Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Diamonds burn.
But diamonds are tetrahedral at a molecular level, so if you could pick-and-place on an atomic level you could fabricate octet truss on a nanoscale. Thus fulfilling everyones dream of the practical airship.
Isn't that an opportunity cost, like sperm lost to porn?
We had that window of opportunity in the 1970s, but people made other choices (or had them made for them). We may have another 30 years at this point but the result might not be the same as if we'd started then.
I don't have much opinion about electrical potentials throughout the oceans, but telluric currents definitely exist.
Scott Adams guest last episode proposed an "Iris Hypothesis". Where high temperatures cause certain cloud types to close like the iris of an eyeball, changing the albedo. SA though it verges on religious woo-woo, but it sounds like homeostasis to me.
He has started putting an abstract under his Youtube videos. Now I don't have to quote the transcript.  Episode 440: Half of published scientific papers end up being debunked
__Climate change might be real AND 1/2 claims are garbage
__Climate change might be a hoax, in spite of being sorta true
200 reasons against a theory is a tell that no good reasons exist
Guest: Mark Schneider, nuclear engineering expert
__Operating reactors in America are all Gen II, meltdown danger
__Europe has Gen III, better, much more resistant to meltdown
Gen IV nuclear power has 3 attractive options
__molten salt, molten lead, gas cooled, NO MELTDOWNS
__Loss of power to the facility, no problem, no danger Containment systems make them safe from
__bombs
Gen II explosion danger is due to water for cooling
Gen IV doesn’t use water, eliminates explosion danger
5 to 10 years to bring Gen IV online
__currently happening here…but Russia is progressing
__Some Gen IV options, like molten lead, EAT nuclear waste
Gen IV, only 1/3 of heat generated is used for power creation Other 2/3 can be used to desalinate ocean water Youtube faked carriage returns and then vBulletin strips leading spaces. I could have turned the underlines white, but just ignore them. 
NeilBlanchard & redpoint5 —— So many questions. Pick one each.
|
*If there'd been public education in the 1970s,the outcome might have been different.
*The telluric currents aren't attributed with any coupling with the climate.
*There are specific mechanisms associated with clouds in the literature.
I don't have that with me.I don't recall any mention of an 'iris' effect.I'll try for Saturday with the data.
*Scientific papers which make it to publication in the scientific journals are peer-reviewed and 'de-bunked' before they can make it to publication.
*I don't know where Scott Adams gets his 'scientific papers'.If they have a 50% failure rate,then they might be such that they didn't qualify as scientific in the first place,and contained spurious conclusions.
*For climate change to be a hoax would require extraordinary evidence.
*All criticisms of Kepler's law of planetary motion were essentially wrong.
*The Inquisition burned people at the stake for being right.The whole Roman Catholic Church was wrong.And all those 'wrongs' didn't make a right.
*They pilloried Quasimodo for being deaf and for being tried by a deaf judge.
*And then they went after La Esmeralda.