• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The explanation for those weird Siberian craters isn't comforting

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
davmat787 said:
Surely relinquishing more of your money to the government will fix things, right?

For any proposed tax or law that is supposed to help slow the rate of man made climate change, is am analysis of just how quickly the savings of say Co2 output will be offset by the growing demands of India and China.

It makes no sense to ask for more money if the resulting decreases in man made causes to climate change are erased by one month of increased Co2 output from India's new car owners.

A global problem requires global cooperation, something I feel will be impossible until the problem becomes too dire.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The US government could launch my proposal and if countries what to see the sun they can pay a tax on their sunlight.
 
BUnit1701 said:
You may or not be aware of this daily phenomenon called 'night'. During 'night', there is no sunlight to power your PV cells. We also have a phenomenon floating through the sky called 'clouds'.
Click to expand...

PV still produces some power even with cloud cover. Also different cell technologies work better than others in places with more cloud cover on average and you can also oversize the array if desirable and feed the surplus back into the grid when you don't need it.
 
Last edited:
I'll start believing that "global warming" is a problem requiring a political, top-down solution when progressives are willing to let poor people do without energy after they raise the prices on it. And progressive start changing their own habits in a non-trivial way rather than just trying to bankroll their pet preferences like "light rail" in the name of global warming. Unless and until then the entire exercise is just about moving money from one person's pockets to another.

Until then, I like my SUV and house in the suburbs too much. Either we allow the free market to keep going or develop a technologic solution, or the rising seas will wipe out places like NYC but either way it's a win-win.
 
K1052 said:
Any realistic switchover would take a decade at least from when such cars become economical to purchase. More than enough time to build sufficient additional generation capacity.
Click to expand...

in your backyard of course? you would support that I have to assume.
 
glenn1 said:
I'll start believing that "global warming" is a problem requiring a political, top-down solution when progressives are willing to let poor people do without energy after they raise the prices on it. And progressive start changing their own habits in a non-trivial way rather than just trying to bankroll their pet preferences like "light rail" in the name of global warming. Unless and until then the entire exercise is just about moving money from one person's pockets to another.

Until then, I like my SUV and house in the suburbs too much. Either we allow the free market to keep going or develop a technologic solution, or the rising seas will wipe out places like NYC but either way it's a win-win.
Click to expand...

This is just a rant about your personal political boogeymen. Also, climate change doesn't require your belief to be a real thing...a clear flaw in your otherwise pristine logic.
 
dphantom said:
in your backyard of course? you would support that I have to assume.
Click to expand...

If I had literal backyard (or a roof that I personally owned) it would have PV on it already. The current building has a system that the landlord put in.
 
dphantom said:
I was referring to commercial scale production.
Click to expand...

Given where I live it probably isn't economical to be installing much in the way of utility scale power plants nearby. Generally where you are going to site large PV, CSP, wind, or even nuclear there isn't usually a lot in terms of neighbors. That said I would have no issues living in proximity to any of the above.
 
There is a secondary fundamental issue involved here. How do we protect the CBD from extinction. When rational people finally realize that the CBD not only insists on denying the onset of mass extinction and the destruction of human civilization, how do you prevent a catastrophic backlash against them. The CBD is only a defect in conditions where there is no external enemy, but it is better than liberal minds at picking up on threats of other competitive groups that may be real. The CBD in shout is only a defect under current conditions and it would be a shame if humanity had to force its extinction to survive a climate created extinction. But if it becomes obvious that the conservative brain is a real threat to the continued existence of the human race, the more rational portion of the human race will instinctively take action to prevent that from happening. We will lose a valuable trait if that happens especially if we ever face a real alien threat.

Furthermore, it is of the nature of the CBD to hold the paranoid delusion that rational minds are out to get them and climate change denial is one way the CBD will use to create what it fears. The paranoid delusional use their delusions to become a threat that satisfies its own paranoid state. Self hate translates into unconscious self destruction by the back door of denial.

We are in a difficult place. Only reason can save us and the CBD refuses its grace and can't see that. Without finding a cure for the CBD we are all fucked.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Well, I'll say one thing, that's more realistic than what most alarmists offer...but that's not saying much.
Click to expand...

The capacity to determine real meaning is dependent of the accuracy of the tool used to make the determination.

There are other approaches like dealing with emissions, cloud creation via seeding, boiling the ocean to create steam and incidentally fresh water via solar generated electricity, etc, and I don't know much at all.
 
So why worry? Probably, this methane release isn't going to wipe out humanity during the next hundred years or so. Probably, mass extinctions are still several thousand years away. We can all still fiddle while the permafrost burns.
Click to expand...

You are seriously worried about something that might happen two millenia from now?!?! In two millenia, man went from horse power locomotion to sending exploration craft out of the solar system. I would like to think that in two more millenia, the technology that man has at his disposal would be a litte more advanced than the technology currently at hand. In any event, the chances of a nuclear holocaust happening within the next 2,000 years has to got be around 100 percent. After the first terrorist group detonates a nuclear device in a major American city, at least we won't have to deal with the yammering of global warming fanatics intent on destroying the American economy.

Your descendants WILL be dealing with nuclear winter, not global warming.
 
Moonbeam said:
But if it becomes obvious that the conservative brain is a real threat to the continued existence of the human race, the more rational portion of the human race will instinctively take action to prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

Isn't the CBD all about fear mongering? Yet here we stand...
 
spacejamz said:
Acknowledged??? Did they do anything else??? Like set target dates, budgets, etc???

Do you honestly think those factories are going to pay god knows how much to become environmentally friendly???
Click to expand...
Do I think the Chinese government can get a country of 1B+ people to immediately stop polluting? No, but I bet they can get themselves in shape faster than we can. One of the few positives of their type of government. Here where we value free will of the people we have to try to deal rationally with irrational people that still think MMCC is a hoax because they know better than the scientific community because they read a blog by a "scientist" that was paid to tell them all the other scientists are wrong.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
What do you suggest we do?
Click to expand...

Implicit in your question is the point that if we can't completely solve the problem (because we can't possibly tightly control the carbon-emissions-behavior of everyone), it's futile to do anything.

So if a 50-pounds-overweight person can't lose 50 pounds, it's futile for them to try to lose 10 pounds? It's pointless for a pack-a-day smoker to try to cut back to half a pack?
 
dank69 said:
Do I think the Chinese government can get a country of 1B+ people to immediately stop polluting? No, but I bet they can get themselves in shape faster than we can. One of the few positives of their type of government. Here where we value free will of the people we have to try to deal rationally with irrational people that still think MMCC is a hoax because they know better than the scientific community because they read a blog by a "scientist" that was paid to tell them all the other scientists are wrong.
Click to expand...

I am no denier, but what solutions to climate change have been stopped from implementation by deniers?

Somewhat related, I think a lot of people label others as deniers simply because they think that while man is responsible, there are also natural cycles in play and thus aren't as quick to buy into the latest green fad of the month.

I also think your concerns should be with poorer yet emerging countries. Don't they present a much greater roadblock to implementing a solution than a minority group of deniers here in the U.S.?
 
Last edited:
shira said:
Implicit in your question is the point that if we can't completely solve the problem (because we can't possibly tightly control the carbon-emissions-behavior of everyone), it's futile to do anything.

So if a 50-pounds-overweight person can't lose 50 pounds, it's futile for them to try to lose 10 pounds? It's pointless for a pack-a-day smoker to try to cut back to half a pack?
Click to expand...

Unfair comparisons, as each provides a benefit to the person doing so. Spending billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions that will be offset by the increases in output by India and China in a month provides what benefit exactly?
 
davmat787 said:
Unfair comparisons, as each provides a benefit to the person doing so. Spending billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions that will be offset by the increases in output by India and China in a month provides what benefit exactly?
Click to expand...

Well it will certainly do a great job of moving all remaining manufacturing to those countries. Perhaps that is the underlying agenda.
 
bshole said:
Well it will certainly do a great job of moving all remaining manufacturing to those countries. Perhaps that is the underlying agenda.
Click to expand...

But just think of the collective moral superiority that the supporters will gain by all the new pics of smog ridden shanghai or suicides by workers in factories making the latest widget they must have?

Can't put a price on the value of a smug armchair environmentalist getting their daily cup of fake moral superiority.
 
davmat787 said:
Unfair comparisons, as each provides a benefit to the person doing so. Spending billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions that will be offset by the increases in output by India and China in a month provides what benefit exactly?
Click to expand...
Offset? Those increases will or will not happen regardless of what we do, so we would still be reducing the total projected output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top