Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 225







Post#5601 at 02-24-2016 02:27 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2016, 02:27 PM #5601
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I don't see Trump winning but if he does win, I would not expect him to stop progress on new energy development.
As a climate science denier, yes he would. I would expect him to repeal the coal regulations, thus nullifying the Paris agreement, and slowing the regulation of car mileage, thus continuing our reliance on gasoline. I would expect approval of more X-L pipelines, thus reviving the production of polluting tar sands oil. As far as I know, he has no environmental consciousness at all.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5602 at 02-24-2016 02:32 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-24-2016, 02:32 PM #5602
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
As a climate science denier, yes he would.
There are economic benefits in shifting to solar, so I expect Trump to look at this aspect. I actually don't know what Trump really believes on any issue. He seems to say whatever gets him the most attention.
-His views on anything except 'winning' are a mystery to me.







Post#5603 at 02-24-2016 02:37 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-24-2016, 02:37 PM #5603
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
There are economic benefits in shifting to solar, so I expect Trump to look at this aspect. I actually don't know what Trump really believes on any issue. He seems to say whatever gets him the most attention.
-His views on anything except 'winning' are a mystery to me.
That's possible indeed. I just wouldn't want to take that chance since I (unlike yourself) have definitely heard him deny climate science. However, like you say, his real issue is himself, and his own ability to "make America great again," so who knows for sure.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5604 at 02-24-2016 04:26 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
02-24-2016, 04:26 PM #5604
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
As a climate science denier, yes he would. I would expect him to repeal the coal regulations, thus nullifying the Paris agreement, and slowing the regulation of car mileage, thus continuing our reliance on gasoline. I would expect approval of more X-L pipelines, thus reviving the production of polluting tar sands oil. As far as I know, he has no environmental consciousness at all.
With commodity prices in the toilet and still falling (and given the fact that at least some of the faux recovery was due to the US oil and natural gas boom), and with talk of negative interest rates, promoting oil / coal / natural gas development is national economic suicide. There was talk on another thread that we should take advantage of these low prices to tack on taxes to fossil fuels and that may not be a bad idea.







Post#5605 at 02-24-2016 04:27 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
02-24-2016, 04:27 PM #5605
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
That's possible indeed. I just wouldn't want to take that chance since I (unlike yourself) have definitely heard him deny climate science. However, like you say, his real issue is himself, and his own ability to "make America great again," so who knows for sure.
Make AmeriKKKa great again fur der volk! / sarc







Post#5606 at 02-25-2016 02:04 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-25-2016, 02:04 AM #5606
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
Make AmeriKKKa great again fur der volk! / sarc
White identity politics. Classic Xer and Flat58 like him.

(no accusation intended )
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5607 at 02-25-2016 02:06 AM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-25-2016, 02:06 AM #5607
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
As a climate science denier, yes he would. I would expect him to repeal the coal regulations, thus nullifying the Paris agreement, and slowing the regulation of car mileage, thus continuing our reliance on gasoline. I would expect approval of more X-L pipelines, thus reviving the production of polluting tar sands oil. As far as I know, he has no environmental consciousness at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Trump DOJ treats blockading as racketeering under RICO, subjecting particpants, organisers and funders alike to criminal prosecution.







Post#5608 at 02-25-2016 02:22 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-25-2016, 02:22 PM #5608
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5609 at 02-25-2016 09:10 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-25-2016, 09:10 PM #5609
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Global sea levels rising faster due to global warming
Man-made climate change responsible for fastest rise in sea levels in the past 2,800 years.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...201945865.html

Sea levels are rising several times faster than in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.

An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world's industrialisation, the fastest rise in sea levels was about 3cm to 4cm a century, plus or minus a bit.

During that time the global sea level really did not get much higher or lower than 7.62cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world's seas rose 14cm.

Since 1993 the rate has soared to 30cm and two different studies, published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said that by 2100 the world's oceans would rise between 28 and 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth's industries and vehicles expel.

"There's no question that the 20th century is the fastest," said Bob Kopp, Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor and the lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia.

"It's because of the temperature increase in the 20th century, which has been driven by fossil fuel use."

If seas continue to rise as projected, another 45cm of sea-level rise will cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surge during storms, said study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

The link to temperature is basic science, the study's authors say. Warm water expands. Cold water contracts. The scientists pointed to specific past eras when temperatures and sea rose and fell together.

Both studies project increases of about 57 to 131cm if greenhouse gas pollution continues at the current rate. If countries fulfill the treaty agreed last year in Paris and limit further warming to another two degrees Fahrenheit, the rise in sea levels would be in the 28cm to 56cm range.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5610 at 02-25-2016 10:57 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-25-2016, 10:57 PM #5610
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I probably won't be around to see it, but I do expect solar to eventually become the basis for most power and new storage technology should be able to solve the baseload problem.
As Bill Gates noted, no storage is anywhere near as energy dense as liquid fuels. All those nice chemical bonds holding the energy at bay. Now, find a way to efficiently convert solar to chemical, and you have a winner.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5611 at 02-25-2016 10:59 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-25-2016, 10:59 PM #5611
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
There are economic benefits in shifting to solar, so I expect Trump to look at this aspect. I actually don't know what Trump really believes on any issue. He seems to say whatever gets him the most attention.
-His views on anything except 'winning' are a mystery to me.
Bravo! That's the most accurate and succinct political analysis of the man I've read.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5612 at 02-26-2016 01:28 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-26-2016, 01:28 AM #5612
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
As Bill Gates noted, no storage is anywhere near as energy dense as liquid fuels. All those nice chemical bonds holding the energy at bay. Now, find a way to efficiently convert solar to chemical, and you have a winner.
You just need way to store the energy( 'high tech battery')







Post#5613 at 02-26-2016 12:09 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-26-2016, 12:09 PM #5613
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
You just need way to store the energy( 'high tech battery')
I'm not a chemist, but Mike Alexander may be able to assist here. The only battery I've heard about that has a shot of joining liquid fuels in energy density is a sugar battery ... which is really more like a fuel cell than a battery.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5614 at 02-26-2016 02:11 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-26-2016, 02:11 PM #5614
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
I'm not a chemist, but Mike Alexander may be able to assist here. The only battery I've heard about that has a shot of joining liquid fuels in energy density is a sugar battery ... which is really more like a fuel cell than a battery.
This the type of energy storage the I had in mind. I am sure that there are better sites, perhaps Eric could provide some.


http://www.pv-magazine.com/opinion-a...#axzz41IYpcnkJ


… "The final quarter of 2015 saw a significant increase in planned global energy storage projects, up 45% on the previous quarter, to reach nearly 400 MW. The overall pipeline of planned battery and flywheel projects now stands at 1.6 GW. The majority – 45% – are planned for the U.S., although Japan is expected to comprise around 20%.”…







Post#5615 at 02-26-2016 02:39 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-26-2016, 02:39 PM #5615
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Let's see -- glycerine is a liquid at STP; it is practically non-toxic (the chemical hazard is that it is a desiccant). It would be tougher to tax than alcohol.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#5616 at 02-26-2016 02:54 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-26-2016, 02:54 PM #5616
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
This the type of energy storage the I had in mind. I am sure that there are better sites, perhaps Eric could provide some.
From your link I saw this:

The 75 MW of contracts comprise seven projects, of which four are lithium-ion battery projects (accounting for 42 MW), two are zinc/air battery storage projects (13 MW) and one is a flywheel project (20 MW), which is a first for PG&E.

Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/deta...#ixzz41Ikptrra

I am not familiar with those. I was not expecting large-scale lithium-ion battery projects. What I had seen before were molten salt batteries installed at some solar energy plants.

http://inhabitat.com/revolutionary-n...and-all-night/
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5617 at 02-26-2016 03:32 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
02-26-2016, 03:32 PM #5617
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
As Bill Gates noted, no storage is anywhere near as energy dense as liquid fuels. All those nice chemical bonds holding the energy at bay. Now, find a way to efficiently convert solar to chemical, and you have a winner.
Precisely. The general idea is like this:

1. CO2 + H2O + sunlight --> CH2O + O2
2. Sunight + solar cells --> electricity
3. 2 H2O + electricity -- H2 + O2
4. CH20 + H2 -> CH2 + H20


If you sum up both sides of the reaction and cancel out similar terms on each side you get

2 CO2 + 2 H2O + sunlight --> 2 CH2 + 3 O2

Here CH2 represents liquid hydrocarbon fuels, actually the formula would be closer to CH2.2, but CH2 is close enough for this purpose. The net equation is simply the reverse of the combustion equation. That is all you have to do is "unburn" the fuel were have already burned so as to burn it again without adding CO2 to the atmosphere. If you sequester the CO2 the net effect of this would be to convert sunlight into energy and simulataneous "pump" CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the ground--all powered by sunlight.

Reaction 1 is photosynthesis, a reaction humans have been utilizing for 10000+ years, which is better known as agriculture.
Reaction 2 is solar-generated electricity, the excess of which over need would be converted into fuel for latter use when the sun isn't shining.
Reaction 3 is electrolysis of water, a well-developed industrial technology.
Reaction 4 is a reforming reaction in which carbohydrate is reduced to a hydrocarbon using hydrogen.

Agriculture is well developed and can cheaply produce all the CH2O (carbohydrate) we would need to employ this scheme. The problem is the vast majority of carbohydrates occur as either cellulose (non-woody plant fibers) or worse still lignocellulose (wood). To put these carbs into a useable form it is necessary to break them down into the sugars there are made of (for wood you have the extra step of removing the lignin). This is hard to do. People have worked on this since WW II, and I am not optimistic we can can do this.

Another way to so this is you employ artificial photosynthesis in which catalysts and sunlight are used to reduce carbon dioxide and water into a product that is easy to handle. People are working in this (I suspect this is what has Gates excited). If this is cracked it would be huge (or yuge for you Trump fans).

The reforming reaction is just a place holder. Hydrocarbons are the gold standard of energy storage. The energy stored in them can be converted to electricity at rates approaching 70%. The high energy density of hydrocarbons comes from there hydrogen content. Burning carbon yields about 8 cal per gram compared to 27 cal per gram for hydrogen. Hydrogen is hard to store. A hydrocarbon (CH2) has about 11 cal per gram and is liquid and is easy to store. Algae can do this (i.e. they can produce fat), which can be reformed into hydrocarbons. But they also produce a lot of biomass and so are hard to handle.

The killer ap would be an artificial photosynthesis reaction that produced hydrocarbons (and not much else) from sunlight. It sounds like science fiction but all it takes is the right catalysts. Advances in material science and supercomputer simulations means better inorganic catalysts. And the gene jocks* promise better biocatalysts (enzymes). So there is lots of room for optimism.

*the advances in this field beyond what was possible when I was in grad school are mind-blowing.
Last edited by Mikebert; 02-26-2016 at 03:37 PM.







Post#5618 at 02-26-2016 03:33 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-26-2016, 03:33 PM #5618
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
From your link I saw this:

The 75 MW of contracts comprise seven projects, of which four are lithium-ion battery projects (accounting for 42 MW), two are zinc/air battery storage projects (13 MW) and one is a flywheel project (20 MW), which is a first for PG&E.

Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/deta...#ixzz41Ikptrra

I am not familiar with those. I was not expecting large-scale lithium-ion battery projects. What I had seen before were molten salt batteries installed at some solar energy plants.

http://inhabitat.com/revolutionary-n...and-all-night/
Here is one on the liquid metal battery. I think that you are right that this is a good approach.

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-battery...g-lasting.html
… "The liquid metal battery platform offers an unusual combination of features. In general, batteries are characterized by how much energy and how much power they can provide. (Energy is the total amount of work that can be done; power is how quickly work gets done.) In general, technologies do better on one measure than the other. For example, with capacitors, fast delivery is cheap, but abundant storage is expensive. With pumped hydropower, the opposite is true.
But for grid-scale storage, both capabilities are important—and the liquid metal battery can potentially do both. It can store a lot of energy (say, enough to last through a blackout) and deliver that energy quickly (for example, to meet demand instantly when a cloud passes in front of the sun). Unlike the lithium-ion battery, it should have a long lifetime; and unlike the lead-acid battery, it will not be degraded when being completely discharged. And while it now appears more expensive than pumped hydropower, the battery has no limitation on where it can be used. With pumped hydro, water is pumped uphill to a reservoir and then released through a turbine to generate power when it's needed. Installations therefore require both a hillside and a source of water. The liquid metal battery can be installed essentially anywhere.”…







Post#5619 at 02-26-2016 04:40 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-26-2016, 04:40 PM #5619
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Here is one on the liquid metal battery. I think that you are right that this is a good approach.
I understand that the molten salt and liquid metal batteries both have a state stability issue, where they can literally change to a solid without warning and be hard (impossible?) to recover. Just another challenge. If we have no challenges, we are out of work
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#5620 at 02-26-2016 08:44 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-26-2016, 08:44 PM #5620
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
I understand that the molten salt and liquid metal batteries both have a state stability issue, where they can literally change to a solid without warning and be hard (impossible?) to recover. Just another challenge. If we have no challenges, we are out of work
We need challenges and we need a national push on energy/power technology development.







Post#5621 at 02-26-2016 09:13 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-26-2016, 09:13 PM #5621
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Real Climate also has an article on the recent CERN experiments, The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting… The meat of the article reflects how the experiments really do suggest lots of stuff about interactions between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. The big theme is that the experiment calls for a need for more experiments. Those seriously following the "cosmic rays cause global warming" claim might want to review it. Those who aren't following the science would have a steep learning curve.

The new experiments don't say what the denialist propagandists would like to say, though.
My understanding of the cosmic ray evidence is that it is indirectly an argument that the solar constant is not so constant. A stronger magnetic field and solar wind generated by a more active (via sunspots) sun means fewer cosmic rays hitting the atmopshere and nucleating clouds. So besides Earth orbital cycles like the Mihailovich cycle, the level of sunspot actiivty does have an impact on overall climate independent of greenhouse gasses--and if it is strong enough, it can precipitate melting of Arctic permafrost and clathrates and increase methane and CO2 levels past a tipping point regardless of human activity.







Post#5622 at 02-26-2016 09:16 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-26-2016, 09:16 PM #5622
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
As Bill Gates noted, no storage is anywhere near as energy dense as liquid fuels. All those nice chemical bonds holding the energy at bay. Now, find a way to efficiently convert solar to chemical, and you have a winner.
Or have networks of solar power satellites beaming power to receptors on Earth and get around night shadow that way.







Post#5623 at 02-26-2016 09:19 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-26-2016, 09:19 PM #5623
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Originally Posted by radind

There are economic benefits in shifting to solar, so I expect Trump to look at this aspect. I actually don't know what Trump really believes on any issue. He seems to say whatever gets him the most attention.
-His views on anything except 'winning' are a mystery to me.
Bravo! T

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Bravo! That's the most accurate and succinct political analysis of the man I've read.
Nixon appealed to popular prejudice. And Nixon gave us the EPA and Clean Air Act and tried to give us national health insurance and guaranteed annual income.







Post#5624 at 02-27-2016 04:34 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
02-27-2016, 04:34 PM #5624
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Sunspots

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
My understanding of the cosmic ray evidence is that it is indirectly an argument that the solar constant is not so constant. A stronger magnetic field and solar wind generated by a more active (via sunspots) sun means fewer cosmic rays hitting the atmopshere and nucleating clouds. So besides Earth orbital cycles like the Mihailovich cycle, the level of sunspot actiivty does have an impact on overall climate independent of greenhouse gasses--and if it is strong enough, it can precipitate melting of Arctic permafrost and clathrates and increase methane and CO2 levels past a tipping point regardless of human activity.
I've heard that spin. It doesn't fly.

The 11 year solar cycles give us all sorts of data on stronger and weaker sunspot periods. If you look at the temperature data with a few months rolling average, you can see the solar cycle plain as day with a casual glance. The more sunspots, the warmer you get. The low point in the solar cycles is very close to zero sunspots. One is not going to get less than zero sunspots, thus we aren't going to see solar energy getting less than what we see every 11 or so years.

And the greenhouse gas forcing factor over the long term is steadily over riding the small and periodic solar cycles.

This is a typical denialist approach. One proposes that some forcing factor will overwhelm the greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately, they seldom learn enough about the other forcing factors to know how absurd most of these claims are. When the satellites start observing a negative number of sunspots, I'll have to re-evaluate.

A whole bunch of volcanoes going off in a major way could buy us a reprieve, but that's not something I'm ready to hope for and have no reason to expect.







Post#5625 at 02-28-2016 12:00 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-28-2016, 12:00 PM #5625
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Or have networks of solar power satellites beaming power to receptors on Earth and get around night shadow that way.
As someone who has worked in the RF field all hi life, I vote against this idea. Unless the intent is to reradiate this energy in a very similar RF band (i.e. visible light), beam management will be impossible. Even then, the beam will have to be coherent (i.e. dead carrier RF or laser). Even at that, as good as it will be, lensing will occur and some of the radiation will spill out of the beam and radiate whatever it hits. Power levels will have to be in the Gigawatts, so the spill will still be intense enough to be a huge microwave oven.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------