Indeed. Looks like 100m is the maximum cable length, which is plenty for most networks.
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
So, if us Christians ain't make an argument for God on the bases that it needs to be shown before it be claimd, then show ur proof for Global Worming. Proof that it exists, not clams.
Sep 13, 2018
0
#7664
Cubronzo wrote:
So, if us Christians ain't make an argument for God on the bases that it needs to be shown before it be claimd, then show ur proof for Global Worming. Proof that it exists, not clams.
Clams exist too.
Cubronzo wrote:
So, if us Christians ain't make an argument for God on the bases that it needs to be shown before it be claimd, then show ur proof for Global Worming. Proof that it exists, not clams.
Global warming has been proven to everyone's satisfaction for quite some time. Global worming sounds like a good idea for WHO to take up.
Sep 13, 2018
0
#7666
Global warming=Real. Man Made Global Warming=False/Scam/Hoax. Without CO2 all life on this planet would come to an end. Us humans are co2 based life forms. No amount of establishment pseudo science (which is what man made global warming is based off of) will ever change that. Thanks to the Vostok ice core samples scientists have been abel to study earths climate as far back as eight hundred thousand years (800,000 years) pretty interesting what they discovered
Sep 13, 2018
0
#7667
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Global warming=Real.
True.
Man Made Global Warming=False/Scam/Hoax.
False.
Without CO2 all life on this planet would come to an end.
True, but entirely irrelevant, and you stating this is symptomatic of your faulty thought processes.
Us humans are co2 based life forms.
No, we are not. We are carbon-based life forms: CO2 is a waste product to us. We don't metabolise CO2 at all: plants do. We exclusively metabolise reduced carbon-based chemicals produced by plants and other animals.
No amount of establishment pseudo science (which is what man made global warming is based off of) will ever change that.
That's a very roundabout way to say you are clueless about every aspect of climate science. There is no shame in that.
Thanks to the Vostok ice core samples scientists have been abel to study earths climate as far back as eight hundred thousand years (800,000 years) pretty interesting what they discovered.
The same climate scientists who virtually universally accept anthropogenic global warming these days think so too.
Your vague guesses don't stack up against the science of which you are ignorant.
Sep 13, 2018
0
#7668
It’s not about me. I’m simply adding to the debate based on information I come across by people smarter than I am.
Sep 13, 2018
0
#7669
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
It’s not about me. I’m simply adding to the debate based on information I come across by people smarter than I am.
You're not adding to it. You are echoing a false viewpoint. You ignore almost all expertise on the subject based on bias that has no scientific basis.
Even with a giant deadly storm bearing down on the East Coast,Trump cancels another regulation designed to limit global warming catastrophe.
Trump Administration Wants to Make It Easier to Release Methane Into ...
Sep 14, 2018
0
#7672
#8562 - nice axolotl ! Never thought I'd use that phrase on here! A friend of mine has one.
Sep 15, 2018
0
#7673
wickiwacky wrote:
#8562 - nice axolotl ! Never thought I'd use that phrase on here! A friend of mine has one.
They are fascinating.
Aren't they a protected species?
Sep 15, 2018
0
#7675
Yes: they are classified as "critically endangered". Tragically, they are very close to extinction in the wild, if not already extinct, entirely due to human pressure on their environment.
They are bred in captivity, which is not a threat to wild populations, as it is based entirely on existing lines. There are plans to actively create environments for them to return to stable populations in the wild, but I don't believe these have yet been successful.
They are such iconic and unique examples of the one of the most exotic and important branches of life to evolution (the amphibians) that it is vital that they be protected successfully. Humans must make room on Earth for the rest of life or we will end up living between a battery farm and a rubbish tip.
The axolotl genome is 10 times bigger than the human genome. They can regenerate entire limbs and other organs (even parts of their brains).
Sep 22, 2018
0
#7676
Could cheap sodium batteries be a key technology for grid power storage?
Leap in sodium battery technology offers great potential
Sep 23, 2018
0
#7677
s23bog wrote:
If only there was a way to convert CO2 into O2 and produce power while doing it.
If only!
The second law of thermodynamics means that you need a source of energy to reduce carbon dioxide and produce energy. Plants have done this using the energy from the Sun, but they cannot do it anywhere near fast enough to keep up with human CO2 emissions.
As mentioned in an earlier post, humans are working on enhanced photosynthetic processes that may be able to harness more of the energy from the Sun than plants can.
Sep 23, 2018
0
#7678
My point is that the conversion requires energy. So the energy has to come from somewhere. And it has to be somewhere that doesn't produce more CO2 than it converts. (This would happen if you used fossil fuels).
But your point is good: processes that reverse CO2 emissions are potentially useful as well as those that avoid CO2 emissions. The only such process of any significance at present is growing plants.
Sep 23, 2018
0
#7679
Biofuels exist. The problem is that you don't get much energy per hectare, because plants only capture a maximum of about 1% of the solar energy. Humans use so much energy biofuels can't suffice (not to mention the huge pressure on the environment, food production and high cost compared to wind or solar).
Unfortunately, the Bioo concept looks like a fake. It just doesn't seem to make sense. When looking at things like this, bear in mind that many people have devoted much time for many years to study energy production, and advances are not easy these days.
Sep 24, 2018
0
#7680
s23bog wrote:
There are a number of different aspects to the problem that can be addressed simultaneously, over time. It will take many people, many hours, working feverishly around the clock to address all the problems that need to be addressed.
My proposed path of development is to use plants, preferably those that need little to no light (look at deep sea life, and deep earth life) One should also look to maximize CO2 to O2 conversion (regardless of how much sunlight is needed). That is one front. As you have stated there are countless ways in which things are complicated. Each of the problems encountered along the way leads to new problems that need to be addressed. There is no FINAL SOLUTION. To say that means that there will be a final problem.
One also needs to address the rate at which we consume. As the number of people increases, power requirements can increase, but they do not need to increase. There may come a day when someone finds a way to decrease power consumption faster than power demands are increased.
LED lights versus incandescent are a good example of a small step. Massive improvements can be made to efficiency of refrigeration and cooling. Think of building a house that can break free from the earth and take an orbital path. Now, you could then try to calculate what is required to change orbital paths, if you really wanted to do so.
Another point of view .... MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD. For straight and narrow is the road to life, and few find it, and broad and wide is the road to destruction.
You could do with a bit more knowledge of some relevant scientific topics.
Plants produce oxygen solely as a byproduct of photosynthesis. This process requires an energy input in the form of sunlight. All organisms have to make do with the energy sources to which they have access. Animals use fuels that are the product of photosynthetic plants. So if you want to convert CO2 to O2 with plants, you need photosynthetic plants and sunlight.
The main energy sources independent of the Sun are chemical ones, such as those available around hydrothermal vents. Anywhere there are chemicals that can react to produce heat is a potential source of energy and bacteria use several of them, but such sources are minuscule compared to the enormous energy from the Sun. (Don't knock them though: they were very likely used by the first life on Earth).
Oh, wrong thread... but you can still make a prediction