That is true for any any other carbon process. None of them produce extra CO2. They take in carbon and release carbon. The CO2 being released by oil is the carbon from the CO2 that was collected hundreds of millions or billions of years ago.
I agree with you that token investment means little. I also agree that substantial investment in renewables is likely to drive down the cost of fossil fuels.
On the other than there have been large public works projects before. The creation of the internet and its spread being a recent example. There have been very complex and expensive energy projects before. We know how to fund large scale energy projects.
If we want it, it can happen. And all that has to happen for "us" to want it is for the US to be fully onboard.
Hollywood studies are pretty clear they are making movies for the Chinese market. And yes China respects copyright on movies. Hollywood generates $2b a year in revenues from Chinese theaters. They may not care about DVD piracy but there isn't the same problem with studio films.
As for the Asian tigers being western. No they aren't. I work with international people everyday, the number of cultural references and assumptions that aren't shared are staggering. Little things like mental associations with dogs. Up to what the role of religion is. The moment you try and dialogue beyond the basics of business, you run into a lot of culture.
It allows small working groups to focus on their areas of interest without broader impact and thus parts of Fedora can evolve semi-independently of one another. Level 0 will be top down but Level 2 may be very agile where all the stakeholders and just meet and come to a quick agreement.
Agile is one of the most pro-programmer, pro-creativity methodologies around.
As for nothing new being invented, just to pick one, mobility and a mobile workforce. In the 1990s people could carry papers and a PDA but information from the mobile workforce flowed back often days later.
Sorry I misread your comment merging with the ones above it.
Civilized parts of Asia have the same problem I grouped them in with "non western" I shouldn't have said "3rd world" as a synonym for non-western. As for sales, that's not entirely true:
a) The growth is foreign. For example domestic sales USA and Canada, are up 6% per 5 years while China is growing 35% year-over-year. Hollywood is interested in the growing market. The stagnant market is less interesting though larger.
b) If you exclude low budget movies I'm not sure that's even true.
I see. So under your theory why do Woody Allen movies do proportionately so much worse in say China? Following American movie tropes is easy because those don't have cultural content. Following references to American culture is hard.
Details of international releases are confusing. That probably has a lot to do with how much Australian theaters want to pay in fees.
As for budgets coming down. It likely would be a good thing, possibly. It might also kill damage the industry tremendously. People like to see "big screen" movies on "big screens". Lots of good art movies might mean plunging ticket sales at megaplexes.
The major powers have been able to get poorer countries to do what they want when they really care for millennia. Things like huge trade penalties for not joining climate agreements would work fine. China has never been a substantial naval power. They aren't going to be able to force their goods into foreign ports, to get their goods in they need agreements to ship and to sell.
The question is whether the major powers care. Right now the Republican Party in the United States is blocking there from being an agreement of major powers. They are doing it to get campaign contributions from the oil industry. To be able make their approach feasible large numbers of Republicans have to believe propaganda. Change the opinion of 20% of the population in the USA and the issue isn't that hard to solve.
CO2 levels were over 400 ppm 15 million years ago at a time when no humans were alive nor could have survived.
I don't buy that. I see no reason that humans couldn't have survived the climate of 15 million years ago. Humans exist today in a huge range of climates and are adapting to more rapidly.
CO2 is 99% produced by burning fossile fuels, which mankind is doing (do you deny that?).
I believe in global warming, but that one I deny. New carbon from humans is about 29gigatons. Terrestrial plants weigh in at 500gigatons. The natural carbon cycle of just terrestrial plants produces far more CO2. Of course it destroys an even larger amount, so what you wanted to say was "net production" not "production". Similarly for the ocean.
If this is true, with an increase in CO2, shouldn't nature naturally begin to grow more abundantly and plants produce more O2, or is there something missing?
A lot of other people have answered you. The thing you are missing is the C, the carbon, doesn't disappear. It becomes part of the plant. The plant is made heavily of carbon. An increase in CO2 allows for an increase in the total amount of plants on earth. It then allows for an increase in the plant material in the soil. On average most of the carbon in the soil will leak back into the atmosphere. So plants can absorb a lot of extra carbon and they have helped to regulate the planet but not as much as we are pushing into the atmosphere.
Over the very long haul the small percentage that doesn't leak back into the atmosphere will become buried and turn into coal and oil and.... Previous carbon surges are where we are getting all the carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere. If we radically change the climate it will stay changed for a long time. Eventually the plants will be successful in burying that carbon deep but that can take millions of years.
In the last 15 years 12 of the them have broken records for heat. How is that not a lick of warming?
As for the historical record the historical record shows large natural variations. It also shows us on a planet that is cooler than normal. There is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. We suspect it earth is cooler than normal because CO2 levels are lower than normal and the fact that reflection is high because of the Arctic and Antarctica. We had a spike in CO2 which ended an ice age and warmed the planet. We know that spikes in CO2 will further warm the planet. We are inducing a CO2 spike. This heat is rapidly melting the Arctic.
Exactly how is the historical record in any way not confirming global warming?
I don't agree with grandparent about levies as a long term solution but your response on cost is also wrong. How much do you think it costs to build those buildings inside a city? A civilization that build a modern city can easily build a meter thick or 100 meter thick wall around that city.
I don't think investment in renewables is token. Things like the Japanese proposal to convert a huge chunk of the sahara desert to a solar system that provides abundant electricity for Europe and North Africa would have a massive impact. Windfarms that replace domestic energy consumption for cars could have massive impact. It would have been better if we started decades ago, but we can today make a huge difference in the climate of 2100 and live in a world of cheap abundant electricity.
I think the big assumption is that warming is likely to reduce agricultural output. More heat allows for longer growing seasons and longer growing seasons allow us to boost production per acre. Plants adore higher levels of CO2.
Second. Our production per acre is now so high that we've been reducing the amount of land in use rather steadily for over a century even while population has skyrocketed. Moreover we know how to convert bad soils into good soils using fertilizer and transportation. Given a high price of food we can convert a lot of acreage something like 7-8% of the planet's surface to agriculture. The limiting factor mainly is fresh water. But we know how to do desalinization, we know how to capture more water. Given the price of food as it exists today we need cheap fresh water, but higher price of food allows for a higher price of water. And remember availability of fresh water on an even slightly warmer planet skyrockets, there will be far more rain to capture.
And of course this applies to the oceans too. Food production is likely to increase in the oceans which means fishing can increasing.
I just don't see heating the earth doing anything to meaningfully change global civilization's ability to feed billions of people. I think you are underestimating adaption of humans. Whole countries having to reorganize themselves is a pain in the neck. Something like 1/2 the cities on the planet being flooded and being replaced is expensive. But these things are expense over the next few centuries they are going to cause extinction or anything like it.
I would want one of those (I own the surface pro). Frequently I want flexibility. I need the tablet to be able to act as a mediocre laptop sometimes. Tablets are just too computer dependent too much of the time. The Helix is more than a mediocre laptop but it is $2k.
Unless you mean the culture of movies, i.e. hollywood. Then no. It isn't our culture, that was my point. Our culture isn't in it. You don't have cultural references that don't translate.
That's domestic. If they fall apart internationally then the formula start to collapse and we get more movies designed for a single country or at least western audience.
This is an excellent comment you should get an account. As for what file formats will be used in two thousand years. Let's assume none. But that's not the question. The question is what file formats will be understandable in two thousand years. And that may be far more.
We could have a massive attempt at archiving the 21st century data in say the 24th century for posterity..pdf for example is very well documented. It isn't unlikely that a future civilization could understand it. I think there will be enough documentation to survive just 300 years. So that for example. Similarly for many e-book formats. Similarly for.gif,,jpeg,,mp3....
Slashdot Mirror
That is true for any any other carbon process. None of them produce extra CO2. They take in carbon and release carbon. The CO2 being released by oil is the carbon from the CO2 that was collected hundreds of millions or billions of years ago.
I agree with you that token investment means little. I also agree that substantial investment in renewables is likely to drive down the cost of fossil fuels.
On the other than there have been large public works projects before. The creation of the internet and its spread being a recent example. There have been very complex and expensive energy projects before. We know how to fund large scale energy projects.
If we want it, it can happen. And all that has to happen for "us" to want it is for the US to be fully onboard.
Hollywood studies are pretty clear they are making movies for the Chinese market. And yes China respects copyright on movies. Hollywood generates $2b a year in revenues from Chinese theaters. They may not care about DVD piracy but there isn't the same problem with studio films.
As for the Asian tigers being western. No they aren't. I work with international people everyday, the number of cultural references and assumptions that aren't shared are staggering. Little things like mental associations with dogs. Up to what the role of religion is. The moment you try and dialogue beyond the basics of business, you run into a lot of culture.
It allows small working groups to focus on their areas of interest without broader impact and thus parts of Fedora can evolve semi-independently of one another. Level 0 will be top down but Level 2 may be very agile where all the stakeholders and just meet and come to a quick agreement.
Agile is one of the most pro-programmer, pro-creativity methodologies around.
As for nothing new being invented, just to pick one, mobility and a mobile workforce. In the 1990s people could carry papers and a PDA but information from the mobile workforce flowed back often days later.
Sorry I misread your comment merging with the ones above it.
Civilized parts of Asia have the same problem I grouped them in with "non western" I shouldn't have said "3rd world" as a synonym for non-western. As for sales, that's not entirely true:
a) The growth is foreign. For example domestic sales USA and Canada, are up 6% per 5 years while China is growing 35% year-over-year. Hollywood is interested in the growing market. The stagnant market is less interesting though larger.
b) If you exclude low budget movies I'm not sure that's even true.
Reread the comment. It answers your question. It was about who buys the tickets not who makes the movies.
I see. So under your theory why do Woody Allen movies do proportionately so much worse in say China? Following American movie tropes is easy because those don't have cultural content. Following references to American culture is hard.
Yes. Movies intended for individual cultures have a deeper plot. Applies to them as much as us.
Details of international releases are confusing. That probably has a lot to do with how much Australian theaters want to pay in fees.
As for budgets coming down. It likely would be a good thing, possibly. It might also kill damage the industry tremendously. People like to see "big screen" movies on "big screens". Lots of good art movies might mean plunging ticket sales at megaplexes.
The major powers have been able to get poorer countries to do what they want when they really care for millennia. Things like huge trade penalties for not joining climate agreements would work fine. China has never been a substantial naval power. They aren't going to be able to force their goods into foreign ports, to get their goods in they need agreements to ship and to sell.
The question is whether the major powers care. Right now the Republican Party in the United States is blocking there from being an agreement of major powers. They are doing it to get campaign contributions from the oil industry. To be able make their approach feasible large numbers of Republicans have to believe propaganda. Change the opinion of 20% of the population in the USA and the issue isn't that hard to solve.
I don't buy that. I see no reason that humans couldn't have survived the climate of 15 million years ago. Humans exist today in a huge range of climates and are adapting to more rapidly.
I believe in global warming, but that one I deny. New carbon from humans is about 29gigatons. Terrestrial plants weigh in at 500gigatons. The natural carbon cycle of just terrestrial plants produces far more CO2. Of course it destroys an even larger amount, so what you wanted to say was "net production" not "production". Similarly for the ocean.
A lot of other people have answered you. The thing you are missing is the C, the carbon, doesn't disappear. It becomes part of the plant. The plant is made heavily of carbon. An increase in CO2 allows for an increase in the total amount of plants on earth. It then allows for an increase in the plant material in the soil. On average most of the carbon in the soil will leak back into the atmosphere. So plants can absorb a lot of extra carbon and they have helped to regulate the planet but not as much as we are pushing into the atmosphere.
Over the very long haul the small percentage that doesn't leak back into the atmosphere will become buried and turn into coal and oil and.... Previous carbon surges are where we are getting all the carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere. If we radically change the climate it will stay changed for a long time. Eventually the plants will be successful in burying that carbon deep but that can take millions of years.
In the last 15 years 12 of the them have broken records for heat. How is that not a lick of warming?
As for the historical record the historical record shows large natural variations. It also shows us on a planet that is cooler than normal. There is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. We suspect it earth is cooler than normal because CO2 levels are lower than normal and the fact that reflection is high because of the Arctic and Antarctica. We had a spike in CO2 which ended an ice age and warmed the planet. We know that spikes in CO2 will further warm the planet. We are inducing a CO2 spike. This heat is rapidly melting the Arctic.
Exactly how is the historical record in any way not confirming global warming?
Because they are the same people / same party.
I don't agree with grandparent about levies as a long term solution but your response on cost is also wrong. How much do you think it costs to build those buildings inside a city? A civilization that build a modern city can easily build a meter thick or 100 meter thick wall around that city.
I don't think investment in renewables is token. Things like the Japanese proposal to convert a huge chunk of the sahara desert to a solar system that provides abundant electricity for Europe and North Africa would have a massive impact. Windfarms that replace domestic energy consumption for cars could have massive impact. It would have been better if we started decades ago, but we can today make a huge difference in the climate of 2100 and live in a world of cheap abundant electricity.
I think the big assumption is that warming is likely to reduce agricultural output. More heat allows for longer growing seasons and longer growing seasons allow us to boost production per acre. Plants adore higher levels of CO2.
Second. Our production per acre is now so high that we've been reducing the amount of land in use rather steadily for over a century even while population has skyrocketed. Moreover we know how to convert bad soils into good soils using fertilizer and transportation. Given a high price of food we can convert a lot of acreage something like 7-8% of the planet's surface to agriculture. The limiting factor mainly is fresh water. But we know how to do desalinization, we know how to capture more water. Given the price of food as it exists today we need cheap fresh water, but higher price of food allows for a higher price of water. And remember availability of fresh water on an even slightly warmer planet skyrockets, there will be far more rain to capture.
And of course this applies to the oceans too. Food production is likely to increase in the oceans which means fishing can increasing.
I just don't see heating the earth doing anything to meaningfully change global civilization's ability to feed billions of people. I think you are underestimating adaption of humans. Whole countries having to reorganize themselves is a pain in the neck. Something like 1/2 the cities on the planet being flooded and being replaced is expensive. But these things are expense over the next few centuries they are going to cause extinction or anything like it.
I would want one of those (I own the surface pro). Frequently I want flexibility. I need the tablet to be able to act as a mediocre laptop sometimes. Tablets are just too computer dependent too much of the time. The Helix is more than a mediocre laptop but it is $2k.
Unless you mean the culture of movies, i.e. hollywood. Then no. It isn't our culture, that was my point. Our culture isn't in it. You don't have cultural references that don't translate.
No the 3rd world didn't put a gun. They just bought tickets in large numbers. And that's enough to change studio behavior, a gun wasn't needed.
That's domestic. If they fall apart internationally then the formula start to collapse and we get more movies designed for a single country or at least western audience.
I'm not so sure. We have no idea what archival for the 21st century in the year 2400 looks like.
This is an excellent comment you should get an account. As for what file formats will be used in two thousand years. Let's assume none. But that's not the question. The question is what file formats will be understandable in two thousand years. And that may be far more.
We could have a massive attempt at archiving the 21st century data in say the 24th century for posterity. .pdf for example is very well documented. It isn't unlikely that a future civilization could understand it. I think there will be enough documentation to survive just 300 years. So that for example. Similarly for many e-book formats. Similarly for .gif, ,jpeg, ,mp3....