Ken Fabian

I seriously doubt there has ever been any likelihood of NK giving up their nuclear weapons program - not for US threats, not for inducements. Having the biggest arsenal gives the illusion of overwhelming power to remake things the way you want but I think that's always been illusory. I

Abiogenesis came before bacteria. Those gazillions of opportunities to make complex chemisty made chemistry with enough attributes of life to become the living precursors to more complex forms. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting bacteria - which are complex and sophisticated lifeforms with a lot of evolutionary history - got assembled from primordal sea chemistry in one extraordinary and unlikely chemical occurrance. Umm, that is unless you count the precursor life forms as extraordinary and unlikely chemical occurrances.

My own take on the odds of life originating by chance alone is to look at the scales of things - 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of liquid water (on Earth ie one planet) = 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml About 1,000,000 bacteria per ml live in sea water, so if the chemical precursors for those are present in primordal sea water we get enough to make... = 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth. Give it 500 million years of chemical reactions that happen at much faster than 1 per second rates I'll be generous and say only 1 reaction per second... = 15,750,000,000,000,000 seconds x 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth = 20,475,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities to randomly make the appropriate complex chemistry Now this isn't definitive by any means - add or subtract a few zeros if that makes you happier. It is just an attempt to see how "very unlikely" fits with extremely large numbers of opportunities for "unlikely" to happen.

StringJunky - I didn't mean to suggest that you were suggesting otherwise - just answering the original post directly. But neglecting to detail how soap does that assisting...

My understanding is the main way that bacterial concentrations are removed is physical, ie scrubbed off and washed away. Soap may kill some bacteria but it mostly assists that physical removal.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I was going to be flippant and say the arrow has to cover the last distance remaining, just by momentum. A bit more seriously ... The sum of the infinity of portions of the total distance equals the total distance. The time to traverse each portion is proportional to the distance of each portion; the sum of the times taken to traverse the infinity of portions of the total distance equals the time taken to traverse the total distance. It cannot take longer than the time to traverse the total distance to traverse that infinity of portions of the total distance.

It might need to be demonstrated that toxic material doesn't leach out under ordinary circumstances and maybe recycling/disposal facilities need to be in place ahead of approvals for use rather than as an afterthought. I think this kind of whole of life-cycle management increasingly applies to everything we do at large scale, not just Perovskite solar - because most of our activities are so large scale that 'big world, puny humans' no longer applies. Whether alternatives to lead compounds in perovskite solar cells can be developed and commercialised that are more environmentally benign is a question only time will answer but I'm sure people are looking.

Spoilers.. it depends, but they don't usually turn me off. Some stories depend on the suspense and the surprise being revealed. Some don't. I usually prefer something that has more appeal than suspense and surprise, appeal that is still there after the surprise is revealed. I like a story that turns out to be worth re-reading (or watching) - which I don't know until I've read it, but if a spoiler does ruin it the story probably won't have the other elements anyway.

I use Ken Fabian here because it's my name. Whilst I have sometimes said things on blogs or forums I regretted I am not going to duck responsibility for them behind a nom de plume. Some of the issue I discuss, like climate change, I think are better argued using my true name. The advice going about when I first started posting stuff online, to avoid using real names, seemed to overstate the dangers - or perhaps internet security caught up (mostly). I use to use Ken Fabos - and here and there I still do, because it's a hassle to change, and sometimes I've found my real name won't be accepted; I didn't think there were that many of us! Fabos was just a nickname used by a muso friend.

An individual human may look like an easy meal to a large predator but humans come in groups and when they are angered - say by a predator taking one of them - then even large predators have cause to fear. An individual may seek safe refuge but a relentless group hunt to track and kill the culprit - and anything that looks like it - is the usual group response. I do think those mostly unique to hominid capabilities - tools, communication, group organisation, problem solving abilities - overcome a lot of physical limitations. They don't just compensate but greatly overcompensate - to the extent that these become powerful aids that can turn a thin skinned, furless, slow running biped into the top predator in almost any environment.

Thicko, not everyone here is a mathematician - certainly not me. I can prove pythagoras' theorem but not much beyond that. But I believe the response I gave, that an infinity of fractions of a finite distance does not effect the rate at which that finite distance is traversed, is a 'solution'. Or you can use a search engine - google is popular. I did and found this - http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#H2

I was never that impressed by Zeno's paradox - which seems to me to be more a misframing of a question than a true paradox. I mean, you wouldn't want Zeno as your running coach... "Now run to the place the person ahead of you is now - damn he's moved! To where he is NOW! No, NOW, NOW! Oh, you just went past him - I really didn't expect that!" Apart from that, consider that the existence of an infinity of fractions of a finite distance does not effect the rate at which distance is traversed; it does not take any longer to traverse an infinity of them than traversing the finite total and is irrelevant to the time it takes.

The highest tides reliably occur at New Moon and Full Moon - I can't see how vortices from ocean gyres (that have nothing to do with lunar and solar gravitational pull) can so closely align with lunar and solar gravitational pull. Fermer, the current understanding of how tides work provides consistent predictability; how they work is not a mystery that needs an alternative explanation.

Is it in the relative strength of these phenomena that JacobsLadder is mistaken? Centrifugal force from Earth spinning is real, just not very strong in comparison to gravity. Coriolis effect is real, just not very strong compared to air friction and momentum. JacobsLadder, any effort on my part to look to the numbers (measurements) and maths to demonstrate the relative strengths of the effects that you appear to believe must overwhelm gravity, friction and momentum would only be for my own amusement and edification. But you are claiming you can disprove the current science based understanding of how the combination of all these play out in the real world; I think it is up to you to put numbers to them that show that the centrifugal effect of a spinning world exceeds gravity and that coriolis 'force' on a flying helicopter exceeds and dominates over air resistance and momentum.

It always seemed obvious to me that if you can evoke a strong emotional response to an issue then the reasoning faculties are largely bypassed; political messaging uses this effect all the time. I hadn't thought of it in terms of bio-chemistry rather than psychology and I'm a bit surprised there could be identifiable bio-chemical processes involved.

It is nothing like what I would expect for an asteroid mining site - even not knowing what one would really look like. A lot more infrastructure for one thing. I seriously doubt there is the gravity to allow mine spoils to be dumped in a pile; filtered, packed and wrapped (or mixed with water and solidified) would be necessary if the whole region is not to disappear from view within a dust and debris cloud.

Raider, I think I would be alarmed by a politician getting too focused on something as speculative as bio-engineering plants for soil-carbon-deposition abilities. Farming for fuels - where the bio-engineered species are contained and controlled are less controversial than spreading of competitive species into the wider environment, such as oceans or forests. Support for the institutions and support programs that make wide ranging R&D possible wins points from me, not singling out any one area for support. The main game is managing the energy transition that is going on right now and I am most sceptical of anyone who can foresee how the last 20% on the way to below zero emissions will be achieved or insists we must have firm, costed plans for that before committing to that 80% of reductions. Coherent environmental and energy policies and an understanding of the nature of the climate problem and the issues related to it are what I'm looking for most in politicians. I think being visionary with respect to how to do support and implementation of commercial and nearly commercial technologies is more important than visionary with respect to specific yet to be commercialised ones.

Raider - Interesting but not world changing. I think that reducing emissions by displacing high emissions energy with low emissions alternatives must remain as the primary approach and, given that more new generation of electricity is now solar and wind than coal or gas, with storage technologies improving fast, that side of things is progressing better than a pessimist like myself expected. Those alone will not be enough but they are foundations that can be built on. Forestry, even genetically modified and at large scale, may complement other efforts but is not going to replace emissions reductions - even if we start with confidence that it will be cost effective, have no serious negative consequences, are grown under arrangements that can be relied on to last multi-generations and can be shown to divert carbon into sinks that are effectively permanent. Given we are unlikely to see much agricultural land diverted to forestry doing enough to lock carbon to equal what was released by centuries of forest clearing (to make that agricultural land) would be a remarkable achievement, let alone deal with all the fossil fuel burning as well. Biofuels like farmed algae might become a low emissions alternative to some fossil fuels but widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species designed to divert carbon compounds from the food chain is going to raise legitimate concerns and objections.

This is the pot calling the kettle black I think. NortonH - I think rational debate with you is not possible and your arguments in the threads I've been involved with are not that logical, informed or compelling or even amusing or interesting. Unless that changes I see no point to engaging with you.

One addition to my tool selection that I now use all the time - and wonder how I ever did without - is my Triton Superjaws - It is foot operated, portable and can clamp items up to 950mm (over 3 ft) . I am seriously considering getting a second one to use paired instead of using saw-horses.

A lot of interesting energy related goings on in South Australia, although I think less driven by an overarching desire to address emissions and climate change than making the best of circumstances, including a broader enduring failure within Australia to have a clear energy policy direction. Very high uptake of wind plus solar was probably not the intended outcome of intermittent policies that enabled them - policies that I think were intended more to appease community concerns about future climate through gestures, some with an underlying 'give them enough rope' element - than inducing significant underlying changes to address them. Innovative international businesses with foresight can sense opportunity in the way the wind, so to speak, is blowing in a part of Australia that is sunnier and windier and more lacking in coal than most. A government that is under constant attack from cashed up pro-fossil fuels climate science denying obstructionists - who, by their nature, rely on misinformation and economic alarmist fears - is very welcoming of the kind of affirmation proposals like this or others (such as purchase of the Whyalla steelworks by a company with plans to power it largely with RE + storage). I doubt the current government foresaw that they would find themselves committing to the ongoing energy transition in such an unequivocal way; putting these issues into the too hard basket and avoiding any clear commitments is more usual. With an imminent state election in South Australia it is possible the pro-fossil fuel obstructionists - who have strong support from elements within the mainstream media - can use economic fears to oust the current pro-RE government and derail RE growth for another election cycle or two, yet I don't see any clear alternative energy policies being articulated. Ultimately there can be none of the much desired "policy certainty" for Australia's electricity sector with anything less than energy policy that takes the advice about climate stability seriously and has an ongoing commitment to a ramping transition away from fossil fuels built into it; if it doesn't then it will be subject to legitimate criticism, including potential legal challenges as well as ongoing calls for change.

I wouldn't say contradictory - they appear to be linked phenomena - from an article at TheConversation.com (by scientists from Norwegian Polar Institute)

I noticed in that other thread that you like to apply a particular, narrow definition to something as a way to justify rejecting information you don't agree with. Greenhouse gas driven climate change resulting in for example, permanent loss of economically valuable low lying lands are an economic cost to those living or owning low lying land - benefits from burning those fossil fuels are enjoyed by some that put a burden of costs onto others; I call that a form of subsidy irrespective of how you think "subsidy" should be defined. You may not accept that there is any direct link between enjoying the benefits of burning coal for people now and the harms of land inundation in the future - but the best advice available says that there is clear evidence of sea level rise along with direct effects of global warming and phenomena like ocean water expansion and ice sheet melt that have affects on sea levels.

Accept the science on climate and you will find that you must accept that the largest "subsidy" of all is the climate costs of excessive fossil fuel use, costs that will emerge and be sustained over time. Don't accept the science on climate and that "subsidy" can be made to appear exaggerated or non-existent. "Appear" is the important word here; global warming doesn't go away by refusing to believe it. But for people holding positions of trust and responsibility the choice to dismiss and ignore the consistent and persistent expert advice is negligence; to do so knowingly can make that criminal negligence. I think that is why 'maverick' climate scientists are so highly prized in this - they are an essential ingredient to running "the experts disagree" defence in the event that these matters ever face serious legal action.

I know that I am willing to accept that the assessments of the validity of climate science by eminent scientists within the worlds most prestigious and scientifically conservative institutions like the US National Academy of sciences on trust. That is not a matter of faith but of trust. I have trust - not faith - in the systems, institutions and methodologies and by default and in the absence of credible scientific doubt - which I don't believe NortonH has provided - the science based conclusions of experts working within those systems and institutions should be taken seriously. It is exactly the right way of it that those conclusions be accepted as the default position, even by other scientists who may both have the expertise and resources to genuinely seek to review and critique those conclusions; they can submit their criticisms and alternative conclusions - which, if substantive, will be welcomed and disseminated for reviewed and critiqued in turn as science circles closer to what is actually true. Norton is not "just asking legitimate questions", he is refusing to accept the answers he gets and that others have gotten before him to essentially the same questions. None of the questions are new or have gone unanswered. I see spurious appeals to purity of scientific methods and the importance of ongoing, active scepticism concealing a lack of willingness to accept the use of scientific methods that don't fit his narrow preconceptions along with unwillingness to actively apply scepticism to them. I am not prepared to accept NortonH as having any kind of relevant expertise or special insight - none is evident. Goodbye NortonH.