You don't reverse something that's been going on since humanity industrialized. You stop making it worse and you let the system work itself out. Trying to engineer changes in such a huge and complex system is like trying to fix emotional responses to toxic life experiences with drugs. Oh, but they do that too.
I'm not at all surprised by the ignorance in this thread, what with all the capitalist ass-kissing libertarian tech geeks and all. It's good to see that there are some people who know WTF they're talking about, providing references and clarity. Not that it will fix the willful belief in capitalist fantasy denials... but at least there's an educated, connected, rational representation here.
Prediction: in 2 years Tim Cook retires from Apple and annouces he's running for Congress. When he talks about political/societal issues he gets animated, but when talking about tech it's like he's reading from a script. It's easy to tell where his heart is.
You don't reverse something that's been going on since humanity industrialized. You stop making it worse and you let the system work itself out. Trying to engineer changes in such a huge and complex system is like trying to fix emotional responses to toxic life experiences with drugs.
If the climate is so huge and complex and incomprehensible then why do you believe the predictions (of mere humans) about what it will do?
Incidentally, please don't conflate India and China on the topic of climate change: Indian emissions amount to a small fraction of Chinese (or US) emissions.
India is the next China. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. iPhones will eventually be made in some Indian factory because the labor will be cheaper than in China. As India industrializes their carbon footprint will inflate just like China now. So I don’t think I’m conflating India and China, just time shifting them if you will. And I don’t trust China to follow through on their promises either.
I’m certainly not against moving away from fossil fuels but it will be a very long time before we can stop drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas, and burning coal. In the mean time we should be looking again at the nuclear option. Finding a way to safely store the waste is a big engineering problem but at least it’s not pumping CO2 and other nastiness into the atmosphere. Fusion appears to be some distant dream still. And I am convinced that solar and wind are not dependable enough, nor practical to be the primary source of power on the grid.
Have you yourself looked into this so called evidence. If you had, and you have any sort of mental capacity, you would realize that there is much to be questioned. The evidence in reality is very weak, in some cases fabricated and in others at odds with the latest unbiased research.
That is complete bullshit! Even if the worst projections became a reality there would be no real harm to the planet and might actually allow the planet to better support life. However global warming isn't happening and there is no proof as to what has caused some of the so called proofs of global warming.
If the planet was really warming up as suggested by the global warming freaks, it could be one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. Think about it a bit, the planet has been warming up since the last ICE age except for a few regressions here or there. As that has happened humanity has flourished.
I don't know what studies you have read. The ones I have looked at are peer-reviewed and accepted by 99% of actual climate scientists. As bad as the situation is getting, it is still not too late. It is good to see Apple and other companies leading the charge to reverse GHG emmisions.
In the mean time we should be looking again at the nuclear option. Finding a way to safely store the waste is a big engineering problem but at least it’s not pumping CO2 and other nastiness into the atmosphere. Fusion appears to be some distant dream still. And I am convinced that solar and wind are not dependable enough, nor practical to be the primary source of power on the grid.
"With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal."
It's still a limited resource though. The following site has estimates between 90-200 years of supply:
If you consider how long the human race has survived so far, another couple of hundred years isn't enough. Sure it's going to be someone else's problem but that's not the right attitude to have. The following article suggests there may be ways to optimize the use of nuclear fuel at the plant extending the supply to tens of thousands of years, which is more like it but dealing with the waste is still an issue to overcome:
I don't think we should dismiss solar as being a viable source though. Wind energy is too unpredictable but there's always some amount of sunlight. The sea is always moving too so ocean turbines are another option. An average household would use around 10-30 kWh per day. The sun puts out 1kW per square metre. With solar windows in homes that have 20% efficiency, they can at least cut power requirements from the grid. Roof tiles with a coating that behaves like solar panels would improve on it. Get rid of gas and fossil fuel burning entirely, have all electric cars and appliances that are powered by a combination of a nuclear/solar/sea grid and solar homes.
DING DING DING BINGO!!! The global warming to the climate change bait and switch. Now it's not only when the earth gets "warmer" but now even when it just changes!!!
I thought people were not supposed to fear 'change'..? And whatever happened to "hope and change"? Sounds like climate change might be rather nice. ????
"With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal."
It's still a limited resource though. The following site has estimates between 90-200 years of supply:
If you consider how long the human race has survived so far, another couple of hundred years isn't enough. Sure it's going to be someone else's problem but that's not the right attitude to have. The following article suggests there may be ways to optimize the use of nuclear fuel at the plant extending the supply to tens of thousands of years, which is more like it but dealing with the waste is still an issue to overcome:
I don't think we should dismiss solar as being a viable source though. Wind energy is too unpredictable but there's always some amount of sunlight. The sea is always moving too so ocean turbines are another option. An average household would use around 10-30 kWh per day. The sun puts out 1kW per square metre. With solar windows in homes that have 20% efficiency, they can at least cut power requirements from the grid. Roof tiles with a coating that behaves like solar panels would improve on it. Get rid of gas and fossil fuel burning entirely, have all electric cars and appliances that are powered by a combination of a nuclear/solar/sea grid and solar homes.
I'm most excited with the prospect of pebble bed reactors (both large and small scale) and Bloom Energy boxes. Whatever gets homes and businesses off the grid faster is OK by me. Single sources of energy are a bad idea and leaving development up to government central planners is even worse.
Ebola, AIDS and other not yet known or discovered diseases will take care of those extra people. Nature has a fine way of dealing with populations of various things when they become too numerous, be it animals, or humans.
The population explosion is also mostly happening in third world places, where people are ignorant and have no common sense. Nature will set them straight.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any third-world countries near us or anything. Civil unrest on our borders and a crush of starving and sick refugees would be a concern.
Ebola, AIDS and other not yet known or discovered diseases will take care of those extra people. Nature has a fine way of dealing with populations of various things when they become too numerous, be it animals, or humans.
The population explosion is also mostly happening in third world places, where people are ignorant and have no common sense. Nature will set them straight.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any third-world countries near us or anything. Civil unrest on our borders and a crush of starving and sick refugees would be a concern.
The reality is that as an individual it may concern you but to the planet, the galaxy, the universe it is of no concern. When something becomes a big and valuable target for another entity, be it a virus or what have you, something will take advantage. Human concerns like ethnic make up, or borders of countries aren't a concern to biology.
you don't just flip a switch with climate change and renewables... so for those saying that it can't be done now... well duh. No one (reasonable) is saying stop burning fossil fuels this second but we should start putting in the research dollars and the attention into alternatives so that some day relatively soon we can transition past fossil fuels. As for the geniuses that don't "believe" in climate change or call it propaganda... the same science that makes you Apple products possible says that it is a fact. You don't "believe" in it, then please stop using modern technology and go live in a damned cave - oh, and don't vote...
As for the geniuses that don't "believe" in climate change or call it propaganda... the same science that makes you Apple products possible says that it is a fact. You don't "believe" in it, then please stop using modern technology and go live in a damned cave - oh, and don't vote...
The existence of metallurgy and circuit design prove global warming? That entire quote is nonsense.
Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow.
Holy crap, that makes a boatload of sense. The way to prove this definitively would be to replant the forests and watch to see if the snow comes back (despite the rest of the world continuing to progress along the ‘inexorable’ path).
Comments
You don't reverse something that's been going on since humanity industrialized. You stop making it worse and you let the system work itself out. Trying to engineer changes in such a huge and complex system is like trying to fix emotional responses to toxic life experiences with drugs. Oh, but they do that too.
I'm not at all surprised by the ignorance in this thread, what with all the capitalist ass-kissing libertarian tech geeks and all. It's good to see that there are some people who know WTF they're talking about, providing references and clarity. Not that it will fix the willful belief in capitalist fantasy denials... but at least there's an educated, connected, rational representation here.
Prediction: in 2 years Tim Cook retires from Apple and annouces he's running for Congress. When he talks about political/societal issues he gets animated, but when talking about tech it's like he's reading from a script. It's easy to tell where his heart is.
"Reverse" it? Where did he say that??
You don't reverse something that's been going on since humanity industrialized. You stop making it worse and you let the system work itself out. Trying to engineer changes in such a huge and complex system is like trying to fix emotional responses to toxic life experiences with drugs.
If the climate is so huge and complex and incomprehensible then why do you believe the predictions (of mere humans) about what it will do?
Jimzip
Incidentally, please don't conflate India and China on the topic of climate change: Indian emissions amount to a small fraction of Chinese (or US) emissions.
India is the next China. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. iPhones will eventually be made in some Indian factory because the labor will be cheaper than in China. As India industrializes their carbon footprint will inflate just like China now. So I don’t think I’m conflating India and China, just time shifting them if you will. And I don’t trust China to follow through on their promises either.
I’m certainly not against moving away from fossil fuels but it will be a very long time before we can stop drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas, and burning coal. In the mean time we should be looking again at the nuclear option. Finding a way to safely store the waste is a big engineering problem but at least it’s not pumping CO2 and other nastiness into the atmosphere. Fusion appears to be some distant dream still. And I am convinced that solar and wind are not dependable enough, nor practical to be the primary source of power on the grid.
Have you yourself looked into this so called evidence. If you had, and you have any sort of mental capacity, you would realize that there is much to be questioned. The evidence in reality is very weak, in some cases fabricated and in others at odds with the latest unbiased research.
That is complete bullshit! Even if the worst projections became a reality there would be no real harm to the planet and might actually allow the planet to better support life. However global warming isn't happening and there is no proof as to what has caused some of the so called proofs of global warming.
If the planet was really warming up as suggested by the global warming freaks, it could be one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. Think about it a bit, the planet has been warming up since the last ICE age except for a few regressions here or there. As that has happened humanity has flourished.
I don't know what studies you have read. The ones I have looked at are peer-reviewed and accepted by 99% of actual climate scientists. As bad as the situation is getting, it is still not too late. It is good to see Apple and other companies leading the charge to reverse GHG emmisions.
I agree with nuclear as a good option.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm
"With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal."
It's still a limited resource though. The following site has estimates between 90-200 years of supply:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
If you consider how long the human race has survived so far, another couple of hundred years isn't enough. Sure it's going to be someone else's problem but that's not the right attitude to have. The following article suggests there may be ways to optimize the use of nuclear fuel at the plant extending the supply to tens of thousands of years, which is more like it but dealing with the waste is still an issue to overcome:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
I don't think we should dismiss solar as being a viable source though. Wind energy is too unpredictable but there's always some amount of sunlight. The sea is always moving too so ocean turbines are another option. An average household would use around 10-30 kWh per day. The sun puts out 1kW per square metre. With solar windows in homes that have 20% efficiency, they can at least cut power requirements from the grid. Roof tiles with a coating that behaves like solar panels would improve on it. Get rid of gas and fossil fuel burning entirely, have all electric cars and appliances that are powered by a combination of a nuclear/solar/sea grid and solar homes.
I thought people were not supposed to fear 'change'..? And whatever happened to "hope and change"? Sounds like climate change might be rather nice. ????
I'm most excited with the prospect of pebble bed reactors (both large and small scale) and Bloom Energy boxes. Whatever gets homes and businesses off the grid faster is OK by me. Single sources of energy are a bad idea and leaving development up to government central planners is even worse.
Ebola, AIDS and other not yet known or discovered diseases will take care of those extra people. Nature has a fine way of dealing with populations of various things when they become too numerous, be it animals, or humans.
The population explosion is also mostly happening in third world places, where people are ignorant and have no common sense. Nature will set them straight.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any third-world countries near us or anything. Civil unrest on our borders and a crush of starving and sick refugees would be a concern.
Which tells you that the figure you are quoting is incorrect on the face of it. Research into the topic proves this.
Does research into the topic refute rising air and ocean temperatures, melting ice, and global sea level rise?
Ebola, AIDS and other not yet known or discovered diseases will take care of those extra people. Nature has a fine way of dealing with populations of various things when they become too numerous, be it animals, or humans.
The population explosion is also mostly happening in third world places, where people are ignorant and have no common sense. Nature will set them straight.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any third-world countries near us or anything. Civil unrest on our borders and a crush of starving and sick refugees would be a concern.
The reality is that as an individual it may concern you but to the planet, the galaxy, the universe it is of no concern. When something becomes a big and valuable target for another entity, be it a virus or what have you, something will take advantage. Human concerns like ethnic make up, or borders of countries aren't a concern to biology.
Why not do some and tell us? Remember: belief conforms to fact, not the other way around.
Why not do some and tell us? Remember: belief conforms to fact, not the other way around.
Ok. Sea temp is rising. Now what?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
no product is green. Just one form or another.
The existence of metallurgy and circuit design prove global warming? That entire quote is nonsense.
Hey Tim. It's a natural cycle. It last about 65-70 years.
The rate of warming between the recent cycle and the last one was identical.
The 50s, 60s and 70s were cooler than the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But there has been no increase in the temperature anomaly in 17 years.
So we are heading into the cooling half of the cycle once again.
Weather was more severe and more extreme in the COOLER 50s-70s than it was during the warmer 80s-2000s.
Since the mid 70s the number of violent tornadoes trended downward. So did worldwide tropical cyclone energy.
We are currently extending a record for the longest length of time since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or higher) has hit the US.
Last major hurricane was Wilma in 2005. (9 years!)
Tornado numbers have been well below average for the past three years.
Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice is up 64% compared to 2012.
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow. Man caused that but it had nothing to do with CO2.
I wonder how the regional weather is affected by clearing all that land for Apple's solar farms?
Land use changes, building more roads, houses and buildings is the major cause of increased flooding.
With less open land to absorb rain water, there is increased runoff. This results in larger and more frequent flash floods.
Man made but not anything to do with anything we put in the air.
I have lived all of my 52 years in the same central Texas city. In the 60s and 70s dust storms were a frequent occurrence. Winds would blow west Texas dust into central Texas. Did you know that droughts are more frequent in cooler periods?
With us once again entering the cooling half of the natural cycle I will not be surprised to see dust storms return within 10-15 years.
Now Tim, Where the hell is the new mini?
Now if you want to discuss land use changes (like what happens to regional weather when you cut down lots of trees for instance) then let's talk. It was found that cutting the forests around Mt. Kilimanjaro was responsible for reducing the moisture level in the air that moved up the mountain. Less moisture, less snow.
Holy crap, that makes a boatload of sense. The way to prove this definitively would be to replant the forests and watch to see if the snow comes back (despite the rest of the world continuing to progress along the ‘inexorable’ path).