" The USA research team, for example, recommends something like a 50% reduction in per capita energy intensity by 2050. That is flat out incompatible with human nature in a healthy economy and society. " we can, and it's not. Are you confused on energy intensity?
The energy intensity of GDP (Energy/GDP) can be reduced through energy efficiency and conservation measures in energy end-use sectors (passenger and goods transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and industry). We refer to “energy efficiency” measures as the technical improvements of products and processes; we use the term “energy conservation” to describe a broader set of measures, including structural and behavioral changes, that lead to lower levels of energy consumed per unit of GDP. Examples of energy efficiency and conservation measures include: improved vehicle technologies, smart urban design, and optimized value chains (for passenger and goods transportation); improved end-use equipment, architectural design, building practices, and construction materials (in residential and commercial buildings); improved equipment, production processes, material efficiency, and re-use of waste heat (in industry).
Yes, we can cut it in half by 2050. note, the formula context is CO2 reduction so call all currently uses of petroleum energy in half. it's from 3.1* 'The Drivers of CO2 emissions.'
CO2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Population) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO2/Energy)
*3.11 coming soon for improved networking! *rimshot*
We can build a large enough solar panel array to power every daytime use of our power, every day. So that alone would eliminate all daylight non clean power.
That's not even getting into industrial thermal, and using dams as storage to make it 24 hour power.
There is no engineering issues with this. Sure, it would cost 40 billion. so what? hell; 100 billion? long term its a hell of a deal.
There is no reason the federal government can't start building plants. In fact, I think ONLY the government should build, maintain and run nuclear plants. Lets remove the profit motive to delaying proper storage and maintenance. Smaller, simpler, safer.
"as the couple of western civilizations together produce 75% of the green house gases" nope.
" But killing the whole of USA 50 years ago would change the current situation dramatically." becasue the countries the would rise up would be all enviro friendly and not use petroleum?
" But you do know that China has a single child policy since nearly 40 years, you do or not?" not any more. They stopped it a few years ago.
No I'm not advocating killing anyone. anyway: You notice Chinas population kept going up over the lat 40 years? it was 600 million in 1960, and now it's 1.3 billion.
One child doesn't seem to have been enforced that hard. Yes I am aware of the tragedies. My point is, it still went up.
"but about how many it will kill. compaed to other energy sources.'
Modern reacors can be built that use current waste. The byproducts from tjhos reacors return to background radiation level in 200-500 years. not half life, back ground levels.
I can tell you hav no idea how nuclear wast is stored. If we teleport all the nuclear waste into the Marianas trench, you wouldn't even raise the radiation in the sea by by a measurable amount. But that would be waste full when we have the tech here to use it.
wrong. " 2. Electric cars may be simpler but with the current state of batteries it's doubtful they are actually more efficient." Even in states with the dirtiest power, they are a saving of CO2 and more efficient. Country wide the efficiency ranges from 20% to 60% more efficient.
". Don't tell me to conserve energy when we have 60+ days over 100 degrees..." nothing about that make sense.
coal is horrible. It puts giga tonnes of poison in the air. so no, it's not cheap it's just the costs are offset with time.
AGW is falsifiable. It's solid science. Here, let me explain:
1) Visible light strike the earth 2) Visible light generates IR when it strike something 3) CO2 is transparent to Visible light 4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR 5) The amount of CO2 is increasing 6) we release giga-tones of CO2 that has been sequestrated from before the bug that cause trees to rot existed.
Every on of those could be shown to be false with trivial tests. You notice deniers never go after the science? they make ad homs and cherry pick
AGW is political becasue people who make money from the controversy keep stirring up the false controversy. Adding energy(heat) to a system changes it. So explain to me how adding energy into the earth wouldn't change the climate.
"What "real facts" are those? There has not been a single climate model put out by anyone ever that has predicted Earth's climate with any degree of accuracy for any decent amount of time. " that's blatantly false. they temperature hav all been with in reasonable error bars. You should learn how science works.
Even iof they where broken, that would IN NO ONE show the the climate isn't changing.
Please stop flinging shit and act like a human for a moment. AGW is based on solid, basic, science. It's science that could trivially be proved false. SO if you don't think climate change is happening, you must show us why adding energy to a system won't change the system
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.[12] Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.[55]
bottom line: His science is wrong, he misrepresents data so bad I don't think he really understand it. He never offers any data to show that the science behind AGW(which leads to GCC) is wrong.
IT's pretty simple science; which is why you never here anyone talk about actual science,. but create nonsense, ad homs and cherry pick.
You want to look at the industry that makes the most money from spreading denier lies? it would be the media. The media makes a shit ton of money off this false debate.
really? that's who you go to for your information?
YOu shoudl read this. Over the last 100 yeas I can cherry pich 10 year tretchs where it is even, or seem to decreas, but the overall trend is an ncrease. So, why is that? it's becasue gloable warming is in conjuction with other long standing cycles. SO it level out a bit depending on el nino. If global warming was not true it would return back to center every time el nino had minimal impact*. It does not.
couple of things. 1) those levels will wipe the human species out 2) When that happen, plants didn't rot. Literally, the stuff the makes plant rot didn't exist in the Carboniferous era. So, the plant sand trees dies and stacked up on each other, and became a locked up sequestration of carbon called petroleum.
The bugs the evolved after the Carboniferous they cause plants and trees to rot mean the CO2 in the plants get released back into the air.
As long as trees rot, there will never be reserve of petroleum again.
Slashdot Mirror
"But I bought the game and I should be able to play it to completion with spending an extra penny."
why?
If you are to patient, it's your (social) loss.
Like talking about last month's tv shows.
ridiculous?
I don't know. Wy would you not want to build a huge solar array to power cities? you will still make money. Lots of it, in fact
" In fact, I'd be bound to by corporate law. "
no, you would not be.
Post Carboniferous era, trees are carbon neutral.
" The USA research team, for example, recommends something like a 50% reduction in per capita energy intensity by 2050. That is flat out incompatible with human nature in a healthy economy and society. "
we can, and it's not.
Are you confused on energy intensity?
The energy intensity of GDP (Energy/GDP) can be reduced through energy efficiency and conservation
measures in energy end-use sectors (passenger and goods transportation, residential and commercial
buildings, and industry). We refer to “energy efficiency” measures as the technical improvements of
products and processes; we use the term “energy conservation” to describe a broader set of measures,
including structural and behavioral changes, that lead to lower levels of energy consumed per unit of
GDP. Examples of energy efficiency and conservation measures include: improved vehicle
technologies, smart urban design, and optimized value chains (for passenger and goods
transportation); improved end-use equipment, architectural design, building practices, and construction
materials (in residential and commercial buildings); improved equipment, production processes,
material efficiency, and re-use of waste heat (in industry).
Yes, we can cut it in half by 2050. note, the formula context is CO2 reduction so call all currently uses of petroleum energy in half. it's from 3.1* 'The Drivers of CO2 emissions.'
CO2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Population) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO2/Energy)
*3.11 coming soon for improved networking! *rimshot*
We can build a large enough solar panel array to power every daytime use of our power, every day.
So that alone would eliminate all daylight non clean power.
That's not even getting into industrial thermal, and using dams as storage to make it 24 hour power.
There is no engineering issues with this.
Sure, it would cost 40 billion. so what? hell; 100 billion? long term its a hell of a deal.
There is no reason the federal government can't start building plants. In fact, I think ONLY the government should build, maintain and run nuclear plants. Lets remove the profit motive to delaying proper storage and maintenance.
Smaller, simpler, safer.
If we can pipe oil across the continent, then I think we can pipe water inland.
You should flesh that out as a business plan and shop around for money.
Yes I am serious, it's a good idea.
IT's a PR issue:
"This can be changed, but it's expensive."
yeah, but where is the money going? workers, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors.
How about:
This can be changed, and it's a job creator.
Why not? we did it with aresols.
Remove the false controversy, and we could do it.
I'm sorry the truth hurts you.
Nothing he said is factually incorrect. If it makes you so angry, maybe you should focus on the issue and not the messenger?
at 1000 PPM CO2 make people drowsy and give them head aches.
How well will be able to function then?
"as the couple of western civilizations together produce 75% of the green house gases"
nope.
" But killing the whole of USA 50 years ago would change the current situation dramatically."
becasue the countries the would rise up would be all enviro friendly and not use petroleum?
" But you do know that China has a single child policy since nearly 40 years, you do or not?"
not any more. They stopped it a few years ago.
No I'm not advocating killing anyone.
anyway: You notice Chinas population kept going up over the lat 40 years? it was 600 million in 1960, and now it's 1.3 billion.
One child doesn't seem to have been enforced that hard. Yes I am aware of the tragedies. My point is, it still went up.
"Or just some stupid fag? "
stop it.
"but about how many it will kill. compaed to other energy sources.'
Modern reacors can be built that use current waste. The byproducts from tjhos reacors return to background radiation level in 200-500 years. not half life, back ground levels.
I can tell you hav no idea how nuclear wast is stored.
If we teleport all the nuclear waste into the Marianas trench, you wouldn't even raise the radiation in the sea by by a measurable amount.
But that would be waste full when we have the tech here to use it.
How much nuclear waste do you think there is?
Coal has rendered more land useless the nuclear, by a long shot.
Modern nuclear power is incredibly safe and can be made to use modern nuclear 'waste.'
You notice the plant with issues use designs that where created before plate tectonics was a science?
wrong.
" 2. Electric cars may be simpler but with the current state of batteries it's doubtful they are actually more efficient."
Even in states with the dirtiest power, they are a saving of CO2 and more efficient. Country wide the efficiency ranges from 20% to 60% more efficient.
". Don't tell me to conserve energy when we have 60+ days over 100 degrees..."
nothing about that make sense.
coal is horrible. It puts giga tonnes of poison in the air. so no, it's not cheap it's just the costs are offset with time.
To damn bad.
OR they build nuclear power that's really hard to make weapons from.
AGW is falsifiable. It's solid science. Here, let me explain:
1) Visible light strike the earth
2) Visible light generates IR when it strike something
3) CO2 is transparent to Visible light
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR
5) The amount of CO2 is increasing
6) we release giga-tones of CO2 that has been sequestrated from before the bug that cause trees to rot existed.
Every on of those could be shown to be false with trivial tests. You notice deniers never go after the science? they make ad homs and cherry pick
AGW is political becasue people who make money from the controversy keep stirring up the false controversy.
Adding energy(heat) to a system changes it. So explain to me how adding energy into the earth wouldn't change the climate.
"What "real facts" are those? There has not been a single climate model put out by anyone ever that has predicted Earth's climate with any degree of accuracy for any decent amount of time. "
that's blatantly false. they temperature hav all been with in reasonable error bars. You should learn how science works.
Even iof they where broken, that would IN NO ONE show the the climate isn't changing.
Please stop flinging shit and act like a human for a moment.
AGW is based on solid, basic, science. It's science that could trivially be proved false.
SO if you don't think climate change is happening, you must show us why adding energy to a system won't change the system
http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat...
They didn't change it.
Both terms have been in use for almost the same length of time.
GW: Increased temperature of the globe
Climate change: the impact those increased temperature have on the climate.
related but separate things.
True, some place will be colder, for a while. Once the sinks fill, the everywhere will warm.
that website has been debunked with scioence so many time, it's not even funny anymore. He doesn't even know what a 'log' is, mathematically speaking.
paid shill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.[12] Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.[55]
bottom line: His science is wrong, he misrepresents data so bad I don't think he really understand it. He never offers any data to show that the science behind AGW(which leads to GCC) is wrong.
IT's pretty simple science; which is why you never here anyone talk about actual science,. but create nonsense, ad homs and cherry pick.
You want to look at the industry that makes the most money from spreading denier lies? it would be the media.
The media makes a shit ton of money off this false debate.
really? that's who you go to for your information?
YOu shoudl read this. Over the last 100 yeas I can cherry pich 10 year tretchs where it is even, or seem to decreas, but the overall trend is an ncrease.
So, why is that? it's becasue gloable warming is in conjuction with other long standing cycles. SO it level out a bit depending on el nino.
If global warming was not true it would return back to center every time el nino had minimal impact*. It does not.
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
*it would also prove false some long standard scientific laws.
It shows no such thing, moron.
couple of things.
1) those levels will wipe the human species out
2) When that happen, plants didn't rot. Literally, the stuff the makes plant rot didn't exist in the Carboniferous era.
So, the plant sand trees dies and stacked up on each other, and became a locked up sequestration of carbon called petroleum.
The bugs the evolved after the Carboniferous they cause plants and trees to rot mean the CO2 in the plants get released back into the air.
As long as trees rot, there will never be reserve of petroleum again.