The problem that your idea has is that the 6 billion third worlders who want to be first worlders have no interest in your CO2/climate conspiracy theories and are busy burning as much coal as they can, and building new coal powered generating plants at a breakneck speed. So until you can find a way of getting them on board, your pious attempt to reduce CO2 (which frankly is mostly done by exporting manufacture to the third world) then this is all hot air.
I can't imagine lifting several billion poor people into space is ever going to happen. So while you may solve the problem of humanity's extinction it doesn't actually solve the problems (if any, grins) here on Earth.
Yes. Of course at some point we have to decide what the target temperature/global climate pattern is and whether it is feasible to attain it. I'd be far more worried about a trend towards an Ice Age than a warmer world.
I disagree, if a geoengineering tool is found to work, eg sequestration (which strikes me as a completely dodgy proposition), it'll be the people-haters in the warmist camp who'll be against it.
If nothing else this project may allow some refinement of cloud/albedo modelling, thereby improving the hopeless climate models that the warmists take so seriously.
"Extreme surge pricing just means the cabs are reserved for upper income people, which some of you find perfectly acceptable. I don't, especially in an emergency."
Then what is the point of having more money? You seem to be implying that it shouldn't be used to buy harder to get services or items? Frankly that is precisely why I spent 15 years investing 50% of my earnings, so now I can have 3 houses, and work for fun, and drive a shiny car and go on fantastic holidays. I wouldn't have bothered if it just meant I could buy more cheap crap.
1 go to a toy shop
2 buy a train set
3 play with it
Annoyingly enough you are correct. Exercise is a good way of getting fit, but not a particularly effective way of losing weight. I have recently been losing 1 kg a week (for 2 months) mainly because I have had a jaw reconstruction and basically have to eat slowly, and due to some other treatment food doesn't taste that great, so I tend to get bored before I finish a plateful.
Again you guys are making some mythical denialists up. Straw men as I believe they are known.
All figures from memory:
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. For some reason the natural feedback in the carbon cycle responds with a time constant longer than 150 years, which is quite odd in itself. As a result 60% of CO2 from FF burned in the last 150 years is still in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to Earth's atmosphere will, on balance, increase the global surface average temperature.
So, so far I'm a lukewarm warmist.
But, the CO2 effect used in the models has to be massively overemphasised to match the historical temperature record. The claim is that much of this represent positive feedbacks associated with water, which according to NASA is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect, as clouds, albedo, and vapor.
It seems to me that any model that uses calibration factors of the order of 200% is not really modelling the system properly. Until we can model clouds and albedo properly we won't have a predictive ability that is robust.
So call me a computer model skeptic. (My day job is in the field of non linear time based modelling, and statistics).
I'm afraid my answer is that more data is required, the current models are shite for predictive purposes.
"there is no climate change" - I wonder how many deniers or skeptics argue that?- only a tiny %age at a guess. I'd say the evidence for climate change since the last Ice Age indicates that non-anthropogenic GW one of the stronger puzzles that needs to be worked on, even if Mann and Smith are trying to downplay the variability seen.
Joel Slatis, founder of Timesheets.com " “If you fill out a paper timecard and write down 8 a.m. when you come in at 8:02, no one is going to bat an eye. But if you do that when you leave too, that means you’re getting 5 minutes more a day. After a year, that’s a few days more vacation.”"
So, if I start at 757 and finish at 1702 every day then can I have a couple more days vacation? In the people's republic of Australia we do this, they are called rostered days off, basically we work 5% extra time for 19 days of the 4 weeks, and take the 20th off.
And since vietnam how many air to air gun kills has the USAF had? The number is approximately zero, yet every jet ends up carrying a gun because of the stupid logic you have spouted.
The main commercial source of hydrogen at the moment is by catalysis from hydrocarbons, thereby pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't think Vodafone has got the foggiest with this line of reasoning.
A flight lasting one solid year seems a bit of a well kept secret, got a cite for that?
Um, no. The cells were 23% efficient, which is not exceptional, and the batteries had an energy density of 243W h kg1, which again is scarcely cutting edge.
I think this project demonstrates maturity in the technologies used, not progress as such.
Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.