Comment Re:How? (Score 2) 296
Thunderbolt is set up to be basically a PCI-e x2 or x4 port.
Ugh. A graphics card on a PCIe x4.
That's going to be fast.
Thunderbolt is set up to be basically a PCI-e x2 or x4 port.
Ugh. A graphics card on a PCIe x4.
That's going to be fast.
St Pierre ou Miquelon?
TIL -- You can metamod yourself.
If anything, what we're likely to see is electric vehicles literally falling apart while the electric motors within will still be in fine working condition.
That's what people say about Tesla, anyway.
Peroxide is easier and safer to transport/store than avgas.
Hahahahaha!
You win the internets with this one!
Meanwhile we produce 40% of our electric power with renewables.
This is a lie.
40% of your installed capacity is renewables.
Only around 25% of your generation comes from renewables.
Over 50% of your generation is from fossil fuels (and most of that is coal, and about 25% of your generation is from fucking lignite, the shittiest, dirtiest thing you could possibly burn).
Why do you bother lying? All the figures are available online.
Germany is the country with the highest reduction of CO2 of the world.
Fantasy.
In 2014 German CO2 emissions dropped by 4.3% -- the first drop in three years.
In 2015 German CO2 emissions rose by 1%.
Germany emits nearly twice the CO2 per capita that France emits. France reduced its CO2 emissions in the 1990's. Germany could have reduced its CO2 emissions by closing coal fired electricity generation plants but decided instead to keep emissions more or less constant by replacing low carbon nuclear plants by low carbon renewables.
Almost every post you make is full of unsupported lies.
Come back when your country has build a few nukes successfuly and/or has at least reached a fraction of the CO2 reduction Germany has.
I live in France you moron.
You still don't get it, do you.
You've wasted 20 years you could have spent reducing your CO2 output, and you're planning to waste 10-20 more.
And you expect praise.
Your phobia about nukes makes you ridiculous.
Absorbing 57%.
And emitting more or less 57% when it rots.
Yes, plants are important in atmospheric CO2 equilibrium -- the point is that we are not in equilibrium.
On top of that it mixes production of electricity with total power e.g. as in heating. Obviously you can not simply replace a coal fired heating system in a house with a wind turbine. And more obviously: how exactly do you plan to heat a house with a nuke?
Huh? The easy way is with electric heating, and if you're really into efficiency you can do nuclear CHP.
So, which CO2 production did the meanwhile 40% renewables replace then?
Very little.
Because Germany doesn't generate 40% of its power from renewables. It has 40% capacity. Actual generation is around 25%.
German CO2 production has not fallen by any significant amount.
CO2 production from coal is going down since decades.
Renewables produce now 40% of our power.
Splendid. In 20 years you may be able to get your CO2 emissions down to where France got them in the 1990's.
Oh, yes, sorry, your right in one thing, when I said "That's because doubling the amount we emit will more than double the atmospheric concentration" I missed out a word:
That's because doubling the amount we emit will more than double the change in atmospheric concentration
Very little CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis -- look at the size of the little sawtooths on the Keeling curve that correspond to the northern hemisphere growth season.
The part of our emissions that don't go into the atmosphere mostly go into the sea.
Anyway, if you want the numbers and the explanations read the papers, for example the one I gave a link to.
Secondly,
An approximately linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions is known to hold up to 2 EgC emissions on decadal to centennial timescales7, 8, 9, 10, 11; however, in some simple climate models the predicted warming at higher cumulative emissions is less than that predicted by such a linear relationship8. The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon
Every other modeler since Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, and especialy Svante Arrhenius uses logarithmic relationship
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.Svante Arrhenius
These guys are claiming the entire body of Climatological "Settled Science" is wrong and they are just throwing it out there like a bunch of assholes trolling click-bait; at least on Facebook the click-bait trolls give you some side-boob or camel-toed yoga-pants.
You're confusing two different things -- Fourier and Arrhenius (and everyone else) say that there is a logarithmic relationship between the increase in CO2 concentration and the increase in temperature.
This paper (as do many others) claims that there is a (near) linear relationship between emissions and temperature.
That's because doubling the amount we emit will more than double the atmospheric concentration, as the oceans will be taking up a smaller part of what we emit. Look for articles that talk about the TCRE "transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions", e.g. Le Duc et al 2015
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
