Jump to content
semente

The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Well, here's a scientist characterizing other scientists as "so freaked out:"

 

 


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

workable fixes?

 

workable mitigation includes rapid deployment of solar PV, nukes (not rapid), NG as a transition fuel, and quite a few other things

 

due to the lag time (or dwell time in the atmosphere) of CO2 there is no workable fix - carbon capture is in R&D right now

 

- your posts don't appear to comport with the reading you've done, so I think you are not coming across well

 

 

I must not be coming across well.  I've indeed done the reading.  

 

Emissions in the USA of carbon is largest for electricity and transportation.  Transportation could be most easily reduced by having people buy efficient vehicles.  Unfortunately the Obama administration let the auto industry jury rig the new guidelines which resulted in the entirely predictable result that we have lots more pickup trucks and SUVs, only they are even larger than before.  Cars are more efficient, but a couple makers are going to mostly stop building cars (they don't sell anyway).  Then the current administration will either delay or rollback even those feeble standards.  It would have been relatively easy to reduce that part of the contribution by 50% without much loss to consumers (actually would have saved them money too).  I use fairly small and efficient machines myself, but I can't make all the other people stop buying those big ass vehicles they want so badly.   The late T Boone Pickens wanted to convert most large trucks to natural gas away from diesel.  But he couldn't convince people to do that.  Nothing infeasible about this except politically. 

 

Current costs for electricity make solar and wind a bit better than natural gas.  Coal is nearly double the cost of gas and is for that reason phasing itself out for economic reasons.  That takes time unless you want to take the hit for banning coal in short order and forcing a switch over to natural gas.  Solar so far is only a couple percent of the total, but should grow pretty well over time.  

 

Nuclear is good, but very long build out times and electrical cost probably triples.  Is it worth that to reduce carbon emissions?  That is a hard question to answer.  I've seen where long term mitigation of climate factors indicates it is worth it.  Those were obviously very rosy predictions for nuclear advocates, and ignore that the cost is displaced from one group to another.  Wealthier nations pay more, and poor nations are spared ill effects.  Everyone is spared those effects, but it would hurt poor the most if nothing happens.  Again something of a political problem as well as an economic one. 

 

I'd think at least US emissions could be reduced 40% of the total for all sources in the next 20 years if things are done right.  But they aren't being done right or at all.  Then all we need is someone to straighten out China and India.  China is nearing double the carbon emissions of the US currently.  US carbon emissions are going down.  Not as fast as the EU, but in the right direction.  Even then manage to reduce carbon output by 50% and we still only have something like 30 years by which time it either needs to be near zero or we have to come up with carbon removal that works on large scale.  

 

I've thought for about 45 years that one way or another we'll eventually be powered by solar, nuclear (and hopefully one day fusion).  They are the only sources that make sense long term.  The only sources large enough for the whole world in the future even if not everyone reaches median standards of living for western countries.  

 

I've thought a good approach for developing countries is solar.  It is getting to be the least expensive way.  I think maybe they shouldn't follow western countries example.  Maybe they shouldn't attempt 24 hr power generation.  Have power in the daytime.  Have factories that only run in the daytime so on and so forth.  Not a bad idea for everyone else when it can be done.  Having humans work 24 hrs a day isn't natural anyway.  Wouldn't be everything you might want, but could still improve their lives vs now. 

 

And still this is not going to be enough. 


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted this pretty postcard in another forum...

 

 50% of animals gone since 1970

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/losing-species-shocking-rates-why-conservation-failing

 99% of Rhinos gone since 1914.
 97% of Tigers gone since 1914.
 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
 90% of Sea Turtles gone since 1980.
 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.
 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
 80% of Antarctic Krill gone since 1975.
 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.
 60% of Forest Elephants gone since 1970.
 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.
 50% of Forest Bird Species will be gone in 50 years.
 40% of Giraffes gone since 2000.
 40% of ocean phytoplankton gone since 1950.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
 Ocean plankton declines of 1% per year means 50% gone in 70 years, declines of more than 1%/yr are likely.
 Ocean plastic is killing bacteria that make 10% of our oxygen.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/plastic-killing-bacteria-oxygen
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/plankton-under-threat-tiny-life-in-major-need-of-your-help/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plastic-eaten-by-plankton-may-impair-oceans-ability-to-trap-co2-1.3875434
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/02/microplastics-killing-fish-before-they-reach-reproductive-age-study-finds
 Ocean acidification doubles by 2050, explodes by 2100.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-study-shows-breaching-carbon-threshold-could-lead-to-mass-extinction/
 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
 70% of Marine Birds gone since 1950.
 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
 If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.
 If you are 30 years old, emissions went up 60% in your lifetime.
 After 30 years trying, solar and wind are < 3% of total world energy use.
https://lokisrevengeblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/energy-sources.jpg?w=696
 Solar panels produce 90% of power rating 15% of time
 Wind turbines produce 90% of power rating 25% of time.
 Claire Fyson said emissions must go down 50% in 10 yrs to avoid 1.5° C.
 The Insurance Journal said they must go down 50% in 10 yrs to avoid 3.0° C.
 Stefan Rahmstorf said emissions must go down 100% in 20 yrs to avoid 2.0° C.
 Hans Schellnhuber said 5 of 13 major hothouse tipping points start below 2.0° C.
 When these 5 points are triggered, they trigger the other 8.
 This results in runaway hothouse, which can't be stopped or reversed once started.
 But we are also headed for runaway mass extinction, which can't be stopped or reversed once started.
 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were 0.03% of land vertebrate biomass.
 Today humans and livestock are 98% of land vertebrate biomass.
 Human/livestock food production caused 80% of land vertebrate species extinctions.
 Petrochemical use grows 7X faster than human population.


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of what he says and disagree with a couple of things as well but I like this point he made. 

 

"There is an absolute, and that is the sound of real instruments playing in a real space, UNAMPLIFIED. 'The absolute sound', as it was coined long ago. This is being ignored by most so called experts, (hi-fi scribes for the most part) , who are effectively in the vanguard of a regression, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. A symphony orchestra in a concert hall must be the most apt reference to use. One KNOWS how the instruments are placed with relation to one another, the distances, sizes etc, and it is fully possible to properly familiarise oneself with this experience by actually going to concerts. In any event, “confirmation bias” is in action, all the time. We are all riddled with these biases, and vulnerable to psychological pitfalls. The sad fact of the matter, I have come to observe, is that most "audiophiles" cognitive biases lead them NOT to prefer realistic, credible and low distortion systems' presentations. ie. they actually prefer their "type of sound" to the real thing. Yes, they really do!"


"Let's pick a tune and get out of this mess"  - Earl Scruggs

"There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind ... " - Duke Ellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mansr said:

She certainly isn't paying for those stunts out of her weekly allowance. Her parents aren't that rich, even if they are minor celebrities in Sweden.

 

They probably don't have $10k speakers at home either... everybody has different priorities in life. But to you triggered types everything is a George Soros conspiracy...


SERVER CLOSET (in office directly below living room stereo):NUC 7i5BNH with Roon ROCK and OWC external 2.5" HD (ZeroZone 12V on the NUC)>Cisco 2690L-16PS switch>Sonore opticalModule (HDPLEX 100)>LIVING ROOM:>Sonore opticalModule (Sonore Power Supply w/ SR Black fuse))>Ghent Audio JSSG Cat 6a cable>Sonore microRendu 1.4> (Uptone ) Uptone USPCB>Naim DAC V1>Witchhat DIN>Naim NAP 110>Chord Rumor 2>Audio Physic Compact Classics.

OFFICE:Naim Unitiqute V1>NACA5>KEF Ls50's, Cisco 2960PD. BJC cabling for ethernet aside from the Ghent and Naim stock AC cables with Wattgate or HifiKing Plugs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shtf said:

Before some of you get too worked up over Greta's angry speech, why not spend some time reading up on Club of Rome?  If you do, you should discover that it was David Rockefeller (the grand daddy of US globalism) and his globalist buddies who in I think 1978 at Rockefeller's vacation home in Rome conceived of the idea of creating a global crisis that the entire world could rally around and contribute their resources to.  They called it Global Warming.  If you do your research there, you should easily discover why they did it (it ain't pretty) and why some of you are evidence that their strategy is working rather well.

 

Maybe then you can fast forward to 2009 and google ClimateGate and there you should discover that some of you have been duped for decades (by scientists no less) and there you'll also discover why overnight they ceased using the phrase Global Warming and now use the phrase Climate Change.

 

And if you think all this is joke, why not spend a few moments to research what some of the globalists' ultimate goals are.  Try googling Georgia Guidestones and there you'll see in 10 languages the globalists 10 tenets / suggestions for mother earth.

 

I know, I know.  Some of you are thinking I'm just another nutty conspiracy theorist but that's not true at all.  I'm just smarter than some of you.  :)

Greta.jpg

It was 1968 for the Club of Rome.  I've seen the Georgia Guidestones. The boat Greta used to travel the ocean was originally named Edmond de Rothschild.  It's current name translates as "the Wily one".   Some of us are being duped I'm sure of it. I assume you've read the Creature from Jekyll Island.  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, esldude said:

It was 1968 for the Club of Rome.  I've seen the Georgia Guidestones. The boat Greta used to travel the ocean was originally named Edmond de Rothschild.  It's current name translates as "the Wily one".   Some of us are being duped I'm sure of it. I assume you've read the Creature from Jekyll Island.  

 

There are whiffs of cabalism in the air...

 

Or is it just diesel micro-particles and carbon?


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jud said:

I see you've reposted the photo Dinesh D'Souza used on Twitter. He started his career having his student publication shut down by his college for anti-Semitic articles

At the time, he was given the nickname Distort D'Newsa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, esldude said:

https://climatefeedback.org/

 

Maybe someone can send Ms Thunberg this link.  It might calm her anxiety a bit sometimes.  This is a very fair and balanced site.  Not climate denying, nor fear mongering.  

 

Responses are by scientists with expertise in the field of climate science. 

 

Here is an example rebutting Stephen Hawkings claiming Trump could cause a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus. 

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

 

Or this one rebutting a Washington Examiner and Zero Hedge article about the failure of climate models.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/

 

Or this one where they confirm an NBC news story on climate change was accurate.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/nbc-news-story-accurately-covers-research-on-two-millennia-of-climate-history-jaclyn-jeffrey-wilensky/

 

 

 


Another excellent site for climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, semente said:

Someone posted this pretty postcard in another forum...

 

 50% of animals gone since 1970

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/losing-species-shocking-rates-why-conservation-failing

 99% of Rhinos gone since 1914.
 97% of Tigers gone since 1914.
 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
 90% of Sea Turtles gone since 1980.
 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.
 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
 80% of Antarctic Krill gone since 1975.
 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.
 60% of Forest Elephants gone since 1970.
 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.
 50% of Forest Bird Species will be gone in 50 years.
 40% of Giraffes gone since 2000.
 40% of ocean phytoplankton gone since 1950.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
 Ocean plankton declines of 1% per year means 50% gone in 70 years, declines of more than 1%/yr are likely.
 Ocean plastic is killing bacteria that make 10% of our oxygen.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/plastic-killing-bacteria-oxygen
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/plankton-under-threat-tiny-life-in-major-need-of-your-help/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plastic-eaten-by-plankton-may-impair-oceans-ability-to-trap-co2-1.3875434
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/02/microplastics-killing-fish-before-they-reach-reproductive-age-study-finds
 Ocean acidification doubles by 2050, explodes by 2100.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-study-shows-breaching-carbon-threshold-could-lead-to-mass-extinction/
 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
 70% of Marine Birds gone since 1950.
 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
 If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.
 If you are 30 years old, emissions went up 60% in your lifetime.
 After 30 years trying, solar and wind are < 3% of total world energy use.
https://lokisrevengeblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/energy-sources.jpg?w=696
 Solar panels produce 90% of power rating 15% of time
 Wind turbines produce 90% of power rating 25% of time.
 Claire Fyson said emissions must go down 50% in 10 yrs to avoid 1.5° C.
 The Insurance Journal said they must go down 50% in 10 yrs to avoid 3.0° C.
 Stefan Rahmstorf said emissions must go down 100% in 20 yrs to avoid 2.0° C.
 Hans Schellnhuber said 5 of 13 major hothouse tipping points start below 2.0° C.
 When these 5 points are triggered, they trigger the other 8.
 This results in runaway hothouse, which can't be stopped or reversed once started.
 But we are also headed for runaway mass extinction, which can't be stopped or reversed once started.
 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were 0.03% of land vertebrate biomass.
 Today humans and livestock are 98% of land vertebrate biomass.
 Human/livestock food production caused 80% of land vertebrate species extinctions.
 Petrochemical use grows 7X faster than human population.

 

How many statements like these become accepted as truth because they were re-posted by people without any thought or attempt at corroboration? Just for fun I decided to randomly pick one "fact" and made an effort to verify it.

 

If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

How many statements like these become accepted as truth because they were re-posted by people without any thought or attempt at corroboration? Just for fun I decided to randomly pick one "fact" and made an effort to verify it.

 

If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

 

Don't know whether it makes a difference to the result, but worth pointing out your source speaks only to the US and only to the energy sector, not transportation, agriculture, etc 


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> wi-fi to router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jud said:


Another excellent site for climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/

Yes good site. I've read it now and again for more than a decade.


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Don't know whether it makes a difference to the result, but worth pointing out your source speaks only to the US and only to the energy sector, not transportation, agriculture, etc 


That’s true. That’s also the problem with the list that Semente posted. Is it referring to the entire Earth or a specific area? All emissions, some emissions, coal only? And after all the parameters have been defined, are all those statements true or even some of them? It’s impossible to answer those questions but you can bet that list will show up elsewhere in support of someone’s position. And be just as meaningless there as it is here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

How many statements like these become accepted as truth because they were re-posted by people without any thought or attempt at corroboration? Just for fun I decided to randomly pick one "fact" and made an effort to verify it.

 

If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

 

Have you been to Beijing? Delhi?

 

There's a bit more world beyond the East and West coasts...


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...