The Atacama desert. Considered one of the most, if not THE most arid place on the planet. We're not talking a dusting here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14067245
as seen in the Top Gear Bolivia special.
The Atacama desert. Considered one of the most, if not THE most arid place on the planet. We're not talking a dusting here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14067245
as seen in the Top Gear Bolivia special.
Dr. Hess wrote: You have to call him Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. or else SOMEONE ON THE STAFF will get pissed at you.
Puh-lease. I've stopped caring what any of you yammer on about.
Margie
Marjorie Suddard wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: You have to call him Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. or else SOMEONE ON THE STAFF will get pissed at you.Puh-lease. I've stopped caring what any of you yammer on about. Margie
Run out of room for more patio?
Aw, come on guys. There's plenty of good discussion to be had on the topic of climate change: What portion is caused by humans? Should we be investing in green technologies? Which ones? Etc. Some of this even relates to cars.
But, pretending like we still don't understand the difference between average global temerature over a period of time and the temperature at a specific spot at a specific time is like saying that cars today are not any faster than cars in the 1920s were because you saw an old lady in her Corolla yesterday doing 15mph.
madpanda wrote: Aw, come on guys. There's plenty of good discussion to be had on the topic of climate change: What portion is caused by humans? Should we be investing in green technologies? Which ones? Etc. Some of this even relates to cars. But, pretending like we still don't understand the difference between average global temerature over a period of time and the temperature at a specific spot at a specific time is like saying that cars today are not any faster than cars in the 1920s were because you saw an old lady in her Corolla yesterday doing 15mph.
Zing!
Joey
madpanda wrote: Aw, come on guys. There's plenty of good discussion to be had on the topic of climate change: What portion is caused by humans? Undetermined Should we be investing in green technologies? Yes, but primarily by private funding Which ones? The investors decide; they either succeed or go on to another promising venture
The science is not settled and the very definition of science dictates it must be an ongoing process.
And, the debate would be far less toxic if the research hadn't been hijacked by out-for-profit charalatans, politicians with agendas to line their own pockets under the guise of progress and others with atavistic views on energy consumption.
oldsaw wrote: And, the debate would be far less toxic if the research hadn't been hijacked by out-for-profit charalatans, politicians with agendas to line their own pockets under the guise of progress and others with atavistic views on energy consumption.
Well put.
I really wish on issues like this the media would do a more in depth analysis of the science and the economics before politicians start hijacking the conversation with one liners that oversimplify things. But you can't make an audience listen if they don't have the attention span. Which brings us to another one of this board's favorite topics: Idiocracy ;)
Geez, I just wanted to point out it snowed in a spot that doesn't recieve rain in decades at a time. I don't care about Global Warming/Climate Change arguments in the slightest.
In reply to oldsaw:
What are the pros/cons of doing nothing if it turns out to be real?
What are the pros/cons of pursuing alternative energy if it turns out not to be true?
Personally, I think we can build alternative energy sources and increase efficiency in consumption without tearing apart society, but I think massive climate change will be harder to adapt to/recover from. The scale of the bet is as important as the odds.
This is a relatively long game, and there is a lot of money/power invested in the "traditional" sources of energy. These investors do not want to see change, as it will draw revenue away from them.
The out-for-profit obfuscation comes from both sides (see previous paragraph), and on the "green" side is partly the result of the market-driven approach you're calling for. Snake oil sells, too.
When dealing in entrenched industries like energy, we don't see the straight result of merit-based private investment. I believe it takes a fair amount of political will and action just to get back to even odds with the coal/oil/etc lobby pushing the other direction.
Let's say you're an oil company. Let's also say there's a finite (without putting a cap on it) amount of oil left to pump and sell. Chances are good that you want to have an alternative thing to sell when the oil is gone, sure. But do you want that alternative to see the light of day before supply and demand do the voodoo they do so well to the last barrels to come out of the ground?
Oh bloody hell. This might be one of those threads, and I've got too much work to do (apologies in advance for lack of subsequent replies; seems like poor form to drop this and wander off). I think some of your concerns are valid. I think if I weren't worried about the time frame to switch the way we do things, the market would probably provide us alternatives. Probably from the same people who sell us oil now, but we'd get there. But I feel that some of the suck of the transition is a thing we all have to bite down and deal with before we end up dealing with fallout from not doing so, and I think that placing concern for markets over the planet we live on is a bit of the tail wagging the dog (and I say that with a significant worry in my stomach over the result of analysts' protests on the economy, more so than the actual direct market effects).
One of these days the GRM OT forum is going to have an awesome thread on the marketplace, it's spectacular potential to promote innovation, and the issues raised by influence both from regulation and from internal consolidation of money/power/market share. It'd be interesting to have that discussion without arriving at it from a particular sub-issue.
madpanda wrote:oldsaw wrote: And, the debate would be far less toxic if the research hadn't been hijacked by out-for-profit charalatans, politicians with agendas to line their own pockets under the guise of progress and others with atavistic views on energy consumption.Well put. I really wish on issues like this the media would do a more in depth analysis of the science and the economics before politicians start hijacking the conversation with one liners that oversimplify things. But you can't make an audience listen if they don't have the attention span. Which brings us to another one of this board's favorite topics: Idiocracy ;)
Too true.
ransom wrote: This is a relatively long game, and there is a lot of money/power invested in the "traditional" sources of energy. These investors do not want to see change, as it will draw revenue away from them.
Absolutely, 100% incorrect. Those same people are using the "traditional" sources of energy to obtain the necessary money for research and development of new technologies. They do want to see change, around the time that the old sources are no longer profitable... and obviously, that will be WAY before traditional energy sources become so scarce that the world economies collapse. Like you said, long game. Yes, there are lots of short sighted people in this world, most of the rich ones aren't (politicians excluded).
HiTempguy wrote:ransom wrote: This is a relatively long game, and there is a lot of money/power invested in the "traditional" sources of energy. These investors do not want to see change, as it will draw revenue away from them.Absolutely, 100% incorrect. Those same people are using the "traditional" sources of energy to obtain the necessary money for research and development of new technologies. They do want to see change, around the time that the old sources are no longer profitable... and obviously, that will be WAY before traditional energy sources become so scarce that the world economies collapse. Like you said, long game. Yes, there are lots of short sighted people in this world, most of the rich ones aren't (politicians excluded).
Both of you are correct.
The "BIGS" in energy supply want to stay that way. They are monitoring and measuring the profitability levels of producing from current reserves vs. introducing "alternatives" that guarantee their market shares. They don't spend all their net income on finding and developing sources from dead dinosaurs.
All those huge, evil and despicable profits don't just go the line the pockets of fat-cat CEO's. Ya know?
Guys! Baked Alaska is a weird cake that has ice cream in it when it goes into the oven! How weird is that?!?
Otto Maddox wrote: It snowed it the desert. That is odd. What the heck is everyone else yammering on about?
Let's not forget that "desert" does not mean "hot". It just means almost no precipitation. So, this would be like getting rain in Death Valley. Still pretty incredible that there was that much precipitation, but the temperature was not abnormal for that region.
Salanis wrote: Guys! Baked Alaska is a weird cake that has ice cream in it when it goes into the oven! How weird is *that*?!?
Is this a picture of the said cake? I want it, NOW!
In reply to HiTempguy:
Yep. Sponge cake base with a bunch of ice cream, coated with meringue. Then it's baked at really high heat for just long enough to firm up the meringue without melting the ice cream.
In response to HiTempguy and oldsaw:
I should have said "These investors do not want to see change ahead of their own schedule".
The schedule which maximizes their profits may not be the best for the rest of us.
I covered it more completely a couple paragraphs later, but I can hardly blame folks for not wading through that wall of text...
You'll need to log in to post.