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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 1) 277

so props for the lmgthy.com link....very nice\


These results have not been confirmed by other ice cores, notably the nearby GISP2 core.

the potential for rapid climate change during interglacial periods remains one of the most intriguing gaps in our understanding of the nature of major Quaternary climate change.

In other words, this is a one off and not supported by other relevant data.

Comment Re: DRONE ON (Score 1) 277

Lithium is completely recyclable. Economically its not viable currently compared with mining new, but keeping the oceans from consuming NYC, Miami and a host of other coastal mega-cities will more than offset this cost; i.e. everything has cost. Still entirely possible and not technically difficult.

Solar panels are likewise almost entirely recyclable.

Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand. Definitely a niche requirement, but it simply can't scale globally.

Still on the the fucking trees. Google it. It doesn't work.

Comment Re: Overpopulation in Africa, the Middle East, Ind (Score 1) 277

Nuclear isn't viable. Nobody has figured out how to deal with the waste. Hence it piling up in 'storage ponds'. The folly that we can predict it won't be disturbed for 1000x the length our modern society has existed is laughable. (all that said, nuclear is totally required for the next 50-100 years to deal with climate change)

On that front, my favorite, actually realistic, plan to deal with nuclear waste is to launch it into the sun. Seriously. The entire earth could, err will, be consumed by the Sun and it won't so much as burp. We can totally just throw all of our waste into it with literally zero downsides.

Just a bit economically unfeasible though, at least for now. The real fun fact is it's 'cheaper' to launch that waste out to Pluto and then send it into the Sun. I blame physics ;-)

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 1) 277

Actually, in the long run that will be necessary anyway, because the Earth's climate has significant natural variation, enough that for most of the planet's life-bearing history it's had a climate that we wouldn't like very much.

Since we're still in the infancy of climate understanding; i.e. we can read it and make predictions that generally come true. That's a far far way from being able to engineer it to our desires.

And so dealing with something within 100 years outweighs the planning for dealing with the next ice age in 10,000....

. There's also evidence from both Greenland and Antarctic ice core records that the planet occasionally undergoes very rapid spontaneous (i.e. not driven by obvious causes like large volcanic event) climate changes -- faster than the current anthropogenic change.

Source required for this.

Reducing our "accidental" impact will make the job of engineering appropriate deliberate impacts easier, of course.

Agreed with the caveat that our impact is far from accidental.

Comment Re: DRONE ON (Score 1) 277

Sigh indeed.

You've provided no solutions beyond ones clearly not feasible.

No one said mining materials was emission free. Even if it's 10% of current coal emissions...um, that's a bad thing?

required real estate? you mean rooftops? or road ways? or just panes of glass? Anything that is hit by sunlight can potentially be power generating, drastically reducing the need to centralized, real estate gobbling power plants.

Nothing says you can't recycle the materials in the panels when they are broken. And the batteries required for grid scale solar are similar. We already recycle lead to the point that it's no longer present in the environment beyond normal background levels. And that was just in 2-3 decades after massive pollution.

You seem to bent on perfect when good will do just fine.

Comment Re:dangerous academics (Score 1) 277

Actually the kinetic studies on the atmosphere show that we are already turning over the CO2 surprisingly fast.

Define turning over? CO2 levels are rising unabated currently.

we won't be able to double the atmospheric CO2 levels given some decent management of the land and water.

We've already doubled the natural swing from low to high and we're 50% higher than the highest highs in the last 1/2 million years. linky

we seem to probably be sliding toward a Maunder type minimum for the next 30 - 200 years

again, any links supporting this? I won't argue that perhaps that would be the normal pattern of the climate, but no models show this even remotely starting right now.

As for ice ages. Those take 1000s of years to even begin to start affecting the world. The 1970s were correct in that given our orbit wobbling we should be starting to enter into the next glacial period. Instead temps have gone up drastically rather than being relatively static and trending slightly down.

Comment Re: DRONE ON (Score 1) 277

the conservation of energy. indeed. Solar provides energy that's is entirely free for every relevant scenario we'd be dealing with.

regarding trees: linky

You'd have to plant trees in an area the size of basically Texas...every single year and never let that CO2 go back into the atmosphere. That's just to keep up with current status quo. More if you want to start cutting into what we've already released.

Trees is not even a fraction the answer we need. Of course not cutting down the trees we still have is prudent.

Slashdot Top Deals

Torque is cheap.