A carbon price is a proxy for the missing external costs of coal power, so it helps raise the wholesale price to better reflect its true cost (which is around double current wholesale prices). This alone encourages alternatives - both demand for carbon-neutral alternative power, and investment in further renewable generation.
But of course, the revenue from that didn't vanish; it was funneled back into industry adaption schemes and consumer tax cuts. And it worked, driving emissions down significantly, until it was repealed in 2014 (at which point they immediately started rising again.
The only one waving away the risk to the Reef is this guy, who just happens to be the "science coordinator" for a business-funded denialist group. I think it's clear from TFA how real the risk is.
unless you go out every 2-4 weeks and drop $500 on a new video card
That is more or less what "state of the art" means, yes - the best available. Most keen PC gamers have something between that and console-level.
The PS3, when it was released, was potentially as powerful as a top PC - but had such an arcane architecture that it took years for developers to squeeze full performance out of it. By which time of course, PCs had long surpassed it.
Any static & unchanging platform may be cheap (largely through scale) but will quickly fall behind what's possible. These updated XBox One.2 and PS4K consoles help ameliorate that while keeping consoles' biggest advantage - a cheaper, simplified gaming experience in your living room.
You're so worried about how publishers might (continue to) over-idealise their games that you want to remove (from everyone) the option of playing console games on a box that could actually get a lot closer to that ideal?
May I suggest you take that up with the publishers instead? Or perhaps just wait for reviews that show what it actually runs like on your own hardware.
Slightly less convenient for you & the publishers, yes, but updated hardware would allow many console gamers to get a greatly improved experience in their favourite games, not to mention enabling new gaming possibilities like VR.
Thanks for the citation. It's hard to find good numbers for bird death causes, but I agree that source isn't good enough. Still, the main point I was trying to make is that a few thousand birds are insignificant next to the vast numbers killed by everything else in our society (even power lines apparently kill millions).
Nuclear plants, when running normally, do not kill 28,000 birds a year
No, they kill hundreds of thousands. Which is at least a fraction of the millions killed by coal - and the hundreds of millions killed by glass windows, let alone cats.
most nuclear plants will never have an accident at all, much less one that harms the environment
True. Unfortunately, the few that do cause economic damage costing hundreds of billions.
Solar isn't perfect, but it's got a long way to go before it gets worse than our current alternatives.
If your phone had a lens capable of optically zooming right into a tiny part of the artwork, and a motorised mount that could move it all over the whole work, and software that could match and stitch them all into a seamless larger image, sure.
It doesn't often go negative, but it regularly drops to low rates at peak solar times. So long as someone can buy low and sell high, there's a profit to be made. If that's enough to cover costs, including capital, there's a business opportunity.
Yield grew 6.5% last year; somewhat less than the year before, but don't you think a single year of lower growth is a little too soon to declare it "stuck"?
Assuming you're right about that, what makes you think Trump will improve the situation? Even if he doesn't simply set up his own gravy train, what specific actions do you think he will take to help? Just "changing anything" is not enough, and frequently makes things worse if you don't have a better replacement.
From a global perspective, most Americans are the 1%, and off-shored jobs are simply reducing global inequality.
Doesn't make it suck any less when you get laid off, and if your replacements have insufficient skills to do the job well then the company will (deservedly) suffer, but OTOH it's likely a huge opportunity for the new workers to get a crack at the big time.
Trump may be describing real problems, but his proposed solutions are hopelessly flawed and naÃve, not to mention dangerously divisive. Assuming you can trust anything he says anyway, since three quarters of his claims are provably wrong, and half his opinions change the next week. There's a reason even his own party want nothing to do with him, and it's not because he's been winning.
The status quo may be crap in a great many ways, but go ahead and elect him if you want to see how much worse it could get. At the least it'll provide entertainment for us non-Americans.
Sorry, but whoever told you that (you didn't cite a source) is incorrect. 238 Gt is indeed the average annual net loss of Greenland ice, April to April.
See under "Total Ice Mass" on NOAA's 2015 Greenland Ice Sheet Report, where it confirms my cited figure. There's also a nice pretty graph where you can see for yourself that the cumulative mass change is more than 3000 gigatonnes over 13 years. I'm sure you can do the math from there.
The ocean is alkaline, but the pH has been dropping for decades. This is already causing an observable negative effect on shelled marine life, which is increasing.
The sky hasn't fallen, but these concerns about oxygen levels are an additional risk on top of an increasingly dangerous situation for the marine food web.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
They go on to say this gain dropped 30% over the last few years to 83 billion tonnes, and is slowing further.
However, a number of other studies have found that the Antarctic's ice losses slightly outweighed its gains. And Greenland alone is averaging a loss of 238 gigatonnes annually, far exceeding any gains that might be found in the Antarctic.
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely [nearly] ice-free within the next five to seven years"
Based on work from the US Naval Postgraduate School. Not quite an iron-clad guarantee, and certainly no reason to throw out all the other science. NOAA's own work suggests 30 years is a possibility, others say by the end of the century.
Solar and wind produce power almost for free, but of course building them isn't. Changing our energy infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions will always have a price tag, but the benefits are enormous and widespread, and studies repeatedly show they easily outweigh the costs.
Yet we're still dragging our heels, because people insist on ignoring the huge external damage from fossil fuels (hundreds of billions in health costs annually just from coal emissions in the US alone) while being terrified that their power bill might go up a few percent.
Such blinkered bullshit. Claiming to worry about a handful of people who might not find a way to pay their heating bill, and completely ignoring the tens of thousands of people dying prematurely every year from coal emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
Same reason New York isn't buried in straw men like yours; no scientist ever predicted any such thing.
A carbon price is a proxy for the missing external costs of coal power, so it helps raise the wholesale price to better reflect its true cost (which is around double current wholesale prices). This alone encourages alternatives - both demand for carbon-neutral alternative power, and investment in further renewable generation.
But of course, the revenue from that didn't vanish; it was funneled back into industry adaption schemes and consumer tax cuts. And it worked, driving emissions down significantly, until it was repealed in 2014 (at which point they immediately started rising again.
The only one waving away the risk to the Reef is this guy, who just happens to be the "science coordinator" for a business-funded denialist group. I think it's clear from TFA how real the risk is.
unless you go out every 2-4 weeks and drop $500 on a new video card
That is more or less what "state of the art" means, yes - the best available. Most keen PC gamers have something between that and console-level.
The PS3, when it was released, was potentially as powerful as a top PC - but had such an arcane architecture that it took years for developers to squeeze full performance out of it. By which time of course, PCs had long surpassed it.
Any static & unchanging platform may be cheap (largely through scale) but will quickly fall behind what's possible. These updated XBox One.2 and PS4K consoles help ameliorate that while keeping consoles' biggest advantage - a cheaper, simplified gaming experience in your living room.
You're so worried about how publishers might (continue to) over-idealise their games that you want to remove (from everyone) the option of playing console games on a box that could actually get a lot closer to that ideal?
May I suggest you take that up with the publishers instead? Or perhaps just wait for reviews that show what it actually runs like on your own hardware.
Slightly less convenient for you & the publishers, yes, but updated hardware would allow many console gamers to get a greatly improved experience in their favourite games, not to mention enabling new gaming possibilities like VR.
Thanks for the citation. It's hard to find good numbers for bird death causes, but I agree that source isn't good enough. Still, the main point I was trying to make is that a few thousand birds are insignificant next to the vast numbers killed by everything else in our society (even power lines apparently kill millions).
Or, y'know, the coal business.
Nuclear plants, when running normally, do not kill 28,000 birds a year
No, they kill hundreds of thousands. Which is at least a fraction of the millions killed by coal - and the hundreds of millions killed by glass windows, let alone cats.
most nuclear plants will never have an accident at all, much less one that harms the environment
True. Unfortunately, the few that do cause economic damage costing hundreds of billions.
Solar isn't perfect, but it's got a long way to go before it gets worse than our current alternatives.
It had built-in amplifiers, so you could use unpowered speakers.
The Nexus Q didn't even get out the door.
Right, this isn't a general-purpose DSP but a custom ASIC designed to run their TensorFlow graphs efficiently.
If your phone had a lens capable of optically zooming right into a tiny part of the artwork, and a motorised mount that could move it all over the whole work, and software that could match and stitch them all into a seamless larger image, sure.
Like how you can look at a specific item, then back out into a 360-degree view?
Vehicle-to-Grid has been discussed a lot. There are a number of projects ongoing in a variety of countries.
It doesn't often go negative, but it regularly drops to low rates at peak solar times. So long as someone can buy low and sell high, there's a profit to be made. If that's enough to cover costs, including capital, there's a business opportunity.
Yield grew 6.5% last year; somewhat less than the year before, but don't you think a single year of lower growth is a little too soon to declare it "stuck"?
Assuming you're right about that, what makes you think Trump will improve the situation? Even if he doesn't simply set up his own gravy train, what specific actions do you think he will take to help? Just "changing anything" is not enough, and frequently makes things worse if you don't have a better replacement.
From a global perspective, most Americans are the 1%, and off-shored jobs are simply reducing global inequality.
Doesn't make it suck any less when you get laid off, and if your replacements have insufficient skills to do the job well then the company will (deservedly) suffer, but OTOH it's likely a huge opportunity for the new workers to get a crack at the big time.
Trump may be describing real problems, but his proposed solutions are hopelessly flawed and naÃve, not to mention dangerously divisive. Assuming you can trust anything he says anyway, since three quarters of his claims are provably wrong, and half his opinions change the next week. There's a reason even his own party want nothing to do with him, and it's not because he's been winning.
The status quo may be crap in a great many ways, but go ahead and elect him if you want to see how much worse it could get. At the least it'll provide entertainment for us non-Americans.
Sorry, but whoever told you that (you didn't cite a source) is incorrect. 238 Gt is indeed the average annual net loss of Greenland ice, April to April.
See under "Total Ice Mass" on NOAA's 2015 Greenland Ice Sheet Report, where it confirms my cited figure. There's also a nice pretty graph where you can see for yourself that the cumulative mass change is more than 3000 gigatonnes over 13 years. I'm sure you can do the math from there.
The ocean is alkaline, but the pH has been dropping for decades. This is already causing an observable negative effect on shelled marine life, which is increasing.
The sky hasn't fallen, but these concerns about oxygen levels are an additional risk on top of an increasingly dangerous situation for the marine food web.
Following to the source:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
They go on to say this gain dropped 30% over the last few years to 83 billion tonnes, and is slowing further.
However, a number of other studies have found that the Antarctic's ice losses slightly outweighed its gains. And Greenland alone is averaging a loss of 238 gigatonnes annually, far exceeding any gains that might be found in the Antarctic.
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely [nearly] ice-free within the next five to seven years"
Based on work from the US Naval Postgraduate School. Not quite an iron-clad guarantee, and certainly no reason to throw out all the other science. NOAA's own work suggests 30 years is a possibility, others say by the end of the century.
Got any magical ideas to fix things at no cost?
Solar and wind produce power almost for free, but of course building them isn't. Changing our energy infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions will always have a price tag, but the benefits are enormous and widespread, and studies repeatedly show they easily outweigh the costs.
Yet we're still dragging our heels, because people insist on ignoring the huge external damage from fossil fuels (hundreds of billions in health costs annually just from coal emissions in the US alone) while being terrified that their power bill might go up a few percent.
Such blinkered bullshit. Claiming to worry about a handful of people who might not find a way to pay their heating bill, and completely ignoring the tens of thousands of people dying prematurely every year from coal emissions.