And you of course have evidence of massive sequestration going on right now due to 'increased' greenery right? because without that you aren't getting any coal...which also requires a swamp environment. Something missing from the majority of the areas where 'increased greenery' is occurring.
Solar and wind have very localized fluctuations...across areas though it starts to be quite stable. The wind is always blowing somewhere, etc.
Storage tech is growing by huge margins. linky.
We need more work to get to grid scale but fortunately we're starting now and not waiting for it like you suggest.
That's what Mr Watts is best at and he Hoodwinked you. I will fully accept that temperature will do what he claims to ocean pH. That's not the factor involved here or at least it's a minor one wildly overwhelmed by the major one. Osmosis. When the atmosphere increases it CO2 content, that will start moving to equilibrium...in the oceans. While the ocean temp might want to move pH towards base the massive increase in co2 concentrations will push it far faster to acid. And that's what's actually happening.
You're implying that increased greenery will cause increased long term co2 sequestration. It won't. Even a tree trunk isn't a long enough time as that's back in the environment in a 100 years.
Any links to support your de-desertification claim?
deserts are growing, not shrinking. Fast plant turnover is the last thing you want to remove CO2 because the fast turnover puts it right back. You need it to stay in the plant for a century or more...and even that isn't long enough.
There isn't enough viable space to plant that many trees...every single year. And in 80 years, then what when all that CO2 goes right back into the environment...every single year.
Wood isn't nearly as energy dense as coal or oil. And we need to pull out the CO2 that came from coal and oil, so would need multiple times as many trees...every single year.
Simply not viable. Every little bit helps, but this won't be more than a few percent.
Even a really good water pump is overcome by a tsunami. And that's what's happening CO2 wise and the wave is already moving inland, stopping the rise of the water doesn't change the fact that you're 30 feet under.
Where the CO2 is going now is into the oceans. In probably 20 years there won't be ocean seafood for the most part. The oceans are already acidic enough that the base of the food chains are having trouble growing. Won't take long for that to kill off vast numbers of ocean species.
Nuclear isn't anymore zero carbon than solar or wind. The coal lobby has claimed for years that solar isn't zero carbon because of all the manufacturing costs.
You don't get to make an argument only when it suits you.
Um, 30 years ago even Exxon knew CO2 was going to be a problem. Exxon. It was highly dismissed as we didn't have 30 years of data showing the really significant effects, but it was there to see.
A 'pointer' is whatever construct you use to point to the next record in the list.
From your link:
It is a data structure consisting of a group of nodes which together represent a sequence. Under the simplest form, each node is composed of data and a reference (in other words, a link) to the next node in the sequence.
Data and a reference. If your data record contains a record number of the NEXT record in the sequence. That's a linked list.
[[ a ][ 1 ]] [[ b ][ 4 ]] [[ c ][ ]] [[ d ][ 3 ]] [[ e ][ 5 ]]
your the one who said simply reading books would allow you call yourself an engineer. Now you're claiming that additionally you need to go pass certification exams. Sorta minor detail you left out.
people who know how to design and implement software properly never use Agile
nobody 'proper' uses agile. That's an absolute.
You want to take an existing system and make improvements? Go ahead and use it.
You clearly don't know what it is because using agile on an existing system is frequently fraught with problems. It works best from the ground up.
You want to design a system?
A system that by most industry estimates won't do what the customer wanted and will be years late and wildly over budget. It's why agile appeared. Traditional life cycle fails more often than it succeeds.
Such a troll. not even a good one....lol
Me: Doesn't make one a lawyer
You: Of course it does. It just means you aren't a lawyer that can represent others and charge for it
Slashdot Mirror
so you're saying that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the air won't start absorbing into the oceans?
There's an entire industry that prices the 'unknowable'. It's called insurance.
And you of course have evidence of massive sequestration going on right now due to 'increased' greenery right? because without that you aren't getting any coal...which also requires a swamp environment. Something missing from the majority of the areas where 'increased greenery' is occurring.
SuperKendall is a troll. Calling them out is perfectly reasonable
Damn, that's gotta leave a mark....lol. Well played!
Solar and wind have very localized fluctuations...across areas though it starts to be quite stable. The wind is always blowing somewhere, etc. Storage tech is growing by huge margins. linky. We need more work to get to grid scale but fortunately we're starting now and not waiting for it like you suggest.
Add in the cost of co2 sequestration of your oil and gas emissions and it's far more expensive to use fossil fuels..
That's what Mr Watts is best at and he Hoodwinked you. I will fully accept that temperature will do what he claims to ocean pH. That's not the factor involved here or at least it's a minor one wildly overwhelmed by the major one. Osmosis. When the atmosphere increases it CO2 content, that will start moving to equilibrium...in the oceans. While the ocean temp might want to move pH towards base the massive increase in co2 concentrations will push it far faster to acid. And that's what's actually happening.
You're implying that increased greenery will cause increased long term co2 sequestration. It won't. Even a tree trunk isn't a long enough time as that's back in the environment in a 100 years. Any links to support your de-desertification claim?
That apples might work doesn't change the fact that oranges won't.
Coal is only too cheap because the cost of the CO2 release isn't yet included. When you factor that into the price it gets quite expensive.
deserts are growing, not shrinking. Fast plant turnover is the last thing you want to remove CO2 because the fast turnover puts it right back. You need it to stay in the plant for a century or more...and even that isn't long enough.
There isn't enough viable space to plant that many trees...every single year. And in 80 years, then what when all that CO2 goes right back into the environment...every single year.
Wood isn't nearly as energy dense as coal or oil. And we need to pull out the CO2 that came from coal and oil, so would need multiple times as many trees...every single year.
Simply not viable. Every little bit helps, but this won't be more than a few percent.
Even a really good water pump is overcome by a tsunami. And that's what's happening CO2 wise and the wave is already moving inland, stopping the rise of the water doesn't change the fact that you're 30 feet under.
Where the CO2 is going now is into the oceans. In probably 20 years there won't be ocean seafood for the most part. The oceans are already acidic enough that the base of the food chains are having trouble growing. Won't take long for that to kill off vast numbers of ocean species.
Nuclear isn't anymore zero carbon than solar or wind. The coal lobby has claimed for years that solar isn't zero carbon because of all the manufacturing costs.
You don't get to make an argument only when it suits you.
Um, 30 years ago even Exxon knew CO2 was going to be a problem. Exxon. It was highly dismissed as we didn't have 30 years of data showing the really significant effects, but it was there to see.
makes one of us. you don't even know when you're being smacked upside the head with actual knowledge.
From your link:
It is a data structure consisting of a group of nodes which together represent a sequence. Under the simplest form, each node is composed of data and a reference (in other words, a link) to the next node in the sequence.
Data and a reference. If your data record contains a record number of the NEXT record in the sequence. That's a linked list.
[[ a ][ 1 ]] [[ b ][ 4 ]] [[ c ][ ]] [[ d ][ 3 ]] [[ e ][ 5 ]]
Gives you A -> B -> D -> E -> C
your the one who said simply reading books would allow you call yourself an engineer. Now you're claiming that additionally you need to go pass certification exams. Sorta minor detail you left out.
you're still the one who thinks you need pointers to implement a linked list.
people who know how to design and implement software properly never use Agile
nobody 'proper' uses agile. That's an absolute.
You want to take an existing system and make improvements? Go ahead and use it.
You clearly don't know what it is because using agile on an existing system is frequently fraught with problems. It works best from the ground up.
You want to design a system?
A system that by most industry estimates won't do what the customer wanted and will be years late and wildly over budget. It's why agile appeared. Traditional life cycle fails more often than it succeeds.
Such a troll. not even a good one....lol
Me: Doesn't make one a lawyer
You: Of course it does. It just means you aren't a lawyer that can represent others and charge for it
so....not a lawyer
I've implemented linked lists in DOS BASIC. If you think it requires pointers....you are what this article is about.
Never use agile? absolutes don't exist and generally when they're peddled, it says volumes about the peddler...
You can learn everything you need to be a lawyer from books too. Doesn't make one a lawyer.