106 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, March 18, 2024”

      1. Climate scientists admit they have no idea what is going on:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
        “Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory” :

        > “Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.”
        > By Gavin Schmidt (head of NASA climate division)

        Gavin has been responding to tweets and he has been candid that nothing is being ruled out, but that the candidates of Hunga Tonga volcano, aerosol reduction, sunspots are too small to explain everything.

        https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1770116752749244653

        > ” In general, the 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago, when satellite data began offering modellers an unparalleled, real-time view of Earth’s climate system. If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated. It could also mean that statistical inferences based on past events are less reliable than we thought, adding more uncertainty to seasonal predictions of droughts and rainfall patterns.”

        1. We have to remember that the IPCC models are all political, as in ‘agreed’ by the politicians from the chief scientists input in the various countries.

          There are plenty of actual climate scientists that have publicly stated that the IPCC is totally underplaying the changes that are actually happening.

          Most models also only look at one changing variable, making the false assumption of ‘everything else being equal’. It’s the same type of nonsense economists use in models and for that matter most scientific work on any type of dynamic system. Likewise in the energy field..

          Has anyone modelled a huge increase in water vapor in the atmosphere combined with exponentially increasing methane while aerosols in the atmosphere are greatly reduced, along with huge reductions in sea ice? Nope, too many variables and too hard to work out the extent of any of the increases or decreases in a model. Does anyone add the nearing solar maximum for the current solar cycle into the models as well… Nope (we don’t want to consider that variable that usually gets lost in the yearly weather noise)..
          So what’s the final result?

          We didn’t see this coming, no-one could have predicted it etc, etc… Sorry, that’s garbage, no-one wanted to predict it as it would be “out there” in predictions and have the consequence of potential loss of tenure, job, funding for whoever does predict it. No-one is going to fund bad news, we want only ‘good’ news about the future and how we have lots of time to fix climate (or anything else) *** (A decade or 2 is considered a long time for a politician giving funding).

          We are in deep, deep, overshoot, there should be no surprises about any sudden massive great changes in a number of different symptoms of this overshoot, climate changes being one of them.

          There is plenty of evidence of ‘change’ not being a slow constant, but rather a series of smaller abrupt changes over a period of time, with gaps between each abrupt change, until a new equilibrium is eventually reached..

          1. It certainly looks that way Hideaway
            I never thought we would see the abrupt spike in ocean temperatures that we’ve seen the last two years. 100+ in Florida Keys is ridiculous. Aerosol reduction because of bunker fuel mandates has been an unforeseen consequence of higher surface warming. But there may be other more dangerous greenhouse gases that receive little to no press because of everyone’s fixation on CO2.

            SF
            According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas. Its global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO
            2 when compared over a 100-year period.[40] Sulfur hexafluoride is inert in the troposphere and stratosphere and is extremely long-lived, with an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 800–3,200 years.[41]

            SF6 is primarily used in high voltage switch gear as a tracer gas but also in semiconductor manufacturing. The irony is our current “green” ambitions will require ever more SF6 use which is accumulating at 3% per year on average.

            Water vapor is another issue as you mention. The average warming will increase atmospheric water vapor causing a feed back loop.

            I find it extremely frustrating to even attempt a civilized conversation on the subject. Once you say CO2 might not be the only issue and that reducing CO2 might not improve the problem or might not be possible it’s over their minds are closed you are a coal lover. If you mention methane the problem are meat lovers.

            If you try to explain the science behind UV reflection band widths and the nonlinear effect of various greenhouse gases people just get angry. No one really wants to seriously consider the subject they’d rather watch sports go to concerts or movies. They want to believe it’s someone else’s problem. It’s industries problem it’s not me. It’s not my cell phone or instagram account. It’s not my European vacation or SUV. It can all be solved if we have the political will to do so. And that thinking is because of the brain washing of the public education system that teaches that prosperity is the result of political systems rather than resource availability. A broader study of history teaches all civilizations rise and fall based on resources.

            Some will argue that this time is different and it is because it’s global. Ricardo was correct on his theory of exchange which has led to global optimization. We hit peak efficiency and we can’t walk it backwards. Aggregate standards of living must decline and they are that’s why there is so much migration. The peripheral systems shrink first then the core. As we know rats are the first to leave a sinking ship.

            The political chaos we are witnessing now is further evidence of a decaying and dying system. The social chaos we are witnessing now is further evidence of a decay and dying system. The tenement buildings of the 1970s have gone Global as refugee camps that are becoming multigenerational. When resources were more abundant and easily available people didn’t have to fight over them.

            It’s the fundamental reason the West hates Russia they locked the door to their resources and Western exploitation. It’s a grow or die existential issue.

            1. I don’t get angry if we talk about all the sciencey aspects.

              This is the water vapor injected in the equatorial stratosphere due to underwater volcano Hunga Tonga. It seems to follow the contours of a behavior called QBO, which seems to be one of the most puzzling phenomenon known to man. I think I know what causes it but it meets with a lot of resistance.
              https://geoenergymath.com/2024/03/16/are-the-qbo-disruptions-anomalous/

              I can talk all day about this stuff but as you say “people just get angry”

            3. Minnesota also has an interesting factoid in that this year’s ice-out date for Lake Minnetonka almost broke the record for earliest date — in 1878 it occurred March 11, this year March 13. This rated a mention in USA Today
              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/12/lake-minnetonka-ice-out/72941498007/

              So for this past year, it appears that there are simultaneous spikes in the temperature of 3 different ocean indices ENSO (Pacific), AMO (Atlantic), IOD (Indian). The last time that happened was also in 1878, the year known for a super El Nino. In Minnesota, that was called “The Year without a Winter”. Can see the 2 spikes in AMO for 1878 and 2023 in the following chart. Also shown is a temperature spike in 1942, when Miami reached 100F for the only time.

              Something about these rare extremes in temperature.

        2. I’m still going with the Antarctic as they key; a combination of decreased albedo, changing wind patterns, warmer waters, changing salinity and slowing meridional overturning currents, each affecting and being affected by the others in a way that is going to be very difficult to work out because there are just not enough measuring points in the area and everything is now changing too fast.

          Observational Evidence for a Regime Shift in Summer Antarctic Sea Ice

          https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/7/JCLI-D-23-0479.1.xml

          1. Some don’t think the poles drive anything as it’s not really the source of energy but more of a sink that’s far away from the main source centered on the equator, So a global heating would imply the Antarctic is becoming less of a heat sink.

            Possible though.

        3. Re: Hunga Tonga 12/08/2023
          This is just a thought process, not an analysis.
          Let’s start with the eruption in Jan 2022 throwing an unprecedented 150 million tons of water as water vapor (WV) into the stratosphere, and increasing levels to 13% above normal. Given that atmospheric/stratospheric water vapor is by far the strongest greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the total worlds greenhouse effect, and given that the Jan injection had been distributed world-wide by March, one would have expected to see significant warming in eg the UAH temp record in Q2 2022, but that didn’t happen. One can surmise that, with the sun in a very low activity state, heat that was blocked by the stratospheric WV was dissipated by evaporation at the sea surface, and cloud formation blocked incoming heat due to elevated levels of cosmic rays. It seems that that atmospheric WV may have continued to accumulate until late 2022, resulting in far above normal rainfall in Southern Australia and southwestern USA (mainly California) through Q1 2023.
          Then in Q1 2023 the sun went back into an active state, spiking in May 2023. The Oulu monitor showed a sharp drop in cosmic rays in Dec. 2022, followed by a larger drop in late March/early April 2023. This could have resulted in a major decline in cloud cover, a major increase in sunlight reaching the surface and a resulting rapid rise in surface temperature, as illustrated by Ryan Maue. Both sea and land temperatures rose to levels unprecedented in the modern period. Elevated temperatures persisted through summer and into fall 2023.
          Now, recently, solar activity is dropping rapidly, implying a rise in cosmic rays and widespread increase in cloud cover. Over the last 3 months we have seen major and sometimes prolonged precipitation events leading to local, frequently unprecedented, flooding world-wide eg Libya, New England, NE France, the Philippines, Brazil, Afghanistan, most of Africa, etc. It seems that the excess atmospheric WV will have largely dissipated very soon and temperatures may rapidly return to normal. In fact we are seeing incidents of at least brief, unprecedented cold in many places, early snowfall in the Alps and the Rockies, and Russia 80% covered by snow, and unusual cold throughout Scandinavia in late Nov.
          I have left El Nino out of all of this. Curiously there is some evidence that major volcanic events in the tropics trigger El Ninos about a year after the eruption, usually ascribed to atmospheric cooling from the volcanic aerosols. Hunga Tonga does not fit that description, but was very major, and has been followed by an El Nino. Strange. El Ninos transport heat from low to high latitudes, and result in further cooling, so 2024 could see significant cooling.
          Whither next? – Also, solar cycles usually show spikes of activity 30 – 40 months after commencement, and that spike may or may not be followed by a higher one. This cycle 25 spike peaked 37 months after start. Given that the solar system barycenter (SSB) has switched from moving away from the solar center to moving nearer the solar center during 2022 (mass effect going from pull to push?) this spike might be the only one in cycle 25, and we are likely to be into a prolonged cooling period during the next 3 cycles. At least one scientist has forecast another “little ice age”, but that seems very unlikely given that the current Eddy cycle is nearing its warm peak, and the Bray cycle (see Andy May’s recent posting) is well off the bottom. Both were near bottom for the recent little ice age.
          Addition 1/4/2024
          Anchorage Alaska experienced record snow fall in late Nov/early Dec – about 6 months of normal snowfall in 1 month. China experienced the coldest Dec since they have been keeping records, ie since 1950. Given known cold periods that suggests the coldest since the Dalton minimum about 1810. The record warm seawater (101 deg F) measured on Florida’s west coast (Manatee Bay} has been replaced by below average water temperature for the beginning of Jan 2024. Sea water temperature at Siesta Key Beach is now near 2 deg F below average for this time of year.
          Addition 1/20/2024
          It seems that the record (101 degree F) Manatee Bay temperature was readings from 1 bouy that was very near shore and may have been grounded at the time of peak temperature. Of course official reports omit that detail.

    2. Meanwhile,

      UNBRIDLED WILDFIRES ARE THREATENING A COLLAPSE OF THE AMAZON RAINFOREST

      Real-time satellite monitoring shows that so far in 2024, more than 10,000 wildfires have ripped across 11,000 square kilometres of the Amazon, across multiple countries. Never have this many fires burned so much of the forest this early in the year. Scientists worry this is pushing the region closer and closer to a tipping point, where widespread degradation and repeated burning of the forest will become unstoppable.

      https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/03/19/news/unbridled-wildfires-threaten-collapse-amazon-rainforest

    3. Astounding, all this.
      And to think that by later in the decade this year will be considered a cool year…the good old days.

      One way or another, we will achieve a state of contraction.

      1. we will just continue our ways until we colonize another planet and by the time we’ve done that earth can just explode lol.

  2. EV Battery Prices Dropping A Lot This Year & Next
    It’s looking like sticker price parity between cars with infernal combustion engines and battery electric vehicles will happen this year in China or next year at the latest. When this happens it is quite likely that new internal combustion engine sales will collapse. China is the largest market for new vehicles in the world so a collapse in ICE vehicle sales will have an adverse effect on brands that have not gone all in on EVs. Here’s looking at you, Toyota!

      1. Imagine a smallish car with these lower projected battery costs in a few years
        that was geared for the vast majority of the worlds daily trips- having a range of something 120 miles.
        [Average vehicle distance driven in the US/day is around 30 miles, probably less in most of Europe and Asia]
        For most people this will be miraculous transportation capability in the coming phase of
        oil decline.

          1. Thanks IB for the links. The car in the second link interests me…

            The BYD Seagull has been an incredible success for the Chinese brand. Officially launched in China in April 2023, the brand had produced a stunning 200,000 units by the start of December of the same year. With a base price of roughly $10,000 and a range of up to 250 miles (on the CLTC standard), it’s little wonder why the small cheap car has been so popular.

            200k units in less than a year? That’s amazing! Picture below…

          2. “Why wait a few years?”
            True. I was addressing the US market, which is lagging the deployment in much of the rest of the world (we still have cheap petrol). The US is trying to shield domestic manufacturers from the Chinese car industry.

            1. Hickory,

              I think BYD has plans to build factories in the US. Even if we put tariffs on imports of these BYD Seagulls, they might sell pretty well.

              No I was wrong, but they are selling vehicles in Mexico, I guess one could buy a BYD in Mexico and then drive it to the US, though that would no doubt be complicated or perhaps not possible.

    2. Thanks Islandboy. From the Clean Technica piece you linked. Battery costs for EVs projection.

  3. The heat is on lads.

    UN WEATHER AGENCY ISSUES ‘RED ALERT’ ON CLIMATE CHANGE AFTER RECORD HEAT, ICE-MELT INCREASES IN 2023

    The U.N. weather agency is sounding a “red alert” about global warming, citing record-smashing increases last year in greenhouse gases, land and water temperatures and melting of glaciers and sea ice, and is warning that the world’s efforts to reverse the trend have been inadequate.

    “Topping all the bad news, what worries me the most is that the planet is now in a meltdown phase — literally and figuratively given the warming and mass loss from our polar ice sheets,” said Jonathan Overpeck, dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, who wasn’t involved in the report.

    https://apnews.com/article/wmo-un-climate-global-change-report-warming-2154285aabb0cf83dc9ca4015ea0016d

  4. I have read a series of articles and listened to interviews where a series of young and very successful pioneers in the fields of the ‘digital’ world innovation have proclaimed a similar belief/hope on energy.
    This comment regards very power hungry sectors centered around compute, data centers, cloud storage, digital currency/financial transactions, AI, quantum computing, and such.
    Clearly, there is ongoing incredible growth in the capabilities of these interrelated sectors.

    What is a common limitation to all this is the required massive electricity input.
    I keep hearing from these youngsters that fusion power will be the answer.
    And secondarily I hear hopes that in the meantime there will be plenty of fission power, for the needs of their industry.
    You might guess that I am very skeptical that there will be development of an extremely fortuitous supply of excess energy, beyond this temporary carbon pulse we have all been enjoying immensely (apparently) over the past 100 years.

    I do fear that the combined electricity demand from these emerging digital industries will sequester available energy supply away from ‘normal’ people. Money buys access…to water, to food, to energy, to control.

    I do not 100% discount the possibility of viable fusion power. Almost 100%.

    Associated article-
    https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-staggering-ecological-impacts-of-computation-and-the-cloud/

      1. Nuclear fusion rules and is here now! We’ve got a giant fusion reactor roughly 150 million km away that produces more energy than we could ever need and has in fact produced the vast majority of the energy humanity has used over recorded (and unrecorded) history. What is needed is the will to invest in harnessing the energy in real time.

      2. Doug…thanks for the article. I’m still in the camp of ‘believe it when you see it’. Its a big huge ‘maybe’ that fusion will ever be viable.
        I think we have a dramatically higher chance of developing deep geothermal for global baseload energy supply. There is a huge advantage of relative simplicity, less centralized, and not reliant on new scientific/engineering discovery. A good compliment to the other sources such as solar.

        https://www.utilitydive.com/news/next-generation-geothermal-could-provide-up-to-10-of-clean-firm-power-us-needs-t/710793/
        https://www.utilitydive.com/news/fervo-energy-enhanced-geothermal-system-google/688620/

        1. “Its a big huge ‘maybe’ that fusion will ever be viable.”

          Don’t hold your breath.

          1. The problem with fusion is that it only produces heat and hard radiation, the two least useful forms of energy. Even if they get it to work, it would still struggle to compete with renewables that extract ambient energy directly.

            1. Yeah, I suspect both fission and fusion will be viable if really needed, but that they won’t be competitive except in very niche applications.

              It makes sense to invest in R&D for a wide variety of technologies – you never know which will pan out.

            2. Nick G,
              Nuclear fission and fusion are only possible while we have the fossil fuels to build them, do the mining for the uranium and perform the maintenance on the plants. They are derivatives of fossil fuels. We never had any nuclear before fossil fuels and we wont have any after, once the existing lot run out of fuel, or just become unviable because they are too costly to operate and maintain.

              We operate machinery with electricity, we don’t build, do the mining, nor the heavy transport, nor the farming without fossil fuels, diesel in particular.

            3. We operate machinery with electricity, we don’t build, do the mining, nor the heavy transport, nor the farming without fossil fuels, diesel in particular.

              Of course we can do those things without fossil fuels. You’ll find no diesel engines in underground coal mines. The rest: obviously we still use a great deal of FF, but there aren’t any applications where FF can’t be replaced. Look at the professional literature for these industries: they recognize that the future of their industries is not FF.

              FF isn’t magic, despite the way it feels to veterans of the oil & gas industry. Coal is no longer king. FF is just a variety of hydrocarbons, which used to be very cheap and convenient, and whose pollution is only being recently recognized.

              FF is not a wonderful, irreplaceable gift of nature. It was briefly extremely helpful, but it’s day is over.

              I have great respect and compassion for people who have given their lives for professions and are now facing the decline of their industry. I’ve had friends and relatives go through this. It’s enormously painful. OTOH, you’ll very likely be able to retire ok. And young people are being smart, and not going into FF. And investors who face the loss of stranded assets: well, investors seem to very often land on their feet…

            4. Nick, sometimes you’re very funny, totally unrealistic, but funny…
              “You’ll find no diesel engines in underground coal mines.”

              Yet somehow official documents don’t seem to agree with you….

              “Diesel engine powered vehicles are widely utilised in underground coal mines and the engine exhaust emissions must be effectively managed to minimise the risk to coal mine workers’ health.”
              https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1438524/diesel-emissions-mgt-underground-coal-mines.pdf

              We have been building solar panels and wind turbines for decades, yet the output only makes up a tiny percentage of all energy use. If we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow then civilization collapses very, very quickly and billions die of hunger within months.
              Every NEW factory built to make solar and wind machines or batteries is built using fossil fuels, and built to operate off fossil fuels. Please tell us how the silicon wafers of high quality are made from just electricity, I think the world would be interested in that process..
              Please tell us how we would search and drill in remote locations for the copper, or nickel, or rare earths without fossil fuels? Again the world awaits the answer to this.

            5. On September 12, 1962, a warm and sunny day, President Kennedy delivered his speech before a crowd of about 40,000 people, at Rice University’s Rice Stadium. Many individuals in the crowd were Rice University students.[9][11] The middle portion of the speech has been widely quoted:

              We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon… We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.[12]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

        2. Its a big huge ‘maybe’ that fusion will ever be viable.

          It helps to remember that the serious experts in the field have never promised fusion in 10 or even 30 years. The’ve been saying maybe very roughly around 2075 for many years.

          In the meantime, wind and solar will do just fine. You know the old saying about the sun always comes up in the morning? It’s really true. Solar may be intermittent, but it’s pretty reliable.

          1. Here’s something I’ve never understood about fission: A fusion power plant produces intense heat and hard radiation, but it’s all contained in a box with a minimum of fancy equipment, because intense heat and hard radiation are bad for fancy equipment. The box has radiation shielding, and a heat exchanger (two circuits actually) is used to get the heat out.

            This works because putting a bunch of fissionable material in a box is enough to heat it up. But fusion is going to require a lot of fancy equipment to keep it running — it won’t happen by itself like fission does. And a lot of that fancy equipment is going to be inside the box in order to make that work. It’s hard to imagine a more hostile environment for that equipment. So what’s the plan?

    2. Not only ‘massive electricity input’, but it also has to be continuous supply. When you add in all the traditional industries that absolutely require a continuous electrical supply, and then look around for potential users of intermittent power from wind and solar, go take a look in the mirror.

      1. Old Chemist: wind and solar (and hydro) run out? Fire up the hydrogen gas turbine. Out of hydrogen? Switch the dual-fuel gas turbine to natural gas.

  5. Is there a mathematician on this list?

    I have a statistical problem I need to solve. It is for the book I am writing. If anyone can answer this problem, I will mail them a free copy of my book when it is published.

    Here is the problem.
    You have 1,000 30-piece jigsaw puzzles, all different. All 30 puzzles are dumped into a box. What are the odds of drawing all pieces for one particular puzzle on the first 30 draws?

    Same puzzle but any complete 30-piece puzzle will do. On the first draw, you simply get the first piece to any puzzle. What are the odds of getting the next 29 pieces of that same puzzle on the next 29 draws?

    Thanks, looking forward to any replies.

    1. Ron
      Scraping away some of the accumulated rust, I believe the calculation goes as follows.
      – for the second piece, you have 29 chances out of 29,999, probability of 29 divided by 29,999
      – for the third piece, you have 28 chances out of 29,998 , probability of 28 divided by 29,998
      – for the fourth piece you have 27 chances out of 29,997, probability of 27 divided by 29,997
      – and so on down to the thirtieth piece, probability of 1 divided by 29,971
      Now multiply 29,999 times 29,998 times 29,997 times …… down to 29,971
      And multiply 29 times 28 times 27times….. down to 1
      Divide the small number into the large number and you have the odds of getting a clean puzzle. One chance in ……

      I leave the arithmetic to you.

        1. The odds would be astronomical. The odds of getting the first one right for one particular puzzle would be 1 in 1000. The odds of getting the second one right would be 1 in 1,034. But the odds of getting two pieces of the same puzzle in the first two drawings would be 1 in 1,034,448. The odds of getting the third one right would be 1 in 1,071. But the odds of getting three pieces of the same particular puzzle in the first three drawings would be 1 in 1,146,441,317,743. That’s one point 146 trillion. By the time you got to the 30th piece, the odds would be so long it would take you a lifetime to write 1 followed by enough zeros.

          If anyone thinks I am mistaken here, please let me know where I screwed up. I am not a mathematician, but I do know how exponents work.

          1. Ron,

            So the odds are 1 in 7.6 times 10^101 based on George’s math. George was giving the probability which is the recipricol, roughly equal to zero (1.3 times 10^-102).

        2. Ron
          If you are not worried about exact precision in the number then consider using the following text
          ‘ The probability of which is one in a googol’
          Annotate the word googol, and explain that googol represents the number 1 followed by 100 zeros

        3. Roughly
          30! /300000^30
          2.6*10^32 /( 3^30 *10000^30)
          2.6*10^32 / (2*10^14* 10^120)
          1.3*10^18/ 10^120
          1.3*10^-102

          I ignored the slight decrease each time when you remove a piece.

      2. 30 factorial over 30000 to the power 30 for a particular puzzle (approx. – ignoring the small change to 29999 etc. to make calculation easier), which is about 1.3 times ten to the minus 102, and 1000 times higher for any puzzle because it doesn’t matter what the first piece you draw is but after that the odds are the same.

        1. Thanks George, but I do not understand your reply. (which is about 1.3 times ten to the minus 102…) How can you get a minus number?

          it doesn’t matter what the first piece you draw is but after that the odds are the same.

          It matters for the first puzzle because we are looking for one particular puzzle, so the odds are always 1,000 to 1. (Any one of 30 pieces from a choice of 30,000.) For the second part, just any of the 30 puzzles will do so the first pick does not matter. For the first pick the odds are always 1.

          1. Ron, the first piece has the odds of 30 in 30,000 or 30/30,000 = 1/1,000
            second piece 29/29,999, third piece 28/29,998 etc

            Basically we have a numerator the top line of the calculation being 30 X 29 X 28 X 27 …..down to 1 with the denominator being 30,000 X 29,999 X 29,998 X ……..29,971.

            The numerator of the odds being close enough to
            2.65253259618032 X 10 to the power 30

            While the denominator being close enough to 3 to the power 30 X 10 to the power 121
            or 205,891,132,094,649 X 10 to the power 121..

            Which is close enough to 2.65 X 10*30/ 2.05 X 10* 135
            Which is close enough to 1.29 X 10*105 (that’s 10 with 105 zeros after it)
            In other words the odds are 1 in 1.29 X 10*105 of getting all the pieces of one particular puzzle only.
            George’s answer above is certainly close enough…

        2. By “ten to the minus x” I didn’t mean a negative number but “one over ten to the x”, i.e. a very small number.

  6. Got my self kicked out of the O&G thread, apparently the Wuhan lab origin theory for Covid really hit some nerves.

    Obviously it can’t be proven either way but sure seems possible…here’s what the AI tells me:

    “ There is ongoing debate and investigation regarding the origins of Covid-19. Some theories suggest that it may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China, while others believe it originated naturally from animals. It’s important to wait for more evidence and research before coming to a definitive conclusion.”

    1. I like to ask the question that all great historians ask; So What? Is this a Justice Issue for you; are you suing for damages?

        1. AI does not reveal the truth, it cobbles together what it finds on the Web.

          From Chat GPT on a search of “peer reviewed research on origin of covid19”, it returns this:

          As of my last update in January 2022, several peer-reviewed studies and scientific investigations have been conducted to understand the origin of COVID-19. While there hasn’t been a definitive conclusion, here are some key studies and research findings related to the origins of the virus:

          Genomic Analysis: Numerous studies have analyzed the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, to trace its evolutionary history and identify possible animal reservoirs. These studies have found similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses found in bats, particularly in the RaTG13 virus identified in horseshoe bats in China’s Yunnan province. However, the exact pathway through which the virus may have jumped from bats to humans is still under investigation.

          Investigations into Intermediate Hosts: Researchers have been studying potential intermediate hosts that could have facilitated the transmission of the virus from bats to humans. Some studies have suggested that pangolins, which are trafficked illegally and sold in wildlife markets in China, might have played a role as an intermediate host. However, the evidence linking pangolins to the origin of COVID-19 remains inconclusive.

          Early Cases and Wuhan Market: Investigations into the early cases of COVID-19 have provided insights into the initial spread of the virus. While the outbreak was first linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, it has been suggested that some early cases had no direct connection to the market, indicating that the virus might have been circulating in the community before the outbreak was detected. This has led to speculation that the market might have played a role in amplifying the spread rather than being the original source of the virus.

          Laboratory Origins Hypothesis: Some studies have explored the possibility of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that the virus might have accidentally leaked from a research laboratory in Wuhan studying coronaviruses. However, most scientists consider this hypothesis less likely than natural zoonotic spillover, as there is currently no concrete evidence to support the idea of a laboratory accident.

          These are just a few examples of the peer-reviewed research and scientific investigations related to the origin of COVID-19. The investigation into the origins of the virus is ongoing, and new studies and findings continue to emerge. It’s essential to rely on reputable scientific sources and peer-reviewed literature for the most accurate and up-to-date information on this topic.

          I agree there is more to learn, but the claim that there is conclusive proof that the lab leak theory is correct is untrue.

            1. Hightrekker,

              Thanks, they talk briefly about the lab leak theory starting around minute 43. Obviously they have been conned by the coverup. 🙂

            2. Dennis–
              Anyone who has issues with a natural origin , don’t listen to virologists.
              Those virologists go by science and observation.
              Obviously delusional.

        2. Kengo, There is currently insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Let me know when that changes aka new evidence emerges. A conspiracy circle jerk doesn’t bring the truth any closer, or imply that truth matters more to those who believe in unfounded conclusions. It’s just 6 yards of shit to scroll past when readers are looking for something intelligent and insightful. You’ve been rehashing the same shit for 3 years. When Hick mentions China energy you don’t need to take that as an opportunity to remind us of your thoughts on China’s sinister covid fuck-ups; it’s irrelevant. We get it; you feel that China is culpable; you don’t need to explain it over and over again.

          BTW, lab leak is a stupid term. The concern is if it escaped custody. If it did, then, imho, it likely did so early on in the custody chain; like shortly after it was collected from ‘the wild’. Maybe the same worker who scrapped a sample for the lab off of a cave wall, or a rural animal pen, also contracted the virus and later spread it around the market. Who fuckin’ knows? Not you; not me; difference is I, for the most part, try to STFU and refrain from posting 6 yards about shit I don’t know.

          1. I defer to you sir, your head so far up your ass all you see is shit!
            kudos

            1. Kengeo,

              I don’t know anything about such qualifications or training as you may or may not have in the hard sciences.

              But I have come into contact with countless f people who believe
              whatever they WANT to believe, for reasons of their own……. and it’s a general rule that such people lacking such training…… means that they’re incapable of knowing who to believe in any particular argument…. in this case, the origin of Covid.

              Politicians and businessmen are supremely skilled in leading people to believe what THEY want them to believe.

              They hire entire office buildings of people to convince the public that they’re telling the truth, that they’re on the people’s side, etc. Their employees include incompetent, cynical, or outright fake scientists, authors of books and opinion pieces, the management of countless publications and websites, etc.

              Anybody who lacking in a true understanding of the way science and scientists work is at very high risk of believing whatever they’re told…. and dead sure to believe the same if they WANT to believe it, because it jibes nicely, fits in nicely, with their other beliefs.

              However…….. IF you know anything at all about the REALITIES of science and scientists, you know that the vast majority of all working scientists, and the departments or colleges of science associated with larger universities, hold their reputations, as individuals and organizations, as an integral part of their ultimate highest value….. the search for and dissemination of true knowledge.

              So……. taken collectively, they’re just not going to say or publish anything contrary to what they really believe, as professionals in their field. Their reputations, as individuals and as organizations, are their badges of honor. Moving up in their field, getting tenure, being the department head, moving on to a more prestigious or better financed position at another university, their place in history, all depend on their professional reputations.

              Being accepted on the job and socially in the academic world doesn’t depend entirely on their reputations. Selling out means excommunication, professionally and socially.
              It appears to be the case that virologists taken as a professional class are telling us that there’s NO EVIDENCE that Covid is a man made disease.. Lots of them have looked for such evidence, without finding it.

              You are free to believe whatever you wish but I suspect that you lack a true understanding of the work of scientists and scientific organizations.

              So………. if anybody has their head up their ass……..

    2. “here’s what the AI tells me”
      AI is just reflecting the discussion on the internet and popular press, even looking at what you wrote. So far, there is no dedicated AI science master to rely upon.

      You should realize that the source science is where the factual information on this topic is.
      The answer is not from those with the most advertising dollars or campaign rallies.

      2. Not only that, generative AI just invents things sometimes. It is trained to produce text that seems like something a human would write, not to tell the truth.

    3. Reposting my post from the O&G thread:

      I feel obliged to state that the so called “twitter files” (see https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter and https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Twitter_Files) document an unprecedented attempt to manipulate public opinion using big tech. One of the most spectacular areas of manipulation was Covid 19. This has been dubbed: “The Censorship Industrial Complex” (see https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email). I do not trust wikipedia for any politically sensitive information. I always compare it with wikispooks.

    4. The twitter files indicate that the lab leak theory is now the most prominent theory among virologists. Branding this theory as a conspiracy theory was based on a deeply flawed article published by 4 doctors who didn’t believe in the conclusion of their paper but had financial incentives to disprove the lab leak theory. See https://theintercept.com/2023/06/17/covid-origin-wuhan-patient-zero/ and https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2580201/the-proximal-origin-of-a-scientific-fraud/. Anthony Fauci (who also had a financial incentive to disprove the lab leak theory) was cc’d in the correspondance between the 4 authors and was aware that they did not believe in their conclusion.

          1. Schinzy,

            It could all be nonsense, I don’t have enough background to evaluate the claims. Let’s just say I am suspicious of claims that all the experts are wrong on a blog post, if we were reading a peer reviewed article, it would be a bit more believable.

            Maybe Hickory could make sense of it.

      2. Intercept article is mostly innuendo, there is nothing there from a scientific perspective.

        Likewise revelations about what is said in private correspondence where people often joke about stuff and is not intended for public consumption is not good jounalism or revelatory. I will also note that an Opinion piece is different from a news article, there is likely to be a lack of fact checking there, the standards are different in an opinion piece.

        1. I read some of the personal communications of the authors of that paper quoted by Matt Taibbi. From memory (sorry I don’t have a link) their discussion started with shear panic. Similar to: “Shit, it’s the lab. What can we do?” Gradually they started to have ideas and the discussion shifted to things like: “Wait, we could say this!”

          When i said they didn’t believe their own conclusion, I was perhaps exaggerating. It was more like they found reason to doubt their initial reasoning that the origin was a lab leak, then they published the paper mentioning neither their doubts, nor the reasons for initially thinking it was a lab leak. One of the authors (sorry I don’t have a link) later admitted that the paper was written in an attempt to influence opinion.

      3. That virus may have leaked from the lab, either by accident or with intent,
        or may have spread from animals that were brought into the big market for food.

        Regardless, there is no confirmed shred of evidence of manipulation of the viral genome, despite extensive international efforts to find such a shred.

        People seem to have a very hard time understanding these simple source distinctions.

        1. The phrase “insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion” comes to mind; like so many other things in life. For some I suppose it’s an opportunity to farm grievances; a bit of a Rorschach test, if you ask me; to what end?

        2. Yes, I certainly have a hard time understanding these simple source distinctions.

          I also question whether or not it is a good idea for the U.S. to be funding research on giving enhanced function to corona viruses in Wuhan China.

    1. Good for short distance stuff, small trucks delivering and bus routes in towns. But long distance stuff -inter-city and trans continental movements? Heavy goods vehicles – they will still be using diesel or maybe gasolene in 2040.

  8. A lot of people are proposing hydrogen for long distance HGVs. Advances in batteries are increasing energy density, reducing charge times and increasing cycle life. LiFePo4 batteries offer many advantages over NCM batteries at the expense on energy density (kWh/kg). When all is said and done there are some pretty impressive things happening in the battery space. The vehicle in this video went from 9 to 80 percent capacity in just 12 minutes.

    The fastest charging car in the world – Li Auto MEGA

    Another solution for long haul HGVs is standardized batteries that can be swapped out at truck stops along the major routes. There have already been a few prototype HGVs with batteries designed for quick swaps.

    1. I would think rail would make sense for long haul, then move stuff shorter distances from rail hubs using EVs.

      1. A combination of rail and trucking is called intermodal. Intermodal is basically cargo-swapping: moving containers between trains and trucks. That requires coordination between trains and trucks. It benefits from the greater labor and energy efficiency of rail, but not as much as you would expect, in part because trucking is heavily subsidized. The subsidies include almost free roadways and low-cost fuel, while rail not only bears the full cost of it’s infrastructure but it also pays a number of taxes, especially property taxes!

        Battery swapping isn’t highly developed yet (though there have been commercial implementations), but conceptually it’s a lot easier and more convenient than cargo-swapping. It requires both the battery and the truck’s battery space to be designed for it. OTOH, it future-proofs the truck against improvements in battery improvements. It likely doesn’t require as much duplicative battery capacity as one might think, as direct charging of trucks will likely require a large secondary stationary battery which gets charged at night.

        Battery swapping for fleets on standard routes really should be a no-brainer. It’s just a matter of the industry and the big shippers making a decision to commit to it. So far they’re being very cautious about the switch, as the battery standards really haven’t settled down, but it would be very practical.

  9. Contraction of population and of economy is baked in the cake.
    Already starting in some places, it will be slow to gather steam and patchy in severity.
    But it is inevitable. The world is grossly overextended, and aging.
    Sorry, but all this is not some negotiation.
    There is no recipe for handling a state of sustained contraction.
    Neither capitalism or socialism or fascism has an answer…they are all based on perpetual growth for stability.
    But you will be promised solutions. Based on past performance, many people will grasp at promises.
    Watch out for their destructive wake.

    https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

    1. “In many ways, tumbling fertility rates are a success story, reflecting not only better, easily available contraception, but also many women choosing to delay or have fewer children, as well as more opportunities for education and employment,” said Vollset.

      Population contraction is a sign of progress and prosperity. It’s not a sign of overextension.

      Sure, it will cause a higher ratio of old to young, but that’s a good problem to have. The first step is to increase the retirement age. Heck, half the problem with politics these days is retired folks with too much time on their hands. They’re getting bored, watching Fox News for excitement, and making trouble.

      Seriously: I think a large part of our problem these days is difficulty handling prosperity and free time. The economy has been based up to this point on greater happiness through more stuff. Well, now we have enough stuff, we’re having more and more free time (though many people are kind’ve addicted to acquiring stuff), people don’t know what to do with themselves. They need to learn to find ways to be happy through non-material stuff: self-help therapy, relating to each other better, creativity, etc.

      It’s a transitional problem.

        1. Well, I’ve lived a while. The truth is that on average, when I look back at my old forecasts over time, things turned out a little better than I expected.

          My portfolio would be a little fatter if I’d been more optimistic…

        2. Anyway, I just don’t understand why people get so bent out of shape about the demographic problems caused by declining fertility. Lifespans are increasing, disability rates are declining, and people are really pretty unhappy in retirement. They hate to admit it, but people need purpose and activity.

          Early retirement was really a response to high rates of disability among manual workers, the need after WWI to reduce the standing military, and the need in WWII to find alternative compensation during a national wage freeze. None of those still apply.

          1. The biggest reason that people get bent out of shape about the demographic scenario that we are approaching is that they understand the economic basis upon which all of the countries of the world are based. Everything is based on growth…upward growth prospects.
            This sums it up better than I can-
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_consequences_of_population_decline

            On the other hand most global biologic and ecological health measures stabilize or improve when the human bulldozer runs out of gas. We are not aligned with the rest of life. Except may a few species like dogs and rats.

            I do think that a decline in human population is long overdue, since we have far outgrown what is a long term sustainable footprint. We will suffer all the consequences we have been offloading onto the rest of the biosphere. And we will watch a lot of it on our devices in real time.

            1. Hickory,

              Japan is a good case study for how this might look. South Korea will soon be facing similar problems followed by China, Europe, and most of the OECD. Things will have to change, humans are pretty adaptable or will need to become so to survive.

              Using data from

              https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JPNRGDPEXP

              The average rate of real GDP growth for Japan was 0.7% per year on average from 1994 to 2023. Real GDP per capita grew at about the same rate from 1994 to 2022.

              https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=NYGDPPCAPKDJPN

            2. Hickory, two thoughts.

              First, the key issue here is the dependency ratio: “Rise in dependency ratio. Dependency ratio is the ratio of those not in the labor force (the dependent part ages 0 to 14 and 65 ) and those in the labor force (the productive part ages 15 to 64).”

              Please note that the ratio assumes a retirement age of 65. Retirement age can be changed! Lifespan has increased, disability rates have fallen, and retirement age is being changed in various places. And, a significant number of countries and industries have earlier ages, which really beg for change.

              The point is: retirement ages is arbitrary, and can be changed.

              Second, the idea that modern economies will somehow collapse if growth stops is an urban myth. I think the main idea is that, for some reason, interest rates must be positive (see Japan’s negative rates for many years) and, again for some reason, positive interest rates require positive economic growth. Neither idea is realistic.

      2. Nick G- “Population contraction is a sign of progress and prosperity. It’s not a sign of overextension.”

        Not so fast with that!
        That line of thought assumes a situation where all of the ingredients in the petri dish are in abundant supply, and then you insert higher levels of female education, empowerment and family planning choice…it is true that population growth rates decline.
        However, we are in a different experimental condition where the ingredients for continual growth are not present in abundance. People around the world are aware of this to variable degrees, with many regions and segments of the world experiencing different manifestations of constraint pressure. Those pressures might be fresh water supply and food price in some countries, might be civil strife in others (Haiti for example), might be housing or energy costs, might be migration angst, might be poor employment prospects/taxes/debt in others, for example. Its an ugly world bursting at the seems in so many places…likely not quite as orderly compared to where you live?

        These constraint pressures affect the eagerness and ability to have children, whether it is a conscious decision or not.

        Overall, we have a petri with mixed conditions. Many competing factors at play. I suspect you have noticed that I believe that the exponential growth of human population over the past 150 years will reach limits just like all other living organisms in a finite world do. And that prosperity, education levels, and technology are secondary factors affecting the biggest component of the puzzle.

        1. I think it would help educate your intuition about these things to review the history over the past 70 years or so. Just type country-name TFR into google: you’ll see how fertility has declined dramatically for almost every country in the world.

          That wasn’t caused by hardship. It was caused by contraceptives (technology); dramatically reduced child and infant mortality (prosperity, health tech) which allowed parents to have fewer children; education; improved old-age support (prosperity); urbanization; etc.

          Now do the same for gdp, and then do it for death rates, and infant mortality.
          https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN

          Across the world people’s lives are very, very far from perfect, but they’re clearly getting better.

            1. Better to look at the data. I’m trying to be realistic, and it starts there.

              Have you looked at the data?

  10. https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-390-david-rogers-webb-and-the-great-taking/

    James Howard Kuntsler with David Rogers Webb.

    https://thegreattaking.com/read-online-or-download

    Book available free on .PDF

    You don’t own your stocks, your bonds or your savings. The DTC does.

    David Rogers Webb is the author of The Great Taking, which is about the insidious plan by central banks and international financial regulatory institutions to crash the unsustainable system and seize whatever assets the crash doesn’t vaporize — meaning, your savings, your wealth, and your supposedly freely-owned chattels. Much of this mischief was accomplished by surreptitious changes to the Uniform Commercial code and other rules for the transference of property. It’s a spooky story. David is a former investment banker and hedge fund manager. He’s produced his book as a free giveaway in pdf form which you can get here.

  12. Vaguely related to the discussion on the origins of the COVID-19 virus further up, here is the “rose colored glasses” view of John D Rockefeller’s influence on modern medicine:

    The Rockefeller Foundation and the international health agenda

    The cynical view:

    How Rockefeller Created the Business of Western Medicine

    I am puzzled by the response of many participants in this forum to any notion that Big Pharma might have tipped the scales in terms of the response to the pandemic. The explanation is that folks are following the science but, people seem to be conveniently ignoring the possibility (likilihood?) that money (Big Pharma funding) has corrupted “the science”. I was following the exploits of doctors that were focused on treating people that had contracted the virus using any therapeutics that had showed promise in small independently run trials. “The science” that was heralded prominently in the mainstream media was almost exclusively based on studies done by groups with considerable backing from Big Pharma (conflicts of interest?).

    My favorite site for science on COVID-19 therapeutics is c19early.org . They have assembled data on all the studies of potential covid therapeutics that they could find. For example here is their meta analysis of Paxlovid:

    https://c19early.org/plmeta.html

    They also did one for molnupiravir:

    https://c19early.org/mmeta.html

    For good measure here is their meta analysis of vitamin D:

    https://c19early.org/dmeta.html

    Most of the folks that read this blog are well aware of how big corporations use their money to shape public opinion (eg. through “studies” from think tanks) and lobby governments to tip the scales in their favour. I have pointed out instances where misinformation about renewables has been peddled by fossil fuel industry think tanks. Why would the pharmaceutical industry be an exception? Why was the public never told about the benefits of having an optimal level of vitamin D with the same zeal that the more expensive interventions were promoted?

    1. If you’re waiting for Bayer or Gilead to spend $ telling you take vitamin D when you’re sick you’ll be waiting a while; and Public Health Departments basically don’t exist. Who do you suppose is supposed to convey this information to the public; CNN?

      1. Who would have guessed a RFK Jr supporter expects big pharma to remind him to drink his milk

        Unbelievable

        1. Perhaps IB will instead vote for those who campaign on the benefits of increased public health spending and childhood education.

          1. No, IB has it right. America doesn’t need more healthcare spending, ice cream, soda, candy and comfort food. It needs more health and political education. Voting third party is like white bread. It taste good, but full of empty calories and diabetes.

            Republicans have been defunding education and government in the name of incorporated old white men power since Raygun.

            Matt, one plus one doesn’t equal three. IB never implied big pharma’s duty was to educate. That was you.

            1. You lost the plot HB; goalkeeping for IB. Who’s Matt?

              “Why was the public never told about the benefits of having an optimal level of vitamin D with the same zeal that the more expensive interventions were promoted?” ~ IB

              IB implied that somebody has, or perhaps should have, a duty to educate, with zeal. I wonder who’s in mind? Big P? The MSM? Joe Rogan? A market solution? Someone else?

              Perhaps it’s a rhetorical question; life must be such a mystery.

              What is Public Health?
              https://www.cdcfoundation.org/what-public-health

              Friends in Canada own to voting Fourth Party. I wonder what bakery product that’s comparable to eating? I’m very sophisticated.

            2. Cupcake, thanks to third party Jill Stein, we did get free healthcare advice to inject bleach into our veins. If Trump wins in November. America will go from a two-party system to a one-party system with Russian make believe elections and Canada will need to build a wall to keep half of America out. Just like the Jews in Poland in 39, nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

              Stupid is what stupid does, I know you’re “very sophisticated” and going to need a doctor to fix your broken arm.

            3. Oh look, America is a flawed democracy. Canada seems ok, even though they allegedly fuel the electric grid with wAsTeD vOtEs.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

              It’s perhaps worth noting that Trump has never won the popular vote, and likely never will.

              If not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump,
              then not voting for Trump is a vote for Biden.
              Green Party 2024.

              PS- my arm is not broken. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

  13. There’s no doubt at all in my mind that as the population peaks and contracts we will be dealing with a number of really tough problems, such as for example somehow managing to pay the promised pension and health care benefits of retirees.

    But so far as I can see, such problems as retiree benefits and lack of skilled workers are or would be trivial, in comparison to a very likely crash and burn economic situation brought about by overshoot, with the climate going nuts and natural resources in desperately short supply on a per capita basis.

    And as Hickory and others have pointed out, the population will be declining on a world wide basis, and it’s already declining in some of the richer, more advanced countries. My personal belief is that the global population will decline quite a bit faster than predicted by demographers, because I assume hundreds of millions , possibly more, people will die as the result of war, famine, disease, etc.

    But I don’t see declining population as any sort of death knell in terms of societal collapse, so long as governments continue to function at some critical level.

    Lets not forget that future retirees are going to be retiring in a world with ample built infrastructure, most of which will last indefinitely so long as it gets routine long term maintenance. Any house built to the usual prevailing construction codes in the USA for the last fifty years can reasonably be expected to last at least a century,probably longer. I used to own one built in the fifties, one of millions that were routinely ridiculed as so poorly built it wouldn’t outlast it’s first mortgage. It’s in better shape now, with new windows, doors, and roof than it’s ever been, and it will easily last another two or three generations, so long as it’s properly maintained.

    The street will require repaving every twenty or thirty years, the water and sewer lines will need replacing every fifty years or so, etc, but these routine costs are trivial, compared to new from scratch construction.

    And we can sure as hell get along just fine without the two thirds or more of all the junk we manufacture and buy and toss in the trash every year, once we can’t afford doing so.

    Once we get to the point we can’t afford to eat mostly highly processed food, and drive a few hundred feet to the mail box, and sit on our fat asses smoking and drinking getting our only exercise pushing the buttons on the remote, etc………

    We will experience a miracle of sorts… because the death rate from such diseases as cancer and diabetes will fall by half or more.

    I’m not well off, in terms of disposable income, but on the other hand, I don’t have any need or desire to spend a few thousand bucks or more every year on fashionable clothing, or eating out, or high status brands of booze or tobacco.

    The really tough problem associated with such products, and luxury services, is that somehow all the people earning their living providing them, will have to be fed and housed one way or another….. quite possibly on outright welfare, or by providing them with make work jobs of some sort.

    Desperate times are nothing new. When we’ve had to fight hot long lasting wars, governments all over the world have routinely managed, one way or another, to do what had to be done. Doing it involved rationing goods, forcing people into uniform at gun point if necessary, taking over industrial infrastructure and using it to produce weapons, etc.

    I don’t really see any reason to believe that when the population enters the serious decline phase we won’t manage, one way or another, to hold it together, at least to the point that few or no people in today’s more or less successful countries need starve or die violently.

  14. CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS REACHED RECORD LEVELS IN 2023

    • State of Global Climate report confirms 2023 as hottest year on record by clear margin
    • Records broken for ocean heat, sea level rise, Antarctic sea ice loss and glacier retreat
    • Extreme weather undermines socio-economic development
    • Renewable energy transition provides hope
    • Cost of climate inaction is higher than cost of climate action

    https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-indicators-reached-record-levels-2023-wmo

    1. Meanwhile, CO2 levels keep climbing
      Mar. 24, 2024 = 426.35 ppm
      Mar. 24, 2023 = 420.82 ppm
      1 Year Change = 5.53 ppm (1.31%)

Comments are closed.