Then why not just google it? The IPCC reports have comprehensive and quantitative reports on all the major natural and anthropogenic forcings. For albedo, see IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8:
There is robust evidence that anthropogenic land use change has increased the land surface albedo, which leads to an RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 Wm^–2.
This is from a total anthropogenic forcing of about 2.3 W m^-2, of which 2.83 W m^-2 is contributed by greenhouse gases.
The same hardware independence you think is "magic" makes simulation easy, and lets them test and learn from countless scenarios before they're ever encountered in reality. Read and learn.
Citation? Wave it off if you like, but Tesla is delivering regular Autopilot upgrades (now up to version 9) to its whole range, new cars and old, despite the hardware differences. These updates are based on the extensive telemetry from their customers' cars in the field. Waymo is doing the same for their Chrysler minivans and Jaguar i-Paces, based not only on their real-world testing but vastly more miles in the simulator - regularly rolling out new & improved versions to their fleet. And they said years ago they could offer their driving system for any car manufacturer.
No vendor has to start all that again from scratch for each new model. The hardware differences are much less significant than you appear to think. Data from whatever sensors are available are all fused into a best-available model of the environment, and all the driving logic is entirely independent of details like the brand or positioning of the lidar etc.
Guess that includes the Cambridge Dictionary, as well as all those fools at Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, HPE, IBM, Pixar, and most of the machine-learning industry, not to mention those well-known charlatan World Go champions at DeepMind.
I'm not sure what about the phrase terrifies you so much.
They were giving (unpaid) rides with no safety drivers a year ago. I guess you missed that fact, despite me posting this very link for you many months ago.
We already strictly enforce all of those things for provisional drivers, at least in my country. Doing anything on your list will get you suspended, and you must prove your ability to get a less-restricted licence. And they still kill themselves (and others) on the roads more than any other demographic, doing exactly these things.
Sure, they're still relatively new to driving. If they survive, they may learn to avoid those dangerous practices, and develop better reflexes. But every new driver has to learn all this from scratch, while autonomous cars already know - every car fresh off the line inherits all the lessons learned from the many millions of miles driven by its predecessors. And every lesson learned afterwards, anywhere, is incorporated and sent OTA to all those predecessors as well, so the entire fleet improves together.
The best autonomous cars are already safer than the average human in most common situations - certainly they're more reliable. And every year they will improve, all of them. You may be surprised how little time it takes before they exceed human ability in most uncommon situations too.
Nearly all of the links in the stories are back to the author's own site. I followed a few, but found almost no links to anything objective.The author makes numerous unsupported claims, but almost never bothers to back them up.
Nonetheless, even assuming the source facts have some basis, it's the conclusions the author tries to draw from those facts that are entirely speculative. Motives are assumed, public statements from public officials are contradicted, people are labelled as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers", accusations are made, and none of it is supported by any evidence whatsoever. It's all pure opinion, and makes no attempt to be objective.
All of this is in keeping with the Wikipedia description, and is pointless to argue about.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now? Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally? After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants? There nothing there worth responding to.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that nuclear power is still one of the safest options per unit power, and a dramatically better alternative than fossil fuels. And you're right about hydro power; dams don't have the best safety records (particularly in some countries) and have all their risk loaded up front with immediate deaths & damages. But I also think it's wrong to focus on immediate deaths as the only important metric, and to not overlook the significant long-term issues from a major nuclear accident (e.g. IEAE report on Chernobyl, Kyshtym & Windscale's deaths, or even Fukushima's estimated 1600 people dying as a result of "evacuation stress"). Comparatively, grid-scale solar entails very little construction risk (usually ground-level), insignificant operational risks per MWh, and the occupational hazards of mining for PV materials have to be less than the corresponding construction risks for a nuclear plant, mining & concentrating fuel etc.
Plus the cost of nuclear accidents is still very much a concern, and is the primary reason for the currently heavy regulatory oversight. Plant construction is also still very expensive. That's generally why I advocate for solar wherever it makes geographic sense, while nuclear is the best choice when cheaper options aren't suitable.
If you choose to look solely at provable & immediate deaths (as nuclear proponents always seem to), then yeah, nuclear looks very safe. But when you include a reasonable estimate of lives shortened by cancer as a result of exposure to released radioactive material, then not so much. Your own link estimates that the long-term death toll just from the Chernobyl accident is already around 1,000 and expected to rise to 4,000 - already making it significantly more dangerous than most renewables.
And if you look at the cost of energy accidents (again as described by your own link) then nuclear has the most expensive accidents by far, accounting for 41% of all property damage. This (and the associated risk) is a big part of why nuclear is considered so costly (though personally I believe a more complete accounting that included the health costs of operation would probably put coal in front again).
Like GP said, "Nuclear has its place". Clearly it's not more of a concern than global warming - and I don't see anybody saying it is, outside of a few straw men.
It's just that solar and wind are simply a better option in many other places, due to them being so much cheaper and lower-risk. Personally I believe we'll need all three; renewables (with & without storage) as well as nuclear.
Us. Human civilisation is harmed. So are a lot of animal and plant species. If you want a full list of the main ways in which things on the Earth are harmed (and occasionally benefited) by greenhouse gases, see here.
Nitric oxide is present in human blood at concentrations of around 2 ppm - but exposure above 25 ppm is considered dangerous, and above 100 ppm will harm you in minutes. Also undesirable is how contact with water forms nitric acid, i.e. acid rain. And particulates are just as bad. Air pollution in general is still responsible for nearly a third of lung cancers and other respiratory diseases - we have a lot more improving to do.
While Facebook did not deny our report that the “Rift 2” being developed under Iribe’s PC VR team had been canceled, the company reiterated to us in a comment that they are continuing to invest in PC.
So, Rift 2 still cancelled, next PC product kicked back to "future plans" stage, but they're not closing down the PC store just yet.
Thank you for providing citations. It's worth noting that the study actually says photosynthetic rates were boosted by an average of 40% (at 475-600 ppm), not plant volume. Dry matter gains were more modest, at 17% for above-ground plants and 30% for below-ground plants. Harvestable yields of wheat, rice and soybean all showed increases of 12–14%.
I agree that increasing CO2 levels are likely to enable greater food production in the long term, all else being equal, but in the shorter term the changes to rainfall patterns and optimal farming locations will have a more negative effect, with growing adaption costs, and drops in crop yields already being evident. For example, reports are showing that as of 2010, maize yields have dropped 7-8% in China and Brazil, with 14% drops in wheat yields in Russia. Other mitigating factors include high daytime and nighttime temperatures, and increased ozone production associated with CO2 emissions that has also harmed crop yields.
Nonsense. At no point was "all plant life on the verge of dying off", regardless of Moore's unsupported claims. CO2 has dropped as low as 150 ppm in the past (currently over 400) and plants happily survived that. C3 plants can readily adapt to low-CO2 conditions (in as few as 5 generations), as Gerhart & Ward (2010) describes.
CO2 levels have been fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm over the last 10 million years, as ice ages pull CO2 into the ocean then release it again when they end. And this could have had some effect on plant growth, along with the lower temperatures, decreased rainfall etc - but only where growth wasn't already limited by other factors. Increasing CO2 only helps plant growth when they also have plenty of water, sunlight, soil nutrients etc.
From TFS, a "conventional car... releases only 20 percent of its lifetime CO2 [during manufacturing]", so if an average ICE vehicle produces 24 tonnes of CO2 over its lifecycle, that's 4.2 tonnes for manufacturing and 19.2 tonnes while driving. If a BEV requires 75% more emissions during manufacturing, that's only 3.15 tonnes more.
According to the DoE, an average BEV powered in West Virginia (95.7% coal power) would emit 4.29 tonnes a year, compared to an average ICE emission of 5.19 tonnes/year, a difference of 0.9 tonnes. So the ICEV emissions would exceed the BEV even in the worst-case power mix after just 3.5 years.
Well, as you're still not answering anything, I guess either you're at least as confused as you're accusing others of being, or you're just another combative troll. Good luck with that.
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ?
And which statement of mine is in error? All you've done is answer polite requests for clarification with rhetorical questions of your own, insults, and flat denials. Sounds like deflection to me.
turn on a ceiling fan in a house with a hot attic
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
My point is a) nowhere in the study does it claim that this heat transfer from higher layers is at all significant, especially for anything above the troposphere, and b) none of this could be described as adding heat to the atmosphere (as the OP stated) - it merely moves it about.
Or perhaps you're trying to claim that any atmospheric mixing at the bottom will affect net radiative transfer out of the atmosphere altogether? If so, please cite evidence (from this study or any other) that it's non-negligible.
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does. If you were trying to draw a parallel with ocean circulation, that is also a local effect (though can be much larger) - and again, doesn't directly affect global average climate (though indirect feedbacks are possible if e.g. sea ice melting causes albedo changes).
That was my first thought too, but the specifications and installation document from the maker of the film says that plasma screens and LED walls are not blocked, and that angle is important when installing the film, so it's almost certainly ordinary polarisation.
The maker's specifications do claim LED screens are blocked as well, but I suspect they mean ordinary LCD monitors with LED backlights:
Cloaking Technology Film renders wall-mounted and other large LED displays in conference rooms, huddle rooms, and other glass fronted rooms opaque when viewed from outside the room. Most large, wall-mounted displays can be cloaked, with the exception of 3D displays, Microsoft Surface Hubs, Barco video walls, OLED displays, plasma screens, direct-view LED video walls, and projection video.
Note that direct-view LEDs are not blocked. The same document also stresses the importance of film angle during installation, confirming that it's based on polarisation.
I had actually hoped it would be a more interesting notch filter blocking specific 640/570/480nm wavelengths, akin to the black projector screens you can get that reflect only those wavelengths (and absorb all the ambient light at other frequencies), but apparently not.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why not just google it? The IPCC reports have comprehensive and quantitative reports on all the major natural and anthropogenic forcings. For albedo, see IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8:
There is robust evidence that anthropogenic land use change
has increased the land surface albedo, which leads to an RF of
–0.15 ± 0.10 Wm^–2.
This is from a total anthropogenic forcing of about 2.3 W m^-2, of which 2.83 W m^-2 is contributed by greenhouse gases.
This is invaluable info that customers should be more aware of - and the US should follow.
The same hardware independence you think is "magic" makes simulation easy, and lets them test and learn from countless scenarios before they're ever encountered in reality. Read and learn.
Citation? Wave it off if you like, but Tesla is delivering regular Autopilot upgrades (now up to version 9) to its whole range, new cars and old, despite the hardware differences. These updates are based on the extensive telemetry from their customers' cars in the field. Waymo is doing the same for their Chrysler minivans and Jaguar i-Paces, based not only on their real-world testing but vastly more miles in the simulator - regularly rolling out new & improved versions to their fleet. And they said years ago they could offer their driving system for any car manufacturer.
No vendor has to start all that again from scratch for each new model. The hardware differences are much less significant than you appear to think. Data from whatever sensors are available are all fused into a best-available model of the environment, and all the driving logic is entirely independent of details like the brand or positioning of the lidar etc.
Guess that includes the Cambridge Dictionary, as well as all those fools at Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, HPE, IBM, Pixar, and most of the machine-learning industry, not to mention those well-known charlatan World Go champions at DeepMind.
I'm not sure what about the phrase terrifies you so much.
They were giving (unpaid) rides with no safety drivers a year ago. I guess you missed that fact, despite me posting this very link for you many months ago.
We already strictly enforce all of those things for provisional drivers, at least in my country. Doing anything on your list will get you suspended, and you must prove your ability to get a less-restricted licence. And they still kill themselves (and others) on the roads more than any other demographic, doing exactly these things.
Sure, they're still relatively new to driving. If they survive, they may learn to avoid those dangerous practices, and develop better reflexes. But every new driver has to learn all this from scratch, while autonomous cars already know - every car fresh off the line inherits all the lessons learned from the many millions of miles driven by its predecessors. And every lesson learned afterwards, anywhere, is incorporated and sent OTA to all those predecessors as well, so the entire fleet improves together.
The best autonomous cars are already safer than the average human in most common situations - certainly they're more reliable. And every year they will improve, all of them. You may be surprised how little time it takes before they exceed human ability in most uncommon situations too.
Nearly all of the links in the stories are back to the author's own site. I followed a few, but found almost no links to anything objective.The author makes numerous unsupported claims, but almost never bothers to back them up.
Nonetheless, even assuming the source facts have some basis, it's the conclusions the author tries to draw from those facts that are entirely speculative. Motives are assumed, public statements from public officials are contradicted, people are labelled as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers", accusations are made, and none of it is supported by any evidence whatsoever. It's all pure opinion, and makes no attempt to be objective.
All of this is in keeping with the Wikipedia description, and is pointless to argue about.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now? Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally? After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants? There nothing there worth responding to.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that nuclear power is still one of the safest options per unit power, and a dramatically better alternative than fossil fuels. And you're right about hydro power; dams don't have the best safety records (particularly in some countries) and have all their risk loaded up front with immediate deaths & damages. But I also think it's wrong to focus on immediate deaths as the only important metric, and to not overlook the significant long-term issues from a major nuclear accident (e.g. IEAE report on Chernobyl, Kyshtym & Windscale's deaths, or even Fukushima's estimated 1600 people dying as a result of "evacuation stress"). Comparatively, grid-scale solar entails very little construction risk (usually ground-level), insignificant operational risks per MWh, and the occupational hazards of mining for PV materials have to be less than the corresponding construction risks for a nuclear plant, mining & concentrating fuel etc.
Plus the cost of nuclear accidents is still very much a concern, and is the primary reason for the currently heavy regulatory oversight. Plant construction is also still very expensive. That's generally why I advocate for solar wherever it makes geographic sense, while nuclear is the best choice when cheaper options aren't suitable.
If you choose to look solely at provable & immediate deaths (as nuclear proponents always seem to), then yeah, nuclear looks very safe. But when you include a reasonable estimate of lives shortened by cancer as a result of exposure to released radioactive material, then not so much. Your own link estimates that the long-term death toll just from the Chernobyl accident is already around 1,000 and expected to rise to 4,000 - already making it significantly more dangerous than most renewables.
And if you look at the cost of energy accidents (again as described by your own link) then nuclear has the most expensive accidents by far, accounting for 41% of all property damage. This (and the associated risk) is a big part of why nuclear is considered so costly (though personally I believe a more complete accounting that included the health costs of operation would probably put coal in front again).
Like GP said, "Nuclear has its place". Clearly it's not more of a concern than global warming - and I don't see anybody saying it is, outside of a few straw men.
It's just that solar and wind are simply a better option in many other places, due to them being so much cheaper and lower-risk. Personally I believe we'll need all three; renewables (with & without storage) as well as nuclear.
Us. Human civilisation is harmed. So are a lot of animal and plant species. If you want a full list of the main ways in which things on the Earth are harmed (and occasionally benefited) by greenhouse gases, see here.
Nitric oxide is present in human blood at concentrations of around 2 ppm - but exposure above 25 ppm is considered dangerous, and above 100 ppm will harm you in minutes. Also undesirable is how contact with water forms nitric acid, i.e. acid rain. And particulates are just as bad. Air pollution in general is still responsible for nearly a third of lung cancers and other respiratory diseases - we have a lot more improving to do.
While Facebook did not deny our report that the “Rift 2” being developed under Iribe’s PC VR team had been canceled, the company reiterated to us in a comment that they are continuing to invest in PC.
So, Rift 2 still cancelled, next PC product kicked back to "future plans" stage, but they're not closing down the PC store just yet.
Thank you for providing citations. It's worth noting that the study actually says photosynthetic rates were boosted by an average of 40% (at 475-600 ppm), not plant volume. Dry matter gains were more modest, at 17% for above-ground plants and 30% for below-ground plants. Harvestable yields of wheat, rice and soybean all showed increases of 12–14%.
I agree that increasing CO2 levels are likely to enable greater food production in the long term, all else being equal, but in the shorter term the changes to rainfall patterns and optimal farming locations will have a more negative effect, with growing adaption costs, and drops in crop yields already being evident. For example, reports are showing that as of 2010, maize yields have dropped 7-8% in China and Brazil, with 14% drops in wheat yields in Russia. Other mitigating factors include high daytime and nighttime temperatures, and increased ozone production associated with CO2 emissions that has also harmed crop yields.
Nonsense. At no point was "all plant life on the verge of dying off", regardless of Moore's unsupported claims. CO2 has dropped as low as 150 ppm in the past (currently over 400) and plants happily survived that. C3 plants can readily adapt to low-CO2 conditions (in as few as 5 generations), as Gerhart & Ward (2010) describes.
CO2 levels have been fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm over the last 10 million years, as ice ages pull CO2 into the ocean then release it again when they end. And this could have had some effect on plant growth, along with the lower temperatures, decreased rainfall etc - but only where growth wasn't already limited by other factors. Increasing CO2 only helps plant growth when they also have plenty of water, sunlight, soil nutrients etc.
Even that is not the case.
From TFS, a "conventional car ... releases only 20 percent of its lifetime CO2 [during manufacturing]", so if an average ICE vehicle produces 24 tonnes of CO2 over its lifecycle, that's 4.2 tonnes for manufacturing and 19.2 tonnes while driving. If a BEV requires 75% more emissions during manufacturing, that's only 3.15 tonnes more.
According to the DoE, an average BEV powered in West Virginia (95.7% coal power) would emit 4.29 tonnes a year, compared to an average ICE emission of 5.19 tonnes/year, a difference of 0.9 tonnes. So the ICEV emissions would exceed the BEV even in the worst-case power mix after just 3.5 years.
This is borne out by numerous other studies.
Well, as you're still not answering anything, I guess either you're at least as confused as you're accusing others of being, or you're just another combative troll. Good luck with that.
Yes, there's a Mic Mute switch that disables the mic, like most smart speakers.
Of course, if you don't trust that switch to actually disable the mic, then maybe you don't want to buy one in the first place.
That's exactly what the Duplex-based Call Screening feature does, that they also announced.
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ?
And which statement of mine is in error? All you've done is answer polite requests for clarification with rhetorical questions of your own, insults, and flat denials. Sounds like deflection to me.
turn on a ceiling fan in a house with a hot attic
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
My point is a) nowhere in the study does it claim that this heat transfer from higher layers is at all significant, especially for anything above the troposphere, and b) none of this could be described as adding heat to the atmosphere (as the OP stated) - it merely moves it about.
Or perhaps you're trying to claim that any atmospheric mixing at the bottom will affect net radiative transfer out of the atmosphere altogether? If so, please cite evidence (from this study or any other) that it's non-negligible.
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does. If you were trying to draw a parallel with ocean circulation, that is also a local effect (though can be much larger) - and again, doesn't directly affect global average climate (though indirect feedbacks are possible if e.g. sea ice melting causes albedo changes).
That was my first thought too, but the specifications and installation document from the maker of the film says that plasma screens and LED walls are not blocked, and that angle is important when installing the film, so it's almost certainly ordinary polarisation.
The maker's specifications do claim LED screens are blocked as well, but I suspect they mean ordinary LCD monitors with LED backlights:
Cloaking Technology Film renders wall-mounted and other large LED displays in conference rooms, huddle rooms, and other glass fronted rooms opaque when viewed from outside the room. Most large, wall-mounted displays can be cloaked, with the exception of 3D displays, Microsoft Surface Hubs, Barco video walls, OLED displays, plasma screens, direct-view LED video walls, and projection video.
Note that direct-view LEDs are not blocked. The same document also stresses the importance of film angle during installation, confirming that it's based on polarisation.
I had actually hoped it would be a more interesting notch filter blocking specific 640/570/480nm wavelengths, akin to the black projector screens you can get that reflect only those wavelengths (and absorb all the ambient light at other frequencies), but apparently not.