True but there are many very powerful people that deny it for financial and political reasons. This will cause solutions to come much slower.Quote:
Very few people doubt climate change
Printable View
True but there are many very powerful people that deny it for financial and political reasons. This will cause solutions to come much slower.Quote:
Very few people doubt climate change
I don't doubt that climate change is occurring. I don't even doubt that anthropological activity is contributing to it. What I do have some doubts/issues on are:
- The long term projects have always been wrong. Not mostly wrong, always wrong.
- The IPCC's reports don't really specify how much tolerance the Earth has in terms of the rise of temperature related to climate change
- Even if the US were to go completely carbon neutral, it would not be enough to make so much as a dent.
I certainly don't believe that it is the government's role in trying to "cure" the climate change.
If the long term project is to get us off of fossil fuel, then it depends on what the alternative is. Some alternatives would be pretty good, but the best one is a solution we haven't yet invented. For example, there are FAR more efficient solar cells than the ones that are currently in use. At the moment, they're too expensive to be viable. There is one that may change that, though production has to be scaled up.
A second piece, and perhaps the larger piece, is energy storage. One of the greatest issues we currently have is that batteries are pretty bad. Is there a solution there? Maybe. There are certainly solutions that can be tried on the grid-level storage, but whether or not there's a solution on the personal device level is not so clear. A significantly better battery at that level would change society. Gas engines aren't efficient, we use them because gas has SO much energy packed into a small package. Electric motors are far more efficient, but to store as much energy as you have in a gallon of gas would currently take a battery that was several cubic feet in size. If that were to change, we'd switch to electric vehicles pretty nearly overnight. The advantages are just too great, but the technology isn't there, so that's that....for now.
That's my point: We can't solve the problem with the technology we have today. To tackle the problem requires us to move forwards, and that's the better direction to go.
Besides, don't worry too much about global warming. Ocean acidification could easily dwarf the impact of a warmer earth. The ocean is somewhat alkaline. The oceans are absorbing a considerable amount of carbon dioxide, which is bringing the oceans back towards neutral. At some point, this will collapse the base of the food chain, where lots of chemistry depends on the alkaline nature of the water.
There are differing opinions and models about how fast climate change is happening and how fast we are warming, what they dont have differing opinions on is that it is happening, that man kind is contributing and also that there are feasibly things we can do to mitigate it.Quote:
I don't doubt that climate change is occurring. I don't even doubt that anthropological activity is contributing to it. What I do have some doubts/issues on are:
The long term projects have always been wrong. Not mostly wrong, always wrong.
The IPCC's reports don't really specify how much tolerance the Earth has in terms of the rise of temperature related to climate change
Even if the US were to go completely carbon neutral, it would not be enough to make so much as a dent.
I certainly don't believe that it is the government's role in trying to "cure" the climate change.
As far as the Governments role goes, in the UK for example we have a lot of wind energy resource, we are an island with a lot of wind, the government put subsidies into wind energy and not only have we grown wind energy to be 15% of our total energy mix the cost of wind energy has come down so much that coal for instance has been priced out of the market even as subsidies have been cut.
All energy is subsidized, what is great about things like wind and solar power, even taking away the climate change based reasons are these are technological solutions to power generation, and as we iterate and create better and better solutions they become more efficient and more cost effective, and they also provide a degree of energy security.
I dont like carbon tax's and trading, Governments main role here should be encouraging industry through subsidies and planning to allow these kinds of energy generation to get enough traction so they are competitive.
In order for technology to move forward you have to create the technology, sell it and then make money on it and then invest and iterate for the next better version. This is already happening to some extent but could be happening faster.Quote:
That's my point: We can't solve the problem with the technology we have today. To tackle the problem requires us to move forwards, and that's the better direction to go.
Battery storage is a problem but we are seeing solutions on the market, Tesla have a 100-megawatt battery dispensing power into the electricity grid in South Australia right now, and as more government purchase these kind of solutions there cost will come down and companies will find ways to make them more efficient and better.
Maybe so, but you aren't doing enough. After all, you haven't even attempted to exploit the most potent source of wind energy you have: Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Looks like Notre Dame is pretty nearly a total loss. I've got a hunch that it'll be back, though.
That’s so upsetting. I wonder what caused it.
Sorry, this is the post race and that should’ve been two separate sentence.
That’s so upsetting.
I wonder what caused it.
Fixed.
Fire
It was likely related to the construction, though some worker might have had a quasi-motive. I have nothing to back my hunch, though.
Fortunately, they saved the bell towers. Had those fallen, the building would have been essentially a total loss.
It doesn't look so bad, today. The roof is gone, and there's been a considerable amount of interior damage, but the stone vault is mostly intact, which protected a whole lot of the parts that people remember most.
It seems like the biggest question is how to rebuild the forest, or if it should be rebuilt. That was all old growth wood, which is gone from Europe. They'd have to import wood from other places, and perhaps they shouldn't. The original material is gone, so maybe using more modern, safer, construction makes more sense. There was a whole lot of wood to burn up there, and that's partially because it was wood. Some steel in the structure would probably make it lighter, stronger, and safer. Though, composite beams might also have an appeal.
One nice thing is that the reconstruction can be crowd sourced. Cathedrals were built that way, originally. Notre Dame was built over a century, from the sound of it, and through the on-and-off contributions of the local populace. Crowd-sourcing the reconstruction would be in keeping with the original history of cathedral building. The funding base would be broader, but the idea would be about the same.
A bit of gaffer tape should sort it out.
@bonker - I see you used the term "gaffer" - do you have some experience in the audio/video world?
I’m really enjoying my new job. Though I found I don’t enjoy kendo-ui so much.
Duct tape fixes everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonker Gudd