farm we
> > need a lot of energy upfront. The faster you want to do it, the more of
> this
> > energy has to come from fossil fuels. Then you have two options: increase
> > CO2 emissions or use energy that you would normally use to keep the 7
> > billion people alive. The faster you do it and the more you rely on the
> > second option, the more human suffering you will cause. We're mot talking
> > about trivial inconveniences either, we're talking about millions and
> > millions dying from starvation, cold and disease. It is tempting to
> assume
> > that we can go back to a simpler lifestyle and make do with less, but
> this
> > regards that the current carrying capacity was made possible by the
> energy
> > budget provided by fossil fuels. Before the energy revolution there were
> > orders of magnitude less human beings on earth, and the complexity of
> human
> > society was much lower. Organising 7 billion p

Re: Global warming silliness

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion 
abuse.


?? Does not parse.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[meekerdb]

On 11/14/2013 3:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

Good one, Chris.

But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of
government.  In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a
widespread distrust of government as incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive.

Well, it also doesn't help that almost everything that comes out of
the government's mouth turns out to be a lie. They lied about WMDs in
Iraq, they lied about closing down Guantanamo, they lied about
repealing the patriot act (and in fact extended its scope through the
NDAA), they lie about drugs, they lied about the scope of drone use,
they lied about not spying on everybody and they lied about protecting
whisteblowers. Just to name a few. These are all indisputable, direct
lies about very serious matters.


They are not indisputable.  For example, Obama promised to close Guantanomo but he was 
blocked by Congress.  One's failure after best effort, to do what is not possible is not 
exactly a lie.  Many things said about recreational drugs, e.g. that heroin is addictive, 
are certainly true; and those were probably enough to convince the electorate that they 
should be banned.  After all the nation even approved banning alcohol at one time - it's 
not just that people are misled about consequenses; the people like to impose their ideas 
of morality on others.  It's one of the problems of democracy and the reason for having 
constitutional rights.


I don't remember the government ever saying what the scope of drone use is.  There are 
obvious tactical and diplomatic reasons for being vague about it.


But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is not trusted.  
However, it is not the government that is warning us about global warming.  It is in the 
scientific research literature.  You didn't find lies about drones or drugs or the 
Patriout act in Physical Review or even in arXiv.




As for oppression we have the humiliation rituals enforced by the TSA,
the militarisation of the police forces, the ongoing attempts at
censoring the Internet, total surveillance, free-speech zones, the
persecution of brilliant benevolent kids like Aaron Schwartz, who
committed suicide because we was going to be thrown into jail for
downloading scientific papers. I am very sad that he had to go through
that, but also happy that the bandits couldn't get their hands on him.

Probably you're going to reply with some apologies for your favourite
team, and claim that it's the other team's fault. I don't care about
any of that. I care about the end result: lies. The Democrats vs.
Republicans reality show is a clever way to explore our tribal
instincts.


You illustrate my point again.  You don't address the science behind global warming 
predictions or what to do about it.  You make a non-sequitur from "The government lies" to 
"Global warming isn't real." even though the source of global warming predictions is not a 
government.  I can only infer that you are really concerned that if global warming is 
real, we will have to rely on government level action.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Why we need to bring Leibniz out of the closet if progress is to be made

[Roger Clough]

Why we need to bring Leibniz out of the closet if progress is to be made 

Materialism, the philosophy that the universe is made only of matter,
and nothing else, is the basic philosophy of science. So Idealism, the 
philosophy that
only ideas, not matter, are real, seems to be a fantasy world. 

But materialism as a total philosophy, and not idealism, is quite limited.
It cannot explain perception consciousness, the overall governance of the 
universe
or of the brain. In order to understand these, hence consciousness, we must 
follow the pioneering lead of Leibniz, the only relatively modern, logical,
and comprehensive Idealist philosopher:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Thus Bertrand Russell, having written a book on the logic of Leibniz, abandoned 
Leibniz
on his horrfying discovery of the implications of Idealism -- that yet even 
logically,
there can only be a single perceiver and a single governor of the universe.  You
can't have two kings in a kingdom, nor two perceptions at the same time.

So Russell became a materialist, a philosophy that has no provision for 
experience or 
the perceptions of the first person singular (which is consciousness). 

Thus to understand the governance of the universe or consciousness or 
perception, we must accept Idealism as a valid philosophy overall, 
while we can still accept materialism as valid within the range of science
(the range of matter). But we must let go of any possibility of overall 
governance.
See 






Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Alberto,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
> that is a waste of time,

Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an important point. These are a
fairly common social phenomena across History and they seem to be a
coping mechanism of people who are unhappy with some status quo, and
that also don't understand its complexities. The biblical apocalypse
in the context of the Roman Empire is one example. Another one is the
Illuminati conspiracy theories. They come from people who feel they
got a bad deal from life and initiate this fantasy were the status quo
is evil and it's going to get what's coming.

I sense this a lot in the global warming issue. It works well as an
apocalyptic narrative for people who dislike capitalism. It's even
associated with purification rituals and sin: vegetarianism vs. meat,
low carbon-emission cars vs SUVs and so on.

This doesn't mean it's incorrect, of course. Only failed predictions mean that.

> but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
> the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:
>
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
> looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
> funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
> nothing as Telmo said.

I once heard some old professor give the following piece of wisdom:
any sufficiently complicated model is doomed to succeed. I agree. The
more parameters you have in a model, the less you can trust it. The
more you teak them to correct for failed predictions, the more
meaningless it gets. The more models you have for the same thing, the
less significant the correct predictions of a given model are. This is
just basic statistics. I notice that the skeptics tend to show the
predictions of a large set of models, while the proponents of the
theory show less of them. Then the skeptics are accused of cherry
picking, and this raises my eyebrows...

> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
> why it is a good model.
>
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial
> eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama
> closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific. That
> changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar ice
> caps.
>
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
> happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
> it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
> get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.
>
>
> 2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
>> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
>> > long
>> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
>> > of
>> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
>> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
>> > Of
>> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012,
>> > 24
>> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
>> > and
>> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>>
>> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
>> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
>> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
>> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
>> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
>> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
>> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
>> > change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether

We need to bring Leibniz out of the closet

[Roger Clough]

Hi - Roger Clough

All current theories of mind are objective (materialist) since they do not 
include the first person singular.

Consciousness or Mind is nonobjective or subjective, since it is the 
perceptions by the first person singular.

Only Leibniz has a philosophy of mind (subjectivity).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/

So we (all welcome) need to bring Leibniz out of the closet.

This would revolutionize neurophiolsophy.

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[Alberto G. Corona]

Retrodiction, instead of prediction, in this case.


2013/11/14 Alberto G. Corona 

> Yes.
>
> I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
> that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
> the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:
>
> Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
> looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
> funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
> nothing as Telmo said.
>
> There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
> behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
> believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
> why it is a good model.
>
> What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the
> glacial eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of
> Panama closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific.
> That changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar
> ice caps.
>
> It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
> happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
> it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
> get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.
>
>
> 2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 
>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
>> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
>> long
>> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
>> of
>> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
>> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
>> Of
>> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012,
>> 24
>> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
>> and
>> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>>
>> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
>> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
>> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
>> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
>> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
>> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
>> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate
>> change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>>
>> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
>> of religious moralism.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> > I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
>> > for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark 
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <
>> te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
>> >> >> > sentences
>> >> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry.
>> >>
>> >> No worries.
>> >>
>> >> Telmo.
>> >>
>> >> >   John K Clark
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> > Groups
>> >> > "Everything List" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send
>> >> > an
>> >> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you

Re: Global warming silliness

[Alberto G. Corona]

Yes.

I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
that is a waste of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by
the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:

Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters
looking at the climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that
funny way for manufacturing models, it is no surprise that they predict
nothing as Telmo said.

There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why?  Because it
behaves like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I
believe, dont want to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is
why it is a good model.

What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial
eras started when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama
closed the free water movement between the atlantic and pacific. That
changed the global water flow regimes and resulted in the two polar ice
caps.

It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what
happens in each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try
it?. Because they know that their models are lacking decades of research to
get accurate enough for the simplest long term prediction.


2013/11/13 Telmo Menezes 

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
> > Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very
> long
> > time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple
> of
> > decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the
> > connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
> Of
> > 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24
> > rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try
> and
> > understand the world. We call it "science".
>
> This is just sophisticated arguing from authority, not science.
> Science is the process of formulating a theory with which you can make
> predictions and then testing these predictions. If the predictions are
> incorrect, the theory is falsified. The number of papers that say
> something and the amount of consensus is irrelevant in the face of
> experimental falsification. Science is not democracy, it's empiricism.
> All scientific revolutions started as minority views.
>
> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
> failed to predict the current cooling period.
>
> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>
> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> > we'd have to do something.
>
> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>
> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
> of religious moralism.
>
> Telmo.
>
> > I think nuclear is a good short term solution,
> > for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14 November 2013 06:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, John Clark 
> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <
> te...@telmomenezes.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > I would like to point out that I did not write the first two
> >> >> > sentences
> >> >> you cite and I was being sarcastic when I wrote the third one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sorry.
> >>
> >> No worries.
> >>
> >> Telmo.
> >>
> >> >   John K Clark
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > Groups
> >> > "Everything List" group.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> >> > an
> >> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> .
> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >> "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this grou

Re: Global warming silliness

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Nov 2013, at 04:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella  
 wrote:
But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs  
out and then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants  
and solar panels and wind tubines.  In principle they could  
bootstrap themselves, but not on the time scale we need to make the  
transition.



Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?


A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we  
need to wait until we're sure.


That's why it would help if people understand that science, by its  
very nature, is uncertain, and so "being uncertain" is NOT a reason  
for not taking decision.


The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo- 
religion abuse.


Bruno




We can't take action that will have negative economic effects on the  
basis of imperfect climate models.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:19 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> Good one, Chris.
>
> But you can tell from the posts here that what drives the Deniers is fear of
> government.  In the U.S. since the Viet Nam war there has developed a
> widespread distrust of government as incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive.

Well, it also doesn't help that almost everything that comes out of
the government's mouth turns out to be a lie. They lied about WMDs in
Iraq, they lied about closing down Guantanamo, they lied about
repealing the patriot act (and in fact extended its scope through the
NDAA), they lie about drugs, they lied about the scope of drone use,
they lied about not spying on everybody and they lied about protecting
whisteblowers. Just to name a few. These are all indisputable, direct
lies about very serious matters.

As for oppression we have the humiliation rituals enforced by the TSA,
the militarisation of the police forces, the ongoing attempts at
censoring the Internet, total surveillance, free-speech zones, the
persecution of brilliant benevolent kids like Aaron Schwartz, who
committed suicide because we was going to be thrown into jail for
downloading scientific papers. I am very sad that he had to go through
that, but also happy that the bandits couldn't get their hands on him.

Probably you're going to reply with some apologies for your favourite
team, and claim that it's the other team's fault. I don't care about
any of that. I care about the end result: lies. The Democrats vs.
Republicans reality show is a clever way to explore our tribal
instincts.

> And global warming, once it is accepted as a problem we should do something
> about, is obviously of such scope it will take some government action.  The
> irony is that if the problem is addressed now the actions taken can be
> relatively benign.  But the Deniers don't even want the problem to be
> recognized.  So by spreading doubt and manufacturing controversy about the
> science, action will be delayed until drastic measures will be necessary.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 11/13/2013 4:18 PM, chris peck wrote:
>
> http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
> From: meeke...@verizon.net
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
>
> On 11/13/2013 1:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories
> beween 1599 and 2010.
>
>
> But did they provide any data?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6831 - Release Date: 11/12/13
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Nov 2013, at 23:43, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is legal? Guns, oil, car, tobacco, alcohol, those things kill  
a lot, and none are/were really necessary.


Killing people with guns (or otherwise) is generally illegal.


I think it is a good idea, except for legitimate self-defense of  
course. "death penalty" is still legally applied in some country, and  
it is a modern inhuman nonsense to me. Of course it makes room in  
jaill, so that we can put smokers in them ... :(






Very few things are necessary to live - but many things are desirable.


Sure. But many many things are made desirable by advertizing, some of  
which are just lies.






What is illegal? Hemp, Tabernanthe iboga, magic mushrooms, LSD, ...  
Without any argument that they lead to serious problem, when used  
with moderation and responsibility, following the user guide.


Legalize all of those stuff, and tax proportionally to the real  
troubles. People are not stupid, they will adapt convenably.


Hmm?  How shall we tax proportionately for polluting the atmosphere,  
the water table?


(the water table ?)

We do have tools. On some radio channel they give the day by day  
pollution state of of the main cities.

Carbon taxes already plays such a role.

But this done not make any sense if alternative are not allowed,  
because we cannot even measure the difference.


The energy/pollution problem is a tough problem, but it has been made  
unsolvable by purposeful "mind pollution", through lies coming  
systematically from the top.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Russell Standish
 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution
>> because of the number of predictions it got right, not because of the
>> amount of papers that say that it is a spiffy theory. The theory of
>> anthropogenic global warming does not look so stellar because it
>> failed to predict the current cooling period.

Hi Russel,

> Actually, I remember it did - around 10 years ago there was a
> concensus opinion of a decade or two statis in the warming trend - but
> it might have been the sunspot guys rather than the climate
> modellers. This is not expected to last, though, so we'll soon see it
> being put to the test.

This sounds very fuzzy. I understand that it's the best you can do
with some very complex systems, but the fact remains that such stalls
do not show up in the projections of the various models. Also it
appears that the warming stopped almost 17 years ago, so it still
sounds a posteriori, a bit like you see a lot in economic models that
deal with high levels of complexity.

My problem here is that, when dealing with complex non-linear models,
what you don't know can change everything. Given that the earth has
been a stable enough environment for delicate life to evolve, it's not
such a crazy hypothesis that it self-stabilising feedback loops exist.
Then there's the medieval warming period. But as you say, we'll see...

>
>>
>> Given the tremendous human cost of reducing CO2 emissions, the
>> rational thing to do is to weigh the probability of the theory being
>> correct against this cost. I don't have an answer here, nor am I
>> qualified to give it. I know a bit about complex systems modelling and
>> this makes me very skeptical of "overwhelming evidences", especially
>> in the face of surprising observables against the models.
>>
>
> As Liz pointed out, that "tremendous cost" for decarbonising the
> economy will need to be paid sooner or later anyway. With a bit of
> political will we can do it sooner, and the cost will be less as a result.

But the speed at which you have to do it and weather or not you can
rely on or even increase fossil fuel burn rate to bootstrap the
transition can make a very big difference in terms of human suffering.

> The good news is that the figures I've seen is that its not such a
> tremendous cost after all.

I am very interested in this. Could you be more specific? How can this
be? Was there some breakthrough in sustainable sources that increased
their efficiency?

>> > Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
>> > we'd have to do something.
>>
>> Yes, but that something we have to do is very different depending on
>> whether or not we have to cut CO2 emissions and, more importantly, one
>> of the path leads to immense human suffering.
>>
>
> The point is whether we do something, or do nothing, energy costs
> _will_ rise. Yes this _will_ lead to human suffering, either way. We
> can either choose to pay a bit more now, and have less costs later, or
> pay less now, and have steeper rises later.

I agree that energy costs will rise and this is a very serious problem
that we need to face. If you don't have to worry about CO2 so much,
it's easier and less painful -- the more expensive fossil fuels
become, the more economic incentive there will be for renewable
sources. In this scenario we can retain economic freedom, which is
highly correlated with prosperity.

> A 10 or 20% energy cost increase to hasten decarbonisation by a decade
> will save many billions of dollars of geo-engineering, or evironmental
> restoration down the track.

Are you aware of geo-engineering proposals that would be very cheap?

> Seems like quite an astute investment to
> me. Our current conservative government, alas, doesn't seem to think
> so.
>
>> Then there are the geo-engineering ideas that John mentioned. They
>> appear to be ignored. This makes the entire thing start to smell a bit
>> of religious moralism.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>
> They're not being ignored. But they do require a lot more small-scale
> research to understand their risk-benefit tradeoff.

I never see this as part of the discussion. I'm very skeptical that
this is being seriously pursued.

Telmo.

> --
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Nov 2013, at 23:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 11:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The catholic and the chihite,


This one: http://lordblumiere.deviantart.com/art/Chihite-Angelorum-61177983



Sorry, I was using the french terming. I was referring to those  
following Shi'a Islam, or Shi'it Islam. Like Catholic, they believe in  
sort of "pope", (Ayatollah, "expert on Allah (God)") who can act like  
selected authorities on civil or political matter, unlike the Sunni,  
or the protestant. Like Catholics, the Shi'it tend more easily to mix  
state and religion, by conferring to much "divine" authority to  
humans.  That is palpable in today's Iran (which is mainly shi'it).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Nov 2013, at 23:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's  
just not human experience and when you stop having human  
experience you're dead.




Why? If by dying we remember being something different from  
human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia  
can lead to such an experience/hallucination).


Yes, if you remember.



OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that  
question, we should engage in an type of thought experiment, which  
I have not used in the UDA, although I have use it implicitly at  
the inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also sleepy  
in the dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's  
theory of dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the  
experimental testing of the REM dream lucidity).


Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some  
kind, and certainly ask for some imagination.

It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking.

A recurring thema.

But honestly, without mastering the usual "non-amnesic" type of  
experience, I am not sure it makes sense to even try those more  
subtle thought experiences. A study of pathological state of  
consciousness can help probably.


It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in  
the "material" (in the Plotinian sense) Bp & Dt.


The idea here is that the realities in which "you"(the 1-you) don't  
survive count for nothing in the measure. It is again quasi  
tautological.


The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role  
proportional to *your* ability to recognize yourself in the other.  
If the usual comp (where you survive integrally with no amnesia,  
when substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought experience  
can hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in  
possible intermediate non-physical realties (but still  
arithmetical). The probabilities might even depends on our  
descendants, which might make them lower or higher through diverse  
theo/bio-technologies (which might free us from, or freeze us in,  
the Samsara).





But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither  
do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are not past  
eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal.


It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what  
you are willing to identify with. There is a part of intrinsic  
first personal *choice* here.


Of course I'm willing to believe I was a great and famous king in my  
previous life - but does that make it so?


I did not say that willing is not enough. But if you recognize  
yourself through what that king has done, that might be closer to the  
idea.
















Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and  
they need the support of some computational self-reference ability.


And brains provide that support.


Yes.  Locally.
But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern  
belonging to infinities of computations.


But what do those infinities that provide the underlying physics  
have to do with conscious thoughts, which are (at least mostly)  
strictly classical and finite?


UDA step 7. Consciousness needs some interval of "time", this needs  
both the computations, and the FPI.





Reverting to my favorite thought experiment, if I build an AI Mars  
Rover it will presumably be conscious and have 1p POV. It's AI  
computations are also supported by an infinity (or very numerous)  
processes at a lower level.  Does that mean it is immmortal?


Yes.


QTI only applies to it in the sense that if it is destroyed, or just  
turned off, then in the vastness of a multiverse where "everything  
happens" there must be similar AI with a similar program that  
continues the state of my Mars Rover.  This kind of continuation  
seems to have nothing to do with consciousness, since you could say  
the same of any sequence.  Saying that it continues a POV seems like  
an ad hoc assumption.


I don't understand. Why don't you apply the Mars Rover pov, the same  
conclusion than in step 7?






Why it seems linear and symmetrical remains to be explained (if  
that is really the case).


Here , "Another Woman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ
is a Harlequin movie which illustrates  how amnesia can be pleasing/ 
helpful until the memory come back. It is an "Harlenquin", so no  
worry: happy ending guarantied :)


Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin  
series, as you can see by typing "harlequin romance movies amnesia"  
in youtube.


Ah, so that's where you do your research.


My left brain has learned to listen to my right brain, and I take the  
data anywhere without shame. Good stories have go

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Nov 2013, at 17:43, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/13/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 22:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:






As human beings they were reluctant to provide hard earned data to  
those who had proved to mere critics - like you - with no interest  
but to spread doubt.


Can ever have been a more clear confession of sectarianism ? Doubt  
about what? about what yours affirm that is truth and must be  
taken as face value?  Is that the new conception of "science"  and  
the one that Popper et al teach to me is ourdated?


Global warning cannot be a question of science.


?? We only know it exists because of science.


Sorry, I was talking about the link between human's activity and  
global warming. But even the "truth" of it can't be science, and you  
should say "we *believe* it exists because that is the way we  
interpret the data".






It is a question of mondial/global politics, and in this case I  
believe that even few evidence for some something irreversible and  
possibly fatal for a planet should be avoided when possible.


That's why science is of no direct use in politics. Science is  
doubt, and politics is decision. I use that argument to defend an  
ecological and economical precaution principle valid in global  
planetary decision which might be irreversible and possibly lethal,  
but also for positive decision like investing on asteroids and the  
means to deviate them.


When science is directly used in politics, it becomes pseudo- 
religious crap.
We *have to* take care of the planet, simply. It is not a question  
of surviving, but of quality of life.


(That's why also "global warming" is way out of topics ...: it is a  
matter of voting and politicians). As you said (I think) science  
must be separated from politics (in the two senses).



But both global warming and asteroid strikes are something we know  
about only through science.  You seems to imply that science should  
not inform political action?  Then how else can political action be  
informed?


I am not saying that political action should not be informed by  
science, quite the contrary, but science can only offer beliefs and  
degree of plausibility, and we know not much, and must act in absence  
of any certainty in the matter. In this case, what I say, is that  
politicians, by lying systematically for a long period on important  
domains (health/drug, now terror, etc.) seems to misuse science, and  
often use "pseudo-science" to develop fear selling technics, and  
control what people can think, disallowing the natural competition  
between possible products.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[LizR]

On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
>
>
>
> On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
> both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
> certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of
> the
> geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
> say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps)
> --
> often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
> precedent.
>
> >> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
> current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
> civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.
>
>
>
> That’s not removing it – it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
> and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
> more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
> the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
> but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
> the fuel is burnt).
>

"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we
should remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2
from the atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to
others to judge.

Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried
down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from
the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?

If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to
petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is
that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy
more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new
infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a
suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use
solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.

(Unless of course we can remove more CO2 from the air than we burn, in
which case we might even have "negative emissions". But this is all, if
you'll forgive the pun, a pipe dream at present).

>
>
> What if we discover that we need to sequester large numbers of gigatons of
> CO2 in a near term horizon?
>

We do. How would you suggest we go about it? At the moment we're mainly
using the oceans, which is bad news for anything that lives there.


> Chris
>
>
>
> *(And preferably turning it plus water into petrol... but I am starting to
> sound like a stuck record.)*
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

[LizR]

On 14 November 2013 16:47, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/13/2013 7:26 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 14 November 2013 16:18, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>>  But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out
>> and then switch.  It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar
>> panels and wind tubines.  In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but
>> not on the time scale we need to make the transition.
>>
>
>  Who's suggesting we wait and then switch?
>
>
> A lot of the FUD campaign is to say the science is uncertain; we need to
> wait until we're sure.  We can't take action that will have negative
> economic effects on the basis of imperfect climate models.
>
> Yes, of course they do, but that doesn't explain why Chris said the above
in answer to me saying:

Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change
> we'd have to do *something*. I think nuclear is a good short term
> solution, for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
>

This seems to be either misunderstanding what I was saying, or a straw man.

Anyway, just to make my position clear...

I think we should be switching to alternative power sources right now, to
whatever extent we can, and *not* waiting until the oil runs out. Indeed if
we wait for the oil to run out we will be bequeathing disasterous global
warming AND a world without any readily available fossil fuel to our
children. It would be nice to leave them some reserves of oil, coal etc,
just in case they need them, as well as lowering the CO2 in the air,
preferably before the oceans warm enough to melt the methane clathrate. I
don't want to set the world on fire.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.