Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Scientist who thought we 'we're all going to die from climate change' reveals 7 reasons she was wrong - and how the issue is being overblown

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst … &ei=10

You should really READ what you are submitting as support for your laissez faire whatever happens happens do-nothing, we can't fight it attitude: "I know all the solutions are silly and nonsense in relation to denting the climate."

Were you fooled by the deceptive headline? Sounds like it.

For your information, the scientist you refer to is actually saying HER dire predictions of climate disaster were wrong because she misjudged the remedies humanity would be able to employ to ameliorate the effects of climate change, the existence of which she does not deny,.

"Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist at the University of Oxford, claims that doomsday warnings of floods, widespread famine and deaths from disasters are OVERSHADOWING THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN QUIETLY MADE IN RECENT YEARS."

Ozone layer, for example. We don't speak about the hole in the ozone layer. Know why, Tony? "CFC emissions have dropped by more than 99 percent and the hole is slowly shrinking". Sorry to disappoint you, Tony. While you were sitting on your ass, other humans were working on the problem, not passively letting the inevitable come to pass - skin cancer for everybody.

You see,  Tony, fossil fuels don't have to disappear before climate change ia slowed, just utilized less and less, which the cumulative effect of human effort can accomplish. Electric cars don't have to completely replace  gasoline engines, the entire planet doesn't have to give up beef and coal. This is something your mis-cited scientist came to realize. Too bad you didn't.

So thanks for citing that scientist you mistakenly thought helped your case.

JayPhotosnapshot wrote:
I love how people write absolute novels on the forums now. I mean Christ, go outside or something.

-
I have never been impressed by the petulant expressions and little deadhead quips some people write and think they accomplished something. 

Perhaps you have not noticed how some people can pack a whole lot of stupid into a few lines.  It would be much easier to respond to someone like that by saying, "Are you really that f-ing stupid?"  But we aren't allowed to do that here and it really isn't anymore useful to do that than the really cool and enlightening comment you made. 

It isn't like I haven't heard that criticism before.  I often get that from people who are too lazy to read.  Those who are chronically uniformed.  Those who couldn't write a decent narrative or use punctuation to save their lives.  Those who start a new subject with every sentence, all in one really long paragraph.  And finally, those that say really stupid things.  So hey, join the club.   You are already demonstrating your contributions are empty and useless.  Good for you for accomplishing what you have so far.  Maybe step it up to junior high level?

You should understand what I tell the people that do not have the maturity or reading comprehension skills to read longer comments- I don't write for them.  I may respond to someone's post, but the response doesn't mean they are respected for their intellectual abilities.  The assumption is they will not understand even if I write down to their level.  For many of them, particularly the conspiracy theorists and trumpists, they do not understand facts, do not accept the truth and are unwilling to entertain anything the right has not told them to accept.  So, why respond?  Because there are smarter people here and they can read and contribute.

You also commented that you thought soapbox was gone.  It is.  But during the pandemic they allowed and loosened the rules because there was serious stuff to talk about.  We got a political thread going that was a direct result of Tony's posts.  Therefore, if you don't like the little bit of politics that is discussed here, blame Tony.

BTW, welcome back to MM.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Scientist who thought we 'we're all going to die from climate change' reveals 7 reasons she was wrong - and how the issue is being overblown

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst … &ei=10

-
Cool Tony.  You know what that means?  She adds her opinion to the body of work.  It will be peer reviewed and maybe she influences change and maybe it is bullshit.

However, I wonder if you noticed what she said.  Did you see the part where the article said. "Writing for The Times, the scientist shared that most people are told to recycle, use energy-efficient lightbulbs and end single-use plastic.  But in the grand scheme of things, such acts are small." 

Okay.  They're small.  That doesn't mean they don't make a difference and since you are not in favor of polluting, the fewer single use plastic pieces that people use, the fewer pieces of plastic that end up in the streams, forests, fields, and oceans as litter.  So, I am cool with doing the little things because i find litter to be really annoying.

She goes on to say, "What they often miss is the big things: installing a heat pump, shifting to a more plant-based diet, reducing food waste, buying clean energy, and driving and flying less."  Whoa!  Did you get that this time, Tony?   She is still pushing for people to change the big things.  Can you imagine that?

She is saying to use less energy heating and cooling your home.  She is saying to reduce food waste which cuts down on carbon output.  She is saying drive less and fly less and buy renewable energy.  But god damn, Tony, she is advocating for people to use less meat!  Less meat, Tony!  Did your head freakin' explode when you read that?  "A recent study from Oxford University found that eating just 100g of meat per day – less than a single burger – creates four times more greenhouse gases compared with a vegan diet."  So, what do you make of that?  You can really make a difference by eating less meat!  And that is a BIG THING, Tony.

She also indicated that the "Global per capita emissions appeared to peak at 5.4 tons in 2012, which has since stayed around the same range," but "The Global Carbon Projected estimated that carbon emissions rose about one percent in 2023."  Why is that if the per capita output is about the same as 2012?  Maybe because there are a bunch more people in the world and if per capita stays the same, output will still be going up?  The article also said that "Ritchie explained that emissions have been 'reaching a long plateau ' in the last five to ten years, suggesting the world is heading to its peak, [but] this is not enough: we urgently need to peak then reduce our emissions to try to get on a better trajectory.". Can you imagine that?  She is still advocating for reducing carbon emissions even though she is saying the sky isn't falling.

So, what does all this mean?  Unlike your doomsday comments that we can't do anything to impact an improvement in climate, though we impact climate in a way that may cause us great harm, she has illustrated for you that we have made an impact in the problem and by doing a little more, ya know, the big things she talked about, we can change the trajectory.

As was pointed out, we have influenced an improvement in the ozone hole. (We also caused it.  Isn't that us having an impact on a global scale?  That was accepted back when the right didn't deny science!)  Over the decades by installing pollution control devices and eliminating the use of some chemicals, we have improved our water and air quality significantly.  You don't recognize that, so you clutch your pearls and tell us not to worry, what will be will be.  The lobsters will move,  The world will go on.  Yada yada yada.

Thank you for providing the article.  It showed off your lack of credibility on the subject.  I am still interested in seeing your citations about all these people who were saying we are all going to die in so many years because of climate change, because where I hear that from is you and right wing zealots fear mongering and burying your heads in the sand..

Now, for those who do not understand the concept of responding to someone, Tony made a short, little post that was meant as zinger against those that oppose his views.  He did not make meaningful quotes form the article.  He did not discuss anything from the article.  He was just happy as a pig in the manure pit to make an empty comment that he thought meant something. 

We, on the other hand, could go into much greater detail about the article because we are, in fact, capable of reading and discussing things.  It is really too bad others aren't.

rxz wrote:
Tony's right in one respect.  We are using up flora, fauna, and fresh water resources faster then the planet systems can restore them.  While they are being addressed, it's not fast enough considering a growing population.  The ecology of the planet is out of balance due to the total number humans.   Is there are future for life as we know it on the planet?  After the almost never ending volcanic eruptions in the area currently known as Siberia around 250 million years ago and then a large rock aiming for Texas (my bad) and hitting the Yucatan around 66 million years ago, we could have a third mass extinction caused by a plague of overwhelming number of humans impacting the plant and animal ecological balance of the planet.  .Will it happen?  Who knows.  Can it happen?  Yes.  The Republicans in the U.S. are doing there part, no abortions. (political plug - another my bad)

Oh please. Tony is incoherent.

On the one hand he mockingly  claims climate change is inevitable and harmless -  "and as we see today...just like decades before... the big disaster... is always just beyond the hill.....we will point to an increase in hurricanes  we will read the ice is melting even faster than we dreamed it could! we will hear...Oh Lord...crabs and lobsters are migrating!  BUT THE WORLD WILL CARRY ON AS NORMAL. IN A MIXED BAG OF CLIMATE THIS AND THAT."

On the other hand, he is  both Debbie Downer - "just ease your mind with the knowledge....there was never any real tangible solutions", and Dr. Death - "I am the doctor telling you that you have stage 4 cancer. "

Like I said, INCOHERENT.

Focuspuller wrote:
Oh please. Tony is incoherent.

I agree.  But he raises an issue on how people think about it.  I see 3 main groups.
1.  Those that don't believe people are causing the planet heating up.
2.  Those who believe people are involved in planet warming but feel as individuals they can't do much change.
3.  Believers that are taking personal choices to try and help to make a difference.   This group needs to organize politically and elect governments that do take it seriously and implement policies worldwide.   China and Russia for now are out liars.  Then there's countries deferring due to the initial financial and discomfort costs.  This only gets worse as the delays continue.

rxz wrote:

I agree.  But he raises an issue on how people think about it.  I see 3 main groups.
1.  Those that don't believe people are causing the planet heating up.
2.  Those who believe people are involved in planet warming but feel as individuals they can't do much change.
3.  Believers that are taking personal choices to try and help to make a difference.   This group needs to organize politically and elect governments that do take it seriously and implement policies worldwide.   China and Russia for now are out liars.  Then there's countries deferring due to the initial financial and discomfort costs.  This only gets worse as the delays continue.

Yes, but there is a 4th: The Tonys, who don't believe there is a problem. The Earth will sort itself out. Don't worry, be happy.

Focuspuller wrote:
Yes, but there is a 4th: The Tonys, who don't believe there is a problem. The Earth will sort itself out. Don't worry, be happy.

I would add to that, those who DO believe there is a problem, but that we can't / shouldn't do anything about it.  Especially if it might cost money (a false savings, as we've already seen), or some "inconvenience" to people.

LightDreams wrote:
Some related news reports just from today...

- Scientists say that "Hurricanes becoming so strong that new category needed".  "Scientists propose new category 6 rating to classify ‘mega-hurricanes’," (expanding the previous 1 to 5 ratings) as they are becoming more frequent "due to climate crisis".

  (source:  The Guardian)

- The current rainstorm in California is officially a "1-in-1,000 year rainfall event", resulting in a State of Emergency "due to heavy rain, flash floods, mudslides and flooding".  There are also National Weather Service Warnings to watch out for "waterspouts or small tornadoes".  "Life-threatening conditions may evolve extremely fast in some communities" and various evacuations have been ordered.

"5.6 trillion gallons of water has fallen across California the past two days"

  (source:  USA Today)

- Accuweather also reports the California storm has over 160 MPH wind gusts in some areas which are also causing additional problems such as major power outages.  Mixed in with the flooding, mudslides and evacuations.

They also are reporting that:

"The preliminary total damage and economic loss from the intense storms and record rainfall in California this week will be between $9 billion and $11 billion".

Can hear the MAGAts now: "Failures of the Socialist State of Calezuela."

JSouthworth wrote:

Yeah sure, it's a myth. It just FEELS hot. Or it probably will do in Summer.

One year of unusually high temperatures can be explained away. Two, forget it.

Another year of record temperatures should make it clear to most people that global warming cannot not be allowed to continue indefinitely, that there needs to be action taken on this.

The use of petrol vehicles for commuting needs to end. With modern communications technology it should be possible for the majority of people to work from home, when their work cannot be done more efficiently by computers as would be the case with nearly all clerical jobs.

Most manual work in factories can also now be done more efficiently by computer controlled machinery. So employing large numbers people in industry tends to make industry less profitable and less competitive. There is therefore little point in employing unemployed machinists to train other people to be unemployed machinists. Training in self employment and personal initiative is what is required.

JSouthworth wrote:
Another year of record temperatures should make it clear to most people that global warming cannot not be allowed to continue indefinitely, that there needs to be action taken on this.

The use of petrol vehicles for commuting needs to end. With modern communications technology it should be possible for the majority of people to work from home, when their work cannot be done more efficiently by computers as would be the case with nearly all clerical jobs.

Most manual work in factories can also now be done more efficiently by computer controlled machinery. So employing large numbers people in industry tends to make industry less profitable and less competitive. There is therefore little point in employing unemployed machinists to train other people to be unemployed machinists. Training in self employment and personal initiative is what is required.

The energy expenditure that's heating the planet to support 8 billion people is dooming us.  And more people makes the situation worse.  The current world leaders don't have the will or funds to address the problem.  I'd guess we'll be it a tipping point in 30-40 years where it will be to late to recover unless there's a massive drop in human population.   And if the permafrost melts at a faster rate releasing more methane, it may not matter.

JSouthworth wrote:
Most manual work in factories can also now be done more efficiently by computer controlled machinery. So employing large numbers people in industry tends to make industry less profitable and less competitive. There is therefore little point in employing unemployed machinists to train other people to be unemployed machinists. Training in self employment and personal initiative is what is required.

Perhaps the best description of the arc of unregulated capitalism.

First, exploit the worker.

Next, eliminate the worker.

rxz wrote:
The energy expenditure that's heating the planet to support 8 billion people is dooming us.  And more people makes the situation worse.  The current world leaders don't have the will or funds to address the problem.  I'd guess we'll be it a tipping point in 30-40 years where it will be to late to recover unless there's a massive drop in human population.   And if the permafrost melts at a faster rate releasing more methane, it may not matter.

Certain behaviours are damaging the environment, in particular the use of petrol engine cars for commuting, so those behaviours need to be reduced or eliminated.

Self destructive social behaviours are not a new problem, the Romans used lead compounds to sweeten their wine, while inbreeding crippled the ancient Egyptians;

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-ge … lty-003045

JSouthworth wrote:
Certain behaviours are damaging the environment, in particular the use of petrol engine cars for commuting, so those behaviours need to be reduced or eliminated.

Automobiles(?), don't forget trucks, trains, ships, airplanes (largest user ??), the heating and cooling of commercial and private structures, and recharging batteries.  Plus the impact on the planet to mine and create the batteries.  And the pollution impact of disposing the dead batteries.  Alternatives are decades away and costly.   Once people are gone our planet's atmosphere will recover,  maybe after 30 to 50 thousand years.

JSouthworth wrote:
Another year of record temperatures should make it clear to most people that global warming cannot not be allowed to continue indefinitely, that there needs to be action taken on this.

The use of petrol vehicles for commuting needs to end. With modern communications technology it should be possible for the majority of people to work from home, when their work cannot be done more efficiently by computers as would be the case with nearly all clerical jobs.

Most manual work in factories can also now be done more efficiently by computer controlled machinery. So employing large numbers people in industry tends to make industry less profitable and less competitive. There is therefore little point in employing unemployed machinists to train other people to be unemployed machinists. Training in self employment and personal initiative is what is required.

Taking Canon as an example of a high tech manufacturer, their experience has shown that you can replace unskilled and semi-skilled production line workers with automation, but you still need the skilled people, the toolmakers and people with advanced assembly skills.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR

rxz wrote:

Automobiles(?), don't forget trucks, trains, ships, airplanes (largest user ??), the heating and cooling of commercial and private structures, and recharging batteries.  Plus the impact on the planet to mine and create the batteries.  And the pollution impact of disposing the dead batteries.  Alternatives are decades away and costly.   Once people are gone our planet's atmosphere will recover,  maybe after 30 to 50 thousand years.

I don't think it's necessarily a question of eliminating petrol cars or other fossil fuel users, but rather of reducing their usage from the present levels.

Nuclear power is a practical alternative for electricity generation, and nuclear ship propulsion is a well established technology.

JSouthworth wrote:
Nuclear power is a practical alternative for electricity generation, and nuclear ship propulsion is a well established technology.

Great, nuclear powered commercial ships.  People would stand in line for a week to get on a nuclear cruise liner.  And nuclear cargo ships and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.  I think there's a cost issue here besides attacks from militants in those areas.  And then there's the container ship that just took out a bridge in a major US city harbor. 
I'm not against nuclear.  The power company that provides to my area in NE Illinois generates over half the electricity from nuclear.  Less than 10% green and the rest fossil.

rxz wrote:
Great, nuclear powered commercial ships.  People would stand in line for a week to get on a nuclear cruise liner.  And nuclear cargo ships and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.  I think there's a cost issue here besides attacks from militants in those areas.  And then there's the container ship that just took out a bridge in a major US city harbor. 
I'm not against nuclear.  The power company that provides to my area in NE Illinois generates over half the electricity from nuclear.  Less than 10% green and the rest fossil.

Nuclear powered commercial ships are not a new idea. Read more here;

https://web.archive.org/web/20120505171 … lsion.html

The basic advantage of nuclear ship propulsion is that it can operate at a high power level for extended periods without burning enormous amounts of fossil fuel (eg, 50 tons per hour in the case of the liner Queen Mary at 32 knots).

With the nuclear ship, operating costs are much less dependant on average speed, so nuclear passenger ships would be as fast as the classic transatlantic liners, 30 knots plus as opposed to 20 knots for today's cruise ships.

With large scale use of nuclear power in commercial shipping, passengers could potentially travel at lower cost or perhaps in greater comfort and style than is possible with aircraft;

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/408701734910790002/

Typical speeds for current commercial ships are in the region of 10-15 knots;

https://casualnavigation.com/cargo-ship … o-they-go/

JSouthworth wrote:
Typical speeds for current commercial ships are in the region of 10-15 knots;

hahahahahahahaha

For the ports in western U.S., the ships' speeds across the ocean are not the issue.  It's the speed the trucking firms can collect the containers and cargo from the ports to provide the space for ships waiting days to weeks to unload.  No lack of trucks. Shortage of truck drivers.  More drivers maybe listening to you and working from home.  The joy stick apps to drive AI trucks from one's home aren't yet working.
Southy, this reply isn't for you since I don't think you comprehend my replies.  It's for the readers of your posts.

rxz wrote:
hahahahahahahaha

For the ports in western U.S., the ships' speeds across the ocean are not the issue.  It's the speed the trucking firms can collect the containers and cargo from the ports to provide the space for ships waiting days to weeks to unload.  No lack of trucks. Shortage of truck drivers.  More drivers maybe listening to you and working from home.  The joy stick apps to drive AI trucks from one's home aren't yet working.

What were we just discussing? Nuclear passenger ships as an alternative to airliners.

You can't have a nuclear powered truck, that isn't practicable. A nuclear locomotive, on the other hand is technically possible, but's it's usually considered more practical to generate electricity with nuclear power and use electric locomotives.

https://www.themistervintage.com/2022/0 … ncept.html

Overhead power lines would however get in the way of loading operations, I assume this the reason that diesel locomotives are generally used for freight work in the UK.

JSouthworth wrote:
What were we just discussing? Nuclear passenger ships as an alternative to airliners.

No.  Your mind does wander.  You were suggesting nuclear merchant and cruise ships for speed and fossil fuel free.  There are 2 simple reasons after 50+ years non military ships haven't been built nuclear.  Ship owners can't get insurance and they are not allowed in ports.

rxz wrote:
There are 2 simple reasons after 50+ years non military ships haven't been built nuclear.  Ship owners can't get insurance and they are not allowed in ports.

And that won't change until at least the next generation of nuclear technology eliminating current water-cooled reactors.  Imagine a catastrophic accident causing radiated water leakage into the Strait of Hormuz or any of the maritime choke points.

rxz wrote:
No.  Your mind does wander.  You were suggesting nuclear merchant and cruise ships for speed and fossil fuel free.  There are 2 simple reasons after 50+ years non military ships haven't been built nuclear.  Ship owners can't get insurance and they are not allowed in ports.

That situation can change, probably sooner rather than later I think.

A passenger service between the UK and the US, or between France and the US should not be too problematic because in all those countries you have extensive experience in naval nuclear propulsion, so it should be possible to negotiate a tri-national agreement covering all aspects of ship design, operation and safety.

JSouthworth wrote:
A passenger service between the UK and the US, or between France and the US should not be too problematic because in all those countries you have extensive experience in naval nuclear propulsion, so it should be possible to negotiate a tri-national agreement covering all aspects of ship design, operation and safety.

There you go again.

Old chap, despite your personal assurances there is NO WAY three countries will be permitted to carve out their own rules for nuclear propelled commercial shipping on the high seas, in international waters, when international laws of the sea are already in effect.

You have the audacity to claim "passenger service between the UK and the US, or between France and the US should not be too problematic because in all those countries you have extensive experience in naval nuclear propulsion. "

Considering as of 2023, there is only one active nuclear-powered merchant ship in the world, the Russian-built container-carrying NS Sevmorput, is tiny compared to most fossil-fuel-powered container ships and has been plagued by breakdowns, and all other previous attempts to produce viable nuclear-powered commercial ships have been failures, what evidence do you have for your fact-free assurances? Price-no-object, inefficient warships? Your own expertise in predicting the future based on obsessive internet-data mining?

Sorry, but your conclusions are based on scant, imagined, or no evidence or proof. Certainly no expertise whatsoever.

Focuspuller wrote:
despite your personal assurances there is NO WAY three countries will be permitted to carve out their own rules for nuclear propelled commercial shipping on the high seas, in international waters, when international laws of the sea are already in effect.

It isn't a question of changing maritime law, because nuclear powered ships are not illegal under the existing law.

Focuspuller wrote:
Perhaps the best description of the arc of unregulated capitalism.

Any business which is run with a priority on providing sinecure employment for large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled people will generally fail as a direct result, because it will be inefficient and uncompetitive. So some people will have to look elsewhere for their sense of class identity.

JSouthworth wrote:

It isn't a question of changing maritime law, because nuclear powered ships are not illegal under the existing law.

No idea what you are addressing here, but it clearly is not my post, which you have avoided addressing.

JSouthworth wrote:

Any business which is run with a priority on providing sinecure employment for large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled people will generally fail as a direct result, because it will be inefficient and uncompetitive. So some people will have to look elsewhere for their sense of class identity.

Thank you for validating my point.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you think the world owes you something? Stand still for too long, and you're left in the dust as it passes you by.

Speaking of which, this new 12.3 litre, 16 cylinder, 5000 bhp (really) sports car from Devel in Dubai may be of interest if global warming doesn't concern you too much;

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/superc … o-mad-dyno

Probably not practical for street use or commuting, 5000 bhp would produce wheelspin at anything less than about 150-200 mph I think. Weight is over 10,000 lbs, so this an extremely heavy car.

JSouthworth wrote:

Speaking of which, this new 12.3 litre, 16 cylinder, 5000 bhp (really) sports car from Devel in Dubai may be of interest if global warming doesn't concern you too much;

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/superc … o-mad-dyno

Probably not practical for street use or commuting, 5000 bhp would produce wheelspin at anything less than about 150-200 mph I think. Weight is over 10,000 lbs, so this an extremely heavy car.

That a planet-killing toy for billionaires interests you is not a surprise.

Focuspuller wrote:
That a planet-killing toy for billionaires interests you is not a surprise.

The effect that this car will have on global warming will actually be negligible for the simple reason that the number produced is likely to be in one or two figures. It's the use of cars as mass transport that contributes significantly to the problem of global warming.

The engine design is relatively simple with two valves per cylinder rather than four or five, a water-air intercooler is employed;

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ;FORM=VIRE

The use of four 81mm turbochargers should produce a faster throttle response than a single larger one, with less inertia in the rotating components. The overall engine design is quite elegant I think.

JSouthworth wrote:
Any business which is run with a priority on providing sinecure employment for large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled people will generally fail as a direct result, because it will be inefficient and uncompetitive. So some people will have to look elsewhere for their sense of class identity.

Getting back to the question of employment, it's unlikely that in the future, industry will be able to provide most people with jobs when they don't have any abilities that cannot be replicated by automated systems at far lower cost. With the decline in traditional employment and a corresponding increase in self-employment, employment-based class distinctions will probably diminish or disappear. This may become the greatest social revolution in recorded history; people will be masters of their own destiny as individuals to a greater extent, they will have more responsibilities and also more opportunities.

JSouthworth wrote:

Getting back to the question of employment, it's unlikely that in the future, industry will be able to provide most people with jobs when they don't have any abilities that cannot be replicated by automated systems at far lower cost. With the decline in traditional employment and a corresponding increase in self-employment, employment-based class distinctions will probably diminish or disappear. This may become the greatest social revolution in recorded history; people will be masters of their own destiny as individuals to a greater extent, they will have more responsibilities and also more opportunities.

Given the topic of this thread is climate change, this post is just crap.  Time to put the mods on notice.  Better yet - put them in the penalty box if not dismissal.

JSouthworth wrote:

The effect that this car will have on global warming will actually be negligible for the simple reason that the number produced is likely to be in one or two figures. It's the use of cars as mass transport that contributes significantly to the problem of global warming.

The engine design is relatively simple with two valves per cylinder rather than four or five, a water-air intercooler is employed;

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ;FORM=VIRE

The use of four 81mm turbochargers should produce a faster throttle response than a single larger one, with less inertia in the rotating components. The overall engine design is quite elegant I think.

Next-level irrelevant field manual minutiae. Congratulations.

JSouthworth wrote:
Getting back to the question of employment, it's unlikely that in the future, industry will be able to provide most people with jobs when they don't have any abilities that cannot be replicated by automated systems at far lower cost. With the decline in traditional employment and a corresponding increase in self-employment, employment-based class distinctions will probably diminish or disappear. This may become the greatest social revolution in recorded history; people will be masters of their own destiny as individuals to a greater extent, they will have more responsibilities and also more opportunities.

The exception to this might be in the case of prisoners doing unpaid work. If it is necessary to confine millions of socially toxic drug addicts, sex offenders, gang members and other criminals in prisons and detention camps in order to maintain order in general society, it can be argued that they should be used as a labour resource to offset the cost of their detention and as a means of maintaining prison discipline.