U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

Just pay them minimum wage. If you make them receive government funds for doing something, they're government employees and they're going to be union.

And according to every conservative politician I've heard speak, Unions are no less than the love child of Stalin and Hitler, milking minimal contributions from government employees and in turn only getting them decent wages and benefits.

Desalinization has its own issues, which frankly, it looks like have not been addressed at this site (or at the very least not described in the article, which is pretty sparse on technical detail). One concern is discharge or reincorporation of the outflow from desalinization. If they have an inefficient desalinization process, then that is somewhat alleviated, but still has to be considered during environmental impact analyses. The input and output flow rate/volume is a problem which will scale badly with increasing distance to the water source(and sink). And with size of the installation.

They apparently combine the desalinization process with the power generation process, which generally isn't a good idea for various reasons (including maintenance and repair), rather than using a seperate closed freshwater system and a heat exchanger (since they have to condense the steam in any event). Which is somewhat interesing considering they use a closed oil-based system for transferring heat from a concentrator. Given the steam temperature, it has relatively low pressure and likely relatively high moisture (compared to most industrial steam), which brings its own problems with efficiency and corrosion. And the relatively low steam temperature may be why it isn't coupled as a closed system to a seperate evapoator; there may be relatively little energy after the turbine, so that the inefficieny would just eat any real useful transfer.

The use of a backup natural gas source is generally a good idea, since it prevents potential loss of the crop (which would make the entire thing pointless), and use of solar while using solar concentrators essentially doubles down (the circumstance where you would need the gas source would impact both the primary and secondary).

For a netbook or tablet, you should be able to do it relatively easily, although not for any heavy gaming or the like. They typically use somewhere around 10-15W, and from what I vaguely remember, a untrained cyclist should be able to easily generate about 0.5-1W/kg. I want to say that professional cyclists are around 7W/kg.

I don't know what some of those conventions mean and instead choose to interpret it as "Someone make this possible."

It would be rather easy to make your house more energy efficient, and self sustaining (less reliant on the grid) and honestly I wish they'd start a policy of more panels on everyone's homes instead of mass panel plants, as it would save on real estate, and bring people less reliant on the grid at the same time, so say a storm knocks out the power, yet it's bright as hell the next few days in the summer, and the heat starts to get to people, at least one would be able to use their wells and stuff to get water, and possibly keep some food good. Instead of being totally ***out of luck, or requiring a generator.

No idea if this made it through kickstarter or not, but look here.

I'm trying to recall how much power my computer took, I have a device that measures it (as I'm too lazy to do the math of each peripheral to see the current draw) nor would it be as accurate, as it wouldn't measure average use, etc.

A few years ago, an immigrant to Canada, came up with a solution for his children, that gave them an hour's worth of exercise, while they played an hour of video games.

Basically, he rigged up every electronic luxury device (television and consoles) that his children used, such as the Nintendo Wii, to different exercise machines to power the electronics. Any time they wanted to play their favorite games, or watch TV, they had to generate enough power to play (sometimes while playing) them.

I'll see if I can find the article and news story

When can I sign up to go to another planet? No one on this one gives a ***if it gets destroyed.

And you really think that's going to change by going to another?

There was a period of close to two years to sign up for the colonization effort of mars... with something like 88 passengers aged 21-60? from all over the world and walks of life.

But every time I think of that, I think of the old anime "Martian Successor Nadesico"

This planet will be fine, it won't be destroyed.

It's just that I can't say the same for its inhabitants.

Well not until our star goes into it's next stage, then it will just be swallowed up into that giant mass.

Slap the Apple logo on the signup sheet and label the sacrificial pawns idealistic idiots suicidal Darwin-defiers people who sign up as "early adopters" or some similar bit of marketing twaddle. Tattoo the QR code for "This person is a complete poser" on their face and tell them it actually means "I'm saving the world and the species by going to Mars" while we're at it.

At least they can say "I don't have to live on that planet anymore"

LIFE FINDS A WAY

/cue Jurassic Park theme

This plan is flawless, if you ignore all the food a person has to eat in order to maintain themselves, which requires industrial farming, which produces cow-fart methane, which causes global warming.

Ergo, Tour De' France is an ecological disaster.

Cow farts are gonna make the sky fall!

Weather =/= climate, but I don't expect somebody without an education to be able to understand such a simple concept.

Global cooling was never the consensus opinion and hasn't been seriously considered for decades. Global warming, climate change, and climate disruption all refer to the same thing. Context determines which is the more concise term.

Soo...uhh...do you think you're actually convincing anyone of anything or do you just get off from publicly exhibiting how stupid you are to people?

Picture one confuses weather with climate, two distinctly different things.
Picture two shows you don't know how rate of change works.
Picture three tries to compare hundreds of millions of years to roughly a century's worth of time

You don't even know what you're linking, do you?
Made all the more amusing since he was criticizing a difference of 40 years between data sets earlier in the thread. Just wait until the rest of the scientific community finds out it was bested by someone who still can't figure out the possessive apostrophe. Boy, won't their faces be red!

Can we just get graphs and charts banned from this thread altogether? Depression is setting in.

Random at best, no correlation? You see how that 10 year running average change creeps above 0.0 after 1960? And stays there? Note the rarity of negative change after that?

Good job at refuting your own argument.

Nope.

Source

Source

Al Gore global warming by day super villain by night.

Al Gore scammed you guys good.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire