We need to get the bankers in touch with the physicists. With any luck, the principles of zero-point energy are analogous to the bankers' zero-point cash
There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.
Not as much as you'd think. I ran the numbers.
3.3tn barrels of oil, at 2:1 EROEI works out to 1.65tn net barrels of oil. This is more than has ever been extracted in all of human history. And yet, at our current rate of use (30bn/yr) and growth (1.8%), we'll be out in 37 years. If it were ten times as much oil, it would still only last us just over 100 years.
I don't. I grow as much as possible, which accounts for perhaps 5% of my wife and my food intake. We're expanding next year (roof, and another tier of raised bed). Maybe we'll get to 10%.
It scales great for all sorts of tasks that millions do in America. It's okay if it doesn't work for yours. My intent was to exhort others to figure out what they can do, and do it.
FWIW, all the numbers around cycling indicate it's no more dangerous than driving an SUV, and significantly less dangerous for everyone else. If you include the health benefits (for every one person who gets killed by a car, several people silently don't die of heart disease), it's comes out ahead.
Note I also mentioned in-season produce. The problem of local-but-foreign and year-round produce is well-known, but to my understanding, the situation around local, seasonal, and native produce is more favorable. The price rule of thumb is a great suggestion, though. I'll be sure to start paying more attention to that.
So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?
How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.
2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.
So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?
I am not in any way affiliated with climate researchers, nor do I personally benefit in any way (well, unless you count self-satisfaction) from any opinions expressed on this topic. Perhaps you're confused about the definition of "shill", too?
is NOT an appeal to authority. It's an inverse of an appeal to authority. Inverses are not logically equivalent. An appeal to authority would be this:
As I said, verbatim,
Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know.
The inverse is not logically equivalent, which was never asserted, but the inverse is certainly logically sound. This would have been plainly obvious had you paused for a minute to actually comprehend what was written.
I see that once again that you couldn't be bothered to attack my claims on their own merits as I encouraged. Pity.
Regardless, you simply cannot evade the fact that you inappropriately dismissed one of my sources out-of-hand, which I then backed up with five more sources, including the two original sources (NOAA and NASA) which confirmed the claim. This was, of course, only even one of four different lines of evidence proving my point. This whole time, you've been arguing with me (poorly, might I add), about bullshit semantics, while I have actually delivered on the goal of well-sourced evidence backing my claims.
And yet, you still have the painful ignorance to assert that I've ensured my own irrelevance. If you'd care to check the mods on our little thread here, I think even you will be able to deduce who came off as the half-wit and who the better.
I did not pretend to be a scientist, nor am I a politician. You also appear to have confused my snarky aside with my argument. The argument was the part where I succinctly demonstrated, using four non-affiliated sources, that there has been an obvious and trivially demonstrable warming of the climate during the time period in question.
Personally, I remain convinced that the relationship between carbon emissions and global temperatures is a a causal one, and the origin of our warming trend is anthropogenic in nature. However, I welcome honest, continued debate and inquiry into the exact nature of their relationship. On the other hand, I do not encourage or even tolerate the vocal opinions of people who fail to accept or acknowledge the widely-reported, multiply-confirmed, and inarguable facts surrounding this or any issue. People who do so should simply shut the fuck up and listen to others until they become at least minimally informed.
So simple logic is lost on you (because dismissing a source as non-authoritative is not an appeal to authority nor is it logically equivalent to it).
Let a equal "the Guardian". Let subject matter S equal "global temperature measurements". Let p equal "2010 was tied for the hottest year on record". From the linked page, with the logic inverted:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is incorrect.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is incorrect.
Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time? As an added bonus, you might even want to follow links and understand their contents before attempting to counter them. Otherwise, you risk looking like a complete tool.
But you attempted to comment on a story which showed that "variable A increased in value...
No. I successfully replied to a comment which stated that "CO2 outpace[d] worst-case scenarios yet the heat [didn't] show up." I then demonstrated through multiple non-affiliated sources that such a claim is laughably false, and implied that the claimant has no business participating in a discussion on a topic without extending some bare minimum effort to learn the basic facts at hand.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” — Harlan Ellison
I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.
Perhaps the computer models were wrong*. [* actually, computer models give you whatever result you want if you tweak them the right way, so they technically, they gave the 'right' results]
Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physicsof the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.
Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?
and in a year or two, it wouldn't be surprising if all software is made available as an ISO on a USB drive
Why stop there? I plan on shipping my software by printing the ones and zeroes, faxing it to myself, scanning it in as a JPEG, and pasting that into a Word Document. Only once that's done I'll tarball the Word doc, encode it on an ISO filesystem, and finally write it to a FAT32 USB stick.
If I'm reading right, the argument is that we're at a part where each additional bit of CO2 in the atmosphere has an decreasingly marginal impact on global temperatures.
The obvious problem to me is the assumption that those marginal differences aren't still large enough to have an impact. Global temperatures rising by only a degree or two Celsius would be enough to throw our climate into chaos, and yet the CO2 in our atmosphere provides a blanket that is responsible for around 33C of additional warming. So while the marginal difference might be steadily decreasing, that doesn't mean that it's not large enough to cause a major impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just pull the fuck over.
A warmer Canada could grow more crops etc.
The limiting factor in growing crops is hours of sunlight moreso than temperature.
Well you just removed yourself from the discussion of knowing what the hell you are talking about.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
We need to get the bankers in touch with the physicists. With any luck, the principles of zero-point energy are analogous to the bankers' zero-point cash
4.5tn barrels of oil at a 1.8% growth rate works out to 73 years of oil left. If we harvest every last drop.
Not as much as you'd think. I ran the numbers.
3.3tn barrels of oil, at 2:1 EROEI works out to 1.65tn net barrels of oil. This is more than has ever been extracted in all of human history. And yet, at our current rate of use (30bn/yr) and growth (1.8%), we'll be out in 37 years. If it were ten times as much oil, it would still only last us just over 100 years.
Somebody doesn't understand how ridiculous the terms "unlimited" and "exponential growth" are when taken together.
There exists no such thing. FFS, stop putting crap into your body. It's not that hard to mix flour, baking soda, cocoa powder, sugar, eggs, and milk.
I don't. I grow as much as possible, which accounts for perhaps 5% of my wife and my food intake. We're expanding next year (roof, and another tier of raised bed). Maybe we'll get to 10%.
It scales great for all sorts of tasks that millions do in America. It's okay if it doesn't work for yours. My intent was to exhort others to figure out what they can do, and do it.
FWIW, all the numbers around cycling indicate it's no more dangerous than driving an SUV, and significantly less dangerous for everyone else. If you include the health benefits (for every one person who gets killed by a car, several people silently don't die of heart disease), it's comes out ahead.
Note I also mentioned in-season produce. The problem of local-but-foreign and year-round produce is well-known, but to my understanding, the situation around local, seasonal, and native produce is more favorable. The price rule of thumb is a great suggestion, though. I'll be sure to start paying more attention to that.
So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?
How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.
2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.
So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?
Wasn't there supposed to be a "trollololol" or something to that effect? You must have left it off.
I missed this, somehow.
I am not in any way affiliated with climate researchers, nor do I personally benefit in any way (well, unless you count self-satisfaction) from any opinions expressed on this topic. Perhaps you're confused about the definition of "shill", too?
As I said, verbatim,
The inverse is not logically equivalent, which was never asserted, but the inverse is certainly logically sound. This would have been plainly obvious had you paused for a minute to actually comprehend what was written.
I see that once again that you couldn't be bothered to attack my claims on their own merits as I encouraged. Pity.
Regardless, you simply cannot evade the fact that you inappropriately dismissed one of my sources out-of-hand, which I then backed up with five more sources, including the two original sources (NOAA and NASA) which confirmed the claim. This was, of course, only even one of four different lines of evidence proving my point. This whole time, you've been arguing with me (poorly, might I add), about bullshit semantics, while I have actually delivered on the goal of well-sourced evidence backing my claims.
And yet, you still have the painful ignorance to assert that I've ensured my own irrelevance. If you'd care to check the mods on our little thread here, I think even you will be able to deduce who came off as the half-wit and who the better.
I did not pretend to be a scientist, nor am I a politician. You also appear to have confused my snarky aside with my argument. The argument was the part where I succinctly demonstrated, using four non-affiliated sources, that there has been an obvious and trivially demonstrable warming of the climate during the time period in question.
Personally, I remain convinced that the relationship between carbon emissions and global temperatures is a a causal one, and the origin of our warming trend is anthropogenic in nature. However, I welcome honest, continued debate and inquiry into the exact nature of their relationship. On the other hand, I do not encourage or even tolerate the vocal opinions of people who fail to accept or acknowledge the widely-reported, multiply-confirmed, and inarguable facts surrounding this or any issue. People who do so should simply shut the fuck up and listen to others until they become at least minimally informed.
Let a equal "the Guardian". Let subject matter S equal "global temperature measurements". Let p equal "2010 was tied for the hottest year on record". From the linked page, with the logic inverted:
Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time? As an added bonus, you might even want to follow links and understand their contents before attempting to counter them. Otherwise, you risk looking like a complete tool.
No. I successfully replied to a comment which stated that "CO2 outpace[d] worst-case scenarios yet the heat [didn't] show up." I then demonstrated through multiple non-affiliated sources that such a claim is laughably false, and implied that the claimant has no business participating in a discussion on a topic without extending some bare minimum effort to learn the basic facts at hand.
I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.
Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release as published by NASA.
Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?
It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're actually that fucking ignorant.
Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physicsof the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.
Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?
No need any more. iCloud provides this service completely free of charge.
and in a year or two, it wouldn't be surprising if all software is made available as an ISO on a USB drive
Why stop there? I plan on shipping my software by printing the ones and zeroes, faxing it to myself, scanning it in as a JPEG, and pasting that into a Word Document. Only once that's done I'll tarball the Word doc, encode it on an ISO filesystem, and finally write it to a FAT32 USB stick.
If I'm reading right, the argument is that we're at a part where each additional bit of CO2 in the atmosphere has an decreasingly marginal impact on global temperatures.
The obvious problem to me is the assumption that those marginal differences aren't still large enough to have an impact. Global temperatures rising by only a degree or two Celsius would be enough to throw our climate into chaos, and yet the CO2 in our atmosphere provides a blanket that is responsible for around 33C of additional warming. So while the marginal difference might be steadily decreasing, that doesn't mean that it's not large enough to cause a major impact.
Yeah!!! Buy high, sell low!
Yet another reason I don't take financial advice from Slashdot commenters.
It is a lot. The number is from here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/all/1