A) yes. But that is a marginal amount of forest, considering the remains. B) perhaps you want to read up on this... C) No it is not. The concern is if we have a melting perma frost areas or other methane sources that could increase the greenhouse effect of our CO2 in a couple of years (less than 10) by a factor of 2 or even 3. THAT is the concern. Regardless how much CH4 we get into the atmosphere, if we can prevent a complete runaway effect, it will settle down to "normal" levels rather quickly again. So neither cow farts nor rotting trees in a flooded hydro plant area are of any concern at all. Pick a random US hydro plant. I bet you alone produced more green house gases than the flooding of the area did. Oh, make it more easy, just pick the biggest one. A single person in the USA or Europe still produces more CO2 equivalent than the rotting of the trees in the whole area cause in CH4!!!
1)So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels Yes.
2)Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. You did not make such an assertion. You asked others to find proof for "1)"... hinting they can't. I pointed out: they can't. That does not make "your assertion" true, and/or does not make the fact go away that we have already migration streams due to global warming;D Which is obviously caused by burning fossile fuels.
Now, who's the idiot? So the idiot is still you:D Reason: demanding unprovable proves for your idiotic ideas.
By "existing" the tree is not a sink but a deposit.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree: I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with. I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
There is no difference between scenario 1) and 2)
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
We get away from base load plants because daily production of power is already approaching the percentil of what traditionally was base load.
Baseload in Germany is 40%, renewable contribution to the grid is since a few years on a similar level.
Peak even was around 75%... 75% of the energy needed at that day was produced by wind and solar and other renewable means.
So we are removing nuclear and brown coal base load plants as well as stone coal/hard coal load following plants.
But I'm not sure if I understand your comment correctly, did you want to say something else?
Point is, with increasing renewable capacity that basically "feeds into the grid regardless of demand" we can remove base load plants that traditionally were used to "feed into the grid regardless of demand"... just saying.
If you were trained in thermodynamics in an engineering or science program, you should consult your course provider because they failed to teach the single most important aspect of the subject: its generality Well, in my world we use to turn it around and say: you should consult your teacher again (but that would mean he has to consult his teacher again) to understand that every "school" of physics is only a partial view on the world and all rules in that "school" only apply to that "view" or "aspect" of the world of physics.
E.g. relativity theory or quantum mechanics have nothing to do with thermo dynamics... nor has "friction"... friction is not discussed or modeled in thermo dynamics. It is discussed in "mechanics" with two simple laws, that don't show up in therm dynamics or are connected in any way to thermodynamics.
All energy transformations can be cast in terms of the relationship between heat No they cant. The conversation of electric fields into magnetic fields or potential energy versus kinetic energy in an orbiting body have nothing to do with heat...
The problem is pretty simple: the USA main stream education is simply to bad to grasp something as simple as thermodynamics beyond future rama quotes like "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics"
But feel free to express the simple problem of having two water basins, 100m height difference, pumping water uphill and letting it flow downhill, using turbines and pumps, with the laws of thermodynamics.
Goooood luck..... you can use arbitrary numbers for your "thought experiment".
Ah: the only universal law thermodynamics gives us is: entropy will increase over time... but that has nothing to do with pumped storage either:D unless you wan't to calculate how long it takes that a cube of sugar, put into the lower basin, shows traces of sugar in the upper basin. Or how long it takes that this cube is distributed evenly between the two basins...
(Hint: unlike you I have a degree in physics, just noting)
This applies to you and C++. You clearly don't know C++ well enough to make your judgments.
I don't know much about C++14 standard.
But I consider myself a kind of expert for C++ before that time, after all I programmed from 1989 till 1999 nearly only in C++, switching slowly to Java from 1997 on, or was it 1995, don't remember.
Also, I don't hate Java. I'm kinda meh on it. I guess I mixed you up with a parent of our discussion.
Well, C++ can be very productive. I basically had made the same statement 15 years ago with reversed positions of Java versus C++. But at that time, I had not heard about the powerful Java IDEs and used vi and commandline javac for building my projects. I actually stumbled into funny "testing problems" due to the fact that the file system is not case sensitive and I had the "compiled class files" as well as the created *.jar file on the $CLASSPATH... it ran in the test environment, but the jar file alone did not run, because the class files in the jar file had wrong capitalizations.
After all if you can use templates (which requires "someone" has provided them already) you can be quite productive.
I wrote about 700k lines C++ myself... a single project, CAD system for geo informations. wrote a subset of the STL myself (was not named that way at that time) for myself because the code available, I think it was from an engineer at HP, did not compile on the compilers at that time available on Windows 3.11 or Slackware 0.9. I actually used Slackware only to use RCS for version control, mounting the Windows partition and used RCS on the sources.
How much C++ I wrote otherwise I can not judge as I never "wc'ed" it:D
I'm tempted to go back to C++ for iOS development but now as Swift is out, I doubt I will do that. Ofc. I would use Qt and not the Apple libraries... in C++ I mean.
So, where we usually learn thermodynamics in terms of temperatures, volume, and pressure the rules apply equally to energy in all it's forms. That is wrong.
In plenty of systems there is no "entropy" involved. E.g. a satellite orbiting earth outside of the friction potential of earth atmosphere will orbit there for ever.
A photon hitting an electron will potentially quantum leap that electron in a higher orbit, and if the electron decides it is time to come back home, the exact same quantum of energy will be emitted as a "new" photon again.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems, not just heat engines.... As confused and uninformed as you may be... Funny. But wrong. The laws of thermodynamics where "defined" (not discovered) when people actually did not know much about physics. Very sad that "smart" guys like you still are unable to grasp physics.
No one doing physics is using a law of thermodynamics to launch a rocket into space or design a new ship or tries to discover a second earth in the sky, why? Because the laws don't apply there.
Next time you want to tell me the laws of hydropneumatics or mechanics or friction all apply in "insert your part of physics" as well?
There is a reason why we don't have a GUT.. because, well for starters: all theories we have are specialized on small parts of physics.
And now again: The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems, not just heat engines.... As confused and uninformed as you may be... I want to pump 1000kg of water uphill over a hight difference of 100m and need to use a pipe at an angle of 45 degrees from the down hill reservoir to the uphill reservoir. How much energy will that cost me? How much energy will I lose to "thermodynamics"? Please feel free to show me your calculation with formulas coming from the "laws of thermodynamics".
Hint: just don't bother with it, unless you want to learn something. You can not describe or solve that problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
Ah, as a side note: unlike you, I'm a) not a native english speaker b) have a degree in physics
Erm, if you say "Americas" I guess you mean both continents.
I don't think that 40M people on both in stone age times are implausible. After all "stone age", "bronze age" only means what tools they used. Or in other words, what technology they had.
The americas are still in our days the least populated areas of the world, you could quadruple the population and a casual by passer would not see a difference. Keep in mind: more than 50% of the produced food in developed countries is thrown away.
No idea what you mean with: Comparing American natives to bronze age Europe is being generous. I assume you don't know much about either "tribes";D
Trick question: what was the biggest bronze age/iron age empire? Hint: unless you have a deep knowledge you never figure, and no, it is not on wikipedia:D Big as in spread over the landscape, not necessarily big as in max of population.
Point however is, netflix is just a name in the headline. There are plenty of EU only streaming services, like ZATOO that arbitrarily block content for no reason (there is no copyright or other invloved).
A) it does not matter, hydro plants or instalations dont destroy anything. B) forests, as the wood living three hold CO2 in the sense that trees are mostly contain C (and water), but killing a continent of trees only releases CO2 equivalent to that amount if wood, and jas no further impact on the CO2 balance of the planet. C) learn to read. CH4 decays, unlike CO2. So if we produce suddenly a lot of CH4 we only have a temporary problem. It is not a long term problem like CO2. As long as we have no runaway effect as in perma frost melting or other scenarios where an uncontrollable unmeasureable amount of CH4 suddenly bursts into the atmosphere, it does not matter at all if we convert a wood into CH4... regardless of its stronger greenhouse gas effect than CO2!
Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change). There is no institution/agency in the world that is measuring habitable (you mean farmable?) landmass on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis.
So your demands for 'proofs' are idiotic. But I know, you know that:)
No it is not weather, because: A) it happens every year since decades, but 20 to 30 years go we had winters like you have, hint: latitude B) the birds are supposed to have flown south, as they used to do when we had real winters
Both predictions have not failed. As your parents pointed out. If you need links then I suggest to use google or offer some money, I'm not doing 'work' for you for free that you could do your own.
Surprising that you are running around in the world and can not be bothered to notice what is happening around you.
I beg to differ. Idiots like you have no place in this discussion. A) it does not matter if climate change is based 95% or 99.9% based on burning fossile fuels. B) there is no such agency running around and asking people: Inteviewer: why did you leave your country? was it climate change or any other reason? Refugee1: no I want to exploit scandinavian and/or german welfare! Refugee2: no, I left because my parents are starving, so are my siblings, I want to work haed and sent money home, so they have a better life! Interviewer: so the fact that they are starving is not related to climate change? Refugee1: the climate changed quite drastcally, my parents want me to work, but, well call me lazy... I have better things to do with my time. Refugee2: Food prices are soaring, harvests are bad. No idea about climate change. It might be american propaganda, they want our land and want to buy it cheap, perhaps. Interviewer: so climate change is a fact or a myth? Refugee1: fact for me, as I now live without working in Finnland. Refugee2: No idea, I have more urgent matters to think about, my starving sister for one and my mother in hospital for another. I have a PhD from 'insert unknown arabic univeristy' in city design and landscaping but can not find a job, because everyone claims my PhD is fake! Interviewer: back to climate change, did anyone of you leave your country because of climate change? Or di you know anyone who did? Can you tell me some names to interview? Refugee1:... silence Refugee2:... shakes head
Actually all points against hydro you make are wrong: A) the energy source with the most devestating loss of land is nuclear energy, due to open pit mining of uranium. Oh! That does not happen in your country but in another country far far away...
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
C) while methan is released (and a given size of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbondioxide) the methan is destroyed by UV rays and dimishes rather quickly... in other words the livestock we breed increases the total amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, but it is not a growing effect, it is static. Every belch or poop they make is sooner or later disintegrated by UV radiation. Or to explain it in other words: putting CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the percentage of CO2 untill we stop doing it. Having simple CH4 sources like a random hydro plant (you kno wit does stop its ill habit after all the sunken green stuff has rotted, right?) or a certain amount of lifestock only increase the 'constant level'... it basically is in an equilibrium of decay of 'old' CH4 and newly produced one.
I guess you find statistics on the net for that quite easy.
Language as in syntax is similar between Java and C++, but as you hate Java you never will figure why the productivity is so much higher in it, so I give you a few hints: First: the huge amount of open source libraries and frameworks And those all work around a few concepts that the Java platform has and partly to a lesser degree also the.Net platform a) byte code and a VM to run it b) from a) comes introspection/reflection which makes the above mentioned frameworks possible c) from a) comes byte code morphing and stuff like AOP (yes, there is NOW 20 years later an AOP framework/compiler for C++), that is point cuts, insertion of arbitrary byte code at such points, e.g. for transaction handling d) serialization/deserialization e) very simple remoting f) refactoring, Java is easier to parse due to lack of header files and macros, so refactoring on big projects can be done with the IDE g) "forward code engineering" due to f) I simply write code as a SmallTalk programmer would. Non existing method calls I purposefully write get red underlined. The IDE asks if I want to fix that to an existing method name or if I want to introduce a new method in the affected class. With a click of a key or the mouse I do that and I'm coding the new method "in the other file" and with another click I'm back. Same for method arguments. Same for standard "patterns" as generating delegations to a set of methods of an attribute. h) annotations that support the points above and make the frameworks possible i) containers like for EJBs or simple Spring or Nano or Pico
Database access, concurrency, networking: all those things are super simple in Java and require manual work in C++
Python has many of the benefits of Java, too, but no byte code morphing and I'm not sure how much introspection/reflection can be done in python but on the other hand you can do a lot of meta programming in it, too.
If you don't like Java then use Groovy or Scala... all the points above apply to them with more options in expressiveness and shorter code.
Ah yes, and meta programming in C++ does not exist besides the decades old "open C++" compiler.
You could not drink surface water because of modern industries poisoning it.
The average live expectancy was low because plenty of people died as children.
Also taking Rome as an example, my fault, means we have to include slaves, which where "burned" especially on farmland and in mines.
If you go out into the Rockies or Apalachians you can drink most surface water untreated... or can clean it with extremely simple means.
If water would be "poisonous" per se, then there would be no animal surviving 30 years or longer. Of course you drink "water flea" and Algae etc. but unless there is a real germ in the water (which basically can only get there from sewage) the water is not by default indigestible or causing harm (I guess you did not serve, or you had learned that;D )
You could not drink surface water from the dawn of civilization and city building to about 1980. Perhaps you should google about ancient water transportation systems... they all transported surface water... untreated btw. Civilizations where build upon them.
I said pumping up water. I did not say "pumping hot water" but perhaps the word "thermo" means something different in your mother language (it is not english, or is it? facepalm)
Not sure if you meant the "1st" or the later introduced "0ths" law of thermodynamics. But you can clearly see: they have nothing to do with pumped storage.
Or in other words, if you meant the "1th" law as mentioned in wikipedia then it clearly supports my point, rofl.
So perhaps you should go back to school?
Yes they do, they ALWAYS apply to physical systems No they don't. They apply to a very special subset of systems in physics. Hint: those are systems that have something to do with "thermo"... go figure what that means.
Wisely I will refrain from debating you as you don't have even a cursory understanding of what you are making such confident assertions about. Every fool thinks that:D Up to you to listen... or as Frank Herbert said: listening to your teacher is called acquiring an education. Well, Padawan, I'm not your teacher... go figure.
And thank you, you don't need to tell me how grids work, I worked in that business about 10 years.
one hour to the next and are REALLY hard to schedule. They are not. They can not be "dispatched", that is waht you mean probably. The scheduling is easy. In "the grid world" I worked in (might be different from your grids as square root of 2 and 3 seems important to you) we use weather reports, or more precisely: "prognosis" systems for wind and solar plants. Accuracy is around +/-5% on a 6 hour forecast and going close to +/-1% for an one hour forecast. Plenty of time to buy or sell power on the spot market or "reschedule" balancing power plants.
Storage doesn't solve the problem because it's too inefficient As I pointed out: storage is efficient to roughly 90%... your other claims regarding it are wrong. A simple coal plant has an efficiency of 42%, same as a nuclear plant. A high tech gas plant is approaching 60% by combining a gas turbine with a traditional steam boiler/turbine. So: storage is far far far more efficient than a power plant. There is a reason Germany has so much pumped storage, long before the "green revolution". It simply makes more sense to store the surplus power of a load following plant for half an hour than ramping it down and ramping it up again in 30 minutes.
but they simply CANNOT replace the capacity we now have In your country? No idea. In my country and rest of Europe we are working to do exactly that. You can rotate in your grave as much as you want about this.
Personally, the ONLY technology that seems like it could, maybe, fix this problem is fusion power. Why? It would just be another insane expensive power source like coal/oil/uranium already is. When Solar and Wind will provide power for nearly free in the foreseeable future. The way how we approach fusion right now, will never work. We need to switch from magnetic confinement to electric fields... but the "power funding industrial complex" likes to waste money on ITER concepts:D
Even if ITER would work, we would need to switch soon to an neutron free fusion process as a ITER reactor would not survive its own neutron production for more than a few months, a year at best.
Considering how much the ITER and other fusion reactors cost and how long it takes to build a "working" (cough cough) reactor there will never be a grid powered by fusion reactors. Germany e.g. can not build 100 fusion reactors per year and decommission them a year after when they are destroyed by their own neutron flux.
However if you want to share your irrational numbers anecdotes, I'm all ear. You never stop learning, at least that is my slogan;D
Well, I had no problem to use Puppet for what it does, and would likely use bash myself. I have a problem with the "reinvented" programming language however.
I like programming languages... if they do something NEW and do it BETTER or with a different PARADIGM than other/older languages. The Puppet language looked more like a missbreed of Ruby/Python/PERL to me though.
Slashdot Mirror
You can citate my older posts on this topic, or of the parent "dunkelfalke" as we both live in this area.
Wow, that was easy again :D
A) yes. But that is a marginal amount of forest, considering the remains. ...
B) perhaps you want to read up on this
C) No it is not. The concern is if we have a melting perma frost areas or other methane sources that could increase the greenhouse effect of our CO2 in a couple of years (less than 10) by a factor of 2 or even 3. THAT is the concern. Regardless how much CH4 we get into the atmosphere, if we can prevent a complete runaway effect, it will settle down to "normal" levels rather quickly again. So neither cow farts nor rotting trees in a flooded hydro plant area are of any concern at all. Pick a random US hydro plant. I bet you alone produced more green house gases than the flooding of the area did. Oh, make it more easy, just pick the biggest one. A single person in the USA or Europe still produces more CO2 equivalent than the rotting of the trees in the whole area cause in CH4!!!
1) So, you're admitting that there is no way to know that anyone has been displaced due to the burning of fossil fuels
Yes.
2) Yet, you're arguing for the validity of making that very assertion. ... hinting they can't. I pointed out: they can't. That does not make "your assertion" true, and/or does not make the fact go away that we have already migration streams due to global warming ;D Which is obviously caused by burning fossile fuels.
You did not make such an assertion.
You asked others to find proof for "1)"
Now, who's the idiot? :D Reason: demanding unprovable proves for your idiotic ideas.
So the idiot is still you
By "existing" the tree is not a sink but a deposit.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree:
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with.
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
There is no difference between scenario 1) and 2)
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
It is completely neglectible.
We get away from base load plants because daily production of power is already approaching the percentil of what traditionally was base load.
Baseload in Germany is 40%, renewable contribution to the grid is since a few years on a similar level.
Peak even was around 75% ... 75% of the energy needed at that day was produced by wind and solar and other renewable means.
So we are removing nuclear and brown coal base load plants as well as stone coal/hard coal load following plants.
But I'm not sure if I understand your comment correctly, did you want to say something else?
Point is, with increasing renewable capacity that basically "feeds into the grid regardless of demand" we can remove base load plants that traditionally were used to "feed into the grid regardless of demand" ... just saying.
If you were trained in thermodynamics in an engineering or science program, you should consult your course provider because they failed to teach the single most important aspect of the subject: its generality
Well, in my world we use to turn it around and say: you should consult your teacher again (but that would mean he has to consult his teacher again) to understand that every "school" of physics is only a partial view on the world and all rules in that "school" only apply to that "view" or "aspect" of the world of physics.
E.g. relativity theory or quantum mechanics have nothing to do with thermo dynamics ... nor has "friction" ... friction is not discussed or modeled in thermo dynamics. It is discussed in "mechanics" with two simple laws, that don't show up in therm dynamics or are connected in any way to thermodynamics.
All energy transformations can be cast in terms of the relationship between heat ...
No they cant. The conversation of electric fields into magnetic fields or potential energy versus kinetic energy in an orbiting body have nothing to do with heat
The problem is pretty simple: the USA main stream education is simply to bad to grasp something as simple as thermodynamics beyond future rama quotes like "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics"
But feel free to express the simple problem of having two water basins, 100m height difference, pumping water uphill and letting it flow downhill, using turbines and pumps, with the laws of thermodynamics.
Goooood luck ..... you can use arbitrary numbers for your "thought experiment".
Ah: the only universal law thermodynamics gives us is: entropy will increase over time ... but that has nothing to do with pumped storage either :D unless you wan't to calculate how long it takes that a cube of sugar, put into the lower basin, shows traces of sugar in the upper basin. Or how long it takes that this cube is distributed evenly between the two basins ...
(Hint: unlike you I have a degree in physics, just noting)
This applies to you and C++. You clearly don't know C++ well enough to make your judgments.
I don't know much about C++14 standard.
But I consider myself a kind of expert for C++ before that time, after all I programmed from 1989 till 1999 nearly only in C++, switching slowly to Java from 1997 on, or was it 1995, don't remember.
Also, I don't hate Java. I'm kinda meh on it.
I guess I mixed you up with a parent of our discussion.
Well, C++ can be very productive. I basically had made the same statement 15 years ago with reversed positions of Java versus C++. But at that time, I had not heard about the powerful Java IDEs and used vi and commandline javac for building my projects. I actually stumbled into funny "testing problems" due to the fact that the file system is not case sensitive and I had the "compiled class files" as well as the created *.jar file on the $CLASSPATH ... it ran in the test environment, but the jar file alone did not run, because the class files in the jar file had wrong capitalizations.
After all if you can use templates (which requires "someone" has provided them already) you can be quite productive.
I wrote about 700k lines C++ myself ... a single project, CAD system for geo informations. wrote a subset of the STL myself (was not named that way at that time) for myself because the code available, I think it was from an engineer at HP, did not compile on the compilers at that time available on Windows 3.11 or Slackware 0.9. I actually used Slackware only to use RCS for version control, mounting the Windows partition and used RCS on the sources.
How much C++ I wrote otherwise I can not judge as I never "wc'ed" it :D
I'm tempted to go back to C++ for iOS development but now as Swift is out, I doubt I will do that. Ofc. I would use Qt and not the Apple libraries ... in C++ I mean.
So, where we usually learn thermodynamics in terms of temperatures, volume, and pressure the rules apply equally to energy in all it's forms.
That is wrong.
In plenty of systems there is no "entropy" involved. E.g. a satellite orbiting earth outside of the friction potential of earth atmosphere will orbit there for ever.
A photon hitting an electron will potentially quantum leap that electron in a higher orbit, and if the electron decides it is time to come back home, the exact same quantum of energy will be emitted as a "new" photon again.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems, not just heat engines.... As confused and uninformed as you may be...
Funny. But wrong. The laws of thermodynamics where "defined" (not discovered) when people actually did not know much about physics. Very sad that "smart" guys like you still are unable to grasp physics.
No one doing physics is using a law of thermodynamics to launch a rocket into space or design a new ship or tries to discover a second earth in the sky, why? Because the laws don't apply there.
Next time you want to tell me the laws of hydropneumatics or mechanics or friction all apply in "insert your part of physics" as well?
There is a reason why we don't have a GUT .. because, well for starters: all theories we have are specialized on small parts of physics.
And now again:
The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems, not just heat engines.... As confused and uninformed as you may be...
I want to pump 1000kg of water uphill over a hight difference of 100m and need to use a pipe at an angle of 45 degrees from the down hill reservoir to the uphill reservoir. How much energy will that cost me? How much energy will I lose to "thermodynamics"?
Please feel free to show me your calculation with formulas coming from the "laws of thermodynamics".
Hint: just don't bother with it, unless you want to learn something. You can not describe or solve that problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
Ah, as a side note: unlike you, I'm
a) not a native english speaker
b) have a degree in physics
A singel renewable plant can have ZERO output for days.
All renewable plants spread over a country as large as Germany: can't.
Or as small as Denmark.
That is physically impossible.
You came up with your idiotic and wrong efficiency numbers ... your fault that it bites you into the ass :D
Erm, if you say "Americas" I guess you mean both continents.
I don't think that 40M people on both in stone age times are implausible. After all "stone age", "bronze age" only means what tools they used. Or in other words, what technology they had.
The americas are still in our days the least populated areas of the world, you could quadruple the population and a casual by passer would not see a difference. Keep in mind: more than 50% of the produced food in developed countries is thrown away.
No idea what you mean with: Comparing American natives to bronze age Europe is being generous. ;D
I assume you don't know much about either "tribes"
Trick question: what was the biggest bronze age/iron age empire? Hint: unless you have a deep knowledge you never figure, and no, it is not on wikipedia :D Big as in spread over the landscape, not necessarily big as in max of population.
Of course they would not want to spent the money.
Point however is, netflix is just a name in the headline. There are plenty of EU only streaming services, like ZATOO that arbitrarily block content for no reason (there is no copyright or other invloved).
A) it does not matter, hydro plants or instalations dont destroy anything. ... regardless of its stronger greenhouse gas effect than CO2!
B) forests, as the wood living three hold CO2 in the sense that trees are mostly contain C (and water), but killing a continent of trees only releases CO2 equivalent to that amount if wood, and jas no further impact on the CO2 balance of the planet.
C) learn to read. CH4 decays, unlike CO2. So if we produce suddenly a lot of CH4 we only have a temporary problem. It is not a long term problem like CO2. As long as we have no runaway effect as in perma frost melting or other scenarios where an uncontrollable unmeasureable amount of CH4 suddenly bursts into the atmosphere, it does not matter at all if we convert a wood into CH4
As I said before: you are an idiot.
Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change).
There is no institution/agency in the world that is measuring habitable (you mean farmable?) landmass on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis.
So your demands for 'proofs' are idiotic. But I know, you know that :)
No it is not weather, because:
A) it happens every year since decades, but 20 to 30 years go we had winters like you have, hint: latitude
B) the birds are supposed to have flown south, as they used to do when we had real winters
Both predictions have not failed. As your parents pointed out.
If you need links then I suggest to use google or offer some money, I'm not doing 'work' for you for free that you could do your own.
Surprising that you are running around in the world and can not be bothered to notice what is happening around you.
Well, in gods own land they invented a thing called a 'pipeline'.
I could imagine plenty of things you can transport in a 'pipe' ... in this particular case I even coild imagine you could generate some power from it.
I beg to differ. Idiots like you have no place in this discussion. ... I have better things to do with my time. ... silence ... shakes head
A) it does not matter if climate change is based 95% or 99.9% based on burning fossile fuels.
B) there is no such agency running around and asking people:
Inteviewer: why did you leave your country? was it climate change or any other reason?
Refugee1: no I want to exploit scandinavian and/or german welfare!
Refugee2: no, I left because my parents are starving, so are my siblings, I want to work haed and sent money home, so they have a better life!
Interviewer: so the fact that they are starving is not related to climate change?
Refugee1: the climate changed quite drastcally, my parents want me to work, but, well call me lazy
Refugee2: Food prices are soaring, harvests are bad. No idea about climate change. It might be american propaganda, they want our land and want to buy it cheap, perhaps.
Interviewer: so climate change is a fact or a myth?
Refugee1: fact for me, as I now live without working in Finnland.
Refugee2: No idea, I have more urgent matters to think about, my starving sister for one and my mother in hospital for another. I have a PhD from 'insert unknown arabic univeristy' in city design and landscaping but can not find a job, because everyone claims my PhD is fake!
Interviewer: back to climate change, did anyone of you leave your country because of climate change? Or di you know anyone who did? Can you tell me some names to interview?
Refugee1:
Refugee2:
Hydro means water, I guess you know this. It is greek.
Your post would make much more sense if you would add the missing word you are talking about.
Obviously considring the context of the post, the parent etc. we know the missing word is 'power' ...
Just saying.
Actually all points against hydro you make are wrong: ...
A) the energy source with the most devestating loss of land is nuclear energy, due to open pit mining of uranium. Oh! That does not happen in your country but in another country far far away
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
C) while methan is released (and a given size of methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbondioxide) the methan is destroyed by UV rays and dimishes rather quickly ... in other words the livestock we breed increases the total amount of CH4 in the atmosphere, but it is not a growing effect, it is static. Every belch or poop they make is sooner or later disintegrated by UV radiation. Or to explain it in other words: putting CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the percentage of CO2 untill we stop doing it. Having simple CH4 sources like a random hydro plant (you kno wit does stop its ill habit after all the sunken green stuff has rotted, right?) or a certain amount of lifestock only increase the 'constant level' ... it basically is in an equilibrium of decay of 'old' CH4 and newly produced one.
I guess you find statistics on the net for that quite easy.
Language as in syntax is similar between Java and C++, but as you hate Java you never will figure why the productivity is so much higher in it, so I give you a few hints: .Net platform
First: the huge amount of open source libraries and frameworks
And those all work around a few concepts that the Java platform has and partly to a lesser degree also the
a) byte code and a VM to run it
b) from a) comes introspection/reflection which makes the above mentioned frameworks possible
c) from a) comes byte code morphing and stuff like AOP (yes, there is NOW 20 years later an AOP framework/compiler for C++), that is point cuts, insertion of arbitrary byte code at such points, e.g. for transaction handling
d) serialization/deserialization
e) very simple remoting
f) refactoring, Java is easier to parse due to lack of header files and macros, so refactoring on big projects can be done with the IDE
g) "forward code engineering" due to f) I simply write code as a SmallTalk programmer would. Non existing method calls I purposefully write get red underlined. The IDE asks if I want to fix that to an existing method name or if I want to introduce a new method in the affected class. With a click of a key or the mouse I do that and I'm coding the new method "in the other file" and with another click I'm back. Same for method arguments. Same for standard "patterns" as generating delegations to a set of methods of an attribute.
h) annotations that support the points above and make the frameworks possible
i) containers like for EJBs or simple Spring or Nano or Pico
Database access, concurrency, networking: all those things are super simple in Java and require manual work in C++
Python has many of the benefits of Java, too, but no byte code morphing and I'm not sure how much introspection/reflection can be done in python but on the other hand you can do a lot of meta programming in it, too.
If you don't like Java then use Groovy or Scala ... all the points above apply to them with more options in expressiveness and shorter code.
Ah yes, and meta programming in C++ does not exist besides the decades old "open C++" compiler.
You could not drink surface water because of modern industries poisoning it.
The average live expectancy was low because plenty of people died as children.
Also taking Rome as an example, my fault, means we have to include slaves, which where "burned" especially on farmland and in mines.
If you go out into the Rockies or Apalachians you can drink most surface water untreated ... or can clean it with extremely simple means.
If water would be "poisonous" per se, then there would be no animal surviving 30 years or longer. Of course you drink "water flea" and Algae etc. but unless there is a real germ in the water (which basically can only get there from sewage) the water is not by default indigestible or causing harm (I guess you did not serve, or you had learned that ;D )
You could not drink surface water from the dawn of civilization and city building to about 1980. ... they all transported surface water ... untreated btw. Civilizations where build upon them.
Perhaps you should google about ancient water transportation systems
Here is a simplified version for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I said pumping up water. I did not say "pumping hot water" but perhaps the word "thermo" means something different in your mother language (it is not english, or is it? facepalm)
Yes, you are an idiot.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to thermodynamic systems, "pumping water uphill" is not such a system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not sure if you meant the "1st" or the later introduced "0ths" law of thermodynamics. But you can clearly see: they have nothing to do with pumped storage.
Or in other words, if you meant the "1th" law as mentioned in wikipedia then it clearly supports my point, rofl.
So perhaps you should go back to school?
Yes they do, they ALWAYS apply to physical systems ... go figure what that means.
No they don't. They apply to a very special subset of systems in physics. Hint: those are systems that have something to do with "thermo"
Wisely I will refrain from debating you as you don't have even a cursory understanding of what you are making such confident assertions about. :D ... or as Frank Herbert said: listening to your teacher is called acquiring an education. Well, Padawan, I'm not your teacher ... go figure.
Every fool thinks that
Up to you to listen
You did not ask a question regarding power grids.
And thank you, you don't need to tell me how grids work, I worked in that business about 10 years.
one hour to the next and are REALLY hard to schedule.
They are not. They can not be "dispatched", that is waht you mean probably. The scheduling is easy. In "the grid world" I worked in (might be different from your grids as square root of 2 and 3 seems important to you) we use weather reports, or more precisely: "prognosis" systems for wind and solar plants. Accuracy is around +/-5% on a 6 hour forecast and going close to +/-1% for an one hour forecast. Plenty of time to buy or sell power on the spot market or "reschedule" balancing power plants.
Storage doesn't solve the problem because it's too inefficient ... your other claims regarding it are wrong.
As I pointed out: storage is efficient to roughly 90%
A simple coal plant has an efficiency of 42%, same as a nuclear plant.
A high tech gas plant is approaching 60% by combining a gas turbine with a traditional steam boiler/turbine.
So: storage is far far far more efficient than a power plant.
There is a reason Germany has so much pumped storage, long before the "green revolution". It simply makes more sense to store the surplus power of a load following plant for half an hour than ramping it down and ramping it up again in 30 minutes.
but they simply CANNOT replace the capacity we now have
In your country? No idea.
In my country and rest of Europe we are working to do exactly that. You can rotate in your grave as much as you want about this.
Personally, the ONLY technology that seems like it could, maybe, fix this problem is fusion power. ... but the "power funding industrial complex" likes to waste money on ITER concepts :D
Why? It would just be another insane expensive power source like coal/oil/uranium already is. When Solar and Wind will provide power for nearly free in the foreseeable future.
The way how we approach fusion right now, will never work. We need to switch from magnetic confinement to electric fields
Even if ITER would work, we would need to switch soon to an neutron free fusion process as a ITER reactor would not survive its own neutron production for more than a few months, a year at best.
Considering how much the ITER and other fusion reactors cost and how long it takes to build a "working" (cough cough) reactor there will never be a grid powered by fusion reactors. Germany e.g. can not build 100 fusion reactors per year and decommission them a year after when they are destroyed by their own neutron flux.
However if you want to share your irrational numbers anecdotes, I'm all ear. You never stop learning, at least that is my slogan ;D
Well,
I had no problem to use Puppet for what it does, and would likely use bash myself.
I have a problem with the "reinvented" programming language however.
I like programming languages ... if they do something NEW and do it BETTER or with a different PARADIGM than other/older languages. The Puppet language looked more like a missbreed of Ruby/Python/PERL to me though.