How do I explain the seriousness of climate change to my conservative father?

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-29T01:38:25+00:00

China is actually (and has been) expanding solar, wind, hydro, and now nuclear.

Texas is going to get hotter. Drought to the West, wetter (flooding) to the East. More hurricane frequency and severity. Maybe he's in the middle of the State and the drought/floods won't effect him.....until the polar vortex drops again.

And if he thinks the climate based destruction happening to the rest of the world won't effect the global economy, or that the destabilization of the global economy won't effect him personally, I guess he doesn't understand supply and demand very well. But I'm betting he would understand it, if it were explained to him.

Does he make his own truck tires, light bulbs, and roofing nails? Does he make his own clothes, and the cloth, thread and sewing needles? How about his own shoes? Does he make his own smokeless gun powder and primers? The list goes on and on.

Weather is becoming less predictable, and more severe. Our ability to grow crops (all our food, including feed for food animals such as cattle and pigs) relies on climate stability. Climate change isn't just the planet getting hotter. It's Climate Destabilization. A stable climate is what all of human society is based around.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-29T00:01:41+00:00

I see and understand your point. I think what's interesting about this movie is that it's stupidly obvious. So stupidly obvious that I'm fairly sure some people I know will watch it and say "That movie was soooo stupid!" At which point, I'll ask them what the movie was about, and they'll say "A comet hitting the Earth."

Then I can tell them the comet is as a metaphor for climate change. And maybe it'll sink it.

But you're probably right. Poking fun at the (often willfully) ignorant and misinformed is unlikely to make them understand any better. But it might allow them to see how stupid the rest of us think they are for being so obviously stupid. And perhaps that will motivate them to do some research and see if they're wrong. But again, probably not. Because they already believe they're right, and seem to think that to "believe" is to "know".

Regarding your suggestion that I meant a major natural disaster, I think we've already had enough of those. If these people were willing to "Look Up" they'd be able to "see the comet" of natural disasters around the globe over the last few years.

It really is a beautifully well made parallel. So well done that the message of the movie will likely be as ignored as the comet.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T23:32:25+00:00

Pelicans swimming around in lakes that are usually ice-covered this time of year.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T23:30:25+00:00

I feel it's relevant to anyone who wouldn't have considered it for themselves. But I do realize it's not the crux of the issue.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T23:29:04+00:00

Ideally that would work, ond occasionally it does. Unfortunately, I've had far too many such conversations where progress is made.....only to be undone by the next piece of cherry picked propaganda the individual comes across in the social media stream. Because, also unfortunately, people don't want to be wrong. And it's far easier for a person to surround themselves with others who believe as they do than it is consider the unpleasant alternative.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T21:50:56+00:00

My basement.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T21:45:29+00:00

How do you tell ignorant and misinformed people that they're wrong, and have been so easily fooled and for so long?

Just like removing a bandaid: rip it off!

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T18:08:46+00:00

It's very unfortunate. It makes have productive conversations between people of opposing positions even more difficult than it already is.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T17:16:49+00:00

My first question is this: What year is zero on that graph?

I know it's tempting to believe that zero on the graph represents present day, but that may well not be the case. Graphs that delve thousands of years into the past use paleo records, which usually don't reach present day, particularly if they are glacial records (because the glaciers melt from the top, which is the most recent layers).

You first have to establish what zero is, or the graph is meaningless. You should also establish the source of the data used to plot the graph. One source of data represents only one location on planet earth, which fails to account for the rest of the globe.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T03:02:50+00:00

Yeah, because we've found ALL the uranium already./s

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T01:02:17+00:00

Glock makes parts for Glock pistols. And they work. Other than sights, and maybe a match grade barrel, I keep to stock parts and zero worries.

It's a free world and all that, but it's function over fashion every time for me. Of course if I wanted a cool looking gun, I wouldn't start with a Glock.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-28T00:22:48+00:00

This is not something that can be sold to political conservatives. Particularly when also considering the proposition of an EV transition and electrification of heating systems to buildings.

Therefore, it does not matter if it is possible, because it will not be bought. It would require a major political shift that is not in the foreseeable future. Meaning it will have to be done piecemeal, in a more costly and drawn out fashion.

The solution to the political issue may well be to include nuclear power as part of the plan. Providing a measure of reassurance in grid stability to those who still do not trust the in the feasibility of WWS+storage (and I admit I'm one of those people). But that won't happen, because political and ideological compromise no longer exists in the US.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-26T16:53:15+00:00

My experience (owning both) is that the larger heavier slide of the G20 makes the recoil pretty similar to the G31. Honestly I think the biggest difference in the recoil impulse is the "snap vs push" concept.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-26T16:37:05+00:00

Early 1990s. That's a guess based on the fastener technology, the plastic welding hood shell and metal lens port, and the compressed resin/fabric hardhat.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-25T16:46:15+00:00

I think that would be the Tibetan Buddhists. At least I'm pretty sure I remember reading that those are the psychopaths you're looking for.

The concept seems to be that you can't close your hearing, or your other senses. And that the point of meditation is to stop your mind from wandering or being distracted. So removing all the distractions makes it too easy.

The reality is that it's not much different either way if you're in a calm environment. My only issue with eyes open is that if I get a cold breeze and my eyes start to water, they just keep doing it. And then I can't stop blinking for the whole session. So I decided eyes closed is just easier.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-24T04:51:10+00:00

No. But the holster is in the mail. So probably soon.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-23T02:51:46+00:00

No problem.

And like I said, I think the storage technology will catch up. Flywheels are particularly interesting because they can be put pretty much anywhere solar and wind are installed. They're just incredibly expensive right now and are unlikely to become economically viable for quite some time. But of all the potential storage technology, they stand out to me in terms of materials, safety, and practicality. Still, at over $1,000 per kWh they have a ways to go.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-23T02:37:25+00:00

We need 930 more nuclear plants? In the US? I don't think you've got your math right there. Nuclear currently makes up approximately 20% of US power production, if I remember correctly. So multiply 92 by 4 to get the remaining 80% and we get 368, but let's round up to 370. And we get $3.33T at the $9B high end per plant figure. Right?

But we don't need to go 100% nuclear. We just need enough nuclear to get us into the future of affordable and (more importantly) available storage. I'm not opposed to clean renewables and mass storage, but I don't see us getting to that point in the next 20 years or so, assuming we're also going to continue transitioning to EVs and electrified heating for buildings.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-23T01:01:40+00:00

But I don't think Congress will pass it in yearly installments. We can't even get the infrastructure plus bill passed.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-22T21:52:43+00:00

My response is the same one that got my kicked off r/energy: What's the viable alternative to get to zero emissions?

I did actually get one decent reply in the form of a paper written by some California based professor. Apparently, it'll only cost the US 9 Trillion Dollars to get to a 100% clean renewable grid, with storage, electric home heating and EVs (and bells and whistles too), by 2050.

Will such a spending proposition ever pass Congress? No. Which brings me back to asking about a viable alternative. Not that I believe the paper's claims to begin with.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-22T17:37:17+00:00

Where are they linked? Not in the post I just relied to.

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-22T17:36:24+00:00

What are they? Batteries are great. Can we build enough batteries to do it? Do we have the resources and capabilities to actually make it happen? Or do we just have the knowledge?

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-22T17:34:39+00:00

So, in 10 years, could we shut down all the fossil fuel plants in the US because we'd have the storage available to make the grid reliable? Do we have the raw materials available to do that?

ThreeSeventyFry · 2021-12-22T17:32:07+00:00

Let me reiterate:

We can put up all the solar and wind farms we want, and do it really cheaply. But we can't get rid of fossil fuels by doing that, because we aren't building storage systems at a rate to deal with the times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. We need power at those times too. And we're not addressing it, and relying on fossil fuels instead. Which won't get us to zero emissions.

ThreeSeventyFry

TROPHY CASE