I care about the Apple restrictions -- they bother me quite a bit, in fact. As do some of their upgrade policies and the iPad's intentionally limited hardware connectivity (no memory slot, no really effective USB connection.) But those things don't bother me nearly as much as the difference in usability and apps between the Androids (I have Kindle E-ink and Fire devices, a recent Droid, and an enTourage Pocket Edge) and my iPad. The iPad is simply a *way* better device. I use my iPad all the time. All day, every day. The rest generally just take up shelf space.
Not only will it likely last longer, check EBay for resale values on Macbooks. You might be pretty surprised. My windows laptop, same vintage as my Macbook Pro, isn't worth much. My Macbook Pro, however, will earn me a significant amount towards the next version if I were to sell it today. If, that is, I were feeling like I needed to sell it, which I don't, because it's really pretty darned sweet. Illuminated keyboard, fast dual core, lots of ram, fabulous native display and drives a 2nd display without a problem, big drive, all manner of I/O, wifi, bluetooth. And yes, that very tough aluminum case. I often use it to run my software-defined radio in my vehicle, which is a *very* demanding application. Doing the same thing on the supposedly comparable windows laptop - dual core, same ram and clock speed - I get lag and audio gaps; on the Macbook pro, not only does the app run smoothly, I can surf the web via wifi at the same time without glitchery. Part of the advantage is OSX; it does very well at multitasking... but the hardware is frankly awesome, if that's all that matters to you (I've bought my last Windows product, myself, and quit doing Windows development... the bottom line is the Mac is better in almost every way, the one exception being Apple, which is a company I think of as just as "evil" as Microsoft... just a bunch of dickheads. But they do make the best gear.)
A "summation box", or an antenna-phasing unit, is a device with two antenna inputs, and the ability to allow you to (a) vary the phase of one of the antennas, (b) adjust the amplitude of both of them, then (c) add them together before passing them along to the receiver. This allows you, with suitable choice of antennas, to either null out local noise, or interfering signals coming in from quite a distance. They work best with signals coming in groundwave, as skywave signals have a tendency to change phase rapidly and often.
QRM is man made interference such as signals emitted from wall-wart switching power supplies. QRN is noise from natural sources, such as lightning crashes.
With the condition the bands have been in the last few years -- during the long solar minimum -- I don't see how you can say that at all. I've been listening too, and while there has been much less to hear, there are very good reasons why. Last weekend's sweepstakes contest brought lots of signals, but very few of them at robust levels here in Montana. We're still a ways from 1990's-class propagation even on 20 meters.
CO2 causing warming isn't based on history, it's based on physics and observation.
Warming. Good grief. Well, maybe we'd better be a little more specific. Heat sequestration based on IR absorption is based on physics. So are insolation differentials based upon the presence of IR absorption zones. Those are rather simple ideas. However, generalizing them into "the globe will warm" is based on assumptions not backed by either experience (no such historical data) or models that work; because both the physics of, and the inputs to, of atmospheric circulation, temperature modulation, ocean absorption, moderating effects on that, biosphere activity, human activity, the evap/precip cycle, technological change, social change, and a hundred other things are unknown in detail sufficient to predict much of anything.
What we do know, and I mean actually for sure, is that we -- meaning humankind -- are putting out more CO2 than ever before, and so we'd probably better back off in case that does nudge the ecosystem into instability one way or another. But that's about it.
And no, dude, the models suck horse's ass. The temperatures today are NOT what they were predicted to be; the last ten years do NOT show warming; the seas have NOT risen as predicted; extreme weather has NOT come to pass as predicted; and so on. If you -- anyone -- makes a climate model that works, it'll predict the bloody climate, and events will match the predictions. They don't do that. Ergo: The. Models. Don't. Work.
Just as you can't get a weather prediction that goes out more than a few days by sampling data that is missing many significant inputs, you can't get a climate prediction that goes out any worthy distance by sampling data that is missing many significant inputs. And statistics are both incredibly tricky and widely misunderstood; they're the wrong place to turn when your models are shitty in the first place, which is definitely the case here. That's also why on the very page you point to, the climate prediction wanders all around what actually happens, but never actually manages to predict the climate.
What you call a model that "actually works very well" is shown on that very page to be predicting huge rises where instead, the climate takes a huge fall, and so on... happens all along the graph. This is a strong indicator of a model that is correcting itself with the data in hand at the target point; not a model that is actually predicting. If the model *worked*, all it would need as input would be the weather data from 1850, and it would provide you with the climate results from then until today, with no more input than changes in man-made effects, which are otherwise unpredictable -- and that's part of the reason why projecting any curve into the future is an exercise in futility. We don't -- in fact, can't -- know what tomorrow will bring in terms of human action and technology. Predicting the future in a system like that is impossible.
I assure you, we'd know it if we had climate models that work. Just the way we'd know it if we had weather models that worked. So far, we have neither.
And no, I'm not saying weather == climate. Don't even go there.
The concern comes when people try to point at the long term data and claim that this shows that CO2 causes heating. That's not been demonstrated. Also, on the page you link to, the claim that it causes additional heating at the lag time is not verified -- even hinted at -- by the heat curve, which doesn't change in character when CO2 begins to rise. The point was, and remains, that we can't look back for evidence of CO2-caused warming, because there are no such events shown in the historical data.
What we have right now is an idea unconfirmed by subsequent or prior events. The models don't work. This means we need more work on the models. As I said, we should probably cut back on CO2; the rationale for that is simply that we're making a lot more than usual, and we don't know what may happen as a result. We do know that in the past, CO2 has been high, as have temperatures (also low) in the normal course of events.
What has me encouraged here are the sheer number of people working on battery improvement that are showing promise in the lab (and the slow, but steady, increase of power capacity in the ultracap sector.) I honestly do think it's a given that we're about to make some significant jumps in battery capabilities.
I also keep in mind that because of patents, legal issues and lack of industrial capacity in the US, initial production cycles are stretching waaaay out. We're ok, we have several not-new vehicles, and are perfectly ready to buy EVs to replace them, but won't have to for probably ten years or perhaps even longer.
We need dependable range; I live 300 miles from the nearest city worthy of the name (and [barely] worthy of visiting.) My "buy now" criteria for the main family vehicle is to be able to make that trip in something built like an SUV, with all lights on, heater and audio system blasting, at an average speed of about 85 mph, without being at all concerned about running out of juice. And I want recharges that'll go as fast as the power supply allows. Although price isn't an issue for us, those are still very tough metrics. So in my case, patience is called for.
I'd also like to have a fun, blast-around muscle EV that is built to American size expectations (IOW, not a tiny little go-cart like the Tesla... pretty as it is, it's still about the size of an overfed mouse.) Once the critical components are available, might even build that one myself.
No, I encourage all to speak, and here on Slashdot, I read at -1 so I can read everything everyone says. I just think some of the things people say are funny, and that whole "there's more to life than sexual basics" was one of those. When one has "good sexual basics" going on, assuming food and shelter are covered, one generally has excellent reason to regret doing anything else at all.
Also, genetic engineering is coming... one almost immediate consequence of this will probably be no more stupid babies, followed shortly by no more stupid adults. I rather expect that in its turn to put an end to a number of problems all at once: religion, overpopulation, faux news, racial prejudice, and political correctness, to name but a few.
You figure they're going to get on a camel, tie the nuke between the humps, and ride it over here? Seriously, even if they do develop nukes, the only reason they could possibly be a threat to us is if we let them be by not maintaining radiological monitoring at/near our borders. And we're not going to do that, because this threat is not new (at least, if you don't limit the field to the middle east.)
Face it... they are going to get nukes. And when they do, they will use them. On Israel. Probably immediately. While shrieking "Allah Akbar!" And Israel will respond in kind. And we'll finally have to seriously pay attention to developing non-petroleum energy here in the USA. (but the good news, such as it is, is that we can channel the money that used to go to middle east foreign and military aid into non-petroleum energy development.)
The thing about nukes is delivery isn't a matter of calling UPS or Fedex. ICBMs are a technical challenge of a higher order than nukes (the "difficulty" of fission weapons is mainly about refining materials to a particular degree of purity... the rest can be done by any competent machine shop by any decent physics nerd... fusion weapons -- crowd pleasers -- are something else entirely), likewise, radiologically shielded aircraft that are capable of intercontinental travel while carrying these very heavy objects... very tough, technologically speaking. And while they may hate us, they hate Israel more. A lot more. That's where the nukes are going to go. You watch.
Well, plants like warm weather and they eat CO2 and sequester it into the dirt. Cool off the weather and you get less plants and they eat less CO2. That aspect of the system was in dynamic equilibrium.
Right. I said that: "obviously the plants making lots and lots [of CO2]" (they get it from the air and make O.)
The concern is that poking that with more CO2 will change the dynamics.
Yes, I completely understand. However, I *also* understand that the previous climate is not evidence that can be used to support prediction of what will happen. This is new theory, without prior evidence in the form of similar events to back it up... so we're in the unenviable place of having ONLY models to look at in order to shore up these ideas, and the problem is that so far -- the models don't work well. It's quite typical for mid-latitude predictions to be "on" but then the poles are way out of whack, or vice-versa, and consequently on average, the whole answer is wrong. And we can't test these models in ANY way by doing anything but letting them run, looking at the output, and then waiting on the climate. To put it in another form, we can only wait and see what the climate does in order to see if a model works, or not. This in turn means that we should reduce CO2 (which I also said: "yes, we should reduce our CO2 emissions") as a preemptive measure simply because we know we're making more than is usually around, and we should be cautious of changes we make to our ecosphere, but there's zero indication about how fast and hard we really ought to go about that. This, combined with the fact that technology is at the very moment in the process of bringing us significant CO2 reductions, and oil too because of supply issues, puts me in a "do we really want to (further) injure our economy for known non-working models?" kind of outlook. I'm open to good science, but I'm not particularly open to speculation driven by broken models. I'm also pretty open to the idea of living in a more tropical world, which is also one of the potential outcomes here. By fighting this CO2 increase, we MIGHT be shooting ourselves right in the foot. We REALLY do not know. More work is called for, and I think that's happening, so I'm pretty happy, really.
Your claim of CO2 lagging warming is nonsense and has been thoroughly debunked.
Nonsense. It's patently evident on ice core graphs. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Really? And what is your scientific research backing up such a ridiculous claim? It seems all the peer-reviewed science says the exact opposite. Let me guess, you're a conspiracy nut, right?
No. I'm just someone who is interested in the science. Look at the ice core data. CO2 increases *clearly* lag temperature increases. So you can call names all you want, but there are the facts, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about them except continue to LIE.
But clearly, no amount of scientific research will convince you otherwise, so we'll just wait and see what happens over the next decade or so.
Yes, clearly. I'm ignoring the science. You bet. Idiot. You're just wasting everyone's time with your name calling and baiting. Piss off.
Sigh. There is no "poison gas cloud." For crying out loud. This is just the kind of sensationalist nonsense that gets people stirred up about nothing.
Lots of CO2 means happy plants. Lots of happy plants means lots of O. CO2 increases in the atmosphere lead to a LITTLE bit of increased heat retention, which, mind you, is limited in how far it can go -- it's not an infinite curve you can extrapolate into biosphere extinction. It takes a LOT more CO2 to increase a LITTLE bit of IR-caused heat storage. Which leads to faster evap/precip cycles, which cools things better. ALl this happening over perhaps a couple centuries, during which we will no doubt move away from gasoline and diesel for several reasons. It's a money farm and a distraction. No more than that. Climate does change. Get over it. It always has. It always will.
The Tesla also has 1/3 rd the range of a regular 30 mpg car. Which means it uses three times the power.
No. It means it uses less than 1/3rd the power. First, it's way more efficient. So for the same miles traveled, the EV uses less power, period. What that 1/3 range means is that batteries don't store as much energy per cubic foot as gasoline or diesel fuel does, that's all. And that is probably about to change anyway.
I agreed with you right up until you said electric vehicles are good. The problem is in the USA in order to generate enough power to recharge electric vehicles we will need more power plants.
But you're wrong. Most electrics will recharge at night, when most of the grid's capacity is wasted. We don't need new power plants at all. If we need anything, it'll be heavier wiring in some places, that's all, because residential areas that pull power like industrial areas aren't really part of the current design.
Battery powered electric cars will increase CO2 emissions drastically.
No, they won't. For one thing, the power EV's use is much more efficiently created by power plant turbines than with individual engines. This means that considerably less fuel is burned -- even taking into account line and charging losses -- to run electric vehicles than gasoline or diesel vehicles. For another, an EV only makes CO2 while the centralized power plant does. Switch the power plant -- a much easier proposition than changing all the cars yet again -- and instantly, all those EVs become less, or zero, polluters. Put a petrol powered vehicle on the road, it'll make pollutants until the day it is taken off the road permanently.
I have yet to see anyone propose a standard that actually doesn't use more electricity(which comes from coal)
First, your facts are wrong, which is why you haven't caught on yet. Read a little more - or just ask questions, I'll help -- and you'll see. Second, while some of the electricity comes from coal, the thing is, if you have a petrol burning vehicle, it will *always* make CO2 and other pollutants. If you have an electric vehicle, and let's say it's fed by a coal plant, then the polluting, radiation-emitting coal plant can be replaced with something else and instantly, all those electric vehicles now change how they contribute to pollutants in a very desirable fashion. This is why it makes sense to convert to electric no matter *what* kind of plant your region is actually using (and it's rarely simple as "we're on coal", as power is shared and bought back and forth all the time.)
Remember Nuclear is big & scary
Yes, the uninformed and statistically unskilled are unnecessarily scared of nuclear. That is one of our more serious problems. Very hard to fix with the hysteria that is extant. If they understood that coal plants put out more radiation than nuclear plants do, and coal mines kill more people than nuclear plant accidents do, and coal mining does more environmental damage than uranium mining (not to mention thorium-based designs), and that today's nuclear designs are not those used at Chernobyl, and that the placing nuclear power plants on earthquake prone spots (like Japan) where Tsunamis can get at them (like Japan) are not good design practices, not to mention a few other basic, but important ideas... they might straighten out. Getting that info to them in a form they can understand... very tough. Plus, there are people who just love a fuckarow; they love to scream about things that make other people's eyes go wide, and giving up a prized preconception like "nuclear is bad and scary" is hard for some.
Solar only works in part of the country, and for less than 50% of the day
Solar can be stored. There is pumped storage at numerous scales (pumped storage can store any type of energy, not just solar, btw, as can most storage techniques), molten salt, flywheels, and even batteries (though the latter... ugh.) There's even a plan for using the anticipated at-home EV charging stations as distributed storage - load 'em up with any excess, feed back to the grid when convenient. Me, I'm a huge fan of pumped storage. Environmentally
Awww, did I hurt da moderator's widdle xian feewings? Do you feel the need to repress other people's sexuality, and you're frustrated by the Intertubes? Poor, poor moderator. Here, mod this down too. Have a blast. Slashdot moderation is totally broken anyway, silly person.
Slashdot Mirror
lol -- what are you smoking?
I care about the Apple restrictions -- they bother me quite a bit, in fact. As do some of their upgrade policies and the iPad's intentionally limited hardware connectivity (no memory slot, no really effective USB connection.) But those things don't bother me nearly as much as the difference in usability and apps between the Androids (I have Kindle E-ink and Fire devices, a recent Droid, and an enTourage Pocket Edge) and my iPad. The iPad is simply a *way* better device. I use my iPad all the time. All day, every day. The rest generally just take up shelf space.
Perverts. Binary pron is the only respectable pron. "You're the one!" "the power of two!" "Shift a bit left, would you? Ah, that's twice as good..."
Thanks, I'll be here all day. Try the veal.
Not only will it likely last longer, check EBay for resale values on Macbooks. You might be pretty surprised. My windows laptop, same vintage as my Macbook Pro, isn't worth much. My Macbook Pro, however, will earn me a significant amount towards the next version if I were to sell it today. If, that is, I were feeling like I needed to sell it, which I don't, because it's really pretty darned sweet. Illuminated keyboard, fast dual core, lots of ram, fabulous native display and drives a 2nd display without a problem, big drive, all manner of I/O, wifi, bluetooth. And yes, that very tough aluminum case. I often use it to run my software-defined radio in my vehicle, which is a *very* demanding application. Doing the same thing on the supposedly comparable windows laptop - dual core, same ram and clock speed - I get lag and audio gaps; on the Macbook pro, not only does the app run smoothly, I can surf the web via wifi at the same time without glitchery. Part of the advantage is OSX; it does very well at multitasking... but the hardware is frankly awesome, if that's all that matters to you (I've bought my last Windows product, myself, and quit doing Windows development... the bottom line is the Mac is better in almost every way, the one exception being Apple, which is a company I think of as just as "evil" as Microsoft... just a bunch of dickheads. But they do make the best gear.)
Well... looking at your slashID, I know you're not new here, so I guess you've just not been paying attention? lol.
The definitive answer to your question
A "summation box", or an antenna-phasing unit, is a device with two antenna inputs, and the ability to allow you to (a) vary the phase of one of the antennas, (b) adjust the amplitude of both of them, then (c) add them together before passing them along to the receiver. This allows you, with suitable choice of antennas, to either null out local noise, or interfering signals coming in from quite a distance. They work best with signals coming in groundwave, as skywave signals have a tendency to change phase rapidly and often.
QRM is man made interference such as signals emitted from wall-wart switching power supplies. QRN is noise from natural sources, such as lightning crashes.
Software defined radio. Makes analog radios look, sound and feel like the stone age.
Nuff' said. :o)
With the condition the bands have been in the last few years -- during the long solar minimum -- I don't see how you can say that at all. I've been listening too, and while there has been much less to hear, there are very good reasons why. Last weekend's sweepstakes contest brought lots of signals, but very few of them at robust levels here in Montana. We're still a ways from 1990's-class propagation even on 20 meters.
Warming. Good grief. Well, maybe we'd better be a little more specific. Heat sequestration based on IR absorption is based on physics. So are insolation differentials based upon the presence of IR absorption zones. Those are rather simple ideas. However, generalizing them into "the globe will warm" is based on assumptions not backed by either experience (no such historical data) or models that work; because both the physics of, and the inputs to, of atmospheric circulation, temperature modulation, ocean absorption, moderating effects on that, biosphere activity, human activity, the evap/precip cycle, technological change, social change, and a hundred other things are unknown in detail sufficient to predict much of anything.
What we do know, and I mean actually for sure, is that we -- meaning humankind -- are putting out more CO2 than ever before, and so we'd probably better back off in case that does nudge the ecosystem into instability one way or another. But that's about it.
And no, dude, the models suck horse's ass. The temperatures today are NOT what they were predicted to be; the last ten years do NOT show warming; the seas have NOT risen as predicted; extreme weather has NOT come to pass as predicted; and so on. If you -- anyone -- makes a climate model that works, it'll predict the bloody climate, and events will match the predictions. They don't do that. Ergo: The. Models. Don't. Work.
Just as you can't get a weather prediction that goes out more than a few days by sampling data that is missing many significant inputs, you can't get a climate prediction that goes out any worthy distance by sampling data that is missing many significant inputs. And statistics are both incredibly tricky and widely misunderstood; they're the wrong place to turn when your models are shitty in the first place, which is definitely the case here. That's also why on the very page you point to, the climate prediction wanders all around what actually happens, but never actually manages to predict the climate.
What you call a model that "actually works very well" is shown on that very page to be predicting huge rises where instead, the climate takes a huge fall, and so on... happens all along the graph. This is a strong indicator of a model that is correcting itself with the data in hand at the target point; not a model that is actually predicting. If the model *worked*, all it would need as input would be the weather data from 1850, and it would provide you with the climate results from then until today, with no more input than changes in man-made effects, which are otherwise unpredictable -- and that's part of the reason why projecting any curve into the future is an exercise in futility. We don't -- in fact, can't -- know what tomorrow will bring in terms of human action and technology. Predicting the future in a system like that is impossible.
I assure you, we'd know it if we had climate models that work. Just the way we'd know it if we had weather models that worked. So far, we have neither.
And no, I'm not saying weather == climate. Don't even go there.
The concern comes when people try to point at the long term data and claim that this shows that CO2 causes heating. That's not been demonstrated. Also, on the page you link to, the claim that it causes additional heating at the lag time is not verified -- even hinted at -- by the heat curve, which doesn't change in character when CO2 begins to rise. The point was, and remains, that we can't look back for evidence of CO2-caused warming, because there are no such events shown in the historical data.
What we have right now is an idea unconfirmed by subsequent or prior events. The models don't work. This means we need more work on the models. As I said, we should probably cut back on CO2; the rationale for that is simply that we're making a lot more than usual, and we don't know what may happen as a result. We do know that in the past, CO2 has been high, as have temperatures (also low) in the normal course of events.
What has me encouraged here are the sheer number of people working on battery improvement that are showing promise in the lab (and the slow, but steady, increase of power capacity in the ultracap sector.) I honestly do think it's a given that we're about to make some significant jumps in battery capabilities.
I also keep in mind that because of patents, legal issues and lack of industrial capacity in the US, initial production cycles are stretching waaaay out. We're ok, we have several not-new vehicles, and are perfectly ready to buy EVs to replace them, but won't have to for probably ten years or perhaps even longer.
We need dependable range; I live 300 miles from the nearest city worthy of the name (and [barely] worthy of visiting.) My "buy now" criteria for the main family vehicle is to be able to make that trip in something built like an SUV, with all lights on, heater and audio system blasting, at an average speed of about 85 mph, without being at all concerned about running out of juice. And I want recharges that'll go as fast as the power supply allows. Although price isn't an issue for us, those are still very tough metrics. So in my case, patience is called for.
I'd also like to have a fun, blast-around muscle EV that is built to American size expectations (IOW, not a tiny little go-cart like the Tesla... pretty as it is, it's still about the size of an overfed mouse.) Once the critical components are available, might even build that one myself.
No, I encourage all to speak, and here on Slashdot, I read at -1 so I can read everything everyone says. I just think some of the things people say are funny, and that whole "there's more to life than sexual basics" was one of those. When one has "good sexual basics" going on, assuming food and shelter are covered, one generally has excellent reason to regret doing anything else at all.
No, it'll still be no more than bad SF. Because the earth isn't "the garden of Eden" and it never was.
Money. Plain and simple.
Also, genetic engineering is coming... one almost immediate consequence of this will probably be no more stupid babies, followed shortly by no more stupid adults. I rather expect that in its turn to put an end to a number of problems all at once: religion, overpopulation, faux news, racial prejudice, and political correctness, to name but a few.
You figure they're going to get on a camel, tie the nuke between the humps, and ride it over here? Seriously, even if they do develop nukes, the only reason they could possibly be a threat to us is if we let them be by not maintaining radiological monitoring at/near our borders. And we're not going to do that, because this threat is not new (at least, if you don't limit the field to the middle east.)
Face it... they are going to get nukes. And when they do, they will use them. On Israel. Probably immediately. While shrieking "Allah Akbar!" And Israel will respond in kind. And we'll finally have to seriously pay attention to developing non-petroleum energy here in the USA. (but the good news, such as it is, is that we can channel the money that used to go to middle east foreign and military aid into non-petroleum energy development.)
The thing about nukes is delivery isn't a matter of calling UPS or Fedex. ICBMs are a technical challenge of a higher order than nukes (the "difficulty" of fission weapons is mainly about refining materials to a particular degree of purity... the rest can be done by any competent machine shop by any decent physics nerd... fusion weapons -- crowd pleasers -- are something else entirely), likewise, radiologically shielded aircraft that are capable of intercontinental travel while carrying these very heavy objects... very tough, technologically speaking. And while they may hate us, they hate Israel more. A lot more. That's where the nukes are going to go. You watch.
lol. You wouldn't say that if you'd ever had high quality sex with an attractive, passionate, and skilled partner. Also, your hand doesn't count.
Yes -- here's the ice core data showing it.
Right. I said that: "obviously the plants making lots and lots [of CO2]" (they get it from the air and make O.)
Yes, I completely understand. However, I *also* understand that the previous climate is not evidence that can be used to support prediction of what will happen. This is new theory, without prior evidence in the form of similar events to back it up... so we're in the unenviable place of having ONLY models to look at in order to shore up these ideas, and the problem is that so far -- the models don't work well. It's quite typical for mid-latitude predictions to be "on" but then the poles are way out of whack, or vice-versa, and consequently on average, the whole answer is wrong. And we can't test these models in ANY way by doing anything but letting them run, looking at the output, and then waiting on the climate. To put it in another form, we can only wait and see what the climate does in order to see if a model works, or not. This in turn means that we should reduce CO2 (which I also said: "yes, we should reduce our CO2 emissions") as a preemptive measure simply because we know we're making more than is usually around, and we should be cautious of changes we make to our ecosphere, but there's zero indication about how fast and hard we really ought to go about that. This, combined with the fact that technology is at the very moment in the process of bringing us significant CO2 reductions, and oil too because of supply issues, puts me in a "do we really want to (further) injure our economy for known non-working models?" kind of outlook. I'm open to good science, but I'm not particularly open to speculation driven by broken models. I'm also pretty open to the idea of living in a more tropical world, which is also one of the potential outcomes here. By fighting this CO2 increase, we MIGHT be shooting ourselves right in the foot. We REALLY do not know. More work is called for, and I think that's happening, so I'm pretty happy, really.
Nonsense. It's patently evident on ice core graphs. You have no idea what you're talking about.
No. I'm just someone who is interested in the science. Look at the ice core data. CO2 increases *clearly* lag temperature increases. So you can call names all you want, but there are the facts, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about them except continue to LIE.
Yes, clearly. I'm ignoring the science. You bet. Idiot. You're just wasting everyone's time with your name calling and baiting. Piss off.
Sigh. There is no "poison gas cloud." For crying out loud. This is just the kind of sensationalist nonsense that gets people stirred up about nothing.
Lots of CO2 means happy plants. Lots of happy plants means lots of O. CO2 increases in the atmosphere lead to a LITTLE bit of increased heat retention, which, mind you, is limited in how far it can go -- it's not an infinite curve you can extrapolate into biosphere extinction. It takes a LOT more CO2 to increase a LITTLE bit of IR-caused heat storage. Which leads to faster evap/precip cycles, which cools things better. ALl this happening over perhaps a couple centuries, during which we will no doubt move away from gasoline and diesel for several reasons. It's a money farm and a distraction. No more than that. Climate does change. Get over it. It always has. It always will.
"Poison gas cloud." For crying out loud.
No. It means it uses less than 1/3rd the power. First, it's way more efficient. So for the same miles traveled, the EV uses less power, period. What that 1/3 range means is that batteries don't store as much energy per cubic foot as gasoline or diesel fuel does, that's all. And that is probably about to change anyway.
But you're wrong. Most electrics will recharge at night, when most of the grid's capacity is wasted. We don't need new power plants at all. If we need anything, it'll be heavier wiring in some places, that's all, because residential areas that pull power like industrial areas aren't really part of the current design.
No, they won't. For one thing, the power EV's use is much more efficiently created by power plant turbines than with individual engines. This means that considerably less fuel is burned -- even taking into account line and charging losses -- to run electric vehicles than gasoline or diesel vehicles. For another, an EV only makes CO2 while the centralized power plant does. Switch the power plant -- a much easier proposition than changing all the cars yet again -- and instantly, all those EVs become less, or zero, polluters. Put a petrol powered vehicle on the road, it'll make pollutants until the day it is taken off the road permanently.
First, your facts are wrong, which is why you haven't caught on yet. Read a little more - or just ask questions, I'll help -- and you'll see. Second, while some of the electricity comes from coal, the thing is, if you have a petrol burning vehicle, it will *always* make CO2 and other pollutants. If you have an electric vehicle, and let's say it's fed by a coal plant, then the polluting, radiation-emitting coal plant can be replaced with something else and instantly, all those electric vehicles now change how they contribute to pollutants in a very desirable fashion. This is why it makes sense to convert to electric no matter *what* kind of plant your region is actually using (and it's rarely simple as "we're on coal", as power is shared and bought back and forth all the time.)
Yes, the uninformed and statistically unskilled are unnecessarily scared of nuclear. That is one of our more serious problems. Very hard to fix with the hysteria that is extant. If they understood that coal plants put out more radiation than nuclear plants do, and coal mines kill more people than nuclear plant accidents do, and coal mining does more environmental damage than uranium mining (not to mention thorium-based designs), and that today's nuclear designs are not those used at Chernobyl, and that the placing nuclear power plants on earthquake prone spots (like Japan) where Tsunamis can get at them (like Japan) are not good design practices, not to mention a few other basic, but important ideas... they might straighten out. Getting that info to them in a form they can understand... very tough. Plus, there are people who just love a fuckarow; they love to scream about things that make other people's eyes go wide, and giving up a prized preconception like "nuclear is bad and scary" is hard for some.
Solar can be stored. There is pumped storage at numerous scales (pumped storage can store any type of energy, not just solar, btw, as can most storage techniques), molten salt, flywheels, and even batteries (though the latter... ugh.) There's even a plan for using the anticipated at-home EV charging stations as distributed storage - load 'em up with any excess, feed back to the grid when convenient. Me, I'm a huge fan of pumped storage. Environmentally
Awww, did I hurt da moderator's widdle xian feewings? Do you feel the need to repress other people's sexuality, and you're frustrated by the Intertubes? Poor, poor moderator. Here, mod this down too. Have a blast. Slashdot moderation is totally broken anyway, silly person.