Climate Change (split off from "Snow" thread)

[IT Minion]

You argue against the idea and then support it in your last sentence?

As an IT person, I suspect you are aware of high availability architectures, which rely on no single point of failure designs. It does not mean a full geo cluster at every tier, simply that you have a parallel back-up somewhere. Until we have a plan to get some humans off the planet, we are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs.

It's a logical idea, but not because of climate change. Climate change only gets mentioned as a reason for populating Mars as sales fodder.

We are far more likely to survive as a species than the dinosaurs, because we have technology and they didn't. The dinosaurs didn't have tinned food, seed vaults, nuclear or solar power, or hydroponics. Claiming we've no more chance than them as a species is silly.

Also, no, that is not what a high availability system is. HA requires the service to continue to operate if all of DC1's network cables are all cut by someone with a digger. Having a static backup is not HA at all, you need the 'full geo cluster' for that. You're right that colonising Mars and making it self sufficient would be HA, but your description is wrong.

 

[Nwgs2]

.

 

[motorbiking]

It's a logical idea, but not because of climate change. Climate change only gets mentioned as a reason for populating Mars as sales fodder.

We are far more likely to survive as a species than the dinosaurs, because we have technology and they didn't. The dinosaurs didn't have tinned food, seed vaults, nuclear or solar power, or hydroponics. Claiming we've no more chance than them as a species is silly.

Also, no, that is not what a high availability system is. HA requires the service to continue to operate if all of DC1's network cables are all cut by someone with a digger. Having a static backup is not HA at all, you need the 'full geo cluster' for that. You're right that colonising Mars and making it self sufficient would be HA, but your description is wrong.

It isn't wrong.

High availability does not require full like for like replication. I can have DC1 at 100% of my demand and DC2 at say 10% of my capacity demand. Providing I can operate my business, my HA needs are met. I do not have to have a full mirrored site A and B or more cost effectively a cluster of 50% of my capacity running in A and 50% in B. giving me 100% capacity without failure and 50% in failure mode.

But that wasn't the point.

Just because we have more tech than Dino-brain, doesn't mean we have a better chance of survival.

1 idiot drowning in cold water has the same life expectancy as 1 genius. Both are drowning.

 

[IT Minion]

Just because we have more tech than Dino-brain, doesn't mean we have a better chance of survival.

1 idiot drowning in cold water has the same life expectancy as 1 genius. Both are drowning.

One person with the ability and wisdom to build a raft is more likely to survive a flood than someone who can't.

If you think you have the problem solving capacity of a brontosaurus then Im not going to argue with you.

 

[noseall]

One person with the ability and wisdom to build a raft is more likely to survive a flood than someone who can't.

The meek will inherit the Earth.

I can't think of anyone less equipped to deal with global catastrophe than Trumps' own MAGA morons. You can almost taste the irony.

 

[motorbiking]

One person with the ability and wisdom to build a raft is more likely to survive a flood than someone who can't.

If you think you have the problem solving capacity of a brontosaurus then Im not going to argue with you.

following the analogy - the raft, is space exploration. Glad we got there.

 

[wobs]

Just because we have more tech than Dino-brain, doesn't mean we have a better chance of survival.

Dinosaurs were around for about 180million years.
To be generous, humans have been around for less than 1% of that.

We don't need to colonise Mars to solve any problem, because there is no problem it would solve that you can't solve more easily and cheaply on Earth.

Want to just explore Mars or elsewhere in space? Fine, that would be exciting, and good for science.

But solving climate change is far easier than colonising another planet. If you think it would be cool to live on Mars, have a practise at the South Pole over winter, and see how you enjoy being cooped up in a limited space.

 

[Notch7]

At some point mankind has to adopt a no single point of failure approach to the Human race. All the time we live on one planet, we have a single point of failure. I wonder who is driving progress in this area. Is it Elon Musk?

I fully support Elon Musk moving to Mars.

 

[motorbiking]

Dinosaurs were around for about 180million years.
To be generous, humans have been around for less than 1% of that.

We don't need to colonise Mars to solve any problem, because there is no problem it would solve that you can't solve more easily and cheaply on Earth.

Want to just explore Mars or elsewhere in space? Fine, that would be exciting, and good for science.

But solving climate change is far easier than colonising another planet. If you think it would be cool to live on Mars, have a practise at the South Pole over winter, and see how you enjoy being cooped up in a limited space.

The obviously problem that cannot be solved is location. We have exactly one planet.

At some point to maintain the survival of the species, we need to venture out.

 

[IT Minion]

following the analogy - the raft, is space exploration. Glad we got there.

No, that's trying to build a spaceship to avoid the flood.

 

[johnny2007]

But it isn't mother nature doing it, it's us.

That would help, so you think we could have a positive effect if we tried?

Of course, but would be better to start from things that would be free for us (plastic) rather than tax us to the bones for something that we would probably not be able to change.

I completely agree.

Why stop there though? Stop burning fossil fuels as well

Sure, but this can't be done in a day like they're trying to do.
It looks like they're deliberately taking the path to failure and I can guess the reason: more taxes.

Well, for future generations sake I'd prefer if we avoided extinction. Especially as we can do something about it, if we tried that is.

How are you certain that we can do something?
What if climate keeps changing (as it's always done) after we have returned to stone age?

climate change leads to weather extremes

which is why we get very hot, very cold, very wet

come on Harry you are an intelligent person dont let your bias prevent you from understanding facts

I bet that you were one of those fruitcakes in the '80s shouting "Global Warming!!!"

Are you seriously trying to use a graph where each pixel is over a million years, with lines 3 pixels wide, to 'prove' that the rate of change in the last 100 years is comparable?

That's like trying to plan a car trip with a picture of the earth taken from the moon.

Even so the fastest rate of change I can see is around 1 degree per million years. Not 1 per 100 years (last century average) or 2 degrees per 100 years (last 40 years average).

Look better.

solving climate change is far easier than colonising another planet

How do you know?
Have you solved climate change before?

 

[denso13]

How are you certain that we can do something?

Science.

What if climate keeps changing (as it's always done)

It has never changed like it is now.

 

[noseall]

What if climate keeps changing

For the better? A reversal of what's happening presently?

I think that may be a stretch. A slowing down is looking unlikely.

 

[JohnD]

What if climate keeps changing (as it's always done)

It is not changing "as it has always done."

In the past changes have taken many millions of years.

There have never been changes as fast and accelerating so much as since we stepped up burning of fossil fuels.

I know that is a point too difficult for you to admit.

 

[IT Minion]

Look better

Yeah, didn't think you'd have an answer for it.