it's entirely doable, just change the country the wifi is located in to a country that allows higher power.
Was at a conference and as a demo, the instructor changed his laptop with 2 antennas to be a 'rogue' AC, his normal connection to the wifi and then the other set to some other country where he could ramp up the power and now everybody in the room connected to his AC over the hotel's.
Just a config item somewhere....don't remember where though.
The intermittency of renewables is still its current Achilles heel. That's what nuclear has and it is needed now.
Believe me, I hate nuclear, but for the next 50 years its the only viable base load alternative to fossil fuels. Grid scale energy storage isn't going to happen in the next 30 years.
What you're looking for is 'Trust but verify' which is how citizens should view their gov't. You can't distrust them about everything or we'd be boiling a LOT of water coming out of the taps...
When the government won't eve disclose what they THINK the law currently says, there is clearly a problem in the system.
That a government can by all current evidence directly violate the CONSTITUTION and nobody has any legal recourse because until you can get the party committing the crimes to admit they are committing the crimes it legally isn't happening...that's a loophole the size of a certain federal district.
NOTHING they've done has worked. Boston bombers. San Bernadino. None of these have been thwarted. multiple 10s of 'plots' have supposedly been stopped but on closer examination these are quite ridiculous FBI setups of people who simply ranted on social media being given everything, even transportation to the supposed attack sites.
But as ive said before being Eco friendly is nice up to the point where things no longer function as they should.
Define 'should'. Continuing at cheating levels isn't reasonable. Lowering power by 10% but reducing emissions by 30% isn't counterintuitive, its physics of more efficiency. Whether from lower weightor whatever is irrelevant.
perhaps we need to not focus on one stat. While increasing mpg is certainly useful, if by losing 10% mpg we reduce emissions by 30% (just making up numbers, don't know the reality) then yes losing mpg is worth it.
humans can't release even a fraction of water vapor the oceans do. Literally a drop in a bucket. Water vapor is routinely lost from the atmosphere as rain.
What water vapor is though is a massive feedback loop. Raise the temps just a small bit via fossil fuels and other human caused sources and more vapor comes off the oceans causing more heating and more vapor, rinse, repeat.
But more importantly if hydrogen fuel cells were to become a serious industry, we'd be getting that hydrogen from....water (and yes I know today it mostly comes from fossil fuels). So water taken out of the system recently and put back in. That's not a serious problem as it's a short term cycle. Fossil fuels are a million+ years of CO2 being put back into the atmosphere in just 150 years and as such the system is adjusting rapidly.
ClimateAudit.org, run by a fossil fuel company exec. Oh yeah, that's not biased at all.
Judith Curry - thoroughly discredited by numerous sources. Same as your other link.
You do know you can google people to find out about them right? or are you just regurgitating the FOX news/Koch Bros koolaid with understanding it doesn't stand up to serious critique?
Ted Cruz is espousing the exact same position as your 'experts'. Perhaps they have an agenda too?
You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.
So the content of this study is irrelevant....but here goes -
The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1 link 2
Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions
So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.
Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.
Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.
And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.
From this and your other responses, pretty sure you don't have any evidence. One last chance. You saying something means little. Show peer reviewed studies proving your claims...
do you have any proof that a majority of models fail? And if they do fail, how? because failing because it didn't predict the severity of empirical data is not a 'failure' in terms of predicting climate change...
Climate prediction is certainly a complex issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
But back to models, please show us that a majority of models overstate climate change effects...
Weather isn't the issue. Climate is. You can't predict a roll of the dice, but over time you can get a pretty good prediction of a pattern. And when those patterns start changing, it isn't the weather on any given day that's the issue.
Homeowners Associations (HOA) have been gaining ground in newer developments. I've lived without, with bad ones and with neutral ones. Without an HOA there's nothing really stopping your neighbor from painting their house polka-dotted...or putting in a chicken coup in the front yard. The downside is when it gets into what color your door knocker can be, or if you can even have one. When we replaced our windows, they had to be the exact same style.
Insurance is worse. I'm sure you've heard of Obamacare...which doesn't effect the vast majority of people getting insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer - so switching insurance really means having to quit your job. Bigger employers sometimes have a few options to choose from but you can only choose them once a year.
Now you could go for private market insurance instead of from your job, but the catch there is that your company pays a good portion of the premiums and that benefit doesn't count as taxable, whereas paying for your own insurance your money is fully paying for it and was taxed already.
That's a hell of a lot of fine print that will be expressly ignored when an enemy starts slaughtering civilians saying they could have been involved in the military chain of command.
You just don't DO THIS for very, or I assumed, very clear reasons of the laws of war.
Should they be able to make money? just like everyone else yes they should. Preventing them from doing so is problematic, but disclosure is not. If you don't want your finances public, don't run for fucking office. That way we *know* when they are trading on their influence...they are automatically recused from anything in their financial portfolio or it's a crime.
The real tricky part is the revolving door between gov and private sector. That a congress member can make laws and then take a job in the industry making use of those laws is a real problem. You need qualified experts in government to regulate private business effectively but you won't get them if you prevent them from subsequently working in their expert field when they leave gov service.
Slashdot Mirror
it's entirely doable, just change the country the wifi is located in to a country that allows higher power.
Was at a conference and as a demo, the instructor changed his laptop with 2 antennas to be a 'rogue' AC, his normal connection to the wifi and then the other set to some other country where he could ramp up the power and now everybody in the room connected to his AC over the hotel's.
Just a config item somewhere....don't remember where though.
The intermittency of renewables is still its current Achilles heel. That's what nuclear has and it is needed now. Believe me, I hate nuclear, but for the next 50 years its the only viable base load alternative to fossil fuels. Grid scale energy storage isn't going to happen in the next 30 years.
What you're looking for is 'Trust but verify' which is how citizens should view their gov't. You can't distrust them about everything or we'd be boiling a LOT of water coming out of the taps...
TL/DR;
When the government won't eve disclose what they THINK the law currently says, there is clearly a problem in the system.
That a government can by all current evidence directly violate the CONSTITUTION and nobody has any legal recourse because until you can get the party committing the crimes to admit they are committing the crimes it legally isn't happening...that's a loophole the size of a certain federal district.
NOTHING they've done has worked. Boston bombers. San Bernadino. None of these have been thwarted. multiple 10s of 'plots' have supposedly been stopped but on closer examination these are quite ridiculous FBI setups of people who simply ranted on social media being given everything, even transportation to the supposed attack sites.
But as ive said before being Eco friendly is nice up to the point where things no longer function as they should.
Define 'should'. Continuing at cheating levels isn't reasonable. Lowering power by 10% but reducing emissions by 30% isn't counterintuitive, its physics of more efficiency. Whether from lower weightor whatever is irrelevant.
The largest consumer unit generates a whopping 105 watts of power, weighs 19 lbs
So like a cell phone from the 80s. tech improves and gets better. Things have to start somewhere.
you mean the platinum that's in every car currently? Advances are being made that will be able to use non-exotic materials in fuel cells.
perhaps we need to not focus on one stat. While increasing mpg is certainly useful, if by losing 10% mpg we reduce emissions by 30% (just making up numbers, don't know the reality) then yes losing mpg is worth it.
humans can't release even a fraction of water vapor the oceans do. Literally a drop in a bucket. Water vapor is routinely lost from the atmosphere as rain.
What water vapor is though is a massive feedback loop. Raise the temps just a small bit via fossil fuels and other human caused sources and more vapor comes off the oceans causing more heating and more vapor, rinse, repeat.
But more importantly if hydrogen fuel cells were to become a serious industry, we'd be getting that hydrogen from....water (and yes I know today it mostly comes from fossil fuels). So water taken out of the system recently and put back in. That's not a serious problem as it's a short term cycle. Fossil fuels are a million+ years of CO2 being put back into the atmosphere in just 150 years and as such the system is adjusting rapidly.
ClimateAudit.org, run by a fossil fuel company exec. Oh yeah, that's not biased at all.
Judith Curry - thoroughly discredited by numerous sources. Same as your other link.
You do know you can google people to find out about them right? or are you just regurgitating the FOX news/Koch Bros koolaid with understanding it doesn't stand up to serious critique?
Ted Cruz is espousing the exact same position as your 'experts'. Perhaps they have an agenda too?
You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.
....but here goes -
So the content of this study is irrelevant
The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1
link 2
Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions
here's another posting by your authors Watts Up With That
And here's another debunking.
So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.
Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.
Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.
And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.
and you'd likely spend more on water than you would on replacing said dishes/glasses.
From this and your other responses, pretty sure you don't have any evidence. One last chance. You saying something means little. Show peer reviewed studies proving your claims...
Still waiting for your showing that the majority of studies are flawed. data that shows it....or don't you actually have that?
the question was your claim that the models are overstating effects. You do or do not have supporting arguments that a majority of models do this?
http://www.scientificamerican....
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...
and on and on and on...
do you have any proof that a majority of models fail? And if they do fail, how? because failing because it didn't predict the severity of empirical data is not a 'failure' in terms of predicting climate change...
Climate prediction is certainly a complex issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
But back to models, please show us that a majority of models overstate climate change effects...
Weather isn't the issue. Climate is. You can't predict a roll of the dice, but over time you can get a pretty good prediction of a pattern. And when those patterns start changing, it isn't the weather on any given day that's the issue.
there are guns littering this country and yet there are still home invasions. Pretty safe bet the criminals simply don't care.
yeah, American 'thing'.
Homeowners Associations (HOA) have been gaining ground in newer developments. I've lived without, with bad ones and with neutral ones. Without an HOA there's nothing really stopping your neighbor from painting their house polka-dotted...or putting in a chicken coup in the front yard. The downside is when it gets into what color your door knocker can be, or if you can even have one. When we replaced our windows, they had to be the exact same style.
Insurance is worse. I'm sure you've heard of Obamacare...which doesn't effect the vast majority of people getting insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer - so switching insurance really means having to quit your job. Bigger employers sometimes have a few options to choose from but you can only choose them once a year.
Now you could go for private market insurance instead of from your job, but the catch there is that your company pays a good portion of the premiums and that benefit doesn't count as taxable, whereas paying for your own insurance your money is fully paying for it and was taxed already.
of course not. That's when a GOP Prez is in office...torture and what not. minor thing really
it's not negative about Republicans, it just what they do IS negative.
That's a hell of a lot of fine print that will be expressly ignored when an enemy starts slaughtering civilians saying they could have been involved in the military chain of command.
You just don't DO THIS for very, or I assumed, very clear reasons of the laws of war.
Should they be able to make money? just like everyone else yes they should. Preventing them from doing so is problematic, but disclosure is not. If you don't want your finances public, don't run for fucking office. That way we *know* when they are trading on their influence...they are automatically recused from anything in their financial portfolio or it's a crime.
The real tricky part is the revolving door between gov and private sector. That a congress member can make laws and then take a job in the industry making use of those laws is a real problem. You need qualified experts in government to regulate private business effectively but you won't get them if you prevent them from subsequently working in their expert field when they leave gov service.
How that's reconciled I'm not sure.
money is our method of assigning value. It's wildly flawed but it is our system. that has no bearing on what we DO with that assigned value.
Take the asshat who bought up the cancer medication and raised it's price by 5000%. That's what you say should rule.?