Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Interesting (Score 1) 24

Interesting.

For much of the world, avoiding starvation is the principle goal, so for these areas, higher crop yields are beneficial despite lower nutrient density.

For most of the developed world, getting enough calories to avoid starvation is not a big deal, and lower nutrients in food is undesirable.

Another thing to keep in mind, of course, is that increased carbon dioxide is going to play havoc with existing farms and fields due to climate change, with areas currently producing high crop yields becoming less farmable, and (presumably) other areas not currently farmable due to drought or other climate-related factors becoming more farmable. This will create an unknown amount of economic disruption.

Comment Re:How much water is that, anyways? (Score 1) 36

I agree that in theory it is entirely possible to reuse DC cooling water.

I also maintain that this will not, in fact, happen.

This is the same game politicians constantly play. Sure, passing this law means closing the factory which will will put thousands out of work. But we could offer retraining opportunities! We won't, but we could.

Comment Now let us use two app stores at once PLEASE (Score 1) 22

It is totally byzantine if you need an app that is only on one App Store or happen to travel. Actual case that happened to me. United app for boarding pass, mobile roaming app from another country's phone company. Media subscriptions from U.S. App Store which was my default. Apple had me cancel my media subscriptions, create another id with an iCloud email address I don't otherwise use, and every time I need to spend time to make sure something I need will work in advance. Apple PLEASE let us use multiple app stores at the same time without forcing such destabilizing kludges. Even now I never know if what I need to work will work, or if my subscription or billing will work.. The billing screen also has issues like that.

Comment Re:How much water is that, anyways? (Score 1, Interesting) 36

I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or not.

Suppose that water headed for California almond farms instead was diverted to Arizona golf courses. What's the problem, right? Not like the water was destroyed or something.

You may as well ask, what's the problem with inflation? Not like money is destroyed when you spend it.

Comment Re:I'm cool about it (Score 1) 48

Reminds me of a lot of the themes from Jurassic Park that are glossed over in the movie version.

"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
-- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

Comment Re:Marine aerosols [Re:Which record?] (Score 2) 48

An improvement is an improvement, and your own claims support it. The fact-based article is not "editorial"..

No article was linked. Your assertion, on the other hand, contained both a fact ("the pollutants were actually causing clouds to form, cooling the environment") and an editorial ("a bad idea".) The fact is accurate. The editorial addition is an opinion.

If you had linked an article, probably this one, you would discover that it nowhere contained the editorial you added to it, "a bad idea."

Comment Marine aerosols [Re:Which record?] (Score 3, Informative) 48

Simultaneously, do we not remember the article from June 2023 on science.(com? org?) where they describe how cleaning up ship fuels ended up being a bad idea because the pollutants were actually causing clouds to form, cooling the environment?

The phrase "a bad idea" is editorializing. It is true that sulfate aerosol emission from shipping had a cooling effect, and reducing these emissions had an (unexpected) warming effect. Whether reducing these emissions was a bad idea or not depends on whether the beneficial effects of reducing sulfate pollution outweighs the negative effects of the slight reduction in cooling. The cooling effect of the marine sulfates was estimated at about 0.12 w/m^2, which is small compared to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, currently estimated at about 3.5 W/m^2.

Comment Waste heat [Re:Which record?] (Score 1) 48

Though at the same time, human heat engines will have some sort of impact on the environment. To claim otherwise is fallacious.

True, but it turns out that waste heat is a very small contributor to the global temperature change compared to greenhouse gasses. Basically, if you emit one erg of energy from a heat engine, that's one erg of energy one time, and done. On the other hand, if greenhouse gasses absorb one erg of energy and reradiate it downward, that same carbon dioxide will keep on absorbing and reradiating energy for the lifetime of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, estimated to be hundreds of years under current conditions.

It's the difference between a one-time input of energy and a continuous input of energy.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being poor is that it takes up all your time.

Working...