For my Canadian friends

[sear]

"We do not really know how much heat the extra CO2 is going to retain" R5 #460

I got the impression climatologists had calculated it fairly precisely.

"... so it could go the way of Venus and reach deadly temperatures like over 300 degrees." R5 #460

If we don't kill ourselves off first.

"But it also may take a long time, so in our lifetime, a migration to the poles may help?" R5 #460

You can't K-turn a battleship in a bathtub.
Some reports I've read of it indicate if we dropped the increase in atmospheric CO2 to zero%, there's still a 100 year lag time before the planet would restabilize at its new set-point.

"The oddest part is that the easiest fix would just be more tree planting, but it does not look like that is going to happen." R5 #460

I doubt we'll dig up any parking lots for that.

 

[Rigby5]

I got the impression climatologists had calculated it fairly precisely.


If we don't kill ourselves off first.


You can't K-turn a battleship in a bathtub.
Some reports I've read of it indicate if we dropped the increase in atmospheric CO2 to zero%, there's still a 100 year lag time before the planet would restabilize at its new set-point.


I doubt we'll dig up any parking lots for that.

Its not quite that settled science.
We are really talking about CO2 being opaque to the low frequency infrared heat that would normally leave the planet by radiating out into space.
Since this only happens on the edge of space, we can't easily run experiments on it.
And even more complex is that about 10% of the climate scientists have faith that as the planet warms, there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere, that will lead to a more constant cloud cover, that will reflect more sunlight before it can even start to warm the planet.
This is complex because the melting polar and glacial ice has instead decreased planetary albedo, so it is hard to calculate what the increase will actually do?
However, I do not look forward to constant cloud cover.
I kind of like seeing stars in the sky.

 

[Shiftless2]

Let’s summarize this again for those who dont understand or believe everything Conservatives keep repeating.

Refining more oil in Canada would NOT lower gas prices.

Gas prices in Canada are primarily driven by global market rates, not by how much refining capacity we build domestically.

Crude oil is a commodity. Like wheat or gold, its price is set on global markets. Canadian oil prices and gasoline prices are tied to international benchmarks such as WTI and Brent. That means global supply and demand determines the price long before it reaches a pump in Canada.

We’ve already seen how this works.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, gas prices across Canada spiked past two dollars per litre within weeks. That wasn’t because Canada suddenly ran out of refineries. It was because the global oil market reacted.

Canada already has a significant refining industry. In fact, Canada refines more oil than it consumes in some regions. At the same time, the country still exports crude and imports certain refined fuels. That’s largely due to transportation logistics and regional infrastructure, not a lack of refining capacity.

And then there’s the comparison people love to make with Norway.

Norway’s oil wealth comes from a heavily state owned and state controlled system managed by the Norwegian government.

In Canada, Conservatives usually call that communism.

SOURCE with comments

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 4595

Let’s summarize this again for those who dont understand or believe everything Conservatives keep repeating.

Refining more oil in Canada would NOT lower gas prices.

Gas prices in Canada are primarily driven by global market rates, not by how much refining capacity we build domestically.

Crude oil is a commodity. Like wheat or gold, its price is set on global markets. Canadian oil prices and gasoline prices are tied to international benchmarks such as WTI and Brent. That means global supply and demand determines the price long before it reaches a pump in Canada.

We’ve already seen how this works.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, gas prices across Canada spiked past two dollars per litre within weeks. That wasn’t because Canada suddenly ran out of refineries. It was because the global oil market reacted.

Canada already has a significant refining industry. In fact, Canada refines more oil than it consumes in some regions. At the same time, the country still exports crude and imports certain refined fuels. That’s largely due to transportation logistics and regional infrastructure, not a lack of refining capacity.

And then there’s the comparison people love to make with Norway.

Norway’s oil wealth comes from a heavily state owned and state controlled system managed by the Norwegian government.

In Canada, Conservatives usually call that communism.

SOURCE with comments

That is why I see communism as vastly superior.
There is no reason to let some monopoly double the price of goods compared to what they cost to make.

 

[sear]

"That is why I see communism as vastly superior.
There is no reason to let some monopoly double the price of goods compared to what they cost to make." R5 #464

- fine -
BUT !
Perpetrating fossil fuel commerce at production cost, instead of environmental impact cost is a shortcut to the flaming torments of Hell.

The chlorophyll impregnated leaves that converted the sunlight into the raw material that additional geological forces converted into petroleum over millions of years,
that's all a long-term natural process.

We're consuming that naturally accumulated energy in a minuscule fraction of the time it took to collect and concentrate it.
The cost of production simply doesn't reflect realistically on either its true cost, or its true value.

 

[Rigby5]

- fine -
BUT !
Perpetrating fossil fuel commerce at production cost, instead of environmental impact cost is a shortcut to the flaming torments of Hell.

The chlorophyll impregnated leaves that converted the sunlight into the raw material that additional geological forces converted into petroleum over millions of years,
that's all a long-term natural process.

We're consuming that naturally accumulated energy in a minuscule fraction of the time it took to collect and concentrate it.
The cost of production simply doesn't reflect realistically on either its true cost, or its true value.

Oil conservation is especially important once one realizes that the oil we are burning is also the essential means of providing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc., for food fertilizers.
When we run out of oil, we can switch to things like solar, wind, or nuclear power, but nothing can replace the fertilizers we need.

 

[sear]

"Oil conservation is especially important once one realizes that the oil we are burning is also the essential means of providing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc., for food fertilizers.
When we run out of oil, we can switch to things like solar, wind, or nuclear power, but nothing can replace the fertilizers we need." R5 #466

- Soylent Green is people ! - Chuck Heston

We have a baud rate problem R5.
This post #467 will require a certain minimum amount of bandwidth to communicate.
It's a modest post, low impact content, even if about end-of-the-world topic.

BUT !

When it REALLY matters, on election day, the voter's bandwidth is throttled back to less than a communications trickle.
For any particular candidate, the extent of the voter's input is zero, or one, no, or yes.

3rd Millennium issues are complex as R5 #466 demonstrates.
And what were the voter's choices in 2024? Harris or Trump? The voters hadn't even chosen Harris, she didn't run in the primary. She was thrust upon general election voters after the Dems pulled the rug out from under Biden.
Bottom line there are at very least alarming, persuasive indications of progressive systemic inadequacy. Our 18th Century republic model may not be capable of the political agility required. At very least, a capable candidate would be most welcome. Don't count on it.

"You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These [President Bush (the younger) appointees and sympathizers] people went to the same universities and fraternities, they're on the same boards of directors,
they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests. They don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them, and they're getting it.
There used to be 7 oil companies, now there are 3, it will soon be 2. The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice. There are 2 political parties, there are a hand full of insurance companies,
there are about 6 or 7 information companies. But if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors because you have the illusion, you have the illusion of choice. You don't get the real important choices, there's no freedom of choice." George Carlin

 

[Shiftless2]

That is why I see communism as vastly superior.
There is no reason to let some monopoly double the price of goods compared to what they cost to make.

Only one problem with that - unless you can convince the entire world to come under that "one umbrella" it won't work.

 

[sear]

"Only one problem with that - unless you can convince the entire world to come under that "one umbrella" it won't work." S2 #468 inspired by R5 #466

Seems to me communism absolutely thrives, is an unbridled success at family level.
When older brother's trousers are outgrown, they join younger brother's wardrobe.
Perhaps at church level communism succeeds.
What seems to be the indispensable component of success of communism is universal, eagerly embraced common purpose.

Without that, democracy seems to have the advantage.

Has pure communism ever been attempted at national level?
The Soviet experiment fizzled. Was it "communist" or totalitarian?
Same for North Korea.

China may be more successful. But isn't China at best a hybrid ? The most successful components of China the most Westernized?

 

[Rigby5]

Only one problem with that - unless you can convince the entire world to come under that "one umbrella" it won't work.

Seems the opposite to me.
The only way communism can work is a small community where there already is the social pressure to be communal, collective, and cooperative.
The problem of communism is when you try to increase its size and force strangers to be communal, collective, and cooperative.

 

[Rigby5]

Seems to me communism absolutely thrives, is an unbridled success at family level.
When older brother's trousers are outgrown, they join younger brother's wardrobe.
Perhaps at church level communism succeeds.
What seems to be the indispensable component of success of communism is universal, eagerly embraced common purpose.

Without that, democracy seems to have the advantage.

Has pure communism ever been attempted at national level?
The Soviet experiment fizzled. Was it "communist" or totalitarian?
Same for North Korea.

China may be more successful. But isn't China at best a hybrid ? The most successful components of China the most Westernized?

Yes, communism is the natural social order in all families and small tribes.
I have never heard of anyone attempting communism even on a municipal level, much less state or national.
There were communists in the Russian revolution, like Trotsky, but I think Lenin and Stalin had them all killed.
What Lenin and Stalin created was an oligarchy, and I don't see how one could ever have communism without a democratic republic?

The real problem is that capitalism is even more despotic than what Lenin and Stalin did.
Capitalism is just pure greed, and that is totally against the ideals of a democratic republic.

 

[sear]

"Yes, communism is the natural social order in all families and small tribes.
I have never heard of anyone attempting communism even on a municipal level, much less state or national." R5 #471

One needn't have a doctor ate trigonology to have a common sense empirical understanding of entropy. Left to seemingly random forces things just seem to naturally turn to pooh.
Scale that common sense up to national governance, central planning would seem to be a more reliable path to prosperity than seemingly random market forces, mêlée capitalism. Buyer be where?

Perhaps it depends upon the central planners.
I don't mean to seem fatalistic, but regulated market capitalism is OK with me. I understand there's work to be done on narrowing the wealth gap. -fine-

"The real problem is that capitalism is even more despotic than what Lenin and Stalin did.
Capitalism is just pure greed, and that is totally against the ideals of a democratic republic." R5 #471

Seems a little dire to me.
Greed gets a bad reputation from Bezos, Gates, & Musk for the same reason the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

But I wouldn't condemn the entire bell-curve for the 6 sigma exceptions.
I suspect greed is indispensable. Without any self-consideration we'd all get hungry, and starve to death.

A refreshing Summer breeze is a delight. A 167 MPH cyclone, not so much. It's a matter of degree.

 

[Rigby5]

One needn't have a doctor ate trigonology to have a common sense empirical understanding of entropy. Left to seemingly random forces things just seem to naturally turn to pooh.
Scale that common sense up to national governance, central planning would seem to be a more reliable path to prosperity than seemingly random market forces, mêlée capitalism. Buyer be where?

Perhaps it depends upon the central planners.
I don't mean to seem fatalistic, but regulated market capitalism is OK with me. I understand there's work to be done on narrowing the wealth gap. -fine-


Seems a little dire to me.
Greed gets a bad reputation from Bezos, Gates, & Musk for the same reason the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

But I wouldn't condemn the entire bell-curve for the 6 sigma exceptions.
I suspect greed is indispensable. Without any self-consideration we'd all get hungry, and starve to death.

A refreshing Summer breeze is a delight. A 167 MPH cyclone, not so much. It's a matter of degree.

There are some advantages to capitalism, like the faster speed of innovation.

The problem with central planning is that it causes a concentration of power, and that is always corrupted by capitalists.
So I am not sure if communism could ever be done on a large scale?