Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
2851 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1393

Lifetime subscriber

  # 2253964 7-Jun-2019 16:39
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:
frankv:

 

Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

 

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

 

 At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

 



In world terms, that isn't even well paid.

 

For 90% of the world population, that's beyond the dreams of avarice.

 

 


1701 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 942


  # 2253967 7-Jun-2019 16:47
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

 

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

 

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

 

 

The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem.  If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.

 

And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept.  Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.

 

But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution


 
 
 
 


16614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3277

Trusted

  # 2253993 7-Jun-2019 18:00
4 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:
frankv:

 

Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

 

 

 

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

 

 

 

 At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

 

 

 

 

 



In world terms, that isn't even well paid.

 

Is there a -1 button here?


16614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3277

Trusted

  # 2253994 7-Jun-2019 18:07
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

tdgeek:

 

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

 

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

 

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

 

 

The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem.  If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.

 

And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept.  Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.

 

But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution

 

 

TBH I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or that piece.

 

The point is we can do it. Easy as F*** Its just tech. We went to the moon based on a computer that had 80 bytes of memory, it was made for ICBM trajectories. 

 

So can we adjust our usage to maximise O, and minimise CO2? Off course. Easy as F. But as this is not a classroom or lecture theatre but a world based on votes and money, then no.

 

Heard of global cooling? That can happen. But no, money and votes make it so.


12907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4315

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2254143 8-Jun-2019 07:30
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

shk292:


tdgeek:


"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.


Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.


The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world


https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns



The "coulds" and "as much as"-type phrases are part of the problem.  If, in 1939, military leaders had said "our computer models show that Hitler could invade Poland as soon as 1945", there wouldn't have been the military or economic response that actually happened.


And as pointed out above, we could absolutely build a whole lot of clean power generating capacity but there would be an impact of some sort, which people - mostly Greens - are unwilling to accept.  Until we can agree whether CC is a serious enough problem to justify lesser impacts in order to solve, I guess we just nibble around the edges using LED bulbs etc.


But whatever the problem, socialism isn't the solution



TBH I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or that piece.


The point is we can do it. Easy as F*** Its just tech. We went to the moon based on a computer that had 80 bytes of memory, it was made for ICBM trajectories. 


So can we adjust our usage to maximise O, and minimise CO2? Off course. Easy as F. But as this is not a classroom or lecture theatre but a world based on votes and money, then no.


Heard of global cooling? That can happen. But no, money and votes make it so.



I do wonder what would happen if the ice started returning. Would we all be expected to buy huge American V8s?





gzt

10765 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1788


  # 2254146 8-Jun-2019 07:56
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post


2399 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1443


  # 2254693 9-Jun-2019 09:44
Send private message quote this post

This might seem like an inappropriate place to post this video.

However it's a friendly discussion on why the Earth's climate goes awry unpredictably.

It also discusses the seeming contradiction how global warming could cause European winters to get much worse.

Joe Scott

"Game of Thrones just came to an and, so I thought it was an appropriate time to look at the world of the series and examine how a planet could have the random and unpredictable winters that they experience on the show."


 
 
 
 


2399 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1443


  # 2256576 12-Jun-2019 11:43
Send private message quote this post

Donald Trump vs. climate change

CNN

Here’s a brief history of his climate change skepticism.




1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  # 2257001 12-Jun-2019 20:16
Send private message quote this post

https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11

 

On the above page, water vapour is described as "the main cause behind the greenhouse effect" contributing 36-70%:

 

1. WATER VAPOR

 

Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect.

 

There has been a lot of publicity recently to the arrival in NZ of two Hyundai hydrogen powered electric vehicles. However, "Linuxluver" pointed out that:

 

The emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are water and warm air. In that sense, they could be argued to be better than fossil fuels, which emit carbon and other things. 

But water vapour is, itself, a powerful greenhouse factor.....and a billion fuel cell vehicles could end up making little difference to the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere. 

EVs emit nothing. 

 

Has there been any published research to support the view that hydrogen powered vehicles are in fact not all that good for the environment because of the emission of water vapour? I guess this should be a key point for future research as one of the main objectives of electric vehicles is to reduce emissions, not add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere?


2399 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1443


  # 2257041 12-Jun-2019 20:46
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

The argument you're alluding to is the "iris effect" by MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.

He is often cited by those trying to contradict global warming. Like flat earth, faked moon landings and "evolution doesn't exist", it one of those persistent memes that won't die.

The article you gave is from 2009. Lindzen's water vapor theory was first debunked six months afterwards. It has been repeatedly debunked since.

There's no shortage of materials debunking him, but here's one.

https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

Here's a 2014 article in Nature that debunks it, yet again.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12829

Regarding electric cars and climate change, there has been studies that an electric car charging even from dirty coal powered plants is still better than driving a petrol car, due to the very high efficiency of electric motors and electricity transmission. Remember that petrol doesn't magically get to fueling stations. It needs to be manufactured, and transported.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-electric-vehicle-air-quality-climate.html

https://jalopnik.com/enough-with-the-actually-electric-cars-pollute-more-bu-1834338565

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

8286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4571


  # 2257471 13-Jun-2019 16:17
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly: There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

 

I thought that a Mars colony was "plan b" in some people's mind.

 

Well at least a 70% chance it'll happen for them.


2399 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1443


  # 2257472 13-Jun-2019 16:17
Send private message quote this post

LOL. Most insane video by a climate denier ever.

Don't Worry About Global Warming

Abraham Hicks / Law Of Attraction


4827 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2755

Trusted

  # 2257515 13-Jun-2019 16:38
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

kingdragonfly: There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

 

I thought that a Mars colony was "plan b" in some people's mind.

 

Well at least a 70% chance it'll happen for them.

 

 

Elon Musk has a plan to build a Mars Colony. But he's so full of bovine excrement it's almost funny.


2399 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1443


  # 2257538 13-Jun-2019 17:25
Send private message quote this post

I'm getting off subject, and I'm not suggesting a "burn baby burn" attitude toward the Earth.

Even living on the South pole or 40 meters underwater would be more hospitable than anywhere on Mars.

Not that I'm ever going to see it, but there's also Venus.

Should We Live On Venus BEFORE Mars?

Life Noggin

Colonizing Mars might seem like a great idea, but should we go to Venus instead?



Here's an article that says you need at least 80 pioneers in a space colony.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/



1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  # 2257620 13-Jun-2019 21:15
Send private message quote this post

 

It's annoying how these false theories burn up so much precious time, while our only home slowly dies. There's is no "plan b" if we toast the Earth.

 

To people who are not climate change scientists, I guess the internet is the main source of information about greenhouse gases etc. So, in simple terms, is it correct to say that, because of the emission of water vapour, hydrogen powered electric vehicles are worse for the environment than battery electric vehicles, which are said to have no emissions?

 

That was the point made by "LinuxLuver", so do you think it's a fair observation when comparing battery EVs with hydrogen powered EVs? After all, quite a large percentage of people who buy EVs are doing so because they wish to play their part in reducing global emissions, so why choose a hydrogen powered EV if in fact it emits a greenhouse gas?

 

 

 

 

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35


Air New Zealand uses drones to inspect aircraft
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:39


TCL Electronics launches its first-ever 8K TV
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:18


E-scooter share scheme launches in Wellington
Posted 17-Jun-2019 12:34


Anyone can broadcast with Kordia Pop Up TV
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:51


Volvo and Uber present production vehicle ready for self-driving
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:47


100,000 customers connected to fibre broadband network through Enable
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:35


5G uptake even faster than expected
Posted 12-Jun-2019 10:01


Xbox showcases 60 anticipated games
Posted 10-Jun-2019 20:24


Trend Micro Turns Public Hotspots into Secure Networks with WiFi Protection for Mobile Devices
Posted 5-Jun-2019 13:24


Bold UK spinoff for beauty software company Flossie
Posted 2-Jun-2019 14:10


Amazon Introduces Echo Show 5
Posted 1-Jun-2019 15:32



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.