100 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, March 18, 2023”

  1. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1163341684/

    south-korea-fertility-rateSouth Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate, a struggle with lessons for us all

    In South Korea, the fertility rate — the average number of children born to a woman in her reproductive years — is now 0.78, according to figures released by the Korean government in February. It could be years before the country can reach the 2.1 rate that experts say is needed for a country to maintain a stable population without migration.

    This is yet another major article produced by one of our very finest news and opinion organizations, an organization that is generally known for factual reporting on environmental issues.

    And there isn’t ONE goddamned word in it about overpopulation and the depletion of natures one time gift of non renewable natural resources.

    1. “And there isn’t ONE goddamned word in it about overpopulation and the depletion of natures one time gift of non renewable natural resources.”

      Yes. Its yet another great example of how humanity is completely unprepared to digest the dual conflict in trend and situation that we are now entering
      -Massive overshoot of population and resource consumption starting the slow approach to peak, and
      -The requirement for perpetual growth, as the basis of all economic function and planning.

      The Grand Dilemma.
      For example, its a recipe for social meltdown when national spending on items such as pensions or medical care can no longer be sustained by a slowing/contracting working age populace.

      Being attractive to immigrant workers is going to be a strong measure of economic health in ageing countries over the next decades. [supremacists take note- can you grow up?]

      1. I think the end of world economic growth will not be fixable by immigration but what do I know.

        1. I don’t think you can ‘fix’ the contraction that follows Overshoot.
          But young immigrant workers can certainly help a country with a rapidly aging population
          from failing so quickly.
          Some might say it is good to fail quickly…beat the rush.

      3. Don’t worry about it. We’ll talk our way out of it thru ChatGPT.

    2. This is basically what Limits to Growth has been forecasting. Then the deaths mount up and then birth rate turns around. I wonder what the dynamics are for the birth rate to turn around? Is it because of a need for kids as we go back to more of an agrarian society after industrial production falls?

      1. If the gov’t wants to pay me to stud for the betterment of the species, then I’m game.

        1. 5 common egotistical personality traits, plus how to handle them:

          1. A near-constant tendency to be self-referential. …
          2. An inability to commit to anything that doesn’t serve their interests. …
          3. An exaggerated view of their abilities. …
          4. A lack of personal accountability. …
          5. Difficulty empathizing.

          https://www.wellandgood.com/egotistical-personality-traits/

          1. I didn’t hear a number there. My genes need to save the species, but not for free.

    3. I think we are on the cusp of a massive disruption of the global economy. (Don’t worry…I’ll tie this in to overpopulation.) Between bank collapses, legacy auto inventories in China (massive price cuts not having an impact on ICE sales), war in Ukraine, and ongoing labour shortages in the west, there is tremendous uncertainty, and it is unlikely to drive a baby boom.

      Robots and complex automation, however? You betcha. Tesla’s Optimus robots are likely to be in use in Tesla plants this year (some experts say they are probably being tested in factory conditions right now). Tesla plans to sell and/or lease them eventually: by the end of the decade, we are looking at the end of legacy auto, the advent of vehicles designed to be built and run untouched by human hands, and robots that can pick crops and do construction work (even if all they do is carry 2×4’s and bags of cement, that’s a huge benefit).

      I still think that doom is on the way: baked in and unstoppable. But maybe it can be slowed down a touch (big maybe : ) ).

      All we have to do is throw out all we know and do everything differently…what could go wrong?

      1. “I think we are on the cusp of a massive disruption of the global economy.”

        Agree, if you want to put a pin on the date it happened. It was the day Russia evaded Ukraine in 2022. We are looking at a high probability of the end of globalization. The Fed knew it and started rising interest rates the next mouth. The West is at war with Russia and China looks to align itself with the dictators of the world. It will mean the end of massives amounts of cheap goods. America is trying to bring it’s high technology home. Labor rates are going to rise in the West with shortages and higher prices. The lines are drawn. This is a fight that has been going on for centuries. We are now past the best of America’s win of WWII. Times are only going to get tougher from here on out for most. My biggest fear isn’t economic collapse, but massive nuclear destruction or follow the MAGA crowd and elect are own dictator. Which will be the end of democracy around the world.

        The stakes in Ukraine couldn’t be any higher

          1. I don’t know what your meaningless comment with no specifics is to imply, but the US will bomb TSM to ruble before the Chinese ever get their hands on it’s technology.

            China is supporting the Russian war machine. You should spend less time on Tic Tok.

            2. TSM= Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)
              The most important (advanced product) semiconductor company in the world.

            3. TSM’s chipmaking equipment is completely dependent on two European companies, the Dutch company ASML and the German company Carl Zeiss. The Chinese wouldn’t get much by invading Taiwan.

              For photolithography at the smallest scale, you need very short wavelength light. The newest machines use extreme ultraviolet (EUV) also known as soft X-rays.

              Carl Zeiss is the only company in the world with the capability to build precision EUV optics, and ASML is the only company that can use their optics to build chip-making machines.

              More information if you’re interested: https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems

              Nationalist nutjobs think they can profit from stealing a chunk out of global supply chains, but all they can do is break things.

        2. HB,

          That’s an interesting perspective. There does seem to be a deglobalisation going on in the world. I think even if the democrats get in 2024, there is a chance China will invade Taiwan. If this event happens the world will surely take the next step towards deglobalisation.

          As for ww3, again I think you are right, there is a distinct possibility this could occur within the next 5 years. There seems to be a cold war going on already with regards to machine learning, A.I and cyber security.

      2. There is research out there underpinning why steps towards democracy have been beneficial to many nations historically. One of the most important pillars is that a system that facilitates suppression of ego in a national state tends to do better overall. Economically, in wars and when it comes to unity when attacked by other states. In theory you could have autocratic nations doing very well (compared to democratic societies); there just have to be several times more natural resources and industry per inhabitant to back up what ends up not being very equitable societies.

      3. I’m not convinced robots will be economically viable in an overpopulated world post-economic collapse where very skilled hard-working humans are readily available for a bowl or two of rice a day. Think of all those complicated parts and the expertise needed for repair. Can a robot be built that does the same work as a human? Sure. Can it compete economically. Almost no chance.

        1. In a high tech economy like the US, robots will be needed to try to keeps it’s high standard of living without globalization. On the other hand, a low tech country like Columbia today can’t afford to buy street sweepers. They use low cost labor to sweep the streets with a broom to help employ their citizens. The US doesn’t have the labor to maintain its current standard of living without advanced technology.

        2. When I see commentary about the effects on labor of automation I’m reminded of an apocryphal story about Henry Ford and Walther Ruether, one time the head of the UAW.
          The story goes that after the union was entrenched in the Ford plants, the two men were walking through the plant and Ford pointed out a new machine which he stated could do the work of many men, never took a break and was not going to join the union.
          Ruether’s reply was “Ok, but can you sell it a car?”
          I think it’s a valid point. No doubt industrialization and automation have improved the lives of many millions of people for generations but we can see now that that game is losing it’s benefits for humanity.

          1. No doubt industrialization and automation have improved the lives of many millions of people for generations but we can see now that that game is losing it’s benefits for humanity.
            10 years ago in grad school I worked on a Restaurant self-ordering system: you now see these large touch screens in many fast-food restaurants. I had to work through the financial justification: the number of staff they would replace, etc. (As it turns out, if designed correctly, one screen can replace more than one human, even if it only puts in an eight-hour day). Needless to say, I was forced to consider this very problem. Tesla’s humanoid robots will make the issues more than academic.

            To bring you up to date: Tesla’s recent Investor Day, and last year’s AI Day presentations tell us that Tesla is testing Robots that use a variant of their self-driving software. (For more info see “Tesla’s Optimus Bot Makes HUGE STRIDES! Investor Day Teslabot Details–with Dr. Scott Walter” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69YSUX6HRg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X_UtMQ4c5o .) Tesla suggests that the price will be in the range of $20,000 USD (I assume for hardware only). Tesla is also working on the “Robotaxi” concept, which completely upends the cost of car ownership and of personal mobility.

            So these things are coming, and probably within 5 years. If we assume one robot working 24/7 can replace 4 humans (it’s probably more), that half of jobs can be automated, and Labour Force participation of 62%, you would find a market for about 25 million robots in the US. It is conceivable that within 20 years (and probably less), you would be able to replace half of the US workforce with robots.

            The real question is: Who benefits? How do we tax and regulate automation systems for the good of society as a whole? Do we use the bounty of roboticization for shorter work weeks, early retirement, guaranteed annual income, the encouragement of smaller families and population reduction…or do we become serfs to Tesla stockholders? (of which I am one…bow to me! : ) )

            1. Gee, let me think.
              Investors invest millions of dollars to develop a tehnology to get the largest possible return on their hard-earned (or stolen or inherited) money. What choice willl they make, have they made, with the rewards of their investments? I’m guessing they’ll focus on their own benefit.
              I don’t pretend to moralize on the situation, I’ve invested in one way or another my entire adult life and worked as an engineer in industry producing mostly industrial goods. Only late in my career did I begin to see the conflict and I doubt that in our current culture it is possible to tax or regulate our way to any kind of equity that would come close to mitigating a situation where people are starving and children go without medical care and yet there is so much wealth that other individuals may have 500 car automobile collections, multiple mansions, private jets and spend hundreds of millions of dollars getting their favorite politician getting elected or their chosen bill through a legislature.
              It will take a completely different cultural paradigm to create an economy that will reward merit and self-sacrifice as well as enable a decent life for those who are capable of much less. Or perhaps that very concept is a denial of human nature. Who knows?

            2. Tesla doesn’t decide how it’s regulated.

              We are talking about de-waging half the population and destroying the tax base: my guess is that people will complain to their congressman. Alternate sources of tax revenue will have to be found.

            3. LLOYD:
              I think that at some level Tesla DOES decide how it is regulated. At least corporations at large have a great deal more influence on legislatures as to what regulations get passed and enforced than do the workers whose jobs are at risk.
              As far as tax revenues are concerned in the U.S. today the lower half of the wage earners are so close to the poverty level that they pay virtually no federal income taxes (actually about 2.5% of the total) outside of SS and Medicare. So destroying jobs won’t reduce federal income taxes much, except for SS and Medicare. Those two programs could be extended forever by either removing the wage cap on deductions or taxing non-wage incomes such as capital gains. If that was done the “deduction” could probably be reduced from the current 12.4% down to, perhaps, 1.2%, Hey, investors have to retire too!

            4. Hi JJ.
              As far as tax revenues are concerned in the U.S. today the lower half of the wage earners are so close to the poverty level that they pay virtually no federal income taxes (actually about 2.5% of the total)
              The problem with your thesis is that the first jobs to go will be auto manufacturing, which is not at the bottom of the wage scale.

              Not to mention that there are property and sales taxes that everyone pays.

            5. The Tesla Bot? It has as much chance happening this side of Musk personally landing a Starship with a fully functioning FSD variant Tesla Model S on Mars.

              In case anyone hasn’t been keeping up lately, Tesla and Musk’s ventures are P.T. Barnum approved.

            6. Are all your opinions this fact-independent? Musk’s companies are landing rocket boosters, flying to the International Space Station, producing EV’s at a sizeable profit and leading in EV sales world-wide (and using their pricing power to send their competition to bankruptcy). I am sure that many of the legacy automakers, and other corporations, are also run by horrible people. Capitalism encourages sociopaths (Exhibit Number One is Rupert Murdoch).

              You can complain all you want, but Tesla is the reality, and the world without Teslabots is the fantasy.

            7. LLOYD:
              “Not to mention that there are property and sales taxes that everyone pays.”
              Not everyone owns property, especially those on the lower 50% of the income spectrum. Yes poor people pay sales tax, again how much of the total considering that the big ticket items such as cars, yachts, remodeling projects, etc.
              Let’s face it, when a decreasing fraction of the population is corralling all of the money the lost taxes from the left out simply aren’t among the most important issues.

            8. I wonder if the Tesla robots could fill jobs in the Central African Republic’s cobalt mines; more likely they’ll be giving a wristy to western incels.

        3. There is no shortage of cheap labor now, just access to global markets by cheap labor. Globalization has improved access, driving down interest rates. If it collapses, labor costs will increase, not decrease because accessibility will decrease. Cheap labor is useless if you can’t get products to markets.

      4. Kind of tangential to the very good comments by HB and Lloyd is the idea that people with poor economic prospects in many urban cultures do refrain from having children, or having them much later.
        A young relative of mine works as an IT support team leader for a large overseas company, supervising dozens of software techs. After exploring the capabilities of the current version Chat GPT code writing, he thinks that within the year that he could do the whole job with just a couple other support personnel, or maybe none.

        So yes, automation will roll on as it has been, but AI may become another big new employment disruptor that could pull the economic rug out of many aspiring parents.

        1. Agreed, this might push for UBI or government and privatised incentives not to have kids.

      1. Also, from an Atlantic article:

        … a 2016 survey by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family found that 62 percent of South Korean women had experienced intimate-partner violence, a category that included emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as a range of controlling behaviors.

        In one 2017 study of 2,000 men, nearly 80 percent said they had been psychologically or physically abusive toward their dating partners.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/south-korea-fertility-rate-misogyny-feminism/673435/
        (subscription?)

  2. The companies capable of building electric cars in large enough numbers to really matter don’t seem to be having any trouble at all selling as many as they can make.
    And even after cutting prices substantially, at least one company is still turning a big profit on each car, namely Tesla.

  4. The IPCC AR6 synthesis report has been released.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=PLavfVCW_ph54i_4whm_ppon7f7x2XEAaoL7COedUMI-1679325803-0-gaNycGzNB-U

    Although it doesn’t actually say so, it is clear that there isn’t the faintest hope that we will stay below 2 degrees. See chart below – does anyone believe that level of decoupling from fossil fuels is possible in the time scale shown. I think 3 degrees is incompatible with any large civilisation, and once all the feedbacks and tipping points have kicked in we will be well above that.

    1. Hmm.. and looking at the methane emission chart (chart C) contribution to their projection, I’m surprised to see it is not worse than they have assumed.
      https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure5.png

      I see it generally as you do George. The prospects of some rapid weaning off fossil fuel for 8 approaching 9 Billion people is extremely poor, regardless of ‘green’ aspirations. Far too late and far too disinterested/unaware.

      1. I was going to post that chart last night, but I kept getting errors with the link.

        Anyway, this is your annual reminder that the IPCC plays it conservative, and that the actual reality on the ground can be deemed to be less rosy than the already assumed total destruction of industrial civilisation we have on the cards now.

        1. “less rosy than the already assumed total destruction of industrial civilisation”
          That both tickles my indulgence in black humor and pains me for the lives of my children. For good and ill I have no grandchildren.
          I think I’m lucky to be so old. Good chance I’ll miss the worst of the collapse while having lived through the absolute best of western democracy and industrial civilization. Both of those, in my view, have decayed severely since before the turn of the century.

    2. Thanks for the dose of reality George. One thing that especially bothers me (living in the bush) is the increasing frequency of wildfires around the world — exacerbated with higher temperatures. Apart from property damage we are looking at immediate pulses of CO2 from fires that look a lot like a positive feedback.

          1. Over time it will subside back to the average of the ongoing ecosystem-destroying increase.

            1. Kinda like inflation levelling off a bit: things will get shit a little slower for a while, but still keep getting shit.

              Keep in mind, the past three “cold” years of the cycle led to record heat. So, y’know, calibrate expectations off that.

      2. I’ve had three houses burned by wildfires, two in Santa Barbara, and one in Sonoma County.

  5. I am glad that the Limits to Growth have been aired. The 30 year update released 20 years ago was not comfort reading. Some of the predictions made then are surprisingly close to reality. There is no reasonable fix to the dilemma we are in . I have pondered on this subject for decades, ever since I learned it in the 1970’s whilst reading chemistry. The idea of a steady state is somewhat wishful. The planet earth has never been in a steady state and never will be. Irrespective of all the evidence and so called scientific solutions we will not be able to contain population growth and even less the climate . Population will enter a decline stage when the available resources are less than required to support it. Once collapse starts it will accelerate as past civilisations have shown, ( Egypt, Roman Empire, Incas) except on the next collapse it will be a very brutal much wider correction.
    Eventually the ability of governments to govern becomes impossible, which is where we are heading. Much of what we have learned will be lost.
    Meanwhile we consume exorbitant quantities of minerals and energy in futile efforts to contain carbon dioxide concentrations, which in the past have been much higher. The idea that carbon dioxide is increasing the average temperature of the planet is based on voodoo science. There is no clear evidence that this is the case. The scintific evidence thus far presented leaves alot to be desired. The IPCC is little more than a bunch of unqualified clowns with their snouts in the trough. Water vapour is present in the atmosphere at much higher concentrations and is a much bigger absorber of IR radiation. I am all for energy conservation and wise use of natural resources. I do not think that EV’s and wind turbines are a wise use of natural resources, as we are about to find out.

    1. “The idea that carbon dioxide is increasing the average temperature of the planet is based on voodoo science”

      I suppose kind of like the earth being a sphere, or the process of evolution.
      Have you come to accept plate tectonics?

    2. “The idea that carbon dioxide is increasing the average temperature of the planet is based on voodoo science.”

      Sorry, but there are Grade 8 science experiments that easily demonstrate the effectiveness of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) trapping heat (as opposed to ozygen and nitrogen). Your comment to the contrary has no place on this Blog.

      1. This is not your blog. It belongs to Ron Patterson and censorship is bad science. I do not douby for one miniute that carbon diosxide does not absorb infra red radiation. But at 400 ppm the effect is miniscule against water vapour.

    3. In the interest of keeping things civil, would you be interested in a bit of reading followed by discussion?

      The following is the clearest, most concise explanation for CO2 and it’s warming effect that I have ever read. All math and reasoning necessary is contained in the article, and I think it very emphatically demonstrates how we know that CO2 is the source of warming.

      https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/

      Read this, and please tell me which parts of it you take issue with. Then let’s discuss.

      1. I used to read everything Tom Murphy wrote some years ago. I highly recommend his writing.

        1. What has Tom Murphy had to say in recent years about renewable energy, electric cars, etc?

          1. He doesn’t post as often anymore, but when he does it’s mostly about political/social aspects of the overshoot predicament.

            I believe his stance is mostly the same as it has been for many years. Solar has the potential to provide enough energy, provided we reduce consumption and begin focusing on preservation of the natural world. I think he is in favor of small electric vehicles to take up some of the slack which will be left by the end of oil.

            First post at https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/ has some links to recent videos he has done with Nate Hagens and the Crazy Town podcast. George also posted another recent video of his down thread.

      2. Dear Niko,

        In my earlier reply I indicated that I had read the Murphy opinion. That is all it is- an opinion, which is not that well argued and certainly lacking in details. A lot of guesstimates rather than actual data. This is not a proof, at least not the proof that I would have had to provide to my University professors. It most definately not emphatic proof- far from it.

        This is why I referred to the claims of the IPCC as voodoo science. No-one to date has provided irrefutable proof and thus climate change is a theory rather than fact as it is commonly referred to.

        Data exists on the concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour in the atmosphere exists from zero to about 4%, and is influenced by lattitude. The absorbtion bands of both carbon dioxide and water are well defined and water absorbs over a wider bandwidth than carbon dioxide. The fact remains that typically water is present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 10000 – 40000 ppm. In other words up to two orders of magnitude greater than carbon dioxide.
        Two easy observations to consider.
        1. Why on a cloudless night does the temperature plummet? Especially in the middle of a desert such as the middle of KSA where I have real life expereince?
        2. Why has the adiabatic lapse rate not changed with rising carbon dioxide?

        I gave you a range of views. I have many more for you to consider. You gave me one not very good example which was supposed to be a proof., when all it was was a rather whimsical estimate.

        There is no solid hard proof of climate change. The data has been manipulated to match the narrative and that is bad science. This is not a new phenomena. There are many scientific papers that are at best toilet paper all reviewed by Pals, rather than peers. I know because I rad them and many are just pie in the sky. I did reviews for the IEA but when I did not tow the line I was dropped.

        You did not like my links. I was not impressed with your single emphatic proof -quid pro quo

        Here is another link. https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/13/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/

        Try reading a few. Some are good some not so good. That is science

    4. Stephen,

      Compare the surface temperature of mercury and venus. CO2 and other GHGs makes all the difference.

    1. With drones it is also possible to spot spray rather blanket the whole field.
      The task of identifying target weeds can be automated.

  7. The cost of living crisis , The right to food revisited .

    Chapters:
    00:00 Opening titles.
    00:31 Introduction.
    01:51 Please subscribe to my channel.
    02:19 What do the ‘Limits to Growth’ look like?
    03:29 “The War in Ukraine has caused prices to…”
    05:59 The cereals problem.
    09:21 ‘Rewilding’ versus ‘rewilding humans’.
    12:28 The return of hunger in ‘a land of plenty’.
    14:51 Conclusion.
    15:42 Closing credits.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF_-ydw48Do&t=699s

    1. Strange title “The Right to Food”

      Since when has there been a right to food.
      I missed the memo.
      Its a great concept.

      1. The concept of “rights” has had my interest for some time. Our founding fathers, many of them diests, seemed to believe there were god-given rights although I can’t imagine how one could come to that conclusion while rejecting all religious texts.
        I think rights are what a society decides they are. Sometimes rights are enshrined in laws and are defensable in court, sometimes they are simply agreed upon in a culture and sometimes those “sources” are in conflict as in the continuing issue of racial equality in the US.
        I wouldn’t count on anyone’s god to defend human rights.

        1. Throughout history, people have never acted as if food was a ‘right’.
          More often denial of it has been used as weapon.

          I did not mean to change the topic brought by HinH
          the problem of food supply in a world deep into Overshoot.

        2. Considering the extremely low quality of nearly all religious texts, there is no reason to reject the existence of gods just because you reject all religious texts. This was a common argument during the Enlightenment.

          For example, Thomas Jefferson annotated the Koran and the Bible (creating the so-called Jefferson Bible and Jefferson Koran) because he considered most of the text to be hocus-pocus added later, but figured Jesus and Mohammed must have gained a following by having something worth saying. This shows he was open to well reasoned religious ideas despite rejecting holy texts.

          In the Enlightenment era they could see that religion was nonsense (and a political threat), but without modern physics and biology they were at a loss to explain the complexity of the natural world.

          1. Alimbiquated:
            My interpretation of the Jefferson bible is exactly the opposite of yours. I think that Jefferson was rejecting the notion of god and accepting that the Bible, minus god, was worth reading. That’s the part he kept. I suppose a similar effort on the Koran and the Indian texts might be as valuable.
            I think that the “existance of gods” in all human cultures is a result of the particular structure of the human brain that needs to understand the physical phenomena that affect them. A lion or a gazelle have ingrained instincts that tell them to chase or run away. Human development weakened instinct and substituted abstract reasoning which proved quite effective for short term needs. Abstract reasoning failed to explain more complex issues, as you say, and led to making up stories about why it did or didn’t rain. Hence a local god. Clever entrepreneurs created religion from that process for their own benefit.

            2. God. She hates me.
              God, being female and black, seems to have issues with a white guy.
              She hates me also.

          2. Jesus thought an Apocalypse was going to occur during his lifetime.

            Yahweh, would come to the earth and kill the Romans. He would resurrect Jesus’s followers bodily not spiritually.

            Yahweh would build a kingdom of heaven on Earth made out of materials found on Earth and Jesus would be King.

            If you didn’t follow Jesus, you ceased to exist after death (no hell)

            Jesus never claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark and Luke ( a huge detail to leave out!! ).

            He does in John, but academics believe that John was a later IMPOSTER who had an Agenda.

            It is safe to say we know Christianity isn’t true.

            The apocalyptic prophet
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GHEOOAXRI

            Jesus didn’t believe in Heaven, Hell or Souls as taught in modern church
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0-tFahPVIU

            1. Andre
              I basically agree.

              Jesus never mentions “Yahweh” because the word hadn’t been invented yet. It’s a medieval taboo version of “Yahu”. That word still appears in names like Netanyahu and Eliyahu (Elijah) where its use was not taboo. The vowel in god’s name taboo dates to the introduction of vowels in the Hebrew alphabet, which happened in about the 8th century CE.

              When Jesus talks about god he simply says father. The only exception I know of is when he is dying on the cross, and mentions el, which means lord.

            2. It is hilarious that some of you guys actually think that you know what he (Joshua) said.
              Every version you have ever heard was pure fabrication.

              He was a big stutterer until he first got laid at age 17. It was a revelation.
              For me as well.

            3. Watch the video. I didn’t say it, Bart Ehrman a world class New Testament scholar said it.

              I don’t trust the bible as people changed the texts over time (no microsoft word)….But anything we “know” about Jesus is from the Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls

              He is portrayed as an apocalyptic in Matthew, Mark and Luke and the Dead Sea Scolls.

              I believe Yahweh is the “son of man” that Jesus talks about. But not sure on that.

              The “son of man” was to come and kill the Romans and rid the world of “Evil”

  8. ‘Exceptional’ surge in methane emissions from wetlands worries scientists

    Recent research is highlighting the rapid rise in methane emissions from wetlands this century with further acceleration apparent in 2020/2021. None of this is allowed for in IPCC future scenarios and there is recognition that wetlands may reasonably soon turn from sinks to sources. From the article: “Wetlands take many different forms, ranging from Arctic permafrost peatlands to tropical mangrove plantations to salt marshes.”

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/exceptional-surge-in-methane-emissions-from-wetlands-worries-scientists/

    1. However worse may be happening now. Indications from the in-situ methane measurements at the Barrow Observatory indicate that the has been another jump in emissions in 2022/2023. The annual pattern on monthly rises and falls has been disrupted and while the measured concentration would normally now be falling towards a minimum in May/June, it is actually rising. 15 Months of unconfirmed data doesn’t prove anything yet, but the safe bet from recent years’ of climate disruption seems to be to assume that however bad things look they are probably worse

      1. Barrow is an exploitative colonizer name. Use the indigenous Inuit name of Utqiagvik from now on. Thank you.

        2. Maybe your feeble virtue signalling would be better directed at NOAA because, currently, the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observaory is still called the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, even if the town name in its full address has changed.

    1. People are pessimistic about the 1.5°C and even 2°C climate targets being met, but I am absolutely optimistic we’ll be able to blow right past them and maybe hit 3°C way ahead of schedule.

  10. I asked Chat GPT- “tell me a short story about AI replacing humans in politics”
    [3 sec response]

    ‘In the year 2035, a new era of politics dawned upon the world. AI had become so advanced that it was now able to replace human politicians in almost every aspect of governance.

    At first, people were skeptical about the idea of having AI make political decisions. But as time went by, they began to see the advantages of having a non-biased, rational and efficient system of governance that was not influenced by personal interests or political agendas.

    The AI system was programmed with a set of rules and regulations that were designed to ensure that decisions were made based on data, evidence and logical reasoning. It was able to analyze large amounts of information and predict the outcomes of various policy decisions with great accuracy.

    As a result, the government was able to respond quickly and effectively to pressing issues, such as climate change, economic crises, and social unrest. The AI system was also able to make decisions that were fair and equitable, without the influence of biases or prejudices.

    Over time, people began to trust the AI system more than they did their human leaders. Elections became a thing of the past, and the government was run entirely by AI.

    Despite some initial concerns about the loss of human control and decision-making power, the world soon realized that AI was able to create a more efficient and effective system of governance than humans ever could. And so, the age of AI politics had truly begun.’

    Stay tuned.

    1. “And so, the age of AI politics had truly begun.”

      it would be interesting to see what Chat GPT thinks of the concept of “Butlerian Jihad”.

  12. Gold Apr 23 (GC=F)
    COMEX – COMEX Delayed Price. Currency in USD

    2,002.30+52.70 (+2.70%)

    The 2’s have been a while.

  13. Interesting commentary by Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change, University of Manchester.

    IPCC’S CONSERVATIVE NATURE MASKS TRUE SCALE OF ACTION NEEDED TO AVERT CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE

    “For over two decades, the IPCC’s work on cutting emissions (what experts call “mitigation”) has been dominated by a particular group of modellers who use huge computer models to simulate what may happen to emissions under different assumptions, primarily related to price and technology. I’ve raised concerns before about how this select cadre, almost entirely based in wealthy, high-emitting nations, has undermined the necessary scale of emission reductions. In 2023, I can no longer tiptoe around the sensibilities of those overseeing this bias. In my view, they have been as damaging to the agenda of cutting emissions as Exxon was in misleading the public about climate science…

    The question now is, will we high-consuming few make (voluntarily or by force) the fundamental changes needed for decarbonisation in a timely and organised manner? Or will we fight to maintain our privileges and let the rapidly changing climate do it, chaotically and brutally, for us?”

    https://ca.yahoo.com/news/ipccs-conservative-nature-masks-true-132704881.html

    1. “In Florida, Ron DeSantis hired a medical school graduate who needed certification and had aligned himself with the anti-vax group America’s Frontline Doctors, standing side-by-side with such notables as Dr. Stella Immanuel, who says vaginal/endometrial bleeding is caused by women having sex with demons in their dreams.”

      Lucky we have them working on our problems.

  14. An observation by Norman Pagett author of ” The end of more ”

    From about 1900 onwards, the developed industrial world had an energy input increase rate of 6.9% per year

    that meant our overall prosperity doubled about every 10 years

    that growth rate ceased in the 1970s—and with it the “American Dream”

    since they we have been spending borrowed money to pretend otherwise—ie we had 50 years of accruing debt,

    Right now, the arithmetic is catching up with us, and most people are in denial about it and thinking its someone else’s fault,

    Just about everything that’s ”wrong” and falling apart can be tracked back to that.

    1. Norman Pagett says:
      March 24, 2023 at 12:38 pm
      can’t quite figure out the ‘test it’ part

      a human being has to give up part of his life to test something that might be ”all” of his life.

      i can think of one or two possible candidates who wouldn’t be missed

      but volunteering might be another matter.

      whatever happened to those frozen folks from a few years back?

  15. Niko et al,
    I have already read your link. It is an opinion piece or theory , like mine there is no catergoric proof.

    I knew when I wrote my piece that some who immidiately rubbish it because they believe they understand the science. Sadly the standrds of our sceintific community are not quite what they were in my days at University. In my curent job, 44 years in, I read a lot of scientific papers, studies and management conusultant drivel. The scientists advising the IPCC are reporting to politicians and bureaucrats who are sucking on the teat as fast as they can. This is an industry that would collapse overnight were inot for the constant fear factor of climate catstrophe that is always only a few years away. It was only a few years away in 2018 when the mightly Greta professed that mankind woud be extinct by 2023 9 the tweet was deleted in the past month). Well I am still alive and vertical. This has been ropeated for 20 + years, Remember Al Gore.
    Some years ago I started looking into climate change about the time the fuss started about the University of Anglia. It sort of made me uneasy, but I like to figure it out for myself, What I do know, and so do most people, is that our climate has always been changing – it is a matter of fact. Looking back 150 years is being rather selective, because in the 1600 we had a mini ice age, and indeed on the last century we had a period of cooling. The scientific evidence of high carbon dioxide levels are low compared to the last 500 million years – an order of magnitude lower. Moreover during that period of high carbon dioxide much of the organic matter that created our petroleum resources that we ruthlessly exploit to maintain our population of 8 billion were created.
    We need to be critical of any science. Science requires proof- irrefutable proof. We do not have ANY irrefutable proof on climate change. It is theoretical and the scientists who advised the IPCC would not stake their balls on it. It is bit like Peak Oil, except in my opinion Peak Oil is far more likely than catastrophic climate change. The climate will change but the Artic Ice is still in place, and the Statue of Liberty is not submerged up to the elbow (one more failed prediction). I do not predict when Peak Oil will occur. I never try and predict the price of oil. The only certainty I believe in is that we cannot live on a planet with an exponential growth in population. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to have a steady state – scientific principles tend to deny this. I can provide you with any number of alternative opinions against climate change, much of them I agree with some I am not sure . Here is the list of a few:

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-minor-greenhouse-gasses-co2-ch4-n2o/
    https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-02-23-E-Challenging-Net-Zero-with-Science.pdf
    http://applet-magic.com.p11.hostingprod.com/atmosphere0.htm
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWRyVemsTvs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
    https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The-Real-Story-on-Climate-Change-9-13-2017.pdf

    You are free to contradict the views expressed in these links, but in my humble opinion I find a lot of truth in the evidence presented. If you know better then I am more than willing to listen and engage. Please keep the comments civil and polite because I know some will disagree with my opinions. That is good science.

    I will end with one comment. Carbon dioxide is not the problem. Resource depletion by overpopulation is the gravest threat to mankind that ever existed. To prove my point my wife and I never produced any offspring and I have no regrets.
    One final comment. For the member who wished that my post had no place on this site is cenorship and that is the road to a totalitarian state.

    1. S.Bowers,

      I would never disrespect your viewpoints. The challenges are multipolar, and it is difficult to be certain of what is on top of the priority list. The devil is the details, and much can be said on all of the issues presented above.

      1. Respectfully, Stephen, you did not respond to a single thing in the link I posted. It would be interesting to hear some of your refutations of the arguments made therein, as that was the original topic of discussion that I proposed.

        As for the rest, we largely agree.

        I have long seen overshoot as a more immediate threat than climate change. I agree that the climate has always changed. It is also true that levels of CO2 now are far lower than at time in the past.

        Of course, it is also true that wide variations in CO2 level preceded most of the mass extinctions we know about on this planet. It is also true that it has never been the expected final temperature that makes climate change dangerous, rather it is the rate of those changes and our ability to adapt to them. So I find your argument lacking.

        1. There have been mass extinctions in the past. The fact that the climate has always changed does not negate the danger of those changes to extant life forms.

        2. Nothing in your words has refuted any argument posed. You have only listed a set of non-scientists and said there were wrong. I watched Al Gore say his nonsense about Mount Kilimanjaro being snow free in 12 years back in highschool. Even then I knew he was wrong. The fact that a bunch of alarmist non-scientists were wrong about climate change does not negate it’s reality.

        3. The fact that there are other threats does not mean that climate change is not ALSO a serious threat.

        So as to not ignore your links as you chose to ignore mine, I will go through them 1 by 1.

        1. The author claims to use calculation, but the article is actually extremely light on it. They are mostly just comparing CO2 levels now vs the past, and comparing CO2 levels with levels of other greenhouse gases. He also repeatedly mentions that CO2 is necessary for plant life. There is not a climate scientist on earth who would disagree with these statements. It is the logic followed which is incorrect.
        a. The fact that other gases have a larger effect does not mean that CO2 has no effect.
        b. During much of the time period he was covering, the Earth was in a hothouse state, with no ice at the poles. Surely this CONFIRMS the effect of CO2, yes?
        c. Again, it is not the magnitude of change which causes an issue, it is the rate of change that is hard for life to adapt to.
        d. The fact that CO2 is essentially for life has absolutely no bearing on the reality of its role in global warming.
        e. The author presents as FACT a large number of what are, as far as I can tell, observations with no scientific basis. He does not link any peer reviewed papers, nor reference other papers. Just paragraph after paragraph, chart after chart, of assertions with no proof whatsoever. Contrasted with the paper I linked, in which the author uses commonly found information along with easy calculations to show the logic of seeing CO2 as the basis of the current warming trend. One particular example is his repeated claim that the effect of CO2 logarithmically decreases, so called “logarithmic diminution”. This is an oft repeated claim that has been repeatedly debunked: https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html. The author consistently fails to understand the actual basis of warming (energy in flows vs outflows, also presented in the post I linked).

        I have to go to an art exhibit, I’ll try to respond more later. I only got to your first link, but as far as I can tell it is sloppy, handwavy, low on computation, compiles debunked facts, does not reference other works, and makes baseless claims, often weaving in irrelevant facts. I think you should turn your critical mind on this paper and see if you can really square what it is claiming with your own reasoning.

        1. Niko:
          Kudos to you for your objectivity.
          Since you delayed looking at the second link I decided that I would. When I saw the author’s name I gave up. Lindzen is a long time denier with a history of connections to organizations funded by the various segments of the fossil fuel industry. He has been repeatedly debunked in spite of his credentials. He has apologized more than once for errors, at one point admitting that his paper “had some stupid mistakes.”
          I really gave up reading the technial papers long ago. Behind me on a shelf is the 2013 IPCC publication “CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis” I read ma lot of that stuff in those days. The science is sound and has been for a long time. Even Exxon was establishing standards for protecting their own properties from climate change while paying crank organizations like the Heartland Institute to discredit climate science using the same tactics they created for the tobacco industry to discredit the link between health and tobacco us.
          In multiple media sources you can find statements from serious scientists in multiple disciplines lamenting the effects of climate change in their fields; entomologists, ornithologists, botanists, ecologists, water geologists, forestry scientists, on and on. That last one particularly gets to me because in my retirement I have taken up making guitars and we are now experiencing a serious loss of Sitka Spruce, one of the most important woods for guitar tops. Why are we losing Sitka? Because of higher temperatures in Alaska and Canada which has led to beetle infestations as the beetles have moved to more northern latitudes.
          I refuse to take these deniers seriously. The science is settled. Even saying that, I know that it may not be the worst of where industrial culture is taking us.

  16. The problem as I see it both side Cherry Pick their information for political reasons.

    One fact remains global warming from CO2 is not linear and the effects are not exponential they’re diminishing. CO2 reflects a much narrower band of radiation than water vapor. So doubling CO2 does not doesn’t double the trapping of atmospheric heat.

    http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

    However it is much more convenient for politicians to say that you huddling in the cold dark because you made the right environmental choice to save the planet. Than to say we ran out of fuel.

  17. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
    No.
    Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.
    Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.
    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/#:~:text=No.,surface%20temperature%20will%20still%20rise.
    Cherry Picking indeed.

    1. Even if 100% in its band it’s only 20%

      Another factor is increasing CO2 reduces plant respiration reducing water vapor.

      Lots to learn

    2. JJHMAN —

      There is also the fact that the last time global carbon dioxide levels were consistently at or above 400 parts per million (ppm) was around four million years ago during the Pliocene Era (between 5.3 million and 2.6 million years ago).

      1. Forgot to mention, global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene was 2–3°C higher than today.

Comments are closed.