On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 23:33:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>>> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>>> >
>>> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>>> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>>> >
>>> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>>
>>> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>>
>> Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
>> like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
>> John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
>
>No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
>
>He is sensibly pointing out life would be shit without mod cons. So yes, he is being rational in that assumption. Imagine no transport for trade for example.

Imagine hoping for a good harvest so your family will survive the
winter.

Imagine not having fresh fruits or veggies for months or years.
Imagine rickets and scurvy and smallpox and things. Kids are still
going blind for want of a few cents a day of Vitamin A.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:02:11 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 22:14:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2022 08:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>> chemicals, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>>>>> galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, and I'm in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
>>>> but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I'm not a shortsighted jackass.
>>>> The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>>>> them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>>>> THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>>>> plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>>>
>>> Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
>>> atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>>> and then assuming that warming is bad, the benefits from oil and gas
>>> far outweigh these hypothetical dangers. Especially for the billions
>>> of truly poor people in the world.
>>>
>>> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
>>> elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
>>> the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
>>> childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
>>> to 32.
>>>
>>> Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
>>>
>>> https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
>>
>> That cuts both ways. In the '60s and '70s prior to the 'Green
>> Revolution' India was facing famine. The new crops, dependent on
>> chemical fertilizers and irrigation, saved the day. What has happened to
>> India's population since that era? What will be the outcome if the
>> farmers can't afford the chemical fertilizers?
>
>Less Indians, the problem being?
>
>> Even in the US manure suddenly has become a hot commodity.
>
>It does generate heat, yes.
>
>You could do what the French do, use human shit to fertilize fields.

Perpetual motion machines don't work. A humkan consumes more than he
can fertilize.

>
>> If you're talking about white tail deer, for example, there is little
>> argument that the deer will reproduce until they exceed the carrying
>> capacity of the habitat. Then the population will be reduced one way or
>> another. With wise game management you strive to keep the herd at
>> maximum sustainable yield, about half of the maximum BCC.
>
>Why intervene when they'll hit the limit themselves?
>
>> Are humans exempt? Cornucopians think so and there will always be
>> another technological advance. What happens when they run out of rabbits
>> to pull out of the hat?
>
>I'd love less humans and more space.

Developed countries are at negative population growth. Eventually the
entire world will be.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 03:26:03 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> >>> rbowman wrote:
>>> >>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about
>>> mining.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
>>> making
>>> >>>>>>>>>> fun
>>> >>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>> >>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it
>>> does not
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> kw
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>> >>>>>>> comes up
>>> >>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>> >>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
>>> there.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
>>> still deep
>>> >>>>>>> underground.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
>>> middle of
>>> >>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>> >>>>>> ones you
>>> >>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
>>> couple off
>>> >>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>> >>>>> and not
>>> >>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>> >>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>> >>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
>>> warming
>>> >>>> and all, you know.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>> >>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>> >>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>> >>
>>> >> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>> picked
>>> >> up again.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> That article claims
>>> >>
>>> >> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
>>> Bcf
>>> >> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
>>> which was
>>> >> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>
>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>
> I'm amazed it was ever a good idea to burn off something you could sell
> for a fortune.

The problem with stranded gas is you can't sell it for a fortune where
it is. By the time you build pipelines to get it to someplace where
people want to buy gas you've lost your shirt. That's assuming you can
even build a pipeline which is difficult in the current US political
environment.

On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
>>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
>>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>>
>>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>> picked
>>>> up again.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That article claims
>>>>
>>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
>>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
>>>> was
>>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic
>>>> that
>>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
>>>> and cozy.
>>>
>>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>>
>> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>>
>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>>
>>
>> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
>> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
>> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
>> methane and CO2.
>
> What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?

https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217

Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.

On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in
>>> the price of oil and gasoline.
>>> >
>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less
>>> of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing
>>> fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it
>>> probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't
>>> like it.
>>
>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>
> Somebody told me they froze it, but that's -181 degrees, which is maybe
> unfeasible on ships.

About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
pressure. Boil off is a problem.

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>
>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>
>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>
>>
>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
>
> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
> >> >
> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.

> It's rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
> past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
> middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
> and electricity.

Inability to complete the CO2 cycle so that the atmosphere stays 'a lot
like the recent past' is a major issue. John Larkin is in denial, spinning
absurd 'good times ahead' predictions.

Greenhouse gas problems are not soluble with denial; that takes some
engineering changes on a global scale. John Larkin is just a denial-cult member
spouting dogma.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
> >> >
> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
> >> >
> >> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
> >
> >> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
> >
> > Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
> > like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
> > John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.

> No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.

Not true; where did that idea come from? John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
histories, and complete engineering failure to deal with 'a bit of gas'.
He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
change is no fiction.

The 'end of the world' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:58:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>
>> It's rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
>> past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
>> middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
>> and electricity.
>
>Inability to complete the CO2 cycle so that the atmosphere stays 'a lot
>like the recent past' is a major issue. John Larkin is in denial, spinning
>absurd 'good times ahead' predictions.
>
>Greenhouse gas problems are not soluble with denial; that takes some
>engineering changes on a global scale. John Larkin is just a denial-cult member
>spouting dogma.

Yor ARE Bill Sloman.

And I went for the apple galette.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
>>
>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>
>That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 06:58:45 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 5:23:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>
>> It's rational to think that the future will be a lot like the recent
>> past, with things getting steadily better for humankind. What the
>> middle ages show us is how incredibly better off we are with oil, gas,
>> and electricity.
>
> Inability to complete the CO2 cycle so that the atmosphere stays 'a lot
> like the recent past' is a major issue. John Larkin is in denial, spinning
> absurd 'good times ahead' predictions.
>
> Greenhouse gas problems are not soluble with denial; that takes some
> engineering changes on a global scale. John Larkin is just a denial-cult member
> spouting dogma.

You're showing classic signs of a religious nut. What you spout is similar to the responses you get from religious nuts when you try to explain god doesn't exist. You're believing things without any sense or proof whatsoever.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 01:30:24 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:02:11 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 22:14:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/2022 08:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:52:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just comes up
>>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>>> chemicals, ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huh? One hundred percent chemical product, guy! Byproducts
>>>>>>>>> galore, so much pollution the weather is taking notice!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go live in a tent. Forage for food. Burn rushes for light. Wear fur
>>>>>>>> when it's cold. Cook over dung. Walk everywhere. Enjoy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JL is so shortsighted, he only sees the input end of 'a pipeline',
>>>>>>> and ignores the other one. As long as he's on this planet, the
>>>>>>> other end IS his concern, just one he's neglected for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in a warm house, in front of a computer drinking hot Peets coffee.
>>>>>> All that thanks to fossil fuel. I don't ignore this stuff; I
>>>>>> appreciate it all the time, as I have for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, and I'm in a warm house, computer, Peets coffee (Big Bang)
>>>>> but my electricity is hydroelectric, and I'm not a shortsighted jackass.
>>>>> The next decades do not have to replicate previous ones. Design
>>>>> them for improvement, and ditch the insistence on familiarity: there's
>>>>> THREE terms in a PID control, and it works because it acknowledges a
>>>>> plausible future. You need to dial down the integral term, or it'll kill the regulation.
>>>>
>>>> Even assuming that burning oil and gas is the major contributer to
>>>> atmospheric CO2, and further assuming that the C02 is causing warming,
>>>> and then assuming that warming is bad, the benefits from oil and gas
>>>> far outweigh these hypothetical dangers. Especially for the billions
>>>> of truly poor people in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible. Even the
>>>> elites and royalty had pretty awful lives, and regular people lived on
>>>> the edge of death. Half their kids died young. So many women died in
>>>> childbirth that their average lifespan was 25. The average man made it
>>>> to 32.
>>>>
>>>> Big contributor to survival: ammonia-based fertilizers.
>>>>
>>>> https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
>>>
>>> That cuts both ways. In the '60s and '70s prior to the 'Green
>>> Revolution' India was facing famine. The new crops, dependent on
>>> chemical fertilizers and irrigation, saved the day. What has happened to
>>> India's population since that era? What will be the outcome if the
>>> farmers can't afford the chemical fertilizers?
>>
>> Less Indians, the problem being?
>>
>>> Even in the US manure suddenly has become a hot commodity.
>>
>> It does generate heat, yes.
>>
>> You could do what the French do, use human shit to fertilize fields.
>
> Perpetual motion machines don't work. A humkan consumes more than he
> can fertilize.

It's not perpetual motion. A plant does not live on fertiliser alone, it consumes CO2 and water and sunlight aswell.

>>> If you're talking about white tail deer, for example, there is little
>>> argument that the deer will reproduce until they exceed the carrying
>>> capacity of the habitat. Then the population will be reduced one way or
>>> another. With wise game management you strive to keep the herd at
>>> maximum sustainable yield, about half of the maximum BCC.
>>
>> Why intervene when they'll hit the limit themselves?
>>
>>> Are humans exempt? Cornucopians think so and there will always be
>>> another technological advance. What happens when they run out of rabbits
>>> to pull out of the hat?
>>
>> I'd love less humans and more space.
>
> Developed countries are at negative population growth. Eventually the
> entire world will be.

I doubt it. We'll just get overrun by the Muslims.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:06:50 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 03:26:03 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> >>> rbowman wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about
>>>> mining.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
>>>> making
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it
>>>> does not
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> kw
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>> >>>>>>> comes up
>>>> >>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>> >>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
>>>> there.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
>>>> still deep
>>>> >>>>>>> underground.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
>>>> middle of
>>>> >>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>> >>>>>> ones you
>>>> >>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
>>>> couple off
>>>> >>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>> >>>>> and not
>>>> >>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>> >>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>> >>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
>>>> warming
>>>> >>>> and all, you know.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>> >>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>>> >>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>> picked
>>>> >> up again.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That article claims
>>>> >>
>>>> >> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
>>>> Bcf
>>>> >> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
>>>> which was
>>>> >> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>
>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>
>> I'm amazed it was ever a good idea to burn off something you could sell
>> for a fortune.
>
>
> The problem with stranded gas is you can't sell it for a fortune where
> it is. By the time you build pipelines to get it to someplace where
> people want to buy gas you've lost your shirt. That's assuming you can
> even build a pipeline which is difficult in the current US political
> environment.

Doesn't gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?
http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gas-truck.jpg
Wow, that's the biggest rearview mirror I've ever seen.

So politics prefers the gas to be burnt off than used? That's idiocy no matter what side of the green line you're on.

I found this by mistake, apparently gas stations (that's petrol, not the gas we were discussing) don't notice a van parked for hours stealing huge amounts of it!
https://abc7chicago.com/gas-theft-las-vegas-trucks-stealing-gasoline-cost-of/11939871/

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>>>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>>>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
>>>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>>>
>>>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>>> picked
>>>>> up again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That article claims
>>>>>
>>>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
>>>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
>>>>> was
>>>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic
>>>>> that
>>>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
>>>>> and cozy.
>>>>
>>>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>>>
>>> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>>>
>>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>>>
>>>
>>> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
>>> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
>>> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
>>> methane and CO2.
>>
>> What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?
>
> https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217
>
> Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.

I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large circular hole.

The one you mention is odd, why hasn't it run out of fuel yet?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:15:47 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8 today and
>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be burning up.
>>>> > Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in
>>>> the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>> >
>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less
>>>> of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing
>>>> fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it
>>>> probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won't
>>>> like it.
>>>
>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>
>> Somebody told me they froze it, but that's -181 degrees, which is maybe
>> unfeasible on ships.
>
> About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
> pressure. Boil off is a problem.

When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.

Isn't high pressure easier than low temperature?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>> >> >
>> >> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>> >
>> >> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>> >
>> > Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
>> > like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
>> > John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
>
>> No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
>
> Not true; where did that idea come from?

Your belief we're killing the world with a bit of gas.

> John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
> solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
> histories,

No, he's just not concerned about something that will never happen.

> and complete engineering failure to deal with 'a bit of gas'.
> He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
> Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
> change is no fiction. The 'end of the world' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
> evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.

We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "minors" meaning young people, nothing about mining.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh, making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> miners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual sense of humour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How are we supposed to know what you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And most Lithium is "mined" using brine extraction, it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve digging holes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> kw
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then there are the minor miners:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
>>>>>>>>>> comes up
>>>>>>>>>> and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
>>>>>>>>>> chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>> underground.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the middle of
>>>>>>>>> nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
>>>>>>>>> ones you
>>>>>>>>> stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a couple off
>>>>>>>>> State College north of Ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>> a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You'd be driving through
>>>>>>> Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
>>>>>>> miles off the road. Rather eerie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal warming
>>>>>>> and all, you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
>>>>>> powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is something
>>>>>> like 70%, which is a big win.
>>>>>
>>>>> After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
>>>>> picked
>>>>> up again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That article claims
>>>>>
>>>>> EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280 Bcf
>>>>> of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
>>>>> was
>>>>> “more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It wouldn't have helped the infrastructure problems but it's ironic
>>>>> that
>>>>> during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
>>>>> and cozy.
>>>>
>>>> Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
>>>
>>> The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
>>>
>>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
>>>
>>>
>>> As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
>>> evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger problem
>>> than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
>>> methane and CO2.
>>
>> What's that place with a permanent fire they can't put out?
>
> https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217
>
> Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.

"According to the Department of Environmental Protection, there isn’t one entity held liable for the fire."

Fucking bullshit. Who lit it? Who didn't put in adequate fire protection. Make them pay.

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...

.... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ..."

because India isn't doing denialism like John Larkin.

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

I've looked up most of those things, but YOU need to know that 'plants' includes weeds and inedible
parts, and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level, there's a whole bunch of
other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren't a friend
of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.

Grazing for cattle doesn't have a rosy trend, and some forests are dying of heat-related
infestations and fires. More to come.
Denial doesn't do the next generation any good at all, old guy.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:13:39 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...
>
> ... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
>
> "substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
> the global temperature increase in this century ..."
>
> because India isn't doing denialism like John Larkin.

India, China, Russia, just three of the countries that don't do the global agreement shit.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:23:04 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.
>
> I've looked up most of those things, but YOU

Don't shout, I'm not fucking deaf.

> need to know that 'plants' includes weeds and inedible parts,

So?

> and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level,

Double the CO2, double the growth. I have a farmer friend who pumps CO2 into polytunnels.

> there's a whole bunch of
> other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren't a friend
> of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.

If it's the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

> Grazing for cattle doesn't have a rosy trend,

Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.

> and some forests are dying of heat-related infestations and fires. More to come.

And some forests are getting the heat they need. Swings and roundabouts.

> Denial doesn't do the next generation any good at all, old guy.

Oh do grow up. This is you this is.... "You're a denier! Ner ner ner ner ner! You can't handle the truth! I know better! I believe any old shite, and I'm right because everyone else says so! The majority is always right!"

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:23:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >
> >> We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.
> >
> > I've looked up most of those things, but YOU

> Don't shout, I'm not fucking deaf.

....don't whine, I'm not your mother

> > need to know that 'plants' includes weeds and inedible parts,

> So?

So, plant growth doesn't imply/equate to food increase. Why did you need to ask?

> > and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level,
> > there's a whole bunch of
> > other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren't a friend
> > of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.

> If it's the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren't as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

> > Grazing for cattle doesn't have a rosy trend,

> Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.

Don't be obtuse; the real food that cattle eat hasn't increased with CO2, which is
a genuinely interesting bit of food-value data that refutes the 'benefit' of an increase
in food due to CO2 and climate change.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>>> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>>> >
>>> >> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>>> >
>>> > Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
>>> > like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
>>> > John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
>>
>>> No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
>>
>> Not true; where did that idea come from?
>
>Your belief we're killing the world with a bit of gas.
>
>> John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
>> solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
>> histories,
>
>No, he's just not concerned about something that will never happen.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUiURrUVIAI7I38?format=jpg&name=900x900

Various professional private-jet-owning doomsters have put us 10 years
from climate extinction for, what, 60 years now?

Things just keep getting better. Those curves WILL flatten out when we
run out of poor people.

>
>> and complete engineering failure to deal with 'a bit of gas'.
>> He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
>> Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
>> change is no fiction. The 'end of the world' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
>> evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.
>
>We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Fmedia%2F34464%2Flomborg-global-deaths-from-climate-and-non-climate-catastrophes-1920-2018-figure-3a-_900w.png%3Fwidth%3D600%26height%3D557.0175438596491&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Farticles%2Fclimate-related-deaths-are-at-historic-lows-data-show%2F&tbnid=yYkvEwH3BNXiuM&vet=12ahUKEwjA5LOzzqH4AhXekGoFHcSqATkQMygGegUIARDEAQ..i&docid=8iZ8D-PzEcB9GM&w=600&h=557&q=deaths%20from%20extreme%20weather&ved=2ahUKEwjA5LOzzqH4AhXekGoFHcSqATkQMygGegUIARDEAQ

So why are so many people hysterical about how bad things are? It's
weird.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:23:11 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> >> Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Not relevant, because we aren't heading into a future that
>>>> >> > resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn't a monster in your closet.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn't John Larkin?
>>>> >
>>>> >> Because he isn't a worry-wart like you?
>>>> >
>>>> > Huh? You're telling me it's rational to think the future will be
>>>> > like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
>>>> > John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
>>>
>>>> No, it's you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
>>>
>>> Not true; where did that idea come from?
>>
>> Your belief we're killing the world with a bit of gas.
>>
>>> John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
>>> solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
>>> histories,
>>
>> No, he's just not concerned about something that will never happen.
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUiURrUVIAI7I38?format=jpg&name=900x900
>
> Various professional private-jet-owning doomsters have put us 10 years
> from climate extinction for, what, 60 years now?
>
> Things just keep getting better. Those curves WILL flatten out when we
> run out of poor people.
>
>>> and complete engineering failure to deal with 'a bit of gas'.
>>> He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
>>> Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
>>> change is no fiction. The 'end of the world' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
>>> evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.
>>
>> We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.
>
> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.

Precisely. Why do these alarmists lack common sense?

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:23:04 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >
>> >> We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.
>> >
>> > I've looked up most of those things, but YOU
>
>> Don't shout, I'm not fucking deaf.
>
> ...don't whine, I'm not your mother

Why did you type YOU in capitals? People WHO emphasize for NO reason at ALL are morons.

>> > need to know that 'plants' includes weeds and inedible parts,
>
>> So?
>
> So, plant growth doesn't imply/equate to food increase. Why did you need to ask?

You fucking idiot. More CO2 means more of every plant. More weeds, who cares, more crops, we eat more.

>> > and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level,
>> > there's a whole bunch of
>> > other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren't a friend
>> > of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.
>
>> If it's the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.
>
> Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren't as predictable
> as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

And since we can't predict the extremes, how are we able to predict there will be extremes? We can't. So shut up.

>> > Grazing for cattle doesn't have a rosy trend,
>
>> Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.
>
> Don't be obtuse; the real food that cattle eat hasn't increased with CO2, which is
> a genuinely interesting bit of food-value data that refutes the 'benefit' of an increase
> in food due to CO2 and climate change.

The increase of CO2 is fucking negligible. It hasn't even doubled:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/3obcvx7NiuU-YLF2tKkd4os9Oq0=/1000x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/PVDCDGZ3SBBABANK5AGCGWFF5M.png