Do you have any information to support that position?
Because I'm pretty sure people have been farming in muddy fields with the economic input of some cowshit and manual labor for tens of thousands of years.
We do things outside because it is the cheapest method.
you've got free sunlight... agricultural land is CHEAP. You build away from anything else... why do you think some factory space near a city is going to have remotely comparable realestate prices to some field in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky or wherever? You find cheap land with good sun, good soil, and access to water... and you farm it. We have a massive... and very efficient agro business sector. I don't know why you think they're this incompetent at their jobs that they wouldn't do things in the best possible way.
I think this sort of thing makes the most sense for small growers... home growers... maybe specialty growers that can get a higher price. But the economics can't work out if you're selling your products to a canning plant or something. And that tells you that you need that higher price to remain viable.
I cared what he thought when he was able to effect anything. Now he's just another jerk on the street... like you or me or that guy over there picking his nose.
So why do I give a flying fuck what he has to say now? Useless.
So, first degree harassment requires some sort of legitimate physical threat.
The second degree harassment appears to include anything that annoys someone.
I mean... technically you'd be guilty of that against me... you annoy me all the time.:-p
Frankly, I think the second degree harassment is so loose in its definition that it's very vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. I mean... I could shut people up all day by citing harassment simply because X, Y, or Z thing they said annoyed me.
Look, I think a big requirement for harassment is if someone gets into your personal space and won't leave you alone. If you're a public place... who has a right to be one place versus another is debatable.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be going to annoy people in other subreddits. But the response to that is to ban the users that do that or perhaps to set up a system where if someone is a member of subreddit X they can't be a member of subreddit Y. That would be okay.
But when you ban subreddit X from even existing... you've crossed a line. And there are going to be consequences because that sort of speech won't stop.
We saw this very clearly in the whole gamer gate thing in that there was an attempt to censor that COMPLETELY failed. Every time the conversation was disallowed in various places it just went somewhere else... and then it got something of the streisand effect... which was a HUGE part of gamer gate... in that every attempt to censor actually brought more attention to the issue.
Had people NOT censored it and just let it happen it would have burned itself out in a week. Instead, the censorship made it last for damn near 6-8 MONTHS.
I know you're a big fan of censoring people that aren't PC. The problem is that that attitude is obsolete. Its a tactic and concept that was invented before the internet. And it doesn't work on the internet.
You can't really censor people. Even the Chinese are having very limited results censoring opinion. The only people I know of that have figured out how to censor the internet are the North Koreans.
Everyone else has pretty much failed. I mean, you can talk to people in Iran about how they think the ruling regime is full of shitheads and that's against so many laws in Iran.
I think you're supporting something with good intentions... but I also think you are being naive about the consequences of what you're doing and that the net result of it all is going to be something other than what you think. I also think you are going to create a blow back to the censorship that is going to make people that normally wouldn't sympathize with the fat shamers etc... sympathize with them if only out of free speech concerns.
And rather than create this more civil society that I think you want... I think you're going to stir up a certain level of increasingly and proportionally militant anarchism where every escalation of efforts on your part to censor is going to be met with an escalation from people that see the nature of your response as a threat to their freedoms.
Possibly you might find this interesting. The chinese have a domestic political tactic they call "loosening and tightening"... The idea is that they loosen regulations to make people happy and less rebellious against the communist party. Then when people start to use that freedom to say or do things against the regime they go into a crack down phase and tighten regulations. Then when that starts to create a counter movement they go into a loosening phase again.
Back and forth. The idea is not to have a single consistant policy but to shift between two policies to balance various political considerations.
The point I'm trying to make here is that even people that set up autocracies understand what I'm talking about here. If you want to dominate the discussion and control speech... you'
The whole "pause" thing which is argued started in 1998 and what caused people to start looking for where the heat went. You're saying into the ocean... because it isn't in the air.
70.0 - 82.5 is the global table. The other columns address different regions.
The sea rise is linear. Our rate of emissions have not been exponential. Explain how the CO2 even correlates with that when the trend lines don't match?
The rate of change in emissions should be reflected in the rate of change in the environment assuming these systems respond quickly to these changes.
What we're seeing is LINEAR changes to exponential inputs. That implies the two variables don't even correlate much less one being caused by the other.
I find it interesting that basically was flat from 58-64... as you can see it ramps up going faster and faster towards the present.
Anyway, I'd like to see if we can get a single point emission of CO2... something large enough to be detectable globally for some period of time. I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise... and then I'd like to see how long it takes for the trend line to return to normal.
Your IPCC citation assumes 120 years. I don't understand how that is possible. We're emitting 1 percent of total atmospheric carbon every year and the rate of actual change in our environment is about 1/3rd of our emissions.
That implies that 2/3rds of our emissions are being taken out of the atmosphere and not re-emitted ANNUALLY. If 2/3rds of our emissions are being removed and not re-emitted annually... then what does that do to the life expectancy of emitted CO2?
The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible. And your other figures you were cited were ranging from 100-30 years... which means we have range of 30 to 120 years just from your citations.
We're talking about the 6 foot tall man give or take 30 feet again. As to serious debate, you're in one right now to the extent that any such thing can happen on the internet. I'm not interested in your political references. Stop making them. I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.
As to your data on increases in carbon... I didn't say carbon wasn't increasing. I said that the rate of increase in the carbon doesn't match the increase in our emissions. If the time it stays in the atmosphere is 120 years as the IPCC says or around the 100 year range that wikipedia says... then we should see a closer match between emissions and atmospheric concentration. The discrepancy can only be explained by the biosphere sinking the carbon... possibly in the oceans if you like but still out of the air. And even the 30 year figure seems dubious to turn an exponential curve into a linear one.
As to Turley et al 2006, you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH valu
As to how much CO2 we put out... I think I did a rough calculation of that. Roughly 1 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere currently is emitted each year by humans. So... if there 100 units of CO2 in the air... the humans are emitting 1 unit in a given year... as of 2015. By the calculations I did the actual rate of increase in CO2 shows that about 2/3rds of that is absorbed by the biosphere at least because the rate of change in the atmosphere has been less than 1/3rd our emissions.
I find that to be interesting. That implies a very rapid uptake. And again, I'd like to know how quickly the CO2 from a large volcanic eruption lasts in the atmosphere. I think that's a good test. One of those goes off and the CO2 ppm of the whole world changes noticeably. The question is how many years before it returns to baselines? Because that will tell you how long it took for that CO2 to get eaten.
As to Hansen... So this covers 5 years during a solar minimum.... and the imbalance figure is significantly lower than previously thought.
In addition, he says we need to reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm to restore balance... we're nearing 400 ppm.
An imbalance I would point out does not prove causation... I would also point out that warming the seas... especially the upper seas is going to do all sorts of unpredictable stuff to humidity, clouds, etc. I think there are a few long term deserts that have started to turn green after thousands of years of being bone dry because they're getting water again. So... whether or not any of this is actually bad is debatable.
As to dismissing peer reviewed papers, I'm not doing that. Please don't start strawmanning me... it makes it hard to have this discussion. My point is that I can't just trust that what it says is valid because it went through that process. The process is not infallible. So it is not immune from audit, scrutney,, or skepticism. Just because something goes through that process doesn't mean it can't be questioned.
Dunning-Kruger effect, this citation has become trite and becomes little more than an appeal to authority or ad verecundiam at this point. You want to call me stupid? Then just do that. I can think of a similarly dismissive insult for you and that will be the end of any discussion. Is this what you want? I have no insecurities about my own intelligence. I know I'm smart. Saying otherwise would be false modesty on my part. I've a life time of validation to fall back on in this regard. If you don't want to have a discussion, then I don't know why you've even presuming to have gone this far. If you wanted me to drop to my knees and just accept whatever you say... then you were always going to be disappointed there. Choose please. Do you want a discussion or do you want to trade insults? I assure you... insulting people on the internet is one of my better honed talents at this point. So I'll probably if anything become more formidable. Moving on.
As to political arguments, I'm not repeating myself. If you want to have a political discussion, we can do that. But the nature of the discussion will shift dramatically to one of power, influence, and money. Choose. Do you want science or politics? I'm not interested in attempts to conflate the two.
As to commercial companies, it isn't in reddit's interest to go down this road.
The notion they're working on is "wouldn't it be cool if we could keep everything we want and get rid of the things we don't like"... that doesn't work. Its a package deal.
As to fat shaming not being protected speech... it is in the US. It firmly falls under First Amendment protections.
If the KKK's racism is protected speech then fat shaming is nothing.
As to their calculations... the miscalculation is that they didn't understand that doing this would have blow back from other communities.
Here is one of the big differences between liberals and progressives.
Liberals will respect and protect your right to speech even if they disagree with what you're saying.
Progressives will used the pretext of offended parties to justify censoring anything they find "problematic".
The internet was not built by progressives. It was built by liberals of the old school.
And if you'd like me to link you to the wikipedia page of the guy that founded Reddit, I can show you that the guy that did it thinks more the way I do than you do.
As to reddit having a bad rep, actually their bad rep is mostly from heavy handed censorship of corporate subreddits with their shadow bans of anyone complaining about customer service, product quality, etc. their rep for trolling and hate is more begging the question than anything real.
As to obligations... here we get the conflation of the legal definition of censorship with the dictionary definition of censorship. You are correct, Reddit has no legal requirement not to censor boards. However, what they are doing is literally censorship.
Wrong... you have to factor the cost, maintenance, depreciation, and subsidies of the solar facility.
It is the opposite of free.
Solar remains one of the more expensive ways to produce power.
I'm all for it in theory... In practice, I often have problems with it. Mostly in that there is a lot of graft in that industry since nothing has to even break even. Its all riding high on a bubble of very very heavy subsidies.
Something a lot people don't get is that big business LOVES the environmental movement at this point. Why? Because they can build all sorts of stuff and so long as its green... they can inflate the cost structure and get long term tax breaks and subsidies.
Its why you're seeing companies like GE go all in for green projects. The profits are crazy when you're mostly selling to the government.
My ideal solar implementation is in suburban and rural areas where people own and maintain their own panels without subsidies. I'm less of a fan of the solar farms unless they can do so without subsidies.
Here someone will point out that other energy industries get subsidies too... you have to compare them as a ratio to each industry. The difference is like a 100 to 1... they're not comparable.
We'll see. Some of these projects you're showing me smell of advertising campaigns to sell over priced LEDs more than anything. I mean... here's another question... why would I buy LEDs from these people when their cost structure is probably not competitive with cheaper LED manufacturers that are really selling the same product?
I've put together some LED arrays before. It isn't hard... and the LEDs are idiotically cheap if you source through ebay.
I'm not saying it again... this has grown tedious. I'm not comparing your LED scheme to outdoor growing. I'm comparing it to greenhouse growing.
Even so, if you want to compare against outdoor growing... yes, location matters for outdoor growing as does season. But if agricultural land is not that expensive and if you are a competent farmer than the seasons don't bother you.
Outdoor growing remains the most efficient.
That said, I personally prefer greenhouse growing because it is less labor intensive and has duel use benefits in that you can merge a green house with a home which lets you send the waste heat from your house into the green house while the green house can give you an all seasons indoor garden.
Ideally you want to set the green house up so that you sit out there and read... or have dinner with family amongst the plants. That is, not just have it be an industrial green house but be a real part of the home. More of a manicured garden with a roof and climate control.
Agree to install nuclear power for the city and your idea becomes more practical. Frustrate such installations and it doesn't.
You can grow food all year around in greenhouses as it is without any of that nonsense. You're English? Have you ever heard of Kew Gardens?... You know... the Royal Botanical garden? You're talking about doing something that the Victorians did more efficiently with glass and steam boilers.
The trick to 4 seasons green houses is to build the green house so you don't even need to run the boiler. Geothermal heat is a big thing that people should be dealing more with at this point. the temperature in the earth is something like 56F or so degrees everywhere all year around. Which means in the winter... at night... you can exchange air in the green house through the ground and effectively get 56 degree air even if its 20 degrees outside the green house.
Once the sun comes up, even in the winter... most green houses will have no problem self heating just from the sun. In fact, most green houses in the winter during the day will have to vent heat.
I've seen some green houses that instead of venting in the winter will instead pump air from the top of the green house into a network of pipes under the green house to effectively sink the heat in the ground under the green house. So when the sun goes down, the heat sinked during the day, radiates through the ground back into the green house... enough that it stays above freezing.
Obviously you want a back up heating system. But if everything is properly designed it shouldn't be required more than once every few years and only for a day or so. The rest of the time simply running some fans to push air around should be enough.
Another idea is to use solar water heaters. A large tank of water is sometimes heated to near boiling using solar water heaters and then water is circulated from that tank when temperatures drop too low.
That's the point of something like this... Assuming the gears could take the weight. You'd want to build the gears out of metal obviously because towards the end they'd need serious torque. But lets say you have a very low power situation... maybe a little wind mill or a small solar powered electric motor... then you need to do something that moves something huge but you don't really care if it takes a month. You set this up... walk away... come back in a month... boom.
That's not a reason to ban the fat thread. That's a reason to ban their subscribers from other posting in specific forums they might have disrupted.
The means are the end.
If your intention is to maintain compartmentalization then you maintain compartmentalization. If your purpose is to censor then you censor.
What is more, while i find the find hate people to be pretty gross... I am not comfortable that there is a reliable way to tell the difference between unacceptable speech and acceptable speech. I've seen censorship against once slip into censorship against the other with some frequency.
As a general matter of principle, my preferred solution would be simply to trust the moderators of the other subreddits to manage their own little communities besides coming in and firebombing the unclean. If the moderators of the other subreddits didn't have the tools to police their communities which is often the case with unpaid admins... then that was the problem.
I think we can agree that in principle sites like that hate hate subreddit have a right to exist.
I think we can also agree in principle that other communities have a right to not be taken over by trolls.
The Solution to not having site A trolled by site B is not to shutdown site B but rather to give site A the tools to protect itself.
Even doing that is something that if I were running a targeted subreddit would be something I would use sparingly. Trolls are a bit like bugs in your garden. You have to be careful to note what they're actually doing. Some of the bugs in your garden will eat the plants you care about and those need to be controlled. But a lot of trolls mostly troll other trolls. Those are more of an organic troll defense system.
There are a lot of annoying people on the internet. Why not use trolls to shut them down so long as they know their place?
Not really, the modern supply network is actually very efficient. People talk about how we import stuff from china being ineffcienty not realizing that we use big cargo ships that burn what is effectively industrial waste.
Those big cargo ships only burn fuel that has any other market besides as cargo ship fuel in the last 400 or so miles when they're coming into port. And that is only near countries like the US that will not permit cargo ships to burn that type of oil in their territory. So the ships burn the basically free sludge oil all the way until they get close... then shift over to something legal in US waters... then shift right back to sludge when they leave our territory.
And even if they didn't burn sludge the fuel cost of a big ship like that is a great deal less than you'd think. They're extremely energy efficient.
And that's just an example. The rest of the transport network is generally very efficient. Its why you get fruit from South America all year round that is cheap.
Seriously. If you're ACTUALLY serious about growing some serious food... then you need to make the cost of the lighting as close to ZERO as possible.
Sunlight is free. So that's one way to hit zero. Imagine a city of greenhouses. Every building a bubble of glass where the temperature under the glass never fell below freezing. We could do that and if anything lower our energy use. And every part of the bubble exposed to a reasonable amount of sunlight could support crop plants. And even the shaded areas could support shade plants.
Alternatively... duel use lighting. This is what I do in my own home in places I want to grow plants but don't have the lighting to do it. I have a 10k lumen LED grow light... 6500k... it isn't the blue/red LEDs because it has a duel use. My intention is to light a room with it in addition to making some pepper plants really happy.
Now that light is on for 10-12 hours out of every day. So I can't claim to have neutralized the energy usage entirely. I'm not in that room for even half that time the light is on. But an urban city might be able to make that claim in its power budget. There are city lights for example that run all night. Maybe instead of blasting the light onto a street, they could illuminate grow beds and those grow beds could reflect enough light to light the area. My grow light is able to do that quite easily in the room it is in. The lighting in the room is a bit odd because the grow light is optimized to light the plant rather than the room. It does light the room completely.
And because it's an LED... power usage is about 100 watts for about 10k lumens.
your fire analogy isn't applicable to the internet.
As to censoring thought, if you censor speech you can control how people think. That's most of the point.
Look at any autocracy and the point is to so bath the people in propaganda and control them to such an extent that you can control how and what they think.
Think about it.... I mean... that is the whole point of propaganda.
When one side is allowed to talk and no one else is allowed to talk... you can brain wash everyone. And the brain washing is the point. If you control speech you can control thought.
As to the owner of a site... not applicable to social networks.
There is this silly argument that only the government can censor. This is a misunderstanding.
The reality is that only the government is legally forbidden to censor but that doesn't mean that no one else can actually censor someone else.
If I tell you to shut up or I'll do something you don't like... I've censored you.
Now is that appropriate under some circumstances? Sure... context matters. But there are some things to keep in mind.
1. Am I being forced to listen to this person or am I simply offended that other people are choosing to listen to them? If I can't avoid this person for some reason then censoring might be reasonable. If I am not forced to listen to them then censoring is almost always tyrannical.
2. Is there a legitimate safety concern with this person speaking. Fire in a theater is an example... saying "we should kill this person" is an example... saying "so and so is a cunt" is not an example (yes I used the C word... gasp).
3. Have you misrepresented the purpose of your venue? For example, if I open an ice cream parlor or a hardware store... the point of it is not for people to come in, stand on a soap box, and start screaming their opinions at each other. However, if I set up a coffee shop and I'm trying to promote it as a "salon" or I have a pub that I try to make into something of a community center then I've created an expectation that people are going to be able to express themselves. Reddit... has done that in spades. Policing opinions on reddit when its clearly a clearing house for people to express themselves or talk about stuff is tyrannical.
As to concepts of being able to do certain things speaking of ignorance... not really... you're just making a series of argument from absurdity arguments... and then attempting to conflate that with what amounts to corporate whitewashing of internet culture likely to improve the look and marketability of a venue that only obtained popularity and thus value in the first place by inviting speech of all kinds.
The thing that is so funny about this crap is that the nannies and the censors really are the least internet aware people no matter how many twitter accounts and how much time they spend on face book.
You don't get it.
"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmour
If Reddit turns into a progressive hugbox then large portions of the community will just go elsewhere. There are lots of other "me too" type sites that would sell their immortal souls to literal satan to get Reddit's traffic. The sites that remain relevant are the ones that don't undermine their core utility. Reddit's censoring of boards is about as destructive to reddit as Google censoring search results. Imagine for a moment if google filtered porn searches out of their system but bing didn't.
Do you begin to see the issue? Reddit is going to destroy itself if it doesn't wise up.
If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.
Light tubes would need to carry a significant amount of the sun's energy. They generally don't. And if you're talking about a big building which is what we're talking about because we're talking about "urban" farming... how are you going to light pump down 5 floors with any effectiveness much less 20?
The best you're going to do is a green house on the roof and a if any side of the building actually gets real sun... maybe you can do farming on that side of the building if you're careful about what you plant.
Solar doesn't work for urban settings. You might as well go nuclear if you have that kind of population density.
The Suburbs can go solar. In urban areas its a waste.
The virtue of the urban gardening is that you can at least use it as a luxury good and you create more green space which might make people happy. With solar... All it is going to produce is electricity and there are better ways to do that for a big city than to put panels on teh roofs of large buildings.
It would work okay in Los Angeles... and sort of sprawly place. But in a proper urban setting?... pointless.
places where land is hideously expensive don't produce crops.
And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs.
As I said, throw a green house on top of the buildings... and consider turning the inside of the buildings themselves into duel use production. That will give you something viable.
... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.
I'm a big fan of urban farming but... the real trick with that is going to be using the "sun" to grow stuff.
Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.
So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about. Large insulated ground to ceiling windows facing south in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern hemisphere... with the idea that the whole sun facing portion of every building be filled with plants.
Permaculture is something that has to be looked at and ideally looked at from the context of urban gardening. Most food producing plants are bred for maximum production with maximum sunlight. Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded. And that has to be taken into consideration with the sorts of plants you choose to plant.
Then you've got hydroponics... which is a great idea for indoor farming because you have fewer issues with insects and can control things a little more tightly.
Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any information to support that position?
Because I'm pretty sure people have been farming in muddy fields with the economic input of some cowshit and manual labor for tens of thousands of years.
We do things outside because it is the cheapest method.
you've got free sunlight... agricultural land is CHEAP. You build away from anything else... why do you think some factory space near a city is going to have remotely comparable realestate prices to some field in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky or wherever? You find cheap land with good sun, good soil, and access to water... and you farm it. We have a massive... and very efficient agro business sector. I don't know why you think they're this incompetent at their jobs that they wouldn't do things in the best possible way.
I think this sort of thing makes the most sense for small growers... home growers... maybe specialty growers that can get a higher price. But the economics can't work out if you're selling your products to a canning plant or something. And that tells you that you need that higher price to remain viable.
I cared what he thought when he was able to effect anything. Now he's just another jerk on the street... like you or me or that guy over there picking his nose.
So why do I give a flying fuck what he has to say now? Useless.
hmmm... lets look at the legal code:
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
So, first degree harassment requires some sort of legitimate physical threat.
The second degree harassment appears to include anything that annoys someone.
I mean... technically you'd be guilty of that against me... you annoy me all the time. :-p
Frankly, I think the second degree harassment is so loose in its definition that it's very vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. I mean... I could shut people up all day by citing harassment simply because X, Y, or Z thing they said annoyed me.
Look, I think a big requirement for harassment is if someone gets into your personal space and won't leave you alone. If you're a public place... who has a right to be one place versus another is debatable.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be going to annoy people in other subreddits. But the response to that is to ban the users that do that or perhaps to set up a system where if someone is a member of subreddit X they can't be a member of subreddit Y. That would be okay.
But when you ban subreddit X from even existing... you've crossed a line. And there are going to be consequences because that sort of speech won't stop.
We saw this very clearly in the whole gamer gate thing in that there was an attempt to censor that COMPLETELY failed. Every time the conversation was disallowed in various places it just went somewhere else... and then it got something of the streisand effect... which was a HUGE part of gamer gate... in that every attempt to censor actually brought more attention to the issue.
Had people NOT censored it and just let it happen it would have burned itself out in a week. Instead, the censorship made it last for damn near 6-8 MONTHS.
I know you're a big fan of censoring people that aren't PC. The problem is that that attitude is obsolete. Its a tactic and concept that was invented before the internet. And it doesn't work on the internet.
You can't really censor people. Even the Chinese are having very limited results censoring opinion. The only people I know of that have figured out how to censor the internet are the North Koreans.
Everyone else has pretty much failed. I mean, you can talk to people in Iran about how they think the ruling regime is full of shitheads and that's against so many laws in Iran.
I think you're supporting something with good intentions... but I also think you are being naive about the consequences of what you're doing and that the net result of it all is going to be something other than what you think. I also think you are going to create a blow back to the censorship that is going to make people that normally wouldn't sympathize with the fat shamers etc... sympathize with them if only out of free speech concerns.
And rather than create this more civil society that I think you want... I think you're going to stir up a certain level of increasingly and proportionally militant anarchism where every escalation of efforts on your part to censor is going to be met with an escalation from people that see the nature of your response as a threat to their freedoms.
Possibly you might find this interesting. The chinese have a domestic political tactic they call "loosening and tightening"... The idea is that they loosen regulations to make people happy and less rebellious against the communist party. Then when people start to use that freedom to say or do things against the regime they go into a crack down phase and tighten regulations. Then when that starts to create a counter movement they go into a loosening phase again.
Back and forth. The idea is not to have a single consistant policy but to shift between two policies to balance various political considerations.
The point I'm trying to make here is that even people that set up autocracies understand what I'm talking about here. If you want to dominate the discussion and control speech... you'
The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate.
Some of the recalibration were obviously valid. Others are not as clear cut. For example, the orbital decay correction was entirely valid.
Regardless, even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
http://data.remss.com/msu/mont...
The whole "pause" thing which is argued started in 1998 and what caused people to start looking for where the heat went. You're saying into the ocean... because it isn't in the air.
70.0 - 82.5 is the global table. The other columns address different regions.
As to sea level... from church:
http://static-content.springer...
From the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
the actual graph:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
Do you see the problem?
The sea rise is linear. Our rate of emissions have not been exponential. Explain how the CO2 even correlates with that when the trend lines don't match?
The rate of change in emissions should be reflected in the rate of change in the environment assuming these systems respond quickly to these changes.
What we're seeing is LINEAR changes to exponential inputs. That implies the two variables don't even correlate much less one being caused by the other.
Also sort of interesting is this data on on the CO2 concentrations:
http://co2now.org/images/stori...
I find it interesting that basically was flat from 58-64... as you can see it ramps up going faster and faster towards the present.
Anyway, I'd like to see if we can get a single point emission of CO2... something large enough to be detectable globally for some period of time. I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise... and then I'd like to see how long it takes for the trend line to return to normal.
Your IPCC citation assumes 120 years. I don't understand how that is possible. We're emitting 1 percent of total atmospheric carbon every year and the rate of actual change in our environment is about 1/3rd of our emissions.
That implies that 2/3rds of our emissions are being taken out of the atmosphere and not re-emitted ANNUALLY. If 2/3rds of our emissions are being removed and not re-emitted annually... then what does that do to the life expectancy of emitted CO2?
The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible. And your other figures you were cited were ranging from 100-30 years... which means we have range of 30 to 120 years just from your citations.
We're talking about the 6 foot tall man give or take 30 feet again. As to serious debate, you're in one right now to the extent that any such thing can happen on the internet. I'm not interested in your political references. Stop making them. I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.
As to your data on increases in carbon... I didn't say carbon wasn't increasing. I said that the rate of increase in the carbon doesn't match the increase in our emissions. If the time it stays in the atmosphere is 120 years as the IPCC says or around the 100 year range that wikipedia says... then we should see a closer match between emissions and atmospheric concentration. The discrepancy can only be explained by the biosphere sinking the carbon... possibly in the oceans if you like but still out of the air. And even the 30 year figure seems dubious to turn an exponential curve into a linear one.
As to Turley et al 2006, you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH valu
As to how much CO2 we put out... I think I did a rough calculation of that. Roughly 1 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere currently is emitted each year by humans. So... if there 100 units of CO2 in the air... the humans are emitting 1 unit in a given year... as of 2015. By the calculations I did the actual rate of increase in CO2 shows that about 2/3rds of that is absorbed by the biosphere at least because the rate of change in the atmosphere has been less than 1/3rd our emissions.
I find that to be interesting. That implies a very rapid uptake. And again, I'd like to know how quickly the CO2 from a large volcanic eruption lasts in the atmosphere. I think that's a good test. One of those goes off and the CO2 ppm of the whole world changes noticeably. The question is how many years before it returns to baselines? Because that will tell you how long it took for that CO2 to get eaten.
As to Hansen... So this covers 5 years during a solar minimum.... and the imbalance figure is significantly lower than previously thought.
In addition, he says we need to reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm to restore balance... we're nearing 400 ppm.
An imbalance I would point out does not prove causation... I would also point out that warming the seas... especially the upper seas is going to do all sorts of unpredictable stuff to humidity, clouds, etc. I think there are a few long term deserts that have started to turn green after thousands of years of being bone dry because they're getting water again. So... whether or not any of this is actually bad is debatable.
As to dismissing peer reviewed papers, I'm not doing that. Please don't start strawmanning me... it makes it hard to have this discussion. My point is that I can't just trust that what it says is valid because it went through that process. The process is not infallible. So it is not immune from audit, scrutney,, or skepticism. Just because something goes through that process doesn't mean it can't be questioned.
Dunning-Kruger effect, this citation has become trite and becomes little more than an appeal to authority or ad verecundiam at this point. You want to call me stupid? Then just do that. I can think of a similarly dismissive insult for you and that will be the end of any discussion. Is this what you want? I have no insecurities about my own intelligence. I know I'm smart. Saying otherwise would be false modesty on my part. I've a life time of validation to fall back on in this regard. If you don't want to have a discussion, then I don't know why you've even presuming to have gone this far. If you wanted me to drop to my knees and just accept whatever you say... then you were always going to be disappointed there. Choose please. Do you want a discussion or do you want to trade insults? I assure you... insulting people on the internet is one of my better honed talents at this point. So I'll probably if anything become more formidable. Moving on.
As to political arguments, I'm not repeating myself. If you want to have a political discussion, we can do that. But the nature of the discussion will shift dramatically to one of power, influence, and money. Choose. Do you want science or politics? I'm not interested in attempts to conflate the two.
As to commercial companies, it isn't in reddit's interest to go down this road.
The notion they're working on is "wouldn't it be cool if we could keep everything we want and get rid of the things we don't like"... that doesn't work. Its a package deal.
As to fat shaming not being protected speech... it is in the US. It firmly falls under First Amendment protections.
If the KKK's racism is protected speech then fat shaming is nothing.
As to their calculations... the miscalculation is that they didn't understand that doing this would have blow back from other communities.
Here is one of the big differences between liberals and progressives.
Liberals will respect and protect your right to speech even if they disagree with what you're saying.
Progressives will used the pretext of offended parties to justify censoring anything they find "problematic".
The internet was not built by progressives. It was built by liberals of the old school.
And if you'd like me to link you to the wikipedia page of the guy that founded Reddit, I can show you that the guy that did it thinks more the way I do than you do.
As to reddit having a bad rep, actually their bad rep is mostly from heavy handed censorship of corporate subreddits with their shadow bans of anyone complaining about customer service, product quality, etc. their rep for trolling and hate is more begging the question than anything real.
As to obligations... here we get the conflation of the legal definition of censorship with the dictionary definition of censorship. You are correct, Reddit has no legal requirement not to censor boards. However, what they are doing is literally censorship.
Wrong... you have to factor the cost, maintenance, depreciation, and subsidies of the solar facility.
It is the opposite of free.
Solar remains one of the more expensive ways to produce power.
I'm all for it in theory... In practice, I often have problems with it. Mostly in that there is a lot of graft in that industry since nothing has to even break even. Its all riding high on a bubble of very very heavy subsidies.
Something a lot people don't get is that big business LOVES the environmental movement at this point. Why? Because they can build all sorts of stuff and so long as its green... they can inflate the cost structure and get long term tax breaks and subsidies.
Its why you're seeing companies like GE go all in for green projects. The profits are crazy when you're mostly selling to the government.
My ideal solar implementation is in suburban and rural areas where people own and maintain their own panels without subsidies. I'm less of a fan of the solar farms unless they can do so without subsidies.
Here someone will point out that other energy industries get subsidies too... you have to compare them as a ratio to each industry. The difference is like a 100 to 1... they're not comparable.
We'll see. Some of these projects you're showing me smell of advertising campaigns to sell over priced LEDs more than anything. I mean... here's another question... why would I buy LEDs from these people when their cost structure is probably not competitive with cheaper LED manufacturers that are really selling the same product?
I've put together some LED arrays before. It isn't hard... and the LEDs are idiotically cheap if you source through ebay.
I'm not saying it again... this has grown tedious. I'm not comparing your LED scheme to outdoor growing. I'm comparing it to greenhouse growing.
Even so, if you want to compare against outdoor growing... yes, location matters for outdoor growing as does season. But if agricultural land is not that expensive and if you are a competent farmer than the seasons don't bother you.
Outdoor growing remains the most efficient.
That said, I personally prefer greenhouse growing because it is less labor intensive and has duel use benefits in that you can merge a green house with a home which lets you send the waste heat from your house into the green house while the green house can give you an all seasons indoor garden.
Ideally you want to set the green house up so that you sit out there and read... or have dinner with family amongst the plants. That is, not just have it be an industrial green house but be a real part of the home. More of a manicured garden with a roof and climate control.
Agree to install nuclear power for the city and your idea becomes more practical. Frustrate such installations and it doesn't.
You can grow food all year around in greenhouses as it is without any of that nonsense. You're English? Have you ever heard of Kew Gardens?... You know... the Royal Botanical garden? You're talking about doing something that the Victorians did more efficiently with glass and steam boilers.
The trick to 4 seasons green houses is to build the green house so you don't even need to run the boiler. Geothermal heat is a big thing that people should be dealing more with at this point. the temperature in the earth is something like 56F or so degrees everywhere all year around. Which means in the winter... at night... you can exchange air in the green house through the ground and effectively get 56 degree air even if its 20 degrees outside the green house.
Once the sun comes up, even in the winter... most green houses will have no problem self heating just from the sun. In fact, most green houses in the winter during the day will have to vent heat.
I've seen some green houses that instead of venting in the winter will instead pump air from the top of the green house into a network of pipes under the green house to effectively sink the heat in the ground under the green house. So when the sun goes down, the heat sinked during the day, radiates through the ground back into the green house... enough that it stays above freezing.
Obviously you want a back up heating system. But if everything is properly designed it shouldn't be required more than once every few years and only for a day or so. The rest of the time simply running some fans to push air around should be enough.
Another idea is to use solar water heaters. A large tank of water is sometimes heated to near boiling using solar water heaters and then water is circulated from that tank when temperatures drop too low.
That's the point of something like this... Assuming the gears could take the weight. You'd want to build the gears out of metal obviously because towards the end they'd need serious torque. But lets say you have a very low power situation... maybe a little wind mill or a small solar powered electric motor... then you need to do something that moves something huge but you don't really care if it takes a month. You set this up... walk away... come back in a month... boom.
That's not a reason to ban the fat thread. That's a reason to ban their subscribers from other posting in specific forums they might have disrupted.
The means are the end.
If your intention is to maintain compartmentalization then you maintain compartmentalization. If your purpose is to censor then you censor.
What is more, while i find the find hate people to be pretty gross... I am not comfortable that there is a reliable way to tell the difference between unacceptable speech and acceptable speech. I've seen censorship against once slip into censorship against the other with some frequency.
As a general matter of principle, my preferred solution would be simply to trust the moderators of the other subreddits to manage their own little communities besides coming in and firebombing the unclean. If the moderators of the other subreddits didn't have the tools to police their communities which is often the case with unpaid admins... then that was the problem.
I think we can agree that in principle sites like that hate hate subreddit have a right to exist.
I think we can also agree in principle that other communities have a right to not be taken over by trolls.
The Solution to not having site A trolled by site B is not to shutdown site B but rather to give site A the tools to protect itself.
Even doing that is something that if I were running a targeted subreddit would be something I would use sparingly. Trolls are a bit like bugs in your garden. You have to be careful to note what they're actually doing. Some of the bugs in your garden will eat the plants you care about and those need to be controlled. But a lot of trolls mostly troll other trolls. Those are more of an organic troll defense system.
There are a lot of annoying people on the internet. Why not use trolls to shut them down so long as they know their place?
Not really, the modern supply network is actually very efficient. People talk about how we import stuff from china being ineffcienty not realizing that we use big cargo ships that burn what is effectively industrial waste.
Those big cargo ships only burn fuel that has any other market besides as cargo ship fuel in the last 400 or so miles when they're coming into port. And that is only near countries like the US that will not permit cargo ships to burn that type of oil in their territory. So the ships burn the basically free sludge oil all the way until they get close... then shift over to something legal in US waters... then shift right back to sludge when they leave our territory.
And even if they didn't burn sludge the fuel cost of a big ship like that is a great deal less than you'd think. They're extremely energy efficient.
And that's just an example. The rest of the transport network is generally very efficient. Its why you get fruit from South America all year round that is cheap.
Seriously. If you're ACTUALLY serious about growing some serious food... then you need to make the cost of the lighting as close to ZERO as possible.
Sunlight is free. So that's one way to hit zero. Imagine a city of greenhouses. Every building a bubble of glass where the temperature under the glass never fell below freezing. We could do that and if anything lower our energy use. And every part of the bubble exposed to a reasonable amount of sunlight could support crop plants. And even the shaded areas could support shade plants.
Alternatively... duel use lighting. This is what I do in my own home in places I want to grow plants but don't have the lighting to do it. I have a 10k lumen LED grow light... 6500k... it isn't the blue/red LEDs because it has a duel use. My intention is to light a room with it in addition to making some pepper plants really happy.
Now that light is on for 10-12 hours out of every day. So I can't claim to have neutralized the energy usage entirely. I'm not in that room for even half that time the light is on. But an urban city might be able to make that claim in its power budget. There are city lights for example that run all night. Maybe instead of blasting the light onto a street, they could illuminate grow beds and those grow beds could reflect enough light to light the area. My grow light is able to do that quite easily in the room it is in. The lighting in the room is a bit odd because the grow light is optimized to light the plant rather than the room. It does light the room completely.
And because it's an LED... power usage is about 100 watts for about 10k lumens.
Why go to all that trouble when you can get the same effect by putting your plants under glass?
Pointing out non-falsifiable arguments and citing them as such is an insult... if you're stupid.
As previously established... you are quite stupid... so I can understand where you got confused there.
Shouldn't you be chewing on jigsaw puzzle pieces and drooling while you stare at a wall or something?
Have a pudding cup on me and fuck off.
... *golf clap*
That was actually pretty funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You weren't paying attention.
My examples had people growing inside. I was talking about green houses and stuff.
your fire analogy isn't applicable to the internet.
As to censoring thought, if you censor speech you can control how people think. That's most of the point.
Look at any autocracy and the point is to so bath the people in propaganda and control them to such an extent that you can control how and what they think.
Think about it.... I mean... that is the whole point of propaganda.
When one side is allowed to talk and no one else is allowed to talk... you can brain wash everyone. And the brain washing is the point. If you control speech you can control thought.
As to the owner of a site... not applicable to social networks.
There is this silly argument that only the government can censor. This is a misunderstanding.
The reality is that only the government is legally forbidden to censor but that doesn't mean that no one else can actually censor someone else.
If I tell you to shut up or I'll do something you don't like... I've censored you.
Now is that appropriate under some circumstances? Sure... context matters. But there are some things to keep in mind.
1. Am I being forced to listen to this person or am I simply offended that other people are choosing to listen to them? If I can't avoid this person for some reason then censoring might be reasonable. If I am not forced to listen to them then censoring is almost always tyrannical.
2. Is there a legitimate safety concern with this person speaking. Fire in a theater is an example... saying "we should kill this person" is an example... saying "so and so is a cunt" is not an example (yes I used the C word... gasp).
3. Have you misrepresented the purpose of your venue? For example, if I open an ice cream parlor or a hardware store... the point of it is not for people to come in, stand on a soap box, and start screaming their opinions at each other. However, if I set up a coffee shop and I'm trying to promote it as a "salon" or I have a pub that I try to make into something of a community center then I've created an expectation that people are going to be able to express themselves. Reddit... has done that in spades. Policing opinions on reddit when its clearly a clearing house for people to express themselves or talk about stuff is tyrannical.
As to concepts of being able to do certain things speaking of ignorance... not really... you're just making a series of argument from absurdity arguments... and then attempting to conflate that with what amounts to corporate whitewashing of internet culture likely to improve the look and marketability of a venue that only obtained popularity and thus value in the first place by inviting speech of all kinds.
The thing that is so funny about this crap is that the nannies and the censors really are the least internet aware people no matter how many twitter accounts and how much time they spend on face book.
You don't get it.
"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmour
If Reddit turns into a progressive hugbox then large portions of the community will just go elsewhere. There are lots of other "me too" type sites that would sell their immortal souls to literal satan to get Reddit's traffic. The sites that remain relevant are the ones that don't undermine their core utility. Reddit's censoring of boards is about as destructive to reddit as Google censoring search results. Imagine for a moment if google filtered porn searches out of their system but bing didn't.
Do you begin to see the issue? Reddit is going to destroy itself if it doesn't wise up.
If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.
Light tubes would need to carry a significant amount of the sun's energy. They generally don't. And if you're talking about a big building which is what we're talking about because we're talking about "urban" farming... how are you going to light pump down 5 floors with any effectiveness much less 20?
The best you're going to do is a green house on the roof and a if any side of the building actually gets real sun... maybe you can do farming on that side of the building if you're careful about what you plant.
This particular match up is clearly more of a publicity stunt than anything.
No one is fielding a proper war bot.
If you don't put machine guns or hell fire missiles or something on either of these things then you're not being serious.
War or combat requires a certain amount of practical viciousness. The intent to kill and destroy. Absent that... yawn.
Solar doesn't work for urban settings. You might as well go nuclear if you have that kind of population density.
The Suburbs can go solar. In urban areas its a waste.
The virtue of the urban gardening is that you can at least use it as a luxury good and you create more green space which might make people happy. With solar... All it is going to produce is electricity and there are better ways to do that for a big city than to put panels on teh roofs of large buildings.
It would work okay in Los Angeles... and sort of sprawly place. But in a proper urban setting?... pointless.
places where land is hideously expensive don't produce crops.
And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs.
As I said, throw a green house on top of the buildings... and consider turning the inside of the buildings themselves into duel use production. That will give you something viable.
This LED grow light concept?... no.
... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.
I'm a big fan of urban farming but... the real trick with that is going to be using the "sun" to grow stuff.
Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.
So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about. Large insulated ground to ceiling windows facing south in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern hemisphere... with the idea that the whole sun facing portion of every building be filled with plants.
Permaculture is something that has to be looked at and ideally looked at from the context of urban gardening. Most food producing plants are bred for maximum production with maximum sunlight. Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded. And that has to be taken into consideration with the sorts of plants you choose to plant.
Then you've got hydroponics... which is a great idea for indoor farming because you have fewer issues with insects and can control things a little more tightly.
Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.