Where's Global Warming when they need it? Mongolia has just seen its harshest winter in 50 years.

RonDean said:

Add: This is also why I have chosen to include my actual picture in my profile. I thought it might help a little. shrug...

Click to expand...

I'd include a picture of my face... but I don't want to scare people...

I appreciate you taking the time to put those thoughts into words Ron.

I regarding news, I tend to read no less than 4 articles about any subject that I'm curious about. It's time consuming, but I can get a better picture of the actual issue.

And as far as people hiding on the Internet and not acting like they would in person, I totally get it. Ironically, I'm exactly the same regardless of where I am, physically or virtually, or who I'm speaking to, whether it's sometime down on their luck or my mother. My best friend practically does when he hears me on the phone with my mother. Whom I respect and love. But that doesn't mean I won't say what I actually think.

Going to throw a couple of carrots into this pot in case someone finds them helpful ...
This https://ground.news/landingV2/welcome is a website that supposedly gives you a balanced selection of left/right/center approaches to the same story. I haven't played around with it yet (it's on my procrastination list ).
This https://blogs.ifla.org/lpa/files/2017/01/How-to-Spot-Fake-News.pdf gives some good basic advice on how to spot fake news. It's put out by librarians.
Codeacademy https://www.codecademy.com/ has some good free classes on AI. (A few months ago I tried out classes from them, Coursera, and LinkedIn Learning and I thought theirs were the clearest and least hype-y.) The classes did give me a slightly better idea of what AI can and can't do, but I can't say I feel like I'm on top of it. (Maybe I would if I'd invested more hours than I was willing to.)
AI scares me xitless. All I can think of to do right now is be our best, most careful information-consuming selves in pre-AI ways, and /try/ to stay up on the AI news, so that we're as strong as possible to deal with the AI stuff.
Here's a good article with some scary stuff about AI use in the runup to the election:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebu...er?r=ro4vf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Morgana said:

The classes did give me a slightly better idea of what AI can and can't do, but I can't say I feel like I'm on top of it. (Maybe I would if I'd invested more hours than I was willing to.)
AI scares me xitless.

Click to expand...

What it can do now vs what it will do in 10 years is huge... probably. Transistor tech has matched Moore's Law (2x every 1.5-2 years) up til now, but physical limitations (the size of molecules), and thermal density, will cause limits. I'm not an expert but based on what I've read, parallel processing and the software to efficiently use it, will still result in a lot of improvement going forward. And there are massive resource devoted to inventing and developing new tech that would remove these limitations... which might succeed.

It's possible that we will run into tech limitations before AI makes human talent obsolete. Another interesting hurdle so far is that general purpose robots suck at any task that requires dexterity and the ability to sense and judge their environment. This is probably solvable, but the tech seems to be quite tough. It's possible that humans will be squeezed into a niche where our inferior brains aren't used, but our ability to manipulate objects is still valuable!

I cringe when I see the term "take our jobs" because I don't think people are looking at this from the stand point of the oligarchs, and how the whole economy will change drastically if AI is advanced. Currently the oligarchs skim profits from total economic activity, which is why they are better off if our economy functions at a high level, and why the rich middle class was invented in the first place. If humans become unnecessary, they will produce what they want directly, rather than skim profits. Most economic activities (jobs) are regular humans providing goods and services to other humans. This will change to AI directly producing things that the oligarchs want. Very productive and obedient slaves with us out of the loop. Practically every job that humans do now will simply disappear.

... and then the only useful activity plebs can do for oligarchs is to grow organs for transplantations.

And oligarchs can employ also a few security officers controlling swarms of security robots protecting the oligarchs.

In Florida, they are working on a robot which looks at strawberry, decides if it is ripe, picks it and puts in to a basket.

...and to set things right, two Hobbits need to go through hell and toss a ring into the volcano...

wanderlust said:

And oligarchs can employ also a few security officers controlling swarms of security robots protecting the oligarchs.

Click to expand...

I was just looking at some of the survivalists compounds that billionaires are building. Zuck has a very nice one on Kauai, and it's right above a beach I used to go to. 1,700 acres I think they said, and a 5 story luxury underground bunker, as well as plenty of places topside.

I think Kauai is a pretty great place to have something like this. The population is small enough that people can live off the land (and ocean) quite easily with primitive equipment... so at least they don't *need* to kill each other to survive. And it's kinda removed from the other islands, and *really* far from any other large population. Still, if a cruise ship full of desperate and armed rape/kill/pillagers shows up, they will be in big trouble...

One commentator mentioned that these tech billionaires have no clue about how to keep their security force from taking over. While I believe that is true currently, it will not be in the future if robotic slaves are used. And even now, I believe that if they put some thought and effort into it, they could figure out how to do it with humans. It's hard to create a business empire if you don't know how to inspire loyalty. And study how the crime bosses do it. It's hard to imagine Zuck as a crime boss, though...

Any climate change deniers able to tell me how adding 2,400 gigatons of CO₂ by human activity since 1850*, has NO effect on the climate? Does it disappear?
If I live upstream from you, and use the stream you drink from to get rid of my waste, will that not affect the water?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

You have it wrong, it's https://comeheretome.com/2019/04/29/ni-uasal-aon-uasal-ach-sinne-bheith-iseal/
So if you discharge human waste into waterways you're a creep!
According to your link CO2 is up 50% in the last 10,200 years The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%).[1] This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.

Top 10 polluters​

Below, you’ll discover the top 10 most polluting countries, with China leading in emissions primarily driven by its extensive use of coal. Countries like the USA and EU are also significant contributors to pollution, attributed to their industrial revolution periods and heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

1. China, with more than 14 million tons of CO2 released.
2. United States, with 6 million tons of CO2
3. India, with 3.5 million tons of CO2
4. European Union 3.4 million tons of CO2
5. Russia, with 2 million tons of CO2
6. Japan, 1,170 million tons of CO2
7. Brazil, 1.140 million tons of CO2
8. Iran, 1.130 million tons of CO2
9. Indonesia, 1.106 million tons of CO2
10. Mexico , 792 million tons of CO2

Gr8ful said:

Below, you’ll discover the top 10 most polluting countries, with China leading in emissions primarily driven by its extensive use of coal.

Click to expand...

Comparisons are kinda tough, because there are many important factors to consider. For instance, more of these (off the top of my head) will naturally result in more energy use in a country:

1)Population
2)Wealth/prosperity
3)Industrial production
4)Extreme temperatures
5)Low cost of fossil fuels

At the present time the US is 15th in the world for CO2 production per capita. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ Most of the worst offenders are big oil exporters who are pretty wealthy and have cheap oil.

When it comes to % renewable electric production, I was surprised to learn how many countries produce a high % of their energy from hydro. At any rate that's the top choice, but you need to have the resource available, and it simply doesn't work everywhere. The world average for renewable electric production is 28.1%, and the US is at 20.3%, 126th out of 224 countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

We could produce more solar and wind energy, and both of these are increasing, but they have a serious detriment of being highly variable. I think the adoption of electric vehicles will increase the viability of wind/solar by using EV batteries as a buffer... but a huge increase in wind/solar will still not be viable. We will also need nuclear plants to reduce our CO2 to a low level, and this will take time (big investment).

But china & India are building coal fired power plants at a pace never seen before using U.S. coal hauled to the coast using diesel trucks put on the worst polluters of all, giant ships then hauled 1/2 way round the world trucked to the sights of the coal fired power plants. How does that make any sense?

Gr8ful said:

How does that make any sense?

Click to expand...

It makes sense to use the cheapest sources of energy. And it makes sense to not use coal because of the pollution from its power plants. China and India have different attitudes regarding pollution.

If we don't use our cheapest energy sources, then we pay for it economically, and the cost of energy is a big factor in our living standards. I think if the average person who is decrying that we aren't moving fast enough to cut CO2 knew how much it would cost them, they'd have a bit different attitude.

PV and wind are now as cheap as anything, but would be expensive if we relied on them enough to require storage. And electric cars will eventually dominate, but that is huge transition that will take decades.

I agree it will take decades but why ship our coal halfway around the world to pollute the air we all breathe? This will only work if the countries of the world work together & they're not!

I don't think coal pollution makes it here in any significant amounts, but if you have info on that I'd appreciate it. I also don't know if coal produces more greenhouse gases than NG for instance.

Developing countries are understandably reluctant to invest and switch to cleaner sources, because they are least able to afford it. Or do you believe we should ban coal exports?

This shows where we export the coal to.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=66&t=2

rruff said:

I don't think coal pollution makes it here in any significant amounts, but if you have info on that I'd appreciate it. I also don't know if coal produces more greenhouse gases than NG for instance.

Developing countries are understandably reluctant to invest and switch to cleaner sources, because they are least able to afford it. Or do you believe we should ban coal exports?

Click to expand...

Yes I do think we should ban coal exports.
In absolute terms, coal demand in 2023 is estimated to have increased most strongly in China (up 220 Mt, or 4.9%), followed by India (up 98 Mt, or 8%) and Indonesia (up 23 Mt, or 11%).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh

rruff said:

I don't think coal pollution makes it here in any significant amounts, but if you have info on that I'd appreciate it. I also don't know if coal produces more greenhouse gases than NG for instance.

Developing countries are understandably reluctant to invest and switch to cleaner sources, because they are least able to afford it. Or do you believe we should ban coal exports?

Click to expand...

It does. The alpine lakes in the western US are loaded with mercury from coal fired plants from the west side of the pacific. So much so the quanities of fish out of most lakes are to be consumed in only small amounts per month.
Unless of coarse you dont care about your neurons

Not excepting science based upon your own belief or anecdotal evidence is a game that essentially makes science meaningless.
Debate is great when its backed by science as a whole.
Not cherry picked.
Not based upon belief.

I agree that it is a problem if USA hauls stuff to China and India to get it processed using the electricity from coal, and then hauls products back to USA.

Here, "you" is generic person, not anyone in particular.

I read about interesting mental game: decide what the rules between countries are, then you are randomly born in any country, how would you consider the game "fair".

So, if you are born in China or India, looking how Europe and USA got rich burning fossil fuel, would it be fair to also burn as much fossil fuel your country can access, to get as rich?

So solution is not to restrict growth of countries who came to the fossil table later, but to develop energy which is carbon neutral (or, as i said with butanol grown by bacteria in vats from solar energy, CO2 and water, carbon negative) and CHEAPER than the fossil fuels.

And before you tell me that you don't want to eat bugs, let me tell you that you don't have too. If we recycle all the food we throw away to landfills (where it rots into methane, greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2), we can feed it to chickens, and to bugs, which chickens would happily eat, and we can eat the chickens. Or be vegetarian, if you prefer.

Now, tell me what I got wrong.

Raven+Squid said:

It does. The alpine lakes in the western US are loaded with mercury from coal fired plants from the west side of the pacific. So much so the quanities of fish out of most lakes are to be consumed in only small amounts per month.
Unless of coarse you dont care about your neurons

Click to expand...

I'm not having any success searching for that. This site claims that mercury from a plant in Indiana dropped to near background levels after 31 miles. https://theconversation.com/how-poi...red-power-plants-into-the-fish-you-eat-176434

We have mercury in lakes no doubt, but we also have many coal plants still operating in the US.

This article addresses mercury in western North America. Several sources are mentioned, but China isn't... or any non-local source. https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-...ad-mercury-contamination-across-western-north