@thejeff Notice how all of my posts relating to the lecture by Professor Summerville are never directly countered. There is the mere allegation that the Prof isn't supporting my position on the nature of efficiency and the possible modes of mitigating AGW. Solutions involving improved holistic efficiency being much preferred over solution-by-government-edict and the attendant blow-back failure. <-- How can that not be obvious?
.
As for new renewable infrastructure development overtaking all fossil fuels development in 2020:
Firstly, this is hardly surprising and nothing I ever wholly disputed. Secondly, as I've pointed out a hundred times or more on this thread, and as the Inimitable Greta has schooled us, this will prove to be too little too late.
Furthermore, as "the West" moves towards a greener energy footprint a few decades too late, there is stuff like this going on:
Carbon emissions: Scale of UK fossil fuel support 'staggering'
BBC wrote: A small government agency is supporting fossil fuel projects abroad with estimated carbon emissions of a country the size of Portugal, it has emerged...
Kerry McCarthy MP, a Labour member of the EAC said: "It's ludicrous that we would be funding something overseas, that we are purporting to be moving away from in our own country.
"There's just a complete disconnect, there's complete hypocrisy, that we boast of cleaning up our own act, but actually we are enabling other countries to carry on polluting."
It doesn't matter if the wealthy 15% of humanity goes green by 2030* if the other 85% increases their carbon footprint by as little as 20% over today's value.
Remember, it's the scale of the problem and the limited time to implement it that will hang us all.
* Not that we will of course, just using the ridiculously hopeful date of 2030 to highlight the impossibility of the "solution" CB is promoting.
Quark Blast wrote: @thejeff Notice how all of my posts relating to the lecture by Professor Summerville are never directly countered. There is the mere allegation that the Prof isn't supporting my position on the nature of efficiency and the possible modes of mitigating AGW. Solutions involving improved holistic efficiency being much preferred over solution-by-government-edict and the attendant blow-back failure. <-- How can that not be obvious?
.
We did directly address this and pointed out the quotes. You failed to see it because whenever you read something you only see what you want to see.
Interestingly here's an article by Mother Jones News that recapitulates the greater part of my posts to this thread:
We Need a Massive Climate War Effort—Now
OTOH, this item here might get the same result with an unfortunate additional load of death and chaos:
Coronavirus Live Updates: Cases Up Nearly 60%, as Airports Expand Screenings
SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus. The death rate seems to be over 2% for sure at this point and 10% or higher wouldn't surprise the experts apparently. Tens of millions of people are on lock-down as I type with likely hundreds of millions more before this is over. If that doesn't decimate our global economy, or worse, than this type of thing might catch up to us before 2050.
Antarctica melting: Climate change and the journey to the 'doomsday glacier'
There's no way that the Thwaites glacier is the only thing we've underestimated this badly. Chaos in the system is inherently hard to model don't ya know.
As they say in the article, "It will take years to process all the information the team has gathered and incorporate the findings into the models that are used to project future sea level rise."
Roughly 8% of global sea level rise is dependent on this one glacier that we really don't have a good model of. Huh, who would've guessed?
:D
Captain Obvious is that you?
In other news, the Earth revolves around the Sun but rotates on its axis.
:D
You said:
Quark Blast wrote: SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus. Which implies that SARS being a coronavirus is not obvious to you, since your sentence implies that they are different things.
If you don't like me pointing out mistakes like this:
1) get off your high horse
or
2) stop making them
Well let's never mind the fact that every news outlet, including biomedical ones, are calling the Coronavirus the "Coronavirus" shall we?
There's a time to be pathologically pedantic and there's a time to stop being a ####### ###### in order to move the conversation forward.
So, moving the conversation forward:
Ma Jones wrote: The real issue is this: Only large-scale government action can significantly reduce carbon emissions. But this doesn’t let any of us off the hook. Our personal cutbacks might not matter much, but what does matter is whether we’re willing to support large-scale actions—things like carbon taxes or fracking bans—that will force all of us to reduce our energy consumption.
Solutions depend on how acceptable these policies are to the public. To get a rough handle of what a significant reduction means, the Nature Conservancy has a handy app that can help you calculate what it would take to cut your household carbon footprint in half.
If you’re an average household, you need to pare down to one car. If it’s an suv or a sports car, get rid of it. You need a small, high-mileage vehicle (the calculator assumes a regular gasoline car) and drive it no more than 10,000 miles per year. That’s for your whole family.
You need to cut way back on heating and cooling.
You need to live in a house no bigger than 1,000 square feet.
And you need to buy way less stuff—about half of what you buy now.
.
There are solutions to some of these problems—electrification obviously helps with transportation, and better insulation helps with heating and cooling—but only to a point. One way or another, any government policy big enough to make a serious dent in climate change will also force people to make major lifestyle cutbacks or pay substantially higher taxes—or both.
How many of us are willing to do that? It turns out we have a pretty good idea. In 2018, the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago fielded a national poll on climate change. Only 71 percent of respondents agreed it was happening, and of those, more than 80 percent said the federal government should do something about it.
Then the pollsters presented a scenario in which a monthly tax would be added to your electric bill to combat climate change.
If the tax was $1, only 57 percent supported it.
If the tax was $10, that plummeted to 28 percent.
Those aren’t typos. Only about half of Americans are willing to pay $1 per month to fight climate change. Only about a quarter are willing to pay $10 per month.
And that’s hardly the only evidence of the uphill climb we face. There’s abundant confirmation of the public’s unwillingness to accept sacrifices in living standards to combat climate change. In France, a 2018 gasoline tax increase had to be withdrawn after yellow vest activists...
Yellow Vests huh? Who mentioned that up thread and got criticized for it?
That particular aside, only 28% of the public will support a meager $10/month to fight climate change. What a bunch of #######. Greta is sooo right about humanity.
Quark Blast wrote: Well let's never mind the fact that every news outlet, including biomedical ones, are calling the Coronavirus the "Coronavirus" shall we?
There's a time to be pathologically pedantic and there's a time to stop being a ####### ###### in order to move the conversation forward.
So, your defense is that other people are using bad terminology, so therefore.... it's right?
You're still not understanding the Yellow Vest issue. Just because you mentioned it doesn't mean anything you said is valid. Just because that person said it doesn't mean they're correct either.
If you want to move the conversation forward, we can talk about it, but that means you'll actually have to respond to things I say.
If you mean by "other people" the CDC and WHO, then, yeah, I'll side with those people thanks.
:D
Back on topic:
I was thinking that the 28% supporting a meager $10/month can be read another way. It could be 28% of the the 71% of the 80%. Which, for those of you who are maths challenged, would be just shy of 16%. That would be especially pathetic but not beyond believability given some of the other compartmentalized opinions people have been shown to hold.
CDC page about the new coronavirus.
Huh, their page refers to it as 2019-nCoV, the technical (and correct) term. They don't just call it "Coronavirus".
How much money do you want to bet me that if I check the WHO website, it's going to use the the 2019-nCoV (or the long form "Novel Coronavirus 2019") name for the virus? I'm in for $20, but willing to go higher.
This is another example of you making up b~&!*$&~ about how experts agree with you, but when someone actually goes and looks at what the experts are saying we find out that you were making it up.
Of course, you could have just said "I wasn't precise in my language and I made a mistake." If you had done that, it would have made me look like an ass. Now though, we see that you are lying to cover up your mistake and acting like you're smarter. That's the part that annoys me. Not that you made a mistake, but when called on it, you lie and act like I'm the dumbass for noticing your mistake.
Irontruth wrote: CDC page about the new coronavirus.
Huh, their page refers to it as 2019-nCoV, the technical (and correct) term. They don't just call it "Coronavirus".
How much money do you want to bet me that if I check the WHO website, it's going to use the the 2019-nCoV (or the long form "Novel Coronavirus 2019") name for the virus? I'm in for $20, but willing to go higher.
This is another example of you making up b#@&%~#% about how experts agree with you, but when someone actually goes and looks at what the experts are saying we find out that you were making it up.
Of course, you could have just said "I wasn't precise in my language and I made a mistake." If you had done that, it would have made me look like an ass. Now though, we see that you are lying to cover up your mistake and acting like you're smarter. That's the part that annoys me. Not that you made a mistake, but when called on it, you lie and act like I'm the dumbass for noticing your mistake.
LOL - one thing is true --> You don't need my help to look like an ass.
:D
And since we're on this side-track:
How come you knew precisely what I was talking about even though I used 'imprecise language'?
:D
No, this behavior of yours exhibits the same pattern I've seen in your interactions on these forums (and I safely assume everywhere else, including IRL) and everyone knows I'm right. Again.
You know these forums really need the laugh-until-I-cry emoji enabled.
.
The fact remains, the biggest hurdle to meeting a global commitment to a +1.5 year 2100 is base human behavior. And by "base behavior" I mean that in all our inglorious splendor. Assuming only that the IPCC models give us a floor value for AGW, which is a very easy target to hit, we are literally dependent on the invention, refinement, and scaling of near miracle tech* over the next 20 years or so to save us from ourselves.
Will we go extinct otherwise? Not anytime soon but things won't look pretty.
* Strictly speaking a very deadly pandemic will do the trick but I'm trying to be hopeful in my posts... No, really!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: everyone knows I'm right. You say this a lot.
How come you aren't linking the WHO web page on 2019-nCoV? It would prove that you are using their terminology and that I was wrong when I called you out.
Hmmm... you aren't linking it for some reason. So let's go ahead and check it out.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus
So, this is a web page on generic coronaviruses. In fact, the new outbreak isn't even the first thing listed here, but rather MERS and SARS both get mention first. Mabye on the webpage for this specific outbreak they use "Coronavirus" to refer to the outbreak and not 2019-nCoV.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Huh, the page itself is labeled by the temporary name for the virus, and not the generic "Coronavirus" (they used that page name for the entire family of viruses). The big banner uses "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)". They've specifically used the lower case for "coronavirus" in that labeling.
It's strange that they, experts, are using specific and precise language. These experts are not defaulting to the same imprecise and vague terminology that you asserted they used.
Why would you lie about something that could be so easily checked?
Quark Blast wrote: SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus. Neither SARS, nor 2019-nCoV, nor any other coronavirus is anywhere near 'first place' in either historical or current death toll. The flu, for example, is killing more people than all of them combined.
Meanwhile, in the 'that didn't take long' category, EIA is now confirming my recent statement that natural gas has peaked. They're still clinging to a delusional scenario where the peak is a 'plateau' and gas will remain almost exactly 37% of the US electrical mix for the next 30 years, but at least they've given up last year's prediction of indefinite natural gas growth. They made the same 'plateau' mistake just before coal went in to free fall, and had been applying it in reverse to renewables (i.e. that they would STOP growing and 'plateau' at current levels) until a couple of years ago.
They are also predicting little use of electric vehicles over the next three decades, and that both nuclear and coal will 'plateau' (i.e. stop declining) at around 1/8th of the electrical mix each within the next few years. So... still complete nonsense, but when even the incredibly fossil fuel biased sources have renewables winning you know the writing is on the wall.
Their 'most likely' scenario has renewables overtaking natural gas in 2045, but a less delusional prediction, wherein they assume that renewable prices could continue to decline (gee, you think?), has the crossover happening in the 2030s.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus. Neither SARS, nor 2019-nCoV, nor any other coronavirus is anywhere near 'first place' in either historical or current death toll. The flu, for example, is killing more people than all of them combined. The flu is currently killing more people than 2019-nCoV, but that's because the flu has already spread worldwide, essentially unchecked, as it does every year. It's not going to get significantly worse.
This new outbreak is scary because it's just getting started and expanding really fast. It has the potential to be really bad. It could still get stopped early like SARS was, though that's looking less and less likely. It could mutate into a less serious version as it spreads (and there are apparently solid reasons that often happens). As things stand though, it's likely to spread to tens or hundreds of millions of people without any of the resistance we all have to the normal flu. They're still getting a handle on exactly how deadly it is and what percentage of cases will need hospital care, but initial indications are that it will be nastier than normal flues and spread as easily. That's not a good combination.
It's almost certainly not going to top the toll of some historical plagues percentage-wise, though due to larger, more connected populations it might be in the running in terms of raw numbers.
thejeff wrote: It's almost certainly not going to top the toll of some historical plagues percentage-wise, though due to larger, more connected populations it might be in the running in terms of raw numbers. At this point we don't know enough to completely rule that out, but it is highly unlikely.
In any case, the point is that talk of this being the 'first place killer' is unfounded. We are a long long LONG way from that. If a few years from now it has killed several million people we can start talking about whether it would ever get bad enough to be in the running... though even then it'd be highly speculative that it would ever top a billion deaths to potentially rival tuberculosis and malaria.
A new strain of the flu could get worse at any time.
2019-nCoV seems to skew higher on it's base R0, but not dramatically. It is well inside the range of other coronaviruses (2-5). The R0-value being the average number of people who gain the infection from an infected person. An outbreak with a value of less than 1 will slowly end on its own, while a value over 1 can continue spreading.
Smallpox is in the 5-7 range, and measles is in the teens. Most flu strains are in the 2-3 range.
Travel restrictions will limit this to regions. Quarantine and screening procedures also reduce the R0-value. With 6 cases in the US, and only one reported human-human transmission, within the US the R0-value is R-0.167. As long as it is kept under 1, it won't be spreading in the US significantly.
The morbidity rate is difficult to predict until the outbreak runs its course. Currently it is only around 2%, which is less than 1/5 the SARS outbreak, but it has infected about 2000 more people than SARS did.
Scientists and public health managers have learned a lot since SARS/MERS and also the ebola outbreaks in Africa the past few years. For example, the entire flight of US citizens from Wuhan was flown to Alaska and every passenger voluntarily accepted quarantine. No cases on that flight have been found yet.
Helpfully the NY Times answers these questions with clear fact presentation enhanced by animated graphics here:
How Bad Will the Coronavirus Outbreak Get?
Here Are 6 Key Factors
I'll apologize in advance for the NY Times grossly unclear nomenclature in the title of this piece. You'd think journalism school grads working at such a prestigious institution would know better (or at least their editors would!) but it seems the Interwebs is just chock full of rubes who can't get the names of pathogens straight. </sarcasm>
Now the interesting question will be how this affects global CO2 output for this year.
Irontruth wrote: A new strain of the flu could get worse at any time.
2019-nCoV seems to skew higher on it's base R0, but not dramatically. It is well inside the range of other coronaviruses (2-5). The R0-value being the average number of people who gain the infection from an infected person. An outbreak with a value of less than 1 will slowly end on its own, while a value over 1 can continue spreading.
Smallpox is in the 5-7 range, and measles is in the teens. Most flu strains are in the 2-3 range.
Travel restrictions will limit this to regions. Quarantine and screening procedures also reduce the R0-value. With 6 cases in the US, and only one reported human-human transmission, within the US the R0-value is R-0.167. As long as it is kept under 1, it won't be spreading in the US significantly.
The morbidity rate is difficult to predict until the outbreak runs its course. Currently it is only around 2%, which is less than 1/5 the SARS outbreak, but it has infected about 2000 more people than SARS did.
Scientists and public health managers have learned a lot since SARS/MERS and also the ebola outbreaks in Africa the past few years. For example, the entire flight of US citizens from Wuhan was flown to Alaska and every passenger voluntarily accepted quarantine. No cases on that flight have been found yet.
Currently it's infected about 2000 more people than SARS (confirmed cases only). Yesterday it was below. Tomorrow it'll be at least a few thousand more, unless there's a drastic shift.
It's just hit the US, so I'd be surprised if the US R0 number didn't get much closer to China's. We're just not through the waiting period yet.
SARS would have been worse if it had gone worldwide. This is going to be really hard to keep contained.
Ebola isn't really a good comparison, since the transmission routes are so different.
Quark Blast wrote: I'll apologize in advance for the NY Times grossly unclear nomenclature in the title of this piece. You'd think journalism school grads working at such a prestigious institution would know better (or at least their editors would!) but it seems the Interwebs is just chock full of rubes who can't get the names of pathogens straight. </sarcasm> Actually, "the Coronavirus Outbreak" is entirely correct and completely clear.
I dunno... "the" Coronavirus... That's like saying "the" flu.
Really? Which flu? "A" or "B" presumably but it could be "C".
WTH people! So ####### confusing! ####### liars!
:D
Srsly though this is looking like it'll dampen our global carbon footprint this year by measurable amounts. Maybe shave off a metric gigaton or ten.
thejeff wrote:
Ebola isn't really a good comparison, since the transmission routes are so different.
Notice that I said scientists and public health managers, and I did not say "doctors and clinicians". Out of curiosity, what is an example of a public health policy (things from the perspective of cities and nations, not clinics) that you think is helpful against ebola, but would not be helpful against 2019-nCoV.
A doctor would determine what specific screening methods are best to use, but a public health manager would determine how, when, and where to implement screening methods.
For example, at the public policy level, for all their hand-wringing about Obama's policies on ebola, the current administration is essentially going to do a lot of the same things. We aren't mobilizing the military, but I think China probably has enough of that resource to cover it.
Quark Blast wrote: Helpfully the NY Times answers these questions with clear fact presentation enhanced by animated graphics here:
How Bad Will the Coronavirus Outbreak Get?
Here Are 6 Key Factors
I'll apologize in advance for the NY Times grossly unclear nomenclature in the title of this piece. You'd think journalism school grads working at such a prestigious institution would know better (or at least their editors would!) but it seems the Interwebs is just chock full of rubes who can't get the names of pathogens straight. </sarcasm>
Now the interesting question will be how this affects global CO2 output for this year.
Other than the headline (headlines and titles often have different capitalization rules), quote one point in that article where they call it "the Coronavirus".
The article tends to call it "the virus" and makes note that SARS is also a coronavirus. This article is more specific and precise in it's language than you were.
It's okay to just admit that you made a mistake. As long as you insist on defending this position that you were right, I get to keep pointing out that you were wrong. It doesn't help your case that all the facts are on my side.
As long as you keep defending yourself with lies, I'm going to keep pointing out that you're lying.
Quark Blast wrote: I dunno... "the" Coronavirus... That's like saying "the" flu.
Really? Which flu? "A" or "B" presumably but it could be "C".
Again, "the Coronavirus Outbreak".
Is any OTHER coronavirus currently having a notable outbreak? No. Ergo, it is completely clear which one they are talking about.
Irontruth wrote: thejeff wrote:
Ebola isn't really a good comparison, since the transmission routes are so different.
Notice that I said scientists and public health managers, and I did not say "doctors and clinicians". Out of curiosity, what is an example of a public health policy (things from the perspective of cities and nations, not clinics) that you think is helpful against ebola, but would not be helpful against 2019-nCoV.
A doctor would determine what specific screening methods are best to use, but a public health manager would determine how, when, and where to implement screening methods.
For example, at the public policy level, for all their hand-wringing about Obama's policies on ebola, the current administration is essentially going to do a lot of the same things. We aren't mobilizing the military, but I think China probably has enough of that resource to cover it. Well, if the public health managers listen to the doctors, clinicians and scientists, that would be a good thing. :)
The policies that contained ebola in the US won't be effective against 2019-nCoV. In that case it was monitoring anyone who'd been potentially exposed and isolating them if and when they showed symptoms, because ebola isn't contagious until late in the disease's progress. This virus is apparently contagious days before symptoms show - though it's not clear to me yet how early a lab test can pick it up. The quarantines that were pushed in unjustified panic over ebola may actually be a practical response in this case.
thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: thejeff wrote:
Ebola isn't really a good comparison, since the transmission routes are so different.
Notice that I said scientists and public health managers, and I did not say "doctors and clinicians". Out of curiosity, what is an example of a public health policy (things from the perspective of cities and nations, not clinics) that you think is helpful against ebola, but would not be helpful against 2019-nCoV.
A doctor would determine what specific screening methods are best to use, but a public health manager would determine how, when, and where to implement screening methods.
For example, at the public policy level, for all their hand-wringing about Obama's policies on ebola, the current administration is essentially going to do a lot of the same things. We aren't mobilizing the military, but I think China probably has enough of that resource to cover it. Well, if the public health managers listen to the doctors, clinicians and scientists, that would be a good thing. :)
The policies that contained ebola in the US won't be effective against 2019-nCoV. In that case it was monitoring anyone who'd been potentially exposed and isolating them if and when they showed symptoms, because ebola isn't contagious until late in the disease's progress. This virus is apparently contagious days before symptoms show - though it's not clear to me yet how early a lab test can pick it up. The quarantines that were pushed in unjustified panic over ebola may actually be a practical response in this case.
I guess I'm not making myself clear. I feel like I'm saying something, and you are responding to something else that is not what I'm saying. I'll drop it.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I dunno... "the" Coronavirus... That's like saying "the" flu.
Really? Which flu? "A" or "B" presumably but it could be "C".
Again, "the Coronavirus Outbreak".
Is any OTHER coronavirus currently having a notable outbreak? No. Ergo, it is completely clear which one they are talking about. OK, one more time:
How come you knew precisely what I was talking about even though I used 'imprecise language'?
Perhaps I deserve the same break you gave the Times? Nah! These are the Interwebs where common courtesy is vanishingly rare.
Back to the OP:
No economists are putting numbers out there but I'd say conservatively that Ye New Coronaviris* is looking to slow down carbon emissions by at least 1 gigaton so far.
OTOH oil prices are falling which makes it cheaper to burn fuel (and natural gas) for at least a little while longer but I don't think that will offset the virus induced slowdown significantly.
* Yeah, for those of you who are "challenged" by such imprecision, I'm talking about the same virus as the aforementioned NY Times article. Whew! Glad I cleared that up.
Before my grandmother passed she had a lot of difficulty with vocabulary. She would be speaking and often have difficulty finding the correct word. For example, she would ask me about my dog, but the closest word she could come up with is "elephant". I was able to figure out she was talking about my dog, but that doesn't mean her usage of the word "elephant" was correct.
Quark Blast wrote:
OK, one more time:
How come you knew precisely what I was talking about even though I used 'imprecise language'?
So you agree that you used the terminology incorrectly. Since that is cleared up, we can move on and talk about other things now.
Ok, this absurd pedantry is just getting insanely stupid.
Irontruth, I get it that you really, really hate Quark and belittle him at the slightest opportunity (or like to act like that, at least)
But in this case you're being an absolute asshat of a pedant.
It IS called "Coronavirus" all other the place. It was completely and utterly clear what Quark meant. If you're reduced to arguing that he is wrong to call it "Coronavirus" you're admitting that you have absolutely no SUBSTANTIVE issues with what he is saying.
As a single example on many, I'll point out the BBC (home page as of my posting this, its one of the places I generally get my news)
The link is entitled "Coronavirus outbreak hits cruise ship off Japan"
The headline of the article is
Coronavirus: Ten passengers on cruise ship test positive for virus
The first paragraph reads :
At least 10 people on board a cruise ship docked in the Japanese port of Yokohama have tested positive for coronavirus, health authorities said.
Quark is absolutely correct. In general usage it is, absolutely unambiguously, being called "Coronavirus" or, sometimes "The coronavirus"
Paul, go back and read the very first post where I corrected him. Tell me if you think that was overboard. Did I insult him? Did I use aggressive and combative language? Did I do anything in that post to offend your sensibilities?
Here's the post, if you missed it.
Irontruth wrote: SARS is a coronavirus. If you're going to lecture me, please point out where in that post that I did something to offend you. Not in later posts. Just in that post. I have a specific point I want to make to you, and it is essential that we only discuss this post at this time. I will continue to discuss this issue of civility with you, but I want to make sure whether we agree or disagree on whether that post, the one I quoted, was civil in your mind or not.
pauljathome wrote: Ok, this absurd pedantry is just getting insanely stupid. Yes, but we won't hold it against you.
pauljathome wrote: Quark is absolutely correct. In general usage it is, absolutely unambiguously, being called "Coronavirus" or, sometimes "The coronavirus" In many places that is true. Yet Quark himself claimed the NYT was wrong to call it "the Coronavirus outbreak".
In any case, the initial objection was to QBs claim that, "SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus"... which both mistakes Coronavirus as the name of a particular virus, and contrasts a coronavirus with... a coronavirus.
Yes, belaboring the point is tedious... but vastly less so than insisting that there was no error to begin with. Admit the error or move on. Don't insist you were right or otherwise try to obfuscate and deflect (e.g. 'the NYT is wrong TOO!', except they weren't).
@pauljathome - I appreciate the clarity and tenacity of your effort but it's ok to drop it. The thing I find most interesting about the Coronavirus derail is it highlights the fact that my one critic has never understood I'm not actually engaging with his inane pedantry and the other one seems congenitally unable to detect sarcasm, even when I use the </sarcasm> tag!
This forum really does need the tears-of-mirth emoji enabled. </sarcasm>
:D
I saw this (How the new coronavirus will finally get a proper name ) this morning and it's too funny not to link it here. Again, we need the tears-of-mirth emoji enabled. We soooo do.
:D
This seems relevant to the discussion
The new Coranavirus is getting a name
And Irontruth started all this with
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: wrote:
SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus.
Which implies that SARS being a coronavirus is not obvious to you, since your sentence implies that they are different things.
If you don't like me pointing out mistakes like this:
1) get off your high horse
or
2) stop making them
I stand by my assertion that is absurd pedantry
Except that post isn’t where this started. So clearly you are choosing to ignore evidence in order to be belligerent with me.
Your claim of desiring civility falls flat if you are going to ignore posts that don’t fit your narrative.
pauljathome wrote: This seems relevant to the discussion
The new Coranavirus is getting a name
I think they should name them like hurricanes. Just call it "Bob" or something.
pauljathome wrote: And Irontruth started all this with
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: wrote:
SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus.
Which implies that SARS being a coronavirus is not obvious to you, since your sentence implies that they are different things.
If you don't like me pointing out mistakes like this:
1) get off your high horse
or
2) stop making them
I stand by my assertion that is absurd pedantry
It have seemed that way if QB hadn't doubled down on proving he was right. A simple admission at the start that "SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus" didn't really make sense and that "to this new coronavirus" or "to the Wuhan coronavirus" or something would have been better and this would have all been dropped. But as we all knew up front, QB couldn't do that and had to respond by claiming the experts were on his side. Irontruth said as much in his second post in this digression, admitting he'd have looked like the ass if QB had just been willing to back off.
thejeff wrote: It have seemed that way if QB hadn't doubled down on proving he was right. A simple admission at the start that "SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus" didn't really make sense and that "to this new coronavirus" or "to the Wuhan coronavirus" or something would have been better and this would have all been dropped. No it wouldn't have. You know better than that. Especially when I don't engage in "discussion" with the known ###### on this thread. If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally ignored every point I've made unless he disagrees with it, and even then he usually has to misunderstand and/or mischaracterize it first in order to weigh in with grand hubris to 'set things straight'.
The other guy who habitually disagrees with me? As I said just a bit ago, he seems congenitally unable to get sarcasm; even when I tag it as such!
thejeff wrote: But as we all knew up front, QB couldn't do that and had to respond by claiming the experts were on his side. Irontruth said as much in his second post in this digression, admitting he'd have looked like the ass if QB had just been willing to back off. Can't back off of something I don't recognize to begin with.
I've said nice things about your understanding of me on this thread in the past. I still stand by those statements. But the wisest person here; do you know who that is?
Probably Scythia because that one is smart enough not to post here at all.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: It have seemed that way if QB hadn't doubled down on proving he was right. A simple admission at the start that "SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus" didn't really make sense and that "to this new coronavirus" or "to the Wuhan coronavirus" or something would have been better and this would have all been dropped. No it wouldn't have. You know better than that. Especially when I don't engage in "discussion" with the known ###### on this thread. If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally ignored every point I've made unless he disagrees with it, and even then he usually has to misunderstand and/or mischaracterize it first in order to weigh in with grand hubris to 'set things straight'.
The other guy who habitually disagrees with me? As I said just a bit ago, he seems congenitally unable to get sarcasm; even when I tag it as such!
thejeff wrote: But as we all knew up front, QB couldn't do that and had to respond by claiming the experts were on his side. Irontruth said as much in his second post in this digression, admitting he'd have looked like the ass if QB had just been willing to back off. Can't back off of something I don't recognize to begin with.
I've said nice things about your understanding of me on this thread in the past. I still stand by those statements. But the wisest person here; do you know who that is?
Probably Scythia because that one is smart enough not to post here at all. I'll certainly cop to not being wise enough not to engage here, though I try. Sometimes I get sucked back in.
He called you out on it. Then you doubled down by making up claims about the biomedical news media agreeing with you. If you'd been smart you could have made him look like a pedantic jerk, but you had to pretend to be right instead.
Of course, if you're still claiming that "SARS is looking like a distant second place to Coronavirus" makes sense or that "Coronavirus" is being used on its own by WHO and the CDC to describe 2019-nCoV, well then I've got nothing.
thejeff wrote: I'll certainly cop to not being wise enough not to engage here, though I try. Sometimes I get sucked back in.
He called you out on it. Then you doubled down by making up claims about the biomedical news media agreeing with you. If you'd been smart you could have made him look like a pedantic jerk, but you had to pretend to be right instead.
Of course, if you're still claiming that "SARS is...
Did you not see my first link posted this day?
Here:
(How the new coronavirus will finally get a proper name )
Technically, the virus didn't have a proper name until.. sometime today? Maybe? I'm too lazy to Google to see if they finally got one.
Until then I can call it whatever I want. And the fact the the replies to my original virus post understood precisely which virus I meant holds no weight with you?
You're also ignoring this truth I posted just previously:
If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally never agreed with me except, perhaps, as a wedge to get in another dig. There's a reason why he has so much time to engage in ######### here on these forums. IRL people just walk away.
The other guy? The one who is blind to sarcasm? I mostly object to his Pollyanna-ish posts. Large groups of people never do the quick/smart thing. They usually do the quick/dumb thing but sometimes also the slow/dumb thing.
As a timely example: SARS was a nice prep for today's epi/pandemic, yet China admits to failure, for weeks, to properly respond to the initial outbreak. WTH people!
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I'll certainly cop to not being wise enough not to engage here, though I try. Sometimes I get sucked back in.
He called you out on it. Then you doubled down by making up claims about the biomedical news media agreeing with you. If you'd been smart you could have made him look like a pedantic jerk, but you had to pretend to be right instead.
Of course, if you're still claiming that "SARS is...
Did you not see my first link posted this day?
Here:
(How the new coronavirus will finally get a proper name )
Technically, the virus didn't have a proper name until.. sometime today? Maybe? I'm too lazy to Google to see if they finally got one.
Until then I can call it whatever I want. And the fact the the replies to my original virus post understood precisely which virus I meant holds no weight with you?
You're also ignoring this truth I posted just previously:
If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally never agreed with me except, perhaps, as a wedge to get in another dig. There's a reason why he has so much time to engage in ######### here on these forums. IRL people just walk away.
The other guy? The one who is blind to sarcasm? I mostly object to his Pollyanna-ish posts. Large groups of people never do the quick/smart thing. They usually do the quick/dumb thing but sometimes also the slow/dumb thing.
As a timely example: SARS was a nice prep for today's epi/pandemic, yet China admits to failure, for weeks, to properly respond to the initial outbreak. WTH people! Will: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (4) + 6 = 10
That's actually the dumbest argument yet. No, you can't call it "whatever you want". There is and was proper terminology or simply descriptive terminology, despite the lack of a proper catchy name.
If you'd said from the start "you knew what I meant", instead of insisting incorrectly that the experts agreed with you, then Irontooth would have looked like the idiot if he'd kept pushing it. Instead, you do.
thejeff wrote: Will: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (20) + 6 = 26
That's actually the dumbest argument yet. No, you can't call it "whatever you want".
I see you are blind to hyperbole. Got it, sorry. Won't happen again.
:D
thejeff wrote: There is and was proper terminology or simply descriptive terminology, despite the lack of a proper catchy name.
If you'd said from the start "you knew what I meant", instead of insisting incorrectly that the experts agreed with you, then Irontooth would have looked like the idiot if he'd kept pushing it. Instead, you do.
Here you're making the mistake again of assuming I actually engage the metal head on his terms.
Nope.
BBC wrote: It has been referred to as the coronavirus. But that is the name of the group of viruses it belongs to.
It has also been given the temporary title 2019-nCoV. But just saying that is a mouthful.
Agreed and agreed! Thank you BBC!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: BBC wrote: It has been referred to as the coronavirus. But that is the name of the group of viruses it belongs to.
It has also been given the temporary title 2019-nCoV. But just saying that is a mouthful.
Agreed and agreed! Thank you BBC!
:D
Will: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 8
So the BBC says people have calling it "the coronavirus" and explains why that's incorrect and you're using that to explain why you were right to call it "the coronavirus". That's not really persuasive.
The BBC's statement is of course correct. It just doesn't support your 'every news outlet, including biomedical ones, are calling the Coronavirus the "Coronavirus"', much less that the CDC and WHO are doing so.
And again, this not only shows how determined you are not to admit error, but your common tendency to claim support from sources that don't actually support you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I'll certainly cop to not being wise enough not to engage here, though I try. Sometimes I get sucked back in.
He called you out on it. Then you doubled down by making up claims about the biomedical news media agreeing with you. If you'd been smart you could have made him look like a pedantic jerk, but you had to pretend to be right instead.
Of course, if you're still claiming that "SARS is...
Did you not see my first link posted this day?
Here:
(How the new coronavirus will finally get a proper name )
Technically, the virus didn't have a proper name until.. sometime today? Maybe? I'm too lazy to Google to see if they finally got one.
Until then I can call it whatever I want. And the fact the the replies to my original virus post understood precisely which virus I meant holds no weight with you?
The article is quite explicit that just "calling it whatever you want" is a bad idea. It goes on to explain why giving a virus a specific type of name is good, and why other names are bad.
At no point does that article agree with anything you've said so far. In fact, the article is deeply in favor of using precise and accurate names to avoid confusion and other unintended consequences.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: BBC wrote: It has been referred to as the coronavirus. But that is the name of the group of viruses it belongs to.
It has also been given the temporary title 2019-nCoV. But just saying that is a mouthful.
Agreed and agreed! Thank you BBC!
:D
Will: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (15) + 7 = 22
So the BBC says people have calling it "the coronavirus" and explains why that's incorrect and you're using that to explain why you were right to call it "the coronavirus". That's not really persuasive.
The BBC's statement is of course correct. It just doesn't support your 'every news outlet, including biomedical ones, are calling the Coronavirus the "Coronavirus"', much less that the CDC and WHO are doing so.
And again, this not only shows how determined you are not to admit error, but your common tendency to claim support from sources that don't actually support you. You need to boost your Will Save!
:D
If I may summarize the BBC in one sentence:
"Everybody's calling the Coronavirus the Coronavirus and that's not our fault because the shot-callers on this one still haven't made up their bureaucratic minds."
Thus I'm pointing out that my following the unofficial convention puts me in the majority; even among medical professionals who were (are still?) calling it the Coronavirus in Q&As.
It also highlights my other point, which you have ignored to date, that (and here I'm quoting me): "If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally never agreed with me except, perhaps, as a wedge to get in another dig. There's a reason why he has so much time to engage in ######### here on these forums. IRL people just walk away."
I actually don't mind what your opinion is of me. The others? The only way I could care less is if I'm dead.
.
All of which ignores the OP reason I posted the Coronavirus thing to begin with. Namely, China's slowdown has given us about 1 gigaton in CO2 savings so far. If this lasts another couple of weeks it'll double that easy and if it lasts another month... all bets are off but it'll screw the global economy for sure.
Care to interact on topic?
I can find statements by economists who are saying something like this but no one (econs or otherwise) are giving any kind of number viz-a-viz projected CO2 emissions for the year.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: BBC wrote: It has been referred to as the coronavirus. But that is the name of the group of viruses it belongs to.
It has also been given the temporary title 2019-nCoV. But just saying that is a mouthful.
Agreed and agreed! Thank you BBC!
:D
So the BBC says people have calling it "the coronavirus" and explains why that's incorrect and you're using that to explain why you were right to call it "the coronavirus". That's not really persuasive.
The BBC's statement is of course correct. It just doesn't support your 'every news outlet, including biomedical ones, are calling the Coronavirus the "Coronavirus"', much less that the CDC and WHO are doing so.
And again, this not only shows how determined you are not to admit error, but your common tendency to claim support from sources that don't actually support you. You need to boost your Will Save!
:D
If I may summarize the BBC in one sentence:
"Everybody's calling the Coronavirus the Coronavirus and that's not our fault because the shot-callers on this one still haven't made up their bureaucratic minds."
Thus I'm pointing out that my following the unofficial convention puts me in the majority; even among medical professionals who were (are still?) calling it the Coronavirus in Q&As. Will: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (20) + 8 = 28
:D
@thejeff Nice +8. That'll keep you in the 'green zone' for level progression up to about 15th or so.
More on-topic news:
Climate change: Clean tech 'won't solve warming in time'
BBC wrote: Breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen cannot be relied on to help the UK meet its climate change targets, a report says.
The government had hoped that both technologies would contribute to emissions reductions required by 2050.
But the report’s authors say ministers should assume that neither carbon capture and storage (CCS) nor hydrogen will be running "at scale" by 2050.
They say the government must start a debate on other, controversial steps.
These actions, which they say would need to be implemented in the near-term, include cutting down on flying and eating red meat.
Yep, global humanity is* 'going veg' for sure. Or burning up in a runaway 'greenhouse effect' fiery hell of our own creation.
* Hyperbole warning for the hyperbole impaired!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: You need to boost your Will Save!
:D
If I may summarize the BBC in one sentence:
"Everybody's calling the Coronavirus the Coronavirus and that's not our fault because the shot-callers on this one still haven't made up their bureaucratic minds."
Thus I'm pointing out that my following the unofficial convention puts me in the majority; even among medical professionals who were (are still?) calling it the Coronavirus in Q&As.
It also highlights my other point, which you have ignored to date, that (and here I'm quoting me): "If he hadn't "called me out" on that, it would have been something else entirely.
He's literally never agreed with me except, perhaps, as a wedge to get in another dig. There's a reason why he has so much time to engage in ######### here on these forums. IRL people just walk away."
I actually don't mind what your opinion is of me. The others? The only way I could care less is if I'm dead.
.
All of which ignores the OP reason I posted the Coronavirus thing to begin with. Namely, China's slowdown has given us about 1...
You have not cited any medical professionals that call it "the Coronavirus". Your summary of the BBC is inaccurate. At no point do they endorse "the Coronavirus" as a good or valid name.
Quote: It has been referred to as the coronavirus. But that is the name of the group of viruses it belongs to.
It has also been given the temporary title 2019-nCoV. But just saying that is a mouthful.
A group of scientists has been grappling behind closed doors to find a proper term. Now they have told the BBC they are close to announcing it.
The BBC does not call it "the Coronavirus", checking the link clearly tells us that you are incorrect in what you have been saying. At this point, since the issue has been clarified and you've admitted that this is not the correct terminology to be using, it is clear that you are lying in order to deceive people in this thread into thinking you might be right.
I told why I call you out. You make stupid mistakes, and instead of owning up to it, you act like I'm the dumb one for noticing your mistakes. This is gaslighting behavior, and I'm going to call you out for it. If you want me to stop being antagonistic, stop trying to gaslight others in this thread. I don't call you out for your mistakes. I call you out for the behavior you engage in AFTER your mistake is called out.
You can lie all you like, but your lies are getting more and more obvious at this point.
Clearly you do care, the evidence being that you've posted about this for several days now.
I think we should start calling you Trump Blast. You've clearly taken cues from the president in how you treat information and denying that you've ever made a mistake. When you become aware of something, you act like you're the first person to have ever heard about it (even though if it isn't a new issue, I can literally search the thread and find someone who mentioned it before you).
If you want to talk about climate science, I think that's great. The problem is that you keep trying to turn it into a pissing contest about who knows more, and your default stance is that you know everything and everyone else knows nothing.
BBC wrote: Breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen cannot be relied on to help the UK meet its climate change targets, a report says. Carbon capture and hydrogen are fossil fuel funded boondoggles intended to go nowhere. Maybe if there is some radical out of the blue breakthrough, one of them could some day become efficient enough to be viable... but for the foreseeable future they're just excuses not to do anything effective.
BBC wrote: These actions, which they say would need to be implemented in the near-term, include cutting down on flying and eating red meat. Only slightly less ridiculous than carbon capture and hydrogen. It is at least theoretically possible to reduce GHG emissions via these methods... just implausible that you can change human behavior and, even if you somehow could, the resulting reductions would be small to the point of irrelevance.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
We'll pay much more if we DON'T stop global warming at 2 degrees
It's really VERY simple. Start building lots of wind and solar farms with backup storage. Plan to have enough of these (and other options where plausible) to eliminate fossil fuel usage by 2050. Yes, that ramp up will have an up front cost, but the cost through 2050 is lower than BAU and after that things will get REALLY expensive if we haven't.
Which is to say; We'll pay much more. Though by "we" I mean anyone under 50.
That seems unlikely. In my experience, humans like to save money.
Meanwhile, reality deniers are finally moving on from pretending that coal is still viable as a power source and are now saying that they will find 'alternative uses'.
Take a good look natural gas reality deniers... this is you in another ten years.
CBDunkerson wrote: That seems unlikely. In my experience, humans like to save money.
.
Unfortunately, humans also hate to pay now to save money later. We tend to have short term vision.
And this problem can be even larger with corporations. Many of them pretty much literally only care about the bottom line for this quarter or, maybe, for this year. That is what the bonuses are based on. Or the next election is what matters for politicians.
We've known for quite awhile that dealing with global warming is cheaper and less disruptive the earlier it is done. But still we kick the ball down the road.
pauljathome wrote: Unfortunately, humans also hate to pay now to save money later. We tend to have short term vision. Fortunately, power purchase agreements are usually made for 20 or 30 years. That is, when a growing region needs new electrical power installed they generally don't sign a one year contract... they lock in a price for a couple decades or more. Most areas doing that currently are likely to find that they'll pay less for wind and/or solar than they will for coal or natural gas.
|
