"What does this mean: that 800kyears ago there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than now [in this case, do we know the source of it?], or that we do not have more or less firm estimates for older ages?"
800,000 years is as far back as the ice cores go. Other data relating to ancient climatology can only be inferred over very long ime periods as we don't have atmospheric samples from such times. However, I'm sure some smart scientist out there has extracted atmosphere samples from amber, but that doesn't represent a continuous scale.
"Just the fact that they aren't known doesn't mean that they aren't there."
In order to pump the amount of CO2 into the air that we've seen, the source would have to be enormous in size. Anything comparatively small in size would have key signs that the environment was heavy with CO2. Such signs would be a complete lack of life (too much CO2 will kill plants as well as animals), acidic lakes due to more CO2 interacting with the water vapor, a very "dark" area on NASA's thermal radiance satellite, etc. .
So, we'd be looking for a source of large area witha dispersion rate that the overall CO2 levels rise planet wide. Given the weather patterns of the planet, that's an unlikely scenario. So instead of a source of large area, we're looking at sources scattered across the globe, some larger than others possibly that cause a net rise in CO2 levels.
You know what? That sounds like...hmmm...human industry and cities. Shocking, I know.
"Are there any researches trying to find any?"
Uh...yes. NASA has entire branches dedicated to climate studies, along with NOAA, and many other Universities and research programs scattered across the globe.
"Besides, CO2 is heavily used by plant life, plancton included. It would be logical to expect that once its availability increases, we should see a boost in oceanic life."
No it's not logical. An increase in CO2 affects the environment, including sea surface temperatures and general ocean conditions. A later post points out of the chemistry. And large growths of plankton, especially in areas not used to such growth can quickly cause a multitude of other problems.
I guess I shouldn't mention the systematic destruction of the rain forests?
As water warms, it also losses capacity to keep gases (such as CO2) sequestered, which adds to the problem.
Ozone in the troposphere also acts as a mild green-house gas. However it is the CO2 that gets all the fame because of the dramatic rise.
No one on slashdot is disputing that the climate has shifted in the past. What people on slashdot are saying (in general) is the the Earth is absorbing more heat and reflecting less into space, mainly due to human activity in the last 150 years (CO2 production).
According to the ice cores drilled in Antarctica, we have ALOT more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the last 800000 years. During that time, the climate shifted from warm to cold and back again in correspondence to CO2 levels. There aren't any other known sources that are pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we are and there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.
The evidence is pretty high that we are driving this climate change, as according to the "normal cycle" we would be entering a cooling period by now.
There are some serious issues that need to be resolved before this thing can be used.
The problem with electrostatics is that they have a tendency to charge any metallic object within their field.
I took apart one the cheap $20 ionic air filter and did some experiments with electrostatic propulsion just for fun. It's not much above the 8KV range. However, put an aluminum can an inch or two away and touch it with a grounded metal object and you get a small spark from the aluminum can. So if you did have something like this in your machine, you better shield it so it doesn't inadvertently fry some other component.
I can't imagine them implementing an ionic cooler at too much less than 8KV. At 1 KV, you're not going to get anything as far as ionic wind goes. My guess is that they wouldn't use anything less than 5KV.
You also have to make sure that all the ions get neutralized, or you'd end up with objects being charged again.
You'd also have to be mindful of dust collection (which ionic breeze machines do exceptionally well) and be in a relatively stable environment.
To maximize ionic wind, you need the electron source to be on the verge of arcing to the anode (arcing kills the breeze). Unfortunately, this is dependant on many factors including air pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. So they would probably play it safe and set it back a bit to prevent arcing. Of course this lowers the wind, which means they need to use a higher voltage to acheive the same effect.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it's also not a walk in the park either. Electrostatics and computer components don't play well together. And given the power of most modern day cpu fans, you're going to need a lot more than a mere 5-8 KV ionic wind to achieve the same cooling effect.
Now if they were talking about electrohydrodynamics using water, that's a little different. Basically, you can use electrohydrodynamics to pump water in a liquid cooling system without needing any moving parts. The concept is very similar to using an ionic breeze, only this time the medium is water. Since you have a denser medium, you can generate more force using electostatics (you can knock more electrons free as there are more in the immediate area).
You still run into the problem of high voltage and shielding, but a liquid cooled system without any moving parts sounds pretty interesting to me.
This equates to "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about."
The problem is, you've assholes and idiots who regularly change the definition of "wrong".
If wrong were a fixed known quantity, then this might not be so bad. But we have everything from religious bigots to corporate goliaths trying to redefine "wrong" on a continuous basis. This is a bad thing.
Not only that, tanks and mechanization are only as useful as the system that powers it.
In other words, it's fairly simple to fashion an EMP device. Set several up along a convoy and detonate. Suddenly the advanced tech becomes worthless hunks of metal as the circuit boards and electronics are fried.
Best thing I've found that works are those big table-top paper cutters. Four cuts along the edges of these "ain't gonna open without a ninja death squad" packages and they open quite easily.
Hydroperoxide is the name given to a class of compounds of the form HOOH. The most basic of these being household hydrogen peroxide.
Most hydroperoxides are flammable in sufficient quantities, and hardly pose a threat to an airliner unless you talking igniting gallons or vaporizing a bunch than igniting it. Neither being very feasible on an aircraft.
The explosive hydroperoxides that you refer to are extremely UNSTABLE compounds. They are friction and agitation sensitive, and in industry where they are a byproduct they spend serious cash to safely dispose of these materials.
In other words, you wouldn't be carrying these on a plane even IF you could make it without it blowing up in your face (no small task in and of itself). Still, even if you did make it and somehow managed to keep it from exploding while you're walking around with it, you'd need like a two liter bottle of the stuff to wreck a jetliner. In other words, compared to other explosives it it pretty weak.
I think you need to read up a little more on hydroperoxides.
You have a very twisted view. Let me put it too you bluntly.
Google, Microsoft, Download.com, and Slashdot ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have dedicated fiber lines running into their data centers. That's why we can access them.
Joe Sixpack, Grandma Jones, and Little Boy Blue ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have cable/dsl/regular modems that allow them to connect to their ISPs so they can surf the web. Its how they connect to Google, etc.
The telecos are already getting paid at both ends of the pipe. Now, they want to add a QoS layer to make Google and Grandma pay AGAIN, or else suffer degraded service. Or worse, intentionally degrading service to sites that may be in competiton to their services or displaying views/opinions that the teleco does not support.
If the telecos want/need to charge more for bandwidth, then charge more. This QoS crap borders on extortion: "That's a nice website you have there....be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Except, by running out of oil that means we've burnt through a dinosaur load worth of very carbon heavy compounds. If we burn through all the worlds oil reserves (even if it took 122 years), the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere would no longer be fractions of a percent, it would be in the 10%-20% range.
We'd be hurting well before we ran out. By then, it'd be too late to do much.
Slashdot Mirror
"What does this mean: that 800kyears ago there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than now [in this case, do we know the source of it?], or that we do not have more or less firm estimates for older ages?"
800,000 years is as far back as the ice cores go. Other data relating to ancient climatology can only be inferred over very long ime periods as we don't have atmospheric samples from such times. However, I'm sure some smart scientist out there has extracted atmosphere samples from amber, but that doesn't represent a continuous scale.
"Just the fact that they aren't known doesn't mean that they aren't there."
In order to pump the amount of CO2 into the air that we've seen, the source would have to be enormous in size. Anything comparatively small in size would have key signs that the environment was heavy with CO2. Such signs would be a complete lack of life (too much CO2 will kill plants as well as animals), acidic lakes due to more CO2 interacting with the water vapor, a very "dark" area on NASA's thermal radiance satellite, etc. .
So, we'd be looking for a source of large area witha dispersion rate that the overall CO2 levels rise planet wide. Given the weather patterns of the planet, that's an unlikely scenario. So instead of a source of large area, we're looking at sources scattered across the globe, some larger than others possibly that cause a net rise in CO2 levels.
You know what? That sounds like...hmmm...human industry and cities. Shocking, I know.
"Are there any researches trying to find any?"
Uh...yes. NASA has entire branches dedicated to climate studies, along with NOAA, and many other Universities and research programs scattered across the globe.
"Besides, CO2 is heavily used by plant life, plancton included. It would be logical to expect that once its availability increases, we should see a boost in oceanic life."
No it's not logical. An increase in CO2 affects the environment, including sea surface temperatures and general ocean conditions. A later post points out of the chemistry. And large growths of plankton, especially in areas not used to such growth can quickly cause a multitude of other problems.
I guess I shouldn't mention the systematic destruction of the rain forests?
As water warms, it also losses capacity to keep gases (such as CO2) sequestered, which adds to the problem.
"Sources please?"
You can start by looking up Milankovitch cycles.
Ozone in the troposphere also acts as a mild green-house gas. However it is the CO2 that gets all the fame because of the dramatic rise.
No one on slashdot is disputing that the climate has shifted in the past. What people on slashdot are saying (in general) is the the Earth is absorbing more heat and reflecting less into space, mainly due to human activity in the last 150 years (CO2 production).
According to the ice cores drilled in Antarctica, we have ALOT more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the last 800000 years. During that time, the climate shifted from warm to cold and back again in correspondence to CO2 levels. There aren't any other known sources that are pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we are and there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.
The evidence is pretty high that we are driving this climate change, as according to the "normal cycle" we would be entering a cooling period by now.
~X~
"Could this really be avoided?"
Not anymore.
"Is it still time to revert those climate changes?"
No, the common consensus now is that it is too late to stop.
"Shouldn't we be preparing for the worse yet?"
Yep.
"Instead of deciding whether or not it's really happening?"
Yep.
Glad I could help.
~X~
"Capitalism will end when I can print a blow job."
You can. It's just that counterfiting $100 bills is illegal.
~X~
It's tubes you dumb bastard. The internet is tubes.
~X~
There are some serious issues that need to be resolved before this thing can be used.
The problem with electrostatics is that they have a tendency to charge any metallic object within their field.
I took apart one the cheap $20 ionic air filter and did some experiments with electrostatic propulsion just for fun. It's not much above the 8KV range. However, put an aluminum can an inch or two away and touch it with a grounded metal object and you get a small spark from the aluminum can. So if you did have something like this in your machine, you better shield it so it doesn't inadvertently fry some other component.
I can't imagine them implementing an ionic cooler at too much less than 8KV. At 1 KV, you're not going to get anything as far as ionic wind goes. My guess is that they wouldn't use anything less than 5KV.
You also have to make sure that all the ions get neutralized, or you'd end up with objects being charged again.
You'd also have to be mindful of dust collection (which ionic breeze machines do exceptionally well) and be in a relatively stable environment.
To maximize ionic wind, you need the electron source to be on the verge of arcing to the anode (arcing kills the breeze). Unfortunately, this is dependant on many factors including air pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. So they would probably play it safe and set it back a bit to prevent arcing. Of course this lowers the wind, which means they need to use a higher voltage to acheive the same effect.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it's also not a walk in the park either. Electrostatics and computer components don't play well together. And given the power of most modern day cpu fans, you're going to need a lot more than a mere 5-8 KV ionic wind to achieve the same cooling effect.
Now if they were talking about electrohydrodynamics using water, that's a little different. Basically, you can use electrohydrodynamics to pump water in a liquid cooling system without needing any moving parts. The concept is very similar to using an ionic breeze, only this time the medium is water. Since you have a denser medium, you can generate more force using electostatics (you can knock more electrons free as there are more in the immediate area).
You still run into the problem of high voltage and shielding, but a liquid cooled system without any moving parts sounds pretty interesting to me.
~X~
This equates to "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about."
The problem is, you've assholes and idiots who regularly change the definition of "wrong".
If wrong were a fixed known quantity, then this might not be so bad. But we have everything from religious bigots to corporate goliaths trying to redefine "wrong" on a continuous basis. This is a bad thing.
~X~
"I felt a great disturbance in the [NOUN] , as if [AMOUNT] of [NOUN]'s suddenly [VERB] out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
;)
I felt a great disturbance in the Constitution , as if all of the founding father's suddenly screamed out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Offtopic. So what. So is most of Slashdot.
~X~
If you put all the current tags together, you have the name of a good story:
Corruption Internet Sex Business Bubble
Well, either that or a strange new virtual sex device.
~X~
I don't believe that your statement is truthable. You're just saying that to be klingonimous.
~X~
Not only that, tanks and mechanization are only as useful as the system that powers it.
In other words, it's fairly simple to fashion an EMP device. Set several up along a convoy and detonate. Suddenly the advanced tech becomes worthless hunks of metal as the circuit boards and electronics are fried.
~X~
"Only Chuck Norris can divide by zero."
But if you divide Mila Jovavich by zero, you get hot corn nuts. Therefore, only Chuck Norris can get Mila Jovavich's hot corn nuts.
That just sounds....wrong.
~X~
You're not mad. Drink your ovaltine.
Your Friends,
F.S.B
Best thing I've found that works are those big table-top paper cutters. Four cuts along the edges of these "ain't gonna open without a ninja death squad" packages and they open quite easily.
~X~
Hydroperoxide is the name given to a class of compounds of the form HOOH. The most basic of these being household hydrogen peroxide.
Most hydroperoxides are flammable in sufficient quantities, and hardly pose a threat to an airliner unless you talking igniting gallons or vaporizing a bunch than igniting it. Neither being very feasible on an aircraft.
The explosive hydroperoxides that you refer to are extremely UNSTABLE compounds. They are friction and agitation sensitive, and in industry where they are a byproduct they spend serious cash to safely dispose of these materials.
In other words, you wouldn't be carrying these on a plane even IF you could make it without it blowing up in your face (no small task in and of itself). Still, even if you did make it and somehow managed to keep it from exploding while you're walking around with it, you'd need like a two liter bottle of the stuff to wreck a jetliner. In other words, compared to other explosives it it pretty weak.
I think you need to read up a little more on hydroperoxides.
~X~
"This is one reason why many people don't use Myspace. Many of the people on it are pathetic and superficial.
And I will give you may absolute full and undying support....for $19.95.
~X~
In other news, several dozen RIAA leaders have come down with a strange illness resembling radiation sickness. More at eleven.
~X~
After 24 beers, we'd still have to get liability insurance in case you throw feces at passing dignitaries.
On the plus side, we still wouldn't need to get you vaccinated, imported, or liscensed.
~X~
You have a very twisted view. Let me put it too you bluntly.
Google, Microsoft, Download.com, and Slashdot ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have dedicated fiber lines running into their data centers. That's why we can access them.
Joe Sixpack, Grandma Jones, and Little Boy Blue ALREADY FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR FUCKING BANDWIDTH. That's why they have cable/dsl/regular modems that allow them to connect to their ISPs so they can surf the web. Its how they connect to Google, etc.
The telecos are already getting paid at both ends of the pipe. Now, they want to add a QoS layer to make Google and Grandma pay AGAIN, or else suffer degraded service. Or worse, intentionally degrading service to sites that may be in competiton to their services or displaying views/opinions that the teleco does not support.
If the telecos want/need to charge more for bandwidth, then charge more. This QoS crap borders on extortion: "That's a nice website you have there....be a shame if something were to happen to it."
~X~
Oh, I don't know. Maybe if you have Mono your system and do stuff like, ya know, develope code.
~X~
Considering how much the healthcare costs get jacked every year, I don't WANT it to be unencumbered.
~X~
Link? Damn your so 1990's.
Torrent?
~X~
I hope that assurance still holds when oil crests $90 within the next couple of years.
~X~
Except, by running out of oil that means we've burnt through a dinosaur load worth of very carbon heavy compounds. If we burn through all the worlds oil reserves (even if it took 122 years), the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere would no longer be fractions of a percent, it would be in the 10%-20% range.
We'd be hurting well before we ran out. By then, it'd be too late to do much.
~X~
If I remember correctly, to switch our infrastructure to something like ethanol it would cost between 200 and 500 billion dollars.
Considering we blow that in a couple years on a trumped up war, you'd think we could do this now. With a lot more to show for it afterward.
~X~