51–60 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only China, but which large country cares about larger environmental impact? Looking at the weapons the big countries are still building (man made floods, tornadoes etc) I don't think it's fair to target China alone.
> which large country cares about larger environmental impact? Germany and Japan come to mind.
In other news, in San Francisco, the NIMBYs won an agitation to prevent a 4 school building from being constructed. I am kidding..maybe. In all honestly, I think the time for US to create large scale construction projects that serve humanity (at the expense of environment) are over. We are lucky that the interstates got build in 1950s, that the NYC Subway was formed in late 19th century etc. Today, the regulations an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which large country cares about larger environmental impact? Germany and Japan come to mind.
Such irony. The losers of WWII now care about the fate of the planet more than the "winners". I say "winners" because no one really wins a war. We all lose.
Apart of that, generations have passed since then. The majority of people alive now were born after the war, so shift in mindset is not too surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such irony. The losers of WWII now care about the fate of the planet more than the "winners". I say "winners" because no one really wins a war. We all lose.
Huh, what does this have to do with the outcome of a war? That would imply that someone can win a war by caring about the planet. Also, caring about climate change does not necessarily have a strong correlation with views on war. Apart of that, generations have passed since then. The majority of people alive now were born after the war, so shift in mindset is not too surprising.
I think the right side of the American political spectrum pretty much disproves this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, fusion wont make energy nearly free. Let's pretend a fusion plant is completely free to build, maintain, operate, and decommission. 50% of the cost of electricity is from transmission and distribution. Those costs aren't going anywhere. So at most, you'll get a 50% savings. But you're not getting that either, because that fusion plant definitely wont be free.
Yes, fusion will make energy nearly free. Fusion reactors are mechanically simple and safe and can be made in tiny form factors, including engines. They are predicting container-sized "plants" that can power hundreds of thousands of homes. Fusion will heavily decentralize the grid (partially because of transmission costs). Nothing is totally free of course, but fusion can do for energy what the internet did for distr…
In other news, in San Francisco, the NIMBYs won an agitation to prevent a 4 school building from being constructed. I am kidding..maybe. In all honestly, I think the time for US to create large scale construction projects that serve humanity (at the expense of environment) are over. We are lucky that the interstates got build in 1950s, that the NYC Subway was formed in late 19th century etc. Today, the regulations an…
There are spectacular results when glaciating individual clouds [1] and there is some evidence of glaciogenic cloud seeding (the kind done with silver iodide) working in mountainous regions where supercooled clouds are common [2 - paywalled unfortunately]. However, much of the Tibetan plateau has high amounts of dust, which means that the clouds already form ice at relatively warm temperatures [3]. In this case, silver iodide might not be expected to have a large effect on precipitation formation.
It is also very difficult to detect a change in precipitation, as it varies strongly in both space and time, requiring long averaging periods to detect a change. This will be an very useful experiment if it goes forward, but I suspect that concerns over rain-stealing are rather overblown, as are hopes that it could significantly enhance rainfall in arid regions.
[0] - https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-5-647
[1] - https://www.ge.com/reports/snow-men-cometh-kurt-vonnegut-ice...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible, even likely, that much of the rain would have fallen on the ocean.
Really? Because most of the moisture originated from the oceans in the first place. Are you saying that after genesis, it travels for some time over land before being deposited back in an ocean?
Googling around a bit, there seems to be a long history of weather-modification news coming out of China. In 2008, according to the Beijing Weather Modification Office, China used rockets to make sure the Olympic opening ceremony was rain-free: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/how-beijing-use... In 2013, China was producing "55 billion tons of artificial rain a year" according to the China Meteorological…
I just looked it up again and the program has been on hold since 2016.
* http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-open-britain-eu-referend...
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/22...
* https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-commuters-u...
The next morning it all cleared away and it was a beautiful sunny day to the point where even Nigel Farage had to make a comment / joke about it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCb1cGROAw].
If localized rain-making on a massive scale like this is possible, I wonder if it was used to manipulate the referendum by whoever might be interested in that.