0 PPM CO2?
From an article about prospective carbon capture technology comes this gem.
we’re going to far exceed any safe limit for CO2, if there is one.
If there is a safe level of CO2?
I’m going to attribute that to what I call the Gerald Ford rule of public speaking: the more often you talk in public the more often something regrettably stupid will slip out of your mouth that you know damn well isn’t true.
I mean, I really really hope that’s the case here, because the alternative is too depressing.
you probably get called out as a poser
how to lose weight fast Chena Bend Golf Course Reviews
for anyone searching for a easy on the wallet weight loss garment to sign up for walnut hair strands
gay porn4 Reasons Zooey Deschanel Can Stop Pretending She’s a Dork
gay porn4 Reasons Zooey Deschanel Can Stop Pretending She’s a Dork
Perhaps the CO2 referred to by this statement is that of the hot air expelled in speech.
Seems reasonable.Report
How much urushiol before we’ve reached unsafe levels?
http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/features/climate-change-brings-super-poison-ivyReport
Poison ivy doesn’t bother me.
I am more concerned about the latent aggression of cacti becoming more viable by genetic alterations due to climate change.
That could turn out to be a real pain in the . . .Report
We have yet to hit peak idiot though.Report
We have top men working on it right now.Report
Who?Report
He’s on first, so he’s not working on it, that’s for sure.Report
He’s not working on it is on Third.Report
On the other hand, the sentence is actually clear and understandable.Report
Thread hijacking in progress… Today, Lockheed Martin issued a press release (following statements by the CEO yestereday) implying that they could produce a working 100 MWt nuclear fusion heat source in ten years, given funding. They’ve made noises about their fusion work before, but this is a pretty strong and clear claim.Report
Hot damn. Awesome, bloody awesome news.Report
No, hot fusion.Report
nuclear fusion…in ten years
Heh, that’s the standard joke, right, @michael-cain?Report
The usual form of it is that 30 is the universal constant for the number of years we have to wait for commercial fusion power to be available. IIRC, ITER’s current timeline says 27 assuming no further slips in the schedule. Of course, ITER has never finished anything on its timeline on time (or within budget, for that matter), so 30 still seems safe. Lockheed claims to have invented a new magnetic confinement strategy that is inherently stable.Report
Magnetic confinement at 100 MWt, do they project it will operate above unity? Typically those types have problems with local immission rates.Report
@michael-cain
So is the joke 3 times as funny, or only 1/3 as funny?Report
Magnetic confinement at 100 MWt, do they project it will operate above unity?
Since they claim that such reactors could provide all of global base load electricity by 2050, we have to assume that the answer is “yes.” Just me, but they certainly seem to be handwaving on a number of engineering issues that ITER/DEMO are intended to test. OTOH, even if they didn’t reach unity, but could build a working device in a year or two, they could answer some of those ITER/DEMO questions — like heat extraction and how certain metals respond to that sort of neutron flux — much sooner than ITER/DEMO will.Report
So is the joke 3 times as funny, or only 1/3 as funny?
You tell me. Last week a small group of Swedish and Italian researchers claimed that they verified the operation of Rossi’s E-Cat cold-fusion device (which, Rossi asserts, fuses nickel and hydrogen to form copper), with a one-pound E-Cat producing 1.5 MWh of excess heat over the course of 32 days. The responses from the experts who have read the paper seem to largely be “You measured excess heat how?” with an implied “What a bunch of idiots.” If true, combine it with a simple Stirling engine at 15% efficiency and it produces enough electricity to power an efficient suburban household, plus space heating and hot water.
Is that infinitely funnier, or not funny at all?Report
@michael-cain
It is certainly… interesting.
I’ve seen so many such reports over the years, where observing scientists are initially baffled, but deeper investigation either results in discovered chicanery, or active stonewalling by the “inventor” such that the actual mechanism is never discovered.
I remain skeptical.Report