@KaraFikrig@AcademicChatter ๐ Hi! I do sketch-note style science illustration by hand with ink and watercolor or colored pencil. Examples below (including an illustration for a paper published in PLOS Medicine). Open for commissions.
Thanks @AshleyEStumvoll for the mention ๐
@seanholeary1@ShellenbergerMD True, but replacing coal with gas has reduced emissions more than non-carbon sources. The high cost of integrating wind and solar into power grids would be higher still were it not for the low cost of gas.
@seanholeary1@ShellenbergerMD Gas replacing coal has reduced emissions more than non-carbon sources. As long as it continues to replace coal, it will continue to subtract from emissions. The high cost of integrating wind and solar into power grids would be higher still were it not for the low cost of gas.
@OskaArcher In other words, replace gas plants with flexible nuclear plants? That's a dangerous idea because what would stop them from eventually replacing wind and solar as well?* *Sarcasm alert.
@DavidShilman @kjcSG1fan@Jody537LN @GlobalEcoGuy @MarchForScience Not sure which claim you are referring to, Dave. Mask effectiveness varies considerably with design. https://t.co/IYGpPFU4Gy
@bsaunders@kjcSG1fan@Jody537LN @GlobalEcoGuy @MarchForScience Like I said before, that's true but not my point. My point was made in the third comment. You're commenting on a quote in the 5th comment that came from the link posted by the second commenter... Twitter was not designed for debate : )
@Jody537LN @GlobalEcoGuy @MarchForScience Because cloth masks, depending on fit and design, are anywhere from zero to 50% effective, you still have a reasonably high chance in this situation of getting nailed.
@chrisnelder@SpenceEnergyUT So is the intermittency of wind and solar. This is an old anti-nuclear argument. Large baseload power stations have been around for over half of a century. Why is it suddenly a problem for nuclear now?
@ChristineMilne@ProfStrachan@ScottMorrisonMP Oh for God's (and my children's) sake. That quite simply is not true. Human beings can be such monsters. The unwillingness to critically assess your anti-nuclear indoctrination is preventing any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
๐๐๐ฆ Excited to share that I was interviewed by Krti Tallam, new member of @DeLeoLab, for her podcast The @anthropositive Outlook. From coronavirus to carbon to colonialism... and back? Story and link here ๐https://t.co/z1zS51gPFw ๐ง Have a listen! ๐ง
@NinaFinley@DeLeoLab @anthropositive Awesome ...the link to your Semester in the West presentation (which always brings a tear to my eye):
https://t.co/NaJMri0N7q
And go here to see the slide show that went with it:
https://t.co/xcgq9L5R2i
@FunBobby@LudditeDiogenes@Tryng2lookahead@GunjanJS@davidfrum I would suggest that common sense may disprove that hypothesis. We all know how easy it is to catch a cold when traveling on a plane. Air filtration likely helps, but does not override the cramped quarters and long hours of exposure.
@InscrutableJane@jrmygrdn 1) "If" suggests a future potential, not the existing reality of damage being done to the environment by wind turbines.
2) Not the Chernobyl design. No land would be rendered unusable (as demonstrated by the triple meltdown at Fukushima).