I guess we draw the line at the level of complexity
I draw the line at "is anybody actually suffering ?" Well, baby itself doesn't care, and nobody else knows the baby. So, I think it's fair if we leave the decision to the mother.
Both Arctic and Antarctic are losing ice, at least when you look at the total masses. The only thing that's been growing is Antarctic sea ice during the southern hemisphere winter (it melts away in the summer). One factor in the increased sea ice is likely the influx of fresh water from the melting land ice. Fresh water freezes quicker than salt water.
Hint if they don't melt that is really, really bad. Both for run off that feeds our waterways and the fact that if they are growing continuously means we are entering an other ice age, which means that most everyone north of the equator is going to starve/freeze to death.
You forgot the third option: they stay about the same. Same for sea ice. The Arctic has lost 75% of its ice, and it has not come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Methane is barely mentioned because it's overall greenhouse effect is much smaller than CO2. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but hard to control, except by reducing global temperature.
It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever
Maybe, but it requires a credible plan. How do you intend for the paint to stick on the Arctic ocean ?
This one: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/w...
I do want to clarify my earlier statement. Obviously, CO2 has varied in a lot in the past, but looking at your Vostok graph, it has been relatively slow moving for the last half million years, never crossing 300 ppm. Since the industrial age, we've crossed 300 ppm, quickly followed by breaking the 400 ppm level, even though volcanic activity isn't remarkable.
There are at the moment over 30 volcanoes erupting world-wide spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, thousands of times more than the negligible amount mankind has ever produced starting with the very first fires of cave-men
Even without knowing exactly how much CO2 the volcanoes produce you can already see that this is not right. Volcanoes have been producing CO2 since the beginning of the Earth, yet the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only started to go up since the industrial age. Also, when you look at the graph of CO2 concentration, you see a nice smooth rise, and no sudden peaks during years of massive eruptions.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. If too much of this is done, we'll run out of carbon dioxide. That will kill plants and make the Earth a very cold place. This seems like a bad idea to me.
We could take out 100 ppm of CO2 and return back to pre-industrial levels. That's 780 gigaton of CO2 (even more when you consider that the oceans will release some too). As a comparison, we only have about 200 gigaton of proven oil reserves left. So, tell me, what should we be more careful of ?
But you needn't worry at all, because the required CO2 isn't going to be removed from the atmosphere. They'll just make some new.
This could power the equivalent of a fitbit without charging or a battery and that is at least new. It should have been done years ago.
Probably not, unless you want to carry a RFID transmitter in your other hand.
There is so much RF energy out there in the WIFI spectrum
No there isn't. At a reasonable distance from an access point, you may get something like -70dBm, which is 100 picoWatt. Running something like an Arduino at low speed takes 1milliWatt, or 10 million times as much.
I can see where this could be useful if you stick a bunch of these devices on a bridge, and then drive over them with a scanner, reading something like stress forces from each one. Or maybe a cooled transport, where you can check the temperature of each passing item. A big limitation, however, is still that the device isn't working when there's no transmitter nearby, so you could only measure immediate sensor values.
The maximum transmitter power is just a few Watts, of which only a small portion is absorbed by your body and turned into heat. Compared to the 75 Watts your body generates itself, it's not going to be noticeable.
But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Except they'll buy Swedish furniture, a Korean TV, an American iPhone and a Japanese car (using imported fuel), so half of that money is drained from the economy.
So you contend that given a choice, people will not work for better conditions in their life even if employment is available and on fair terms?
I'm not sure why you think the terms will be any fairer than they are now. And don't forget that the work they choose to do will be heavily taxed to pay for the UBI.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we draw the line at the level of complexity
I draw the line at "is anybody actually suffering ?" Well, baby itself doesn't care, and nobody else knows the baby. So, I think it's fair if we leave the decision to the mother.
Both Arctic and Antarctic are losing ice, at least when you look at the total masses. The only thing that's been growing is Antarctic sea ice during the southern hemisphere winter (it melts away in the summer). One factor in the increased sea ice is likely the influx of fresh water from the melting land ice. Fresh water freezes quicker than salt water.
The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.
Yet, CO2 concentration is showing no signs of slowing down. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sit...
Hint if they don't melt that is really, really bad. Both for run off that feeds our waterways and the fact that if they are growing continuously means we are entering an other ice age, which means that most everyone north of the equator is going to starve/freeze to death.
You forgot the third option: they stay about the same. Same for sea ice. The Arctic has lost 75% of its ice, and it has not come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CO2 by itself doesn't create heat, rather CO2 increases water vapor which increases heat
CO2 by itself does increase heat, which then increases water vapor, which amplifies it.
Geo engineering also does nothing to wean us off fossil fuels.
Since when does wattsupwiththat have credible evidence ?
It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever
Maybe, but it requires a credible plan. How do you intend for the paint to stick on the Arctic ocean ?
Which graph [wikipedia.org], has no peaks?
This one: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/w... I do want to clarify my earlier statement. Obviously, CO2 has varied in a lot in the past, but looking at your Vostok graph, it has been relatively slow moving for the last half million years, never crossing 300 ppm. Since the industrial age, we've crossed 300 ppm, quickly followed by breaking the 400 ppm level, even though volcanic activity isn't remarkable.
There are at the moment over 30 volcanoes erupting world-wide spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, thousands of times more than the negligible amount mankind has ever produced starting with the very first fires of cave-men
Even without knowing exactly how much CO2 the volcanoes produce you can already see that this is not right. Volcanoes have been producing CO2 since the beginning of the Earth, yet the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only started to go up since the industrial age. Also, when you look at the graph of CO2 concentration, you see a nice smooth rise, and no sudden peaks during years of massive eruptions.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. If too much of this is done, we'll run out of carbon dioxide. That will kill plants and make the Earth a very cold place. This seems like a bad idea to me.
We could take out 100 ppm of CO2 and return back to pre-industrial levels. That's 780 gigaton of CO2 (even more when you consider that the oceans will release some too). As a comparison, we only have about 200 gigaton of proven oil reserves left. So, tell me, what should we be more careful of ? But you needn't worry at all, because the required CO2 isn't going to be removed from the atmosphere. They'll just make some new.
There is a record for a 1 mile run in a bomb suit, though.
This could power the equivalent of a fitbit without charging or a battery and that is at least new. It should have been done years ago.
Probably not, unless you want to carry a RFID transmitter in your other hand.
There is so much RF energy out there in the WIFI spectrum
No there isn't. At a reasonable distance from an access point, you may get something like -70dBm, which is 100 picoWatt. Running something like an Arduino at low speed takes 1milliWatt, or 10 million times as much.
"British Astronaut Jumps the Shark in Space" would be a better title. It's time to deorbit that money pit in the sky.
I can see where this could be useful if you stick a bunch of these devices on a bridge, and then drive over them with a scanner, reading something like stress forces from each one. Or maybe a cooled transport, where you can check the temperature of each passing item. A big limitation, however, is still that the device isn't working when there's no transmitter nearby, so you could only measure immediate sensor values.
Cutting the country in 3 pieces, where most of the oil is in the Kurd controlled area probably wouldn't result in the peaceful solution you imagine.
The maximum transmitter power is just a few Watts, of which only a small portion is absorbed by your body and turned into heat. Compared to the 75 Watts your body generates itself, it's not going to be noticeable.
Most of the profits go to a US company, which pays damn little tax in the US.
The important part is that the money goes to the US. How it is divided internally is less critical.
Most of the work is done by Chinese slave labor and so has no contribution to the US economy.
But most of the profits go to the US.
But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Except they'll buy Swedish furniture, a Korean TV, an American iPhone and a Japanese car (using imported fuel), so half of that money is drained from the economy.
what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.
But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.
So you contend that given a choice, people will not work for better conditions in their life even if employment is available and on fair terms?
I'm not sure why you think the terms will be any fairer than they are now. And don't forget that the work they choose to do will be heavily taxed to pay for the UBI.
How much money did Einstein contribute to the Swiss economy, compared to numbered bank accounts ?
Can you honestly say that you would actually enjoy living your life doing nothing sensible at all? For real?
I would do things that are sensible for me. Take long bike rides to the beach for instance.
I know many retired people that can't just 'sit around'
That's true for many retired people, not so much for young people. And even if they start a business, they'll pick one on the black market.