Most peer reviewed papers/researches are behind a pay wall. They are not. Basically everything scientists write can be downloaded for free at the research institutions they work at. Just google.
and those predictions have been proving accurate to within the margins of error ever since Just barely. The actual measuring right now are always scratching and sometimes exceeding the upper limit of those "error bars".
They've found plant fossils in Antarctica. Yes, and you never have heard about continental drift?
I leave it up to you to figure why a continent that is now about half a year at night time and half a year at day time once had "tropical" (oh shit that was to much of a hint) forests.
The lack of natural vegetation, especially if it impacts the worlds large forest areas to any great degree, will also impact the world's oxygen supply meaning we're going to have to figure out a way to extract oxygen for ourselves That is nonsense. The atmosphere has about 28% oxygen. And less than half a percent of CO2.
Those 28% oxygen are not "manufactured" from that half percent of CO2.
But the human-greenhouse-gas-induced part is global climate change, not the "small localized changes". Nevertheless it leads in extreme short times, as my example, to extreme problems which are localized on a small area. And the displacement of 10 million people, a majour war: is not a small problem.
The greenhouse effect warming isn't going to melt the Greenhouse ice in "a couple of years". You have problem in reading? I said "when push comes to shove" and a vulcano or other unexpected event simply lets the ice slide into the ocean, then it will slide into the ocean in a very short time. Not over centuries but a few mere years. The ice has not to melt to increase sea levels. It only needs to be no longer on the land... I thought that was obvious.
Neither grapes nor olives are among the staples supplying the world with food. Olives are. And the point is: people go into poverty and have to migrate or die. You surely can find examples about "staple food", too.
I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. I was addressing the statement "we're doomed." Yes, and you are not informed enough to realize: yes we are basically doomed. Reactions to the situation have to be swift now.
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect. Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
Usually I did back end software in Java (power companies, and internet companies). Before that I did very graphical software in C++ (CAD/geo information).
My code made the power company I worked for not going bankrupt and made them sell a few 100 billions in electricity the last 10 years.
Well, I'm working with Edge and Chrome in software development. The "Developer Tools" in Edge look exactly the same as in Chrome and Safari. I check tomorrow again, I doubt there is even a single pixel difference. So I assumed Edge was based on WebKit, too.
This is dumb to even think about until batteries improve dramatically. Actually we already have plenty of electric powered hobbyist air crafts. So the "idea" is not dumb. It might be technically not possible to do cost effective electric powered flights in 10 years, but we are pretty close to be able to do that for short range flights.
The solar roof installed on my workplace (a large school) costs tens of thousands and won't pay for itself in 20 years. Then the school got ripped of, it should pay itself in about 3 years.
It isn't even warrantied for that long. Then you life in the wrong country and should demand better laws. In Europe such installations have a warranty of 20 - 30 years: by law.
have solar cells without making ridiculous amounts of toxic waste. Production of solar cells does not produce "ridiculous amounts of toxic waste"... no idea where this myth is coming from.
BTW: traditional PV cells are produced in the same way as computer chips, CPUs, memory, and SSDs.
There never was a defect/bug report in my carrier blaming the defect on me, except the one I mentioned (that is _production code_). And as I said before: most of the time I worked the last 30 years in teams that had ZERO bugs in production. The issue trackers etc. prove that.
The severity "showstopper" or "minor" has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The total change might take a century. As in: average temperature is ow X and in 100 years Y. Or sea level is now L1 and in 100 years L2.
But there are small, localized, changes as in Syria/Iraq, that happen over the course of 3 to 5 years.
Then again, if for them reason push comes to shove, as with the ice on Greenland (a Vulcano, e.g.) and the whole ice drops into the ocean over the course of a couple of years, then mankind has a problem, a serious one. One is for sure: the seal level rise won't be a constant X mm per year, but change rapidly due to "weather" or other reasons we don't think about now.
Same for agriculture areas that suddenly, over the course of a few years, get wiped out. Even if they can be "reused" for other fruits/crop. You can not switch from grapes to olive oil in a course of 10 years...
Or we have a runaway effect because of melting perma frost and releases CH4...
There are thousands of things thinkable that can turn extremely bad in an surprisingly short time period.
But: likely you mean with "mankind" the few people rich enough to relocate any time... those might survive, until they meet a mob thinking different.
I worked in plenty of organizations that only shipped bug free software.
I personally had only one single bug (created by myself) delivered into production the last 30 years.
However the last years I often worked in organizations that unfortunately accepted bugs going into production... probably a reason why I don't work for them anymore... it is just to annoying to have a stupid non working process and can not use the tools you want etc.
My question is: at what speed approximately it becomes a "set of protons and electrons" instead of its normal shape? At none? To what speed it can accelerate without losing its shape? As close to c as you want, why do you think your ship would lose its shape?
"For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible," reports Quartz. "The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half." Quartz reports It actually is not fundamental. And if people come up with the law of thermodynamics it would be nice to mention which of the 3 or 4 laws they refered to. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or perhaps a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only law of thermodynamics that is remotely elevant for batteries is the second one, simplified and summarized as: "entropy will increase over time". In a battery that means the small charged particles are at some point to widely distributed over the substrat that they can not hold a charge anymore.
And exactly this problem the team of Mr. Goodenough and Braga is tackling with a solid state substrat, because there the ions/charged particles have it much harder to distribute themselves over the whole sustrat.
The rest of the "break through", like charging time and charge, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with thermodynamics.
Slashdot Mirror
What else except CO2 increase by burning fossile fuels is going on?
I'm not aware of anything else, please enlighten me.
China does not have such "frozen wasteland".
I suggest to look on a map.
Most peer reviewed papers/researches are behind a pay wall.
They are not.
Basically everything scientists write can be downloaded for free at the research institutions they work at.
Just google.
will enter another ice age... in 25,000 - 50,000 years.
FTFY.
With current CO2 levels we wont have an "ice age" ever again.
and those predictions have been proving accurate to within the margins of error ever since
Just barely. The actual measuring right now are always scratching and sometimes exceeding the upper limit of those "error bars".
You must have a weird definition of "rich"
A university professor is by no means, rich. At least not by my definition.
They've found plant fossils in Antarctica.
Yes, and you never have heard about continental drift?
I leave it up to you to figure why a continent that is now about half a year at night time and half a year at day time once had "tropical" (oh shit that was to much of a hint) forests.
The lack of natural vegetation, especially if it impacts the worlds large forest areas to any great degree, will also impact the world's oxygen supply meaning we're going to have to figure out a way to extract oxygen for ourselves
That is nonsense.
The atmosphere has about 28% oxygen.
And less than half a percent of CO2.
Those 28% oxygen are not "manufactured" from that half percent of CO2.
But the human-greenhouse-gas-induced part is global climate change, not the "small localized changes".
Nevertheless it leads in extreme short times, as my example, to extreme problems which are localized on a small area. And the displacement of 10 million people, a majour war: is not a small problem.
The greenhouse effect warming isn't going to melt the Greenhouse ice in "a couple of years". ... I thought that was obvious.
You have problem in reading? I said "when push comes to shove" and a vulcano or other unexpected event simply lets the ice slide into the ocean, then it will slide into the ocean in a very short time. Not over centuries but a few mere years. The ice has not to melt to increase sea levels. It only needs to be no longer on the land
Neither grapes nor olives are among the staples supplying the world with food.
Olives are. And the point is: people go into poverty and have to migrate or die. You surely can find examples about "staple food", too.
I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. I was addressing the statement "we're doomed."
Yes, and you are not informed enough to realize: yes we are basically doomed. Reactions to the situation have to be swift now.
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect.
Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
Never made such metrics.
Usually I did back end software in Java (power companies, and internet companies). Before that I did very graphical software in C++ (CAD/geo information).
My code made the power company I worked for not going bankrupt and made them sell a few 100 billions in electricity the last 10 years.
However they never payed me properly for that ;D
Well,
I'm working with Edge and Chrome in software development.
The "Developer Tools" in Edge look exactly the same as in Chrome and Safari. I check tomorrow again, I doubt there is even a single pixel difference. So I assumed Edge was based on WebKit, too.
This is dumb to even think about until batteries improve dramatically.
Actually we already have plenty of electric powered hobbyist air crafts.
So the "idea" is not dumb. It might be technically not possible to do cost effective electric powered flights in 10 years, but we are pretty close to be able to do that for short range flights.
The solar roof installed on my workplace (a large school) costs tens of thousands and won't pay for itself in 20 years.
Then the school got ripped of, it should pay itself in about 3 years.
It isn't even warrantied for that long.
Then you life in the wrong country and should demand better laws. In Europe such installations have a warranty of 20 - 30 years: by law.
have solar cells without making ridiculous amounts of toxic waste. ... no idea where this myth is coming from.
Production of solar cells does not produce "ridiculous amounts of toxic waste"
BTW: traditional PV cells are produced in the same way as computer chips, CPUs, memory, and SSDs.
You are redefining "premature" to early.
We all are talking about "premature", you are not ;D
There never was a defect/bug report in my carrier blaming the defect on me, except the one I mentioned (that is _production code_).
And as I said before: most of the time I worked the last 30 years in teams that had ZERO bugs in production. The issue trackers etc. prove that.
The severity "showstopper" or "minor" has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The total change might take a century. As in: average temperature is ow X and in 100 years Y. Or sea level is now L1 and in 100 years L2.
But there are small, localized, changes as in Syria/Iraq, that happen over the course of 3 to 5 years.
Then again, if for them reason push comes to shove, as with the ice on Greenland (a Vulcano, e.g.) and the whole ice drops into the ocean over the course of a couple of years, then mankind has a problem, a serious one. One is for sure: the seal level rise won't be a constant X mm per year, but change rapidly due to "weather" or other reasons we don't think about now.
Same for agriculture areas that suddenly, over the course of a few years, get wiped out. Even if they can be "reused" for other fruits/crop. You can not switch from grapes to olive oil in a course of 10 years ...
Or we have a runaway effect because of melting perma frost and releases CH4 ...
There are thousands of things thinkable that can turn extremely bad in an surprisingly short time period.
But: likely you mean with "mankind" the few people rich enough to relocate any time ... those might survive, until they meet a mob thinking different.
Unless you know it is only called once after the software is deployed.
Or you know you have to ship in a few days, and writing it "perfect" takes longer than those days left.
Should I continue? I probably find 200 reasons why "premature optimization" is as unpleasant as other "premature ..." things.
I worked in plenty of organizations that only shipped bug free software.
I personally had only one single bug (created by myself) delivered into production the last 30 years.
However the last years I often worked in organizations that unfortunately accepted bugs going into production ... probably a reason why I don't work for them anymore ... it is just to annoying to have a stupid non working process and can not use the tools you want etc.
Falsification is proving.
It is just a silly word with a meaning counterintuitive to its spelling.
Blame the guy who "invented" it.
My question is: at what speed approximately it becomes a "set of protons and electrons" instead of its normal shape? At none?
To what speed it can accelerate without losing its shape? As close to c as you want, why do you think your ship would lose its shape?
I rarely use GPS/navigation (my car has none for instance).
So except when on sea I always have north up.
And in this particular case, you calculate the end price in your mind quicker than you can type into a calculator.
Edges HTML engine seems to be WebKit.
"For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible," reports Quartz. "The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half." Quartz reports
It actually is not fundamental. And if people come up with the law of thermodynamics it would be nice to mention which of the 3 or 4 laws they refered to. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or perhaps a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only law of thermodynamics that is remotely elevant for batteries is the second one, simplified and summarized as: "entropy will increase over time". In a battery that means the small charged particles are at some point to widely distributed over the substrat that they can not hold a charge anymore.
And exactly this problem the team of Mr. Goodenough and Braga is tackling with a solid state substrat, because there the ions/charged particles have it much harder to distribute themselves over the whole sustrat.
The rest of the "break through", like charging time and charge, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with thermodynamics.