The currents mix the water, warming the polar regions and cooling the equatorial regions. Shutting that down would not lead to increased melting in land based ice sheets which are all in polar regions. Thats not to say it'd all be fine, but it absolutely would not lead to raising seawater levels.
Just so we're clear, the article says Apple execs feel there are no companies in the US that can get the job done right and on time.
Your counter argument basically amounts to you saying they're wrong and offering up no evidence whatsoever. Could you point to the US based company that does this kind of work? Of course not, we've spent decades chasing off these kind of manufacturers. It's just not something that's done here anymore.
The generally presented global climate change solution is this: tax carbon emissions on an increasing basis until the free market finds alternatives to fossil fuels.
There are a couple big ways this can go wrong. Firstly, it means handing a lot of authority to politicians who don't necessary know what they're doing. A lot can and will go wrong when you do that. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Secondly, the free market may not be able to solve the problems of global energy production. In that event, it will mean that billions of people across the world will starve to death as dwindling supplies of conventional energy force them to switch to a lifestyle based on subsistence farming.
Third, if the free market does offer up a solution, it might not mitigate the effects of global climate change in time to stave off agricultural water shortages and flooding.
If the solution that "experts" were offering up was to invest in alternative energy production and alternative energy research directly, and to build large scale flood control and irrigation projects where they're needed, then I'd agree with your "we'll have cleaned up the planet a little, and have technology that makes us less dependent on fossil fuels", but that's not the solution they've presented. Instead they've proposed a heavy handed carbon emissions enforcement system. No thanks.
Yes, there are a lot of questions about the science. You shouldn't just take the predictions at face value without putting them in context.
Likewise, jumping to the conclusion that we should cut carbon emissions at any cost is problematic. It does not directly address the problems scientists believe may result from climate change. Moreover, it represents an unprecedented global power grab on the part of politicians who have taken up the cause. The kind of enforcement we'd need to pull something like this off is unimaginable. You would be forcing a lot of people to do without, including people who's ability to survive would be called into question by such a demand. Many people won't simply give it all up without a fight, and the ones who will are the ones who are powerless to stop it.
In the mean time the kinds of civil engineering projects we need, dams for irrigation and flood control, are being overlooked. Those are projects we should be working on even without global climate change. They could completely mitigate the harmful effects of global climate change.
Think of the financial industry, for example. All those stock brokers and financial planners were the experts. They all recommended (and still do recommend) various unsound financial products. To an outsider, it was plainly obvious that the housing bubble or the.com bubble was not sustainable. But the experts were caught up in a kind of group think, their livelihoods depended on these financial products, and everything was going fine. They had sophisticated financial models and supercomputers to back up all their claims.
It's not just this industry. You can see similar things happen all the time. Food, with partially hydrogenated oils. In medicine you see a lot of treatments that are accepted one day, and then later they decide they are doing a lot of harm. Leaded gasoline was once lauded for it's ability to improve gas mileage by increasing the octane rating of fuels.
My point is, it can happen everywhere, and experts are as susceptible to it as anybody. Simplistic ideas like "follow the money" don't really get to the heart of the matter. Only by objectively looking at the facts and coming to your own conclusions can you really make good choices. You can't simply trust the experts, because usually their livelihoods depend on what they are telling you. That has a kind of blinding effect on people.
Following the money is a classical fallacious argument. It is simply attacking the source of information, rather than evaluating it on it's own merits. If this is all you do to assess the reliability of information, you won't have any clue when you are being conned.
It's fine to listen to what experts are saying. But you should never, ever, ever differ your judgment to someone else. It's just a bad idea all around.
No it doesn't. Many plants grow in sand just fine. After a while you plow those under and they leave the trapped carbon in the soil. Then the soil is suitable for conventional cereal crops. I visited a farm in Africa where they were doing this. It takes a couple years at the most.
Are you serious? You'd better learn some things about your car, so that you can take what he's telling you with an appropriately sized grain of salt. If your mechanic is at a deanship, it is practically guaranteed he is trying to sell you maintenance your car doesn't really need.
Society doesn't rely on knowing everything- because we can't. That's why we all look to experts in their respective fields
This is nonsense. You have no ability to property vet information presented to you unless you have a well rounded scientific background. But you know what? That's not as difficult to get as it sounds. And it beats the shit out of blindly trusting "experts". You should always look into claims being made, and come to your own understanding of evidence presented. Nothing short of that is effective. Taking things on faith, no matter how much you trust the source, makes you a tool.
one watt is defined as one joule for/per one second (W=J/s)
The text is wrong, because the words for and per are not interchangeable. But the expression is correct because you correctly used division rather than multiplication. Here is the wikipedia definition:
The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.
Since a watt is a measure of the rate of energy conversion, it is not a measure of energy by itself.
kW is a measure of power. Energy is power times time so it can be measured in kW*hr or kWh, which is what you pay for.
Joule (J) is the si unit for energy and a Watt (W) is a Joule per second. You're basically claiming that energy is measured in J/s^2 which is nonsense.
1500 years is a human timescale. We've been living in parmanent settlements for 11,000 years. Plus it's an estimate. We don't know when it would actually be, and if the report is correct we probably never will. That would not be a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has surpassed Exxon several times in the last year. The reverse is also true.
you can have mine
I think some book makers profited too.
Dystopia, and the best thing you can do is not be a party to the whole thing.
The currents mix the water, warming the polar regions and cooling the equatorial regions. Shutting that down would not lead to increased melting in land based ice sheets which are all in polar regions. Thats not to say it'd all be fine, but it absolutely would not lead to raising seawater levels.
Melting sea ice won't lead to a significant increase in ocean levels, it's the land ice you have to worry about.
Just so we're clear, the article says Apple execs feel there are no companies in the US that can get the job done right and on time.
Your counter argument basically amounts to you saying they're wrong and offering up no evidence whatsoever. Could you point to the US based company that does this kind of work? Of course not, we've spent decades chasing off these kind of manufacturers. It's just not something that's done here anymore.
The generally presented global climate change solution is this: tax carbon emissions on an increasing basis until the free market finds alternatives to fossil fuels.
There are a couple big ways this can go wrong. Firstly, it means handing a lot of authority to politicians who don't necessary know what they're doing. A lot can and will go wrong when you do that. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Secondly, the free market may not be able to solve the problems of global energy production. In that event, it will mean that billions of people across the world will starve to death as dwindling supplies of conventional energy force them to switch to a lifestyle based on subsistence farming.
Third, if the free market does offer up a solution, it might not mitigate the effects of global climate change in time to stave off agricultural water shortages and flooding.
If the solution that "experts" were offering up was to invest in alternative energy production and alternative energy research directly, and to build large scale flood control and irrigation projects where they're needed, then I'd agree with your "we'll have cleaned up the planet a little, and have technology that makes us less dependent on fossil fuels", but that's not the solution they've presented. Instead they've proposed a heavy handed carbon emissions enforcement system. No thanks.
Yes, there are a lot of questions about the science. You shouldn't just take the predictions at face value without putting them in context.
Likewise, jumping to the conclusion that we should cut carbon emissions at any cost is problematic. It does not directly address the problems scientists believe may result from climate change. Moreover, it represents an unprecedented global power grab on the part of politicians who have taken up the cause. The kind of enforcement we'd need to pull something like this off is unimaginable. You would be forcing a lot of people to do without, including people who's ability to survive would be called into question by such a demand. Many people won't simply give it all up without a fight, and the ones who will are the ones who are powerless to stop it.
In the mean time the kinds of civil engineering projects we need, dams for irrigation and flood control, are being overlooked. Those are projects we should be working on even without global climate change. They could completely mitigate the harmful effects of global climate change.
Think of the financial industry, for example. All those stock brokers and financial planners were the experts. They all recommended (and still do recommend) various unsound financial products. To an outsider, it was plainly obvious that the housing bubble or the .com bubble was not sustainable. But the experts were caught up in a kind of group think, their livelihoods depended on these financial products, and everything was going fine. They had sophisticated financial models and supercomputers to back up all their claims.
It's not just this industry. You can see similar things happen all the time. Food, with partially hydrogenated oils. In medicine you see a lot of treatments that are accepted one day, and then later they decide they are doing a lot of harm. Leaded gasoline was once lauded for it's ability to improve gas mileage by increasing the octane rating of fuels.
My point is, it can happen everywhere, and experts are as susceptible to it as anybody. Simplistic ideas like "follow the money" don't really get to the heart of the matter. Only by objectively looking at the facts and coming to your own conclusions can you really make good choices. You can't simply trust the experts, because usually their livelihoods depend on what they are telling you. That has a kind of blinding effect on people.
Following the money is a classical fallacious argument. It is simply attacking the source of information, rather than evaluating it on it's own merits. If this is all you do to assess the reliability of information, you won't have any clue when you are being conned.
It's fine to listen to what experts are saying. But you should never, ever, ever differ your judgment to someone else. It's just a bad idea all around.
The battery will be significantly more expensive to replace. It's an easy job though.
Yes, wow. I certainly impressed that you live in or near Chicago! May I have your autograph?
It's the same for southern california.
No it doesn't. Many plants grow in sand just fine. After a while you plow those under and they leave the trapped carbon in the soil. Then the soil is suitable for conventional cereal crops. I visited a farm in Africa where they were doing this. It takes a couple years at the most.
Are you serious? You'd better learn some things about your car, so that you can take what he's telling you with an appropriately sized grain of salt. If your mechanic is at a deanship, it is practically guaranteed he is trying to sell you maintenance your car doesn't really need.
This is nonsense. You have no ability to property vet information presented to you unless you have a well rounded scientific background. But you know what? That's not as difficult to get as it sounds. And it beats the shit out of blindly trusting "experts". You should always look into claims being made, and come to your own understanding of evidence presented. Nothing short of that is effective. Taking things on faith, no matter how much you trust the source, makes you a tool.
If the Feds have access to it, you might as well give your girlfriend access. At least that leaves nothing for the Feds to blackmail you with.
Doctor, heal thyself?
Here's what you said:
The text is wrong, because the words for and per are not interchangeable. But the expression is correct because you correctly used division rather than multiplication. Here is the wikipedia definition:
Since a watt is a measure of the rate of energy conversion, it is not a measure of energy by itself.
Ok, this is where you are going wrong: for and per are not interchangeable terms.
Using the word for implies multiplication: 1 kilowatt for 1 hour is 1 kilowatt-hour (1 kW * 1 hr = 1 kWh).
Using the word per implies division as in 1000 joules per 3600 second period is 0.278 joules per second (1000 J / 3600 s = 0.278 J/s).
Do you see the difference?
kW is a measure of power. Energy is power times time so it can be measured in kW*hr or kWh, which is what you pay for.
Joule (J) is the si unit for energy and a Watt (W) is a Joule per second. You're basically claiming that energy is measured in J/s^2 which is nonsense.
Car manufacturers aren't exactly known for making good user interfaces (apart from the vehicle's primary controls).
Yes. People in the US do, so you probably should as well. I know it's a scary proposition.
1500 years is a human timescale. We've been living in parmanent settlements for 11,000 years. Plus it's an estimate. We don't know when it would actually be, and if the report is correct we probably never will. That would not be a bad thing.
I was talking about the new glaciers we'd have if the interglacial period ended.