Say, right here in my house, in.... 2 hours? :D
I miss you all - thank you for a great time in August.
OK, I'll try to teleport there... :D
Weeeeell, I would need a helicopter which flies at a speed above 1 000 kmh-1. But I would like to be with you all again, too, but it seems there's no helicopter for me. And no helicopter for the others...
We will have to wait until next summer I think.
Long live p?linka! :D
And: I'm just eating chilli beans which was made the way Zak had done it in August. Very delicious! :)
oh, i tried to get there but looks like I wasnt quick enough ;)
you are right it was such an awesome experience to meet all these people at the same place, same time :)
btw: we could maybe visit you (and Denmark of course ;)) with my gf in the early spring. Cheap airplane goes to Malm? and then bus transfer to Kobenhavn. What do you think about it? :)
oops I forgot to adjust the Stunts Forum clock last Sunday... the two hours passed before I wrote...
i couldn't be there :(
Quote from: "zaqrack"oh, i tried to get there but looks like I wasnt quick enough ;)
you are right it was such an awesome experience to meet all these people at the same place, same time :)
btw: we could maybe visit you (and Denmark of course ;)) with my gf in the early spring. Cheap airplane goes to Malm? and then bus transfer to Kobenhavn. What do you think about it? :)
Well, I wouldn't recommend coming to Denmark in early spring, as it's very cold. 2 years ago, there was snow falling in April :D (And why would someone living in a wonderful place like Budapest ever leave anyway? :roll:)
But I assure that if you come here, you are always welcome to live at our place, and if you come to Copenhagen, I'll travel there to see you!
I'll get my time machine...
Oh no, why didn't I take a look. I could have managed that (although, two hours from Kiel to you... o.k., I could have taken my small green Indy :D )
Quote from: "BonzaiJoe"Well, I wouldn't recommend coming to Denmark in early spring, as it's very cold. 2 years ago, there was snow falling in April :D
Snowfall in April is not rare in Hungary. (OK, neither 25?C and sunshine, because our weather is very changeable in this part of the year...) And there was snowfall also during the 1st Hungarian Stunts Meeting, on 24 October 2003. :) (Sorry for these offtopic things, but as owner of a weather homepage, I couldn't miss that.)
Can you tell me then if the Kyoto protocol is a necessary and/or functioning measure against climate changes?
I'm probably soon to be owner of a political website, so I thought I'd ask :D
OFF to Bonzai Joe. :)
It was very important to do something against climate changes. But this Kyoto protocol... it's only good for politicians for conscience sake. What does it contain? Countries have to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. But I think also the full stopping of emission would be late... Until now we increased concentration of CO2 in air by 50%. There was no instance for such a big a change like this in the past few million years (and no instance for such a RAPID change in the full history of the 4.6 billion-year-old Earth). I can't imagine that this increase won't disturb our climate. And I told nothing about the increase we'll make in the future... (With the emission level accepted in Kyoto, we'll double natural concentration of CO2 around 2100.)
The other fact: we have not enough evidence to say that climate has already changed. OK, we hear more and more about natural catastrophes (floods, hurricanes, etc.). But we can get news from every part of the world easier than ever. (And media is hungrier for death and sensation than ever.) But being aware would be better. Climate has not already changed, but I'm sure that it will change. And it's almost incalculable what will global warming cause at a given place. For example, it can easily happen that the Golf current stops and paradoxically, Europe will become much colder...
And I didn't mention that USA, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases hadn't signed the Kyoto protocol...
Oh no, this computer always forgets to log me in... But you have to see my signature. :)
Well, the USA have signed it, but they have not ratified it. So now it's even more ironic, because the Kyoto protocol is becoming an economical advantage for the USA, now that all other countries are involved in it. And their reason for not joining was, that countries like China and India had to cut their emission less than USA. Not that it wasn't a good idea to cut the CO2 emission.
But anyway, I'm sad to hear that the Kyoto Protocol is not at all enough to save the climate. I hope a more drastic approach will be taken later then, but I know it won't happen as long as Mr. Bush is in office.
Well, me, as a would-be environmentalist, have to say some words here.
The USA buys the carbon dioxide quota of the poor countries, where there's no carbon dioxide pollution. Yes, it's true, the possibility how much a country can pollute the air has a value, and the USA buys it. It's good for them, because they "shouldn't" reduce their carbon dioxide emission, and good for the poor countries, because they get some money (don't think about dollar millions), but bad for the whole global ecosystem.
Yes, there's no 100% evidence that pollution causes current climate change. The value of average global temperature rising is within the natural climate changeability rate. And it's true that we are getting out of an ice age, the ice on the poles very slowly melts. And within this warming period (an interglacial), there was a little bit colder period in the 19th century, and there's steady temperature rising in the 20th century.
Natural things can also affect climate, volcanic eruption for instance. There are natural carbon dioxide emission resources, other greenhouse gases there are, too, and there are some processes which can decrease global temperatures, for instance if a lot of aerosols get into the air. So it is a very complex system, and it's hard to determine the exact responsibility of human activities in current climate change, but I think we can say yes, there's climate change, and yes, (more or less) the human population is to blame for it.
And not the temperature rising is the only key point. If we destroy the rainforests, it will destroy a very huge amount of plants (which would also fix a lot of carbon dioxide), causing serious and sudden soil degradation and change of precipation circumstances. It is also a problem in other countries, where there are no rainforests, but forests. Plants can keep the damp, therefore the water doesn't evaporates. For instance in Hungary there's also a very serious problem: some stupid people cut the corners of our rivers, streams to avoid floods... this caused a big change in the water regime of the Big Plain of Hungary (of course in negative direction). And there's less water in Danube, because of a damned Slovakian power station (skid off Slovakia and European government).
Aaah, enough for today, I think, we, clever people can do nothing against the stupid crew.
Bonzai Joe: I think USA was driven by short-term economical aspects, as always. What you wrote (China and India had to do cut there emission less) was only a lame excuse... Something else: I think more drastic approach will never be taken. Not because of Mr. Bush, but because us, ordinary people. For example, imagine what should we do if we want to cut emission of CO2 by 50%. (And 50% wouldn't be enough to solve the problem.)
Then how could we get the energy we need? Use nuclear power? I think it's not an evidence that nuclear power is dangerous, but my opinion is not too popular... Build hydroelectric stations? They can damage ecosystems around them (see lower). And there are not enough alternative resources. We can't build solar or wind power plants everywhere, because they need huge areas, and they also do blasts. (Only one example: big surfaces of solar cells can heat air seriously... that's what we're trying to avoid.)
So, we should consume less energy. But how? Cut down metallurgic industry and don't produce aluminium, iron, etc.? Don't travel by car or plane? Spare on heating and don't use air conditioning? Don't use computers and don't play Stunts? :) We could do all the things I mentioned, but these measures would be very unpopular... For me, especially the last. :) A more serious example: some years ago, Green Party of Germany wanted to rise fuel prices to 5 DM/litre, because we will never spare on something that's not expensive enough. But before the elections, they deleted this point of their guidelines. I think I don't have to say why...
Akoss Poo: I don't understand why the USA would buy quota, if they aren't members of Kyoto protocol... (I think Western European countries do that.) And I have to correct you about Slovakia. OK, there are some ecological problems about power plants on rivers, but this is one of the cleanest resources of energy. (No emission, no waste...) But the relatively small problems caused by these power plants are visible easier for average people than - for example - CO2 emission of a coal power plant. So talking against hydroelectric power plants is more gainful for a politician... That caused Hungary stopped building of the "famous" Nagymaros-Gabcikovo dam system, what we started along with Czechoslovakia. So they had to do the power plant alone, only in Slovak area... and yes, this version caused more environmental damage then the original (Czechoslovakian-Hungarian) version would have caused. (To foreigners who saw Danube in Budapest and Visegr?d, I have to say the whole thing is 150 km northwest from here, so they didn't see less water in Danube because of this. :) )
Only one more thing for today. The USA never wanted to find "a good idea to cut the CO2 emission", because they have serious scientific debates yet about the question if emission of CO2 causes warming or not. For us, it seems to be undoubted. Yes, it's undoubted for us, Europeans... But Americans can believe everything, and they think democracy means we always have to listen to "both sides", no matter how stupid things one of them says. (That's why in some states children learn that "world was created 6000 years ago by God, in 6 days"...) And oil companies are very strong in the USA: they can easily influence scientists, directly or less directly...
I'm impressed Usrin, you really know a lot about this.
In your post, you sound like there's no hope. Like the world is screwed... I think there are the following options, in order to "save the world" from global warming (judging from what you know about energy and what we both know about politics):
1. Switching to energy production by as much natural energy as possible (wind, water etc.), and as this can never be enough, nuclear power for the rest. Nuclear power is not dangerous for the environment, and it is much more efficient than using coal or oil. It is only dangerous if it is not kept well, but I guess we can keep it better than Tjernobyl. Besides, it should be possible at some point to make an automatic nuclear plant, where machines do the job, and where the whole reactor stops if any of the machines has a malfunction.
This will meet much resistance. From people who call themselves environmentalists, and who don't believe the "risk" is worth taking, and from politicians who want to be re-elected and are aware that supporting nuclear power is a very unpopular point of view. This means that there are three sub-options, in order to make the switch to nuclear power:
a. Forget about nuclear power, and spend more money on Fusion Power research. Fusion Power is well underway, but still it will take many years at best before it will be possible to build Fusion Power plants. The problem with this is the amount of money that has to be spent on it (again an unpopular stance for a politician), and the uncertainty of it. Perhaps it won't be possible to use Fusion Power, and perhaps it will take 60 years before it is possible, which will be too late.
b. Using lobbyism and propaganda to change people's minds about nuclear power. This should be difficult, and can only be carried out by very popular governments, who don't have to fight for a re-election. This means it should be possible quickly in a country like China, which isn't democratic, and completely impossible in high-tech democratic countries like France, Germany, Hungary, Denmark etc. In USA, they could do things like that, because they have the best system for fooling the public, but they will never do it, as the oil industry has all the money, and the politicians need their support. But a little lobbyism and propaganda can always be done, and with time, it could be possible to change the general opinion about nuclear power. The problem is it could take too long.
c. As you can read from the first part of the post, it seems that democracy in itself is the problem. Democracy has become an opposition to knowledge, because the politicians know that the general public is stupid, and instead of trying to educate them, they have to speak their language and conduct short-sighted politics in order to get their votes. Democracy is becoming Stupocracy. This becomes even more clear because of what I mentioned before about such a change being possible in China. Something must be done... but it won't be, as democracy simply does not have an Emergency Exit. It cannot destroy itself, because the people involved in it would have to sacrifice themselves too, and they never will.
2. The second option is simply to cut the CO2 emission extremely drastically, as you mentioned. This is even more likely, because people need the energy. Even I wouldn't sacrifice my computer or my syntheseizer to this. They are so important to my life. I am as guilty as everyone else in this, and I think all we can do (apart from making things a little better, like the Kyoto Protocol and pro-nuclear-lobbyism would) is hope that it's not as bad as we think it is.
Otherwise, when is the end of the human race as you see it, Usrin?
btw, when I was in excibition "Exploring Solar System" last month I knew why UK sending their mission to Venus. Because there's a hypothesis that many million years ago on planet were oceans but because of somekind cataclysm water turned into steam (sorry, don't know how to say it in english :)). And now we see on Venus an infernal clouds which is a reason of high pressure and acid rains.
Vaporization? Boiling?
So Venus is the future of this shit world
Quote from: "alanrotoi"So Venus is the future of this shit world
Yes, probably. But also scientists think what Titan is quite similar to prehistory of our Earth :) And humans will survive :D
I'm sorry it was a bad day. Anyway I think the world will fall soon and we will see it. I hope we will be allright but I doubt it. :(
Yes, we should know more about Venus if we want to save our climate. When somebody tries to prove that increasing CO2 level is not dangerous, his/her main reason is always "Earth is an equilibirial system, and it compensates all influences". Somehow that didn't work on Venus, and we should know why. OK, Earth will never be a place like Venus (with temperatures above 450?C, clouds contaning sulphuric acid, etc.) But less could cause the end of our civilization...
Oh yes, Bonzai Joe asked me about this. :) I think the end of the human race is far yet... we can't be so stupid to start a nuclear war and use all the nuclear weapons collected on Earth. That's the only thing which could kill all of us. Climate change will stop growth of economy, it will make life harder, especially in poor countries. I think more people will die because of hunger, floods, heat, etc. than nowadays. Rising of sea level will cause serious problems in all countries having shoreline (especially in the Netherlands), but that doesn't mean the end of human race. Humans also survived the last Ice Age, what was about 10?C colder than present climate, and after it, sea level rised by 100 metres. I think in a lower level of technical and social development, we can adapt ourselves easier to changing conditions. A bit stupid example: 10 000 years ago, people could move easier when sea level started to rise... So, in my opinion development will turn back - it won't be good, but that's the way of surviving. And that means we will stop damaging nature, Earth will find a new equilibrial state, which will allow a new progress - hopefully with people who have learned from the past.
Yes, fusion power would be the best solution for our energy problems. I think we could have already made fusion power plants if we could spend more money on it. But oil industry is too strong. If they invested only 10% of their profite into research of fusion power... you can guess the second half of the sentence. But there is another problem about this: nuclear power is very unpopular, I'm very pessimistic about changing this. And the majority of people don't understand the difference between nuclear and fusion power. Both of them is "something about atoms and radiations", and these are known as very-very dangerous things. :) (or :( )
About nuclear power plants: modern reactors are cooled by water, and this water is necessary also for the reaction (it slows down neutrons to be able to cause fission). When the system is overheated, this water evaporates, and the lack of water stops the reaction. Tchernobyl was a completely different system, and they made serious faults already during the planning. (And the accident was directly caused by the operators who switched off all the automatics - because they wanted to make some experiments to "make the reactor safer"...)
Don't forget what I wrote, and remember me on it a few years later, when I will work in oil exploration as a geologist. :) (It's not joke, it's a real possibility...)
Ok Tell your name and I will try to remember you
I'm Usrin, the Slovak. :D
He is Usrin, the Venusian Slovak. :D
Quote from: Usrin on November 13, 2004, 09:47:55 PM
Don't forget what I wrote, and remember me on it a few years later, when I will work in oil exploration as a geologist. :) (It's not joke, it's a real possibility...)
Okay, reminder for everyone. :D
My opinion hasn't changed since then, despite having a job related to oil exploration. Btw, I'm not at an oil company: we only analyse the geophysical data and the core samples we get, and it's not our business what will the information be used for. (It's also possible that it will convince some clients that it's time to give up oil production.)