What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Are they radical? Something that changed your life as much as computers did?
EDIT: what is fleece fabric? I don't know what it means and dictionary fails to help much..
^ Probably microfiber.
Oooh thanks, that's an important invention yes, though still not that life-changing..
Carbon-reinforced compounds maybe? Those existed for a while, but they are used on a large scale nowadays.
Digital memory and Flash memory, better than a CD.
Digital TV.
Flat-screen TV.
Better software and software development tools. Those are really a lot better than 20 years ago.
There were some advances in nuclear fusion recently... not major yet, but it's a step forward.
Advances in solar panel tech.
Lithium batteries (those existed for a while but really only took off fairly recently).
Super- sky- scrapers...
DNA research.
Robot tech has advanced a lot.
There are a lot more satellites than 20 years ago.. GPS became a reality
Just an improved device to store data, nothing radically new.
These are just improved televisions, nothing more.
Better.. but not totally new.
Again, nothing radically new or life changing.
Still just improvements of already existing stuff.
Again, just advancement, still nothing radically new.
Satellites have existed for long, but true, GPS is something new.
Think of something radically new. Something that had no antecedent.
uhm.. scientifical research is not economical stuff.
You underestimate the importance of recent developments.
The entire DNA of humans (and other species) were mapped. I think that's huge. The function of different genes are mapped... pretty amazing stuff imo. This technology and understanding of the genes can help to produce crops that are more resistant to heat and drought.
Advances in computer technology (and engineering) and in software (modeling of particles) will hopefully make fusion tech a reality some day. Those are pretty big steps forward.
The advances in solar tech and production techniques of chips and electric circuits make solar panels more affordable, making a solar-powered future a possibility instead of a fantasy.
Mapping genes is a nice thing, but the ethical part is greatly questionable, and it haven't really changed my life to be honest.
But are not in the interval I wanted to hear from. 1990-2013.
In the future anything could happen..
Again in the future ..
Though I guess we should turn back to the original topic, we are going off topic now.
Then define a "computer".
you can't dismiss refinements and hen ignore the biggest one of all.
Nothing has changed my day to day life more than my mobile phone which is, ultimately, a computer and phone put together. But to dismiss that as "just a computer" would be absurd.
I'm done with you. You're either purposefully misrepresenting what I'm saying, you fail at reading comprehension or I simply lack the linguistic skills to get my point across.
Regardless, you're entire response is written towards points I didn't make.
An example, because I know you'll complain that I'm wrong:
I never said we should keep using petroleum based fuels until the end of time. Never implied it, never suggested it and certainly understand that it's not possible. You just want to pretend I said it so you can claim that I'm wrong.
In fact, I'm pretty certain (since I read my previous posts again) that I thought I said Thorium reactors were going to be the disruptive force in future energy ("wave of the future" was my exact phrase). I'm also certain that Thorium isn't a fossil fuel. But you keep on trucking having the discussion you want to pretend we're having rather than the one we were actually having. I'm done with it though, because it's trite and it's boring and it's a waste of my time to write out response that you are going to pretend say things I'm not saying.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone celebrating it. Happy Thursday to everyone else.
What do you mean? Economical as in cost effective? or as in "to do with money/the economy"? In both cases I'd strongly disagree but it's also the kind of sweeping generalization you could find supporting or counter examples for. Plus the (off) topic was "recent inventions/disoveries that improved our lives" and there's plenty of examples within scientific research. But that's for another topic...
Yes, I agree with you that Thorium reactors look very promising - there were a few posts talking about them many pages ago.
That's why I said we should get back to the original topic.
Okay, now I understand better what you wanted to say. It seemed to me that you are satisfied with things as the way they are now. Maybe Thorium reactors will change the situation of energy production, though I have more faith in fusion power.
It will have effects on the economy, and gets money from economy, but the profit will be acquired in the future, maybe I should have used other words, I have difficulties sometimes describing my thought perfectly in English..
The only thing that would warm the planet faster than AGW would be to burn all the straw men in this thread at once. Would be quite the conflagration.
To me, it sounds like a terrible thing to be building thousands of new nuclear plants on the world.
http://www.pressenza.com/2013/08/thorium-reactors-and-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-the-promise-and-peril-of-thorium/
Although I suppose it won't make a difference for countries that already have lots of nukes: like the USA, China, Russia, UK, France, India, Pakistan. Together they have enough bombs to destroy the world many times over.
If they would switch to thorium power, it would reduce the CO2 emissions quite a lot, and it would buy us time to find a less dangerous solution for the rest of the world.
I wonder, would that work? Or would it merely prevent the search for a less dangerous solution.
After all... building thorium plants costs a lot of money and once the energy starts flowing, why would you need to search for another solution?
And then, why would the rest of the world bother about it either?
So I think it would be better to take the chance we get and to do it right from the start! What do you say people
But better than using fossil energy..
I support your plan, but.. Without state support I will not be able to invest in solar panels or make my (future) home to be environment-friendly (with heating system and such). And my country is having severe problems.. So saving the environment is not a high priority thing over here.
Problem is 'state support' = 'neighbor support'.
What does this mean? Sorry if it's an obvious thing.
Maybe we could shift to a hydrogen-based economy then. But maybe it's a bit impractical, since it's so volatile and even corrosive to metals used in transportation grids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport
Or maybe we could shift to a CH4 based economy. There are some ways to create CH4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/green/h2o-co2-ch4-thanks-to-archaeans/3534
In this way we could build solar plants in deserts (few clouds and much sun), create natural gas from thin air, and transport it to Europe and elsewhere.
Or maybe both.
http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/03/natural-gas-pipelines-could-be-a-hydrogen-helper/
Or maybe even combine it with direct transport of electricity and only use the excess power to create H2 and CH4 and transport that.
We could also shift energy use in our economy towards the daytime. If cars were electric, we could require people to recharge such cars during the daytime (and not at night).
We could also install batteries at home and use that power at night, so that night-time demand for energy will be reduced... although I'm not sure if that'll be cost-effective.
Sounds interesting, I've never heard of this Sabatier reaction, maybe there is fantasy in this.
Somehow, I'm not altogether surprised by this question.
Look at this... even fossil fuels are subsidized ...
https://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energysubsidies/
although mainly in oil-producing and poorer nations... but what a waste of money.
Not everyone's native language is English...and idioms/colloquialisms with vague inferences makes it even harder.
QFT.. We here in Hungary do not have this idiom, so if someone would be so kind to tell me what it means.. Google is not really helpful, nor dictionaries.
Being cryptic doesn't help anyone, you included.
I imagine what he 'might' be saying is that alternative energy adoption requires unilateral support....one person taking it up is next to pointless....but if the entire planet would/could then there would be a change for the better.
But,
Since probably 90% of the planet cannot [for all sorts of reasons] the other 10% WILL NOT - particularly if it disadvantages themselves in the global market....
....commercially.
It ALL comes down to affordability, nothing more.
I don't know what he meant either. My guess was something to do with welfare or subsidies or something...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
