Slashdot Mirror

Ok, let's talk about that then. The first observation is that humanity has only studied the ozone hole for a few decades.

The US began banning the use of CFCs in 1978, and the Antacrtic ozone "hole" wasn't discovered until 1985. Yet somehow the science of CFC impact on atmospheric ozone was conclusive enough for policy makers to act *without* having discovered the cyclical depletion of ozone over the Antarctic. When the situation in the Antarctic was discovered, it certainly didn't weaken the well proven science on CFCs - if anything it strengthened it.

As a result, we aren't even sure it's unusual in extent or duration or if it would get worse in the presence of CFCs

Ozone is destroyed in the presence of CFCs. Period. To say we don't know if ozone depletion would get worse with CFCs present is to deny well researched and well understood chemical reactive processes.

(maybe we have underestimated the production and non-anthropogenic destruction of ozone, for example).

Speculating on *how* the science might be weak doesn't mean the science *is* weak. If you've got something other than your speculation to support your contention, let's see it.

We will never see how much worse off we are because we chose to impair our economy by banning CFCs. Second, we don't know how much refrigeration and air conditioning use has been curbed due to the higher costs of such equipment. But we do know that people routinely die in heat waves from choosing not to run air conditioning.

I could just as easily claim that banning CFCs *improved* the economy, that CFC replacements *lowered* the cost of refrigeration equipment, and that individuals' choice of running their AC has *nothing* to do with the type of refrigerant in their systems. If you want your claims to carry more weight than mine, CITE SOME AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES.

YOU are the one claiming CFC replacements are less efficient for refrigeration than CFCs.

This is common knowledge.

If it's common knowledge, then you should have no problem citing some authority. Right now, you're doing nothing more than asking us all to take your word for it. Over and over and over. You act as though we all recognize you as an expert in these matters. We don't.

CFC replacements are often more chemically reactive (the reactivity greatly reduces the half-life of the chemical in atmosphere, such as HCFCs) and sometimes more hazardous to human health.

FAIL. The greater reactivity of CFC replacements has nothing to do with their efficiency inside the closed loop of a refrigeration system.

Having said that, I do see that a formerly common refrigerant CFC, R-12 was significantly less efficient than it's replacements (such as R-134a).

So I guess the reason you neglected to link to your source on refrigerant efficiency was because the source refutes your argument. Well done!

No. People on one side of the argument use the word "denialism" because it accurately describes the practice of refusing to accept overwhelming evidence.

If the evidence was overwhelming, you would be seeing action. Our last environmental catastrophe went down exactly like that: http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html

General timeline:
Initial paper brought to public light on atmospheric CFC impact: June 1974
"Even before the aerosol ban of 1978, the sale of aerosol products fell sharply. Industry, feeling invulnerable, was not prepared for such a strong public and political reaction"
National Academy of Sciences confirmation of results: 1976
US bans CFCs as aerosol propellants: 1978
British Antarctic Survey (discovery of the "ozone hole"): 1985
"After the discovery of the ozone hole it only took 18 months to reach a binding agreement in Montreal."
Vienna Convention: 1985
Montreal Protocol: 1987

To summarize:

Within 2 years of scientific evidence brought to light on the topic, the vast majority of the public was already behind it. Within 4 years of the evidence, the US had already banned it

When evidence is overwhelming and damning, people don't ignore it (even in the face of industry noise/misinformation). Don't blame the "deniers", blame the presenters. If the global warming evidence is so overwhelming and so dire, it should be a simple matter to convince the public. Instead, this is the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change#Science

59% of Americans believe there is "significant disagreement" among scientists on the issue.[41] The opinion gap between scientists and the public in 2009 stands at 84% to 49% that global temperatures are increasing because of human-activity.[42] A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[43] A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."

Wat. CFCs weren't depleting the ozone? Also, care to cite the source from your first point?

One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 (a conservative estimate per year since the bans on CFC began) more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.

whilst the focus is on the negation of C02 it's important to recognise the systemic effect in the environment of the industrial compounds used to produce the fuel in the first place. Here are some quick quotes and links to understand Phytoplankton's role and susceptibility to ozone depletion;

Overall, the production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more

Field studies indicate that photosynthesis is impaired first, followed by decreases in protein concentration and changes in pigment composition. As a result, a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation

Or of course you could just go straight to UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME: Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. Sure it's over 10 years old, but that's roughly an extra 450,000 kilograms of CFC114 per year from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.

My point in bringing it up was not that you were wrong, but that you were not being critical and honest. Wow, you are really sensitive to ad hominems, but you call me "George Bush" which is quite obviously an ad hominem. At least mine was in response to a claim you actually made.

Right. So I'm not wrong I'm just "twisting the truth". So it's not an ad hominem attack it's just a flat out insult. Why the fuck wouldn't I be sensitive to the connotation that I'm a liar. Take a step back and have some manners and I won't ridicule you in return. That behavior is typical of Nuclear Fanboi's > stdout when it should be > /dev/null. Don't do that stdarg if you sincerely want to have an intelligent conversation.

You should have mentioned that

As I said "I'm short on time so I'll summarise" because I do have *other* obligations.

CFCs are currently used in the refinement process but that the plants responsible for them were designed and built in the 1950s before CFCs were even on the radar. Further, efforts are underway to develop a new process that does not use CFCs. And already, the CFC use was reduced by 2/3 since 2001.

That's awesome but it doesn't change the facts CFC 114 is STILL USED for enrichment TODAY, and that up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 have leaked into the atmosphere per year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995. CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer, the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.

But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. and the epa data is available for your analysis.

Do you think your remarks, which left out even a mere mention of these developments, were critical and honest about the requirement of CFCs in uranium production?

I did mention them, I said "So you're saying that all the problems with ultracentrifuge technology has been solved, it's commercially implemented on an industrial scale in America and that Paducah has been shut down.". If we were having a specific conversation about enrichment I might ask you if they have solved the problems with bearing technology in the devices or improved the energy efficiency per SWU or some other thing that changes the status quo. I see nothing in the article you sent me about an actual implementation date or that the unit was functioning in an industrial capacity. So since ultracentrifuge, American Centrifuge etc are not actually implemented industrial processes, absol-fucking-lootley I think it's not only critical and honest but more importantly completely specifically relevant.

Otherwise, did you run across that information and find something conflicting and credible to reject USEC's claims, and then decide the whole thing is not worth mentioning? Presenting pertinent facts and honest reporting about *both sides* is essential to being critical and honest.

What's critical is an article, link, or what ever that Paducah has been shut down, that the CFC114 process has been retired and then might be worth mentioning, it might be pertinent. What's honest is UltraCentrifuge is what might be, not what is. Sure it will be great if they actually get it going and stop using CFC114, one day.

But even if they do it won't change the energy equation for the Nuclear industry. That why wind and solar are far more useful and usable technologies.

Citation? That seems like basic economics and common sense to me. The energy used to gather and refine the fu

The total volume is waste is tiny, and it's not that dangerous.

70,000 tons of pu-239 alone in the united states. And thats before we start counting u-235 mine tailings, the reactors themselves when they are decommissioned, triated water, the list goes on. If you are referring to pu-239 it is an iron analogue and will, for example, cause leukemia when ingested into the body via leakage into a water table.

It's not more dangerous than the output of other industrial sites like oil refineries and solvent plants.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation works in the food chain. Radioactive isotopes that make it into the environment will eventually end up in the human food chain and they will poison until they are no longer radioactive. Nature might be able to adapt fast enough but it's very doubtful that human beings will be able to.

Considering that the carbon footprint of the nuclear power cycle is staggeringly low (even taking into account plant construction and uranium mining), nuclear power is the best and most obvious solution to climate change.

Again, you don't understand the issues at hand. The damage is caused by CFC114 greenhouse gases that the enrichment process release are not because they are 20,000 times more potent than C02 at retaining heat in the atmosphere but the effect of depletion of the ozone layer allowing UV destruction of phytoplankton and zooplankton that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment.

Since the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's into the environment these oceanic effects can be directly attributed to the inability of the Nuclear Industry to act as a responsible global citizen. I have the EPA data, go look it up for yourself, it's a bit convoluted to extract but it is there.

On the point of carbon equivalence thats 8 618 255.03 kilograms of CFC114 since it was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah or the mining of Uranium. 2.4 gigajoules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 gigajoules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process 500 tons of hard ore (as there is almost no soft ore left) - and even that is assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and that assumes you have a high grade ore. That's 8.4 Terrawatt hours just for the mining to fuel one reactor - all C02 consumption by the Nuclear industry. The 8.4 Terrawatt hours DO NOT include waste disposal, does not include treatment of mine tailings and my figures are generous with the overall concentration of ore per tonne of rock - once it falls below 0.01% there is a net energy debt with nuclear power.

So the carbon footprint of Nuclear is only 'staggeringly low' when compared to coal. I'd imagine it's 'staggeringly high' when compared to wind, wave, solar or geothermal, especially if the tower is constructed with low carbon concrete. So Nuclear is only a solution to global warming if you are prepared to pass on an environmental and radioactive isotope cost to future generations the same way our generation has been handed a carbon cost to deal with in the form of externalities.

We don't even need thorium reactors. There's enough conventional nuclear fuel to last millennia even without reprocessing. We can extract the stuff from seawater.

For the minute concentrations of uranium in seawater the amount of energy used to extract the uranium would be

You guys are like Intelligent Design advocates, ...Yes, you are exactly like Intelligent Design advocates.

As expected ad hominem attack. In the first line of your reply no less, clearly demonstrating the weakness of your argument.

The rest of your post is similarly misleading, and not worthwhile to debunk in detail.

Translation; You do not have a reasonable argument to answer these issues. Instead you resort to the same old superiority complex all nuclear fanboi's of your ilk share. When confronted with the evidence and facts your misleading statements fold, evidenced by the condescending remarks your replies are laced with, which are designed to produce an emotional response in an attempt to marginalise the validity of the arguments presented. How predicable you are, don't let the science or facts get in the way of good propaganda. spin spin spin shill shill shill

Your phytoplankton reference is the worst kind of scientific pandering. It's not CFCs that are the primary danger, but rather the acidification of the oceans caused by their absorption of CO2. We've already established that coal emits quite a bit more CO2.

I was wondering what assumptions you would make. Predictably, you tried to deflect the Nuclear Industries responsibilities. Whilst the externalities of the coal industry are serious issues the point is not equivalence of CO2 but the effect of UV on phytoplankton and zooplankton via depletion of the ozone layer. But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment.

Since the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's into the environment these oceanic effects can be directly attributed to the inability of the Nuclear Industry to act as a responsible global citizen. Your point about "plans" for new enrichment methods is irrelavent. CFC114 is used in the process, whether it is used to cool the beers of the technicians or comes in direct contact with the element. The FACT is CFC114 is used.

In brief, the noble (I don't know why you capitalized it) gas fission products are managed and harvested (as we've known how to do for 50 years --- read the date on that paper), not simply emitted into the atmosphere. Even if they were emitted, they have very short half-lives, and would contribute insignificantly the background radiation level.

You said: It produces zero emissions when in reality it produces isotope emissions. In Other Words You Were Lying. It is not lost on me that you had no answer for the question of radioactive isotope effluent, for example Tritium, which is highly mutagenic and does bioaccumulate and often leaks from primary to secondary cooling loops within reactors facilities to be released into whatever water source happens to be the coolant source. I am too lazy to list the plethora of other radioactive isotope emissions the Nuclear industry is responsible for at this stage.

Nevertheless, Yucca isn't bad. Even a 5.5 "aftershock" is hardly enough to damage a secure facility.

What part of The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste" don't you understand? You said: The area is seismically stable when it is clearly not. You said: There's no water table when the science gleaned from the DOE's own assessment clearly indicate an ingress of water in less than 50 years. In Other Words You Were Lying.

Nothing in the rest of you paragraph even indicates an understanding of my original

Despite the Montreal Act, CFC114, which is also a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02, is leaking from Paducah Uranium Enrichment facilities into the atmosphere through hundreds of kilometres of cooling pipes. The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms (8 Megatons) of CFC114 *since* they were banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah.

One thing that is not immediately obvious from the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer is the eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon. The assertion is examined in these links production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more

and Field studies indicate a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation

and Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. Sure it's 10 years old, but that's an extra 10 million pounds of CFC114 resultant from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.

Going after nitrous oxide emissions is the proverbial trying to plug a hole in a dam with your fingers while it is bursting elsewhere. CFC 114 is still used for enrichment today, and the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's in the United States. We can expect up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere per year whilst enrichment continues.

The United States of Mexico of course.

Let's get some facts straight. CFC 114 is not "used for enrichment," it is used as a coolant like any other CFC. There is no technical reason that another, less ozone toxic chemical or method could not be used.

Irrelavent. CFC114 is used in the process, whether it is used to cool the beers of the technicians or comes in direct contact with the element. The FACT is CFC114 is used.

Furthermore, the primary reason coolant usage is ... producing U-235 through such an outdated method.

Again, irrelevant. Whatever the reasons, Paducah is still in operation enriching uranium leaking CFC114.

By the way, if modern nuclear power plants could get approval to be built, there would be less need for enrichment in the first place.

All modern pre-approved reactor designs are once through cycle, for example the Westinghouse AP-1000. Politically conditions are extremely favourable for Nuclear reactors to be built. Regulatory framework has been discarded (in the guise of the 2005 Energy act).

However, modern designs only require an initial source of enriched material and then can be fed U-238. They accomplish this through extensive reprocessing of nuclear waste and breeding new fissionable material. The end result is an extremely efficient system (uses 99.5% of the energy in uranium as opposed to a LWR which uses 1%) that produces very little waste.

Uses U-238 !?!?!? Are you sure you don't mean Pu-239? Because I think you are talking about a IFR - which needs significant advances in material technology to be viable. Send a link if you really mean a viable commercial reactor that can use U-238.

Industrial emissions amount to a small percent of the total amount of CFCs released per year. the reason for the CFC emissions being so high for industrial use is that the USEC plant is very old ...In other words, stop trying to make it sounds like nuclear fuel enrichment is single-handedly causing the destruction of the ozone layer which is going to kill us all.

Compared to what, domestic emissions? old fridges on rubbish tips? More irrelevance, the plant is in operation - no other enrichment facilities are available. CFC114, a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02 is leaking from Paducah at 1 million pounds, thats 453,592.27 kilgrams PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms *since* CFC114 was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah. What part of 'Paducah is still in operation' do you not understand?

It's always, always the same thing. Nuclear advocates can't take responsibility for the externalities of the nuclear industry, instead 'it's those greenies fault for not letting us build something else'. Build a geologically stable waste dump first and then maybe we can move on from there.

As for the bit about the algae, there is not a lot of evidence to support your assertion.

Well a quick google seach produced this straight away

Overall, the production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more

and

Field studies indicate that photosynthesis is impaired first, followed by decreases in protein concentration and changes in pigment composition. As a result, a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation

Or of course you could just go straight to the official UN monitoring of CFC114 after Montreal Environme

They're not a major source of methane in the atmosphere OR their crap puts off a ton of methane and we should use it as fuel?

Or their crap has no methane and yet can still be used for fuel (your dichotomy is false).

Anyway, http://www.ciesin.org/TG/AG/liverear.html claims that livestock causes 15 of all organic-sourced methane "emissions". Mostly due to fermentation in their stomachs, mostly from low quality feed.

"Desertification comes to mind..."

Alright, genius, what do you think is going to happen to the carbon in the waste products used here if it isn't used to make fuel?

global warming is more due to gasses like methane

Yeap, methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2 and cattle as well as sheep put out a lot of methane, Methane Emissions from Livestock

I know this was meant to be a "Funny" post, but just for the record, the third world is bound by the Montreal Protocol which bans ozone-unfriendly chemicals too. The last of the "grace period" stragglers have to stop using their CFCs by 2006.

This 2.2% of the land bit comes from owning all the land up to the north pole. You can't let those giant swathes of tundra throw off your calculation.

Population density of North America.

Almost the entire US population is in the densely populated East. You can hardly tell where the US/Canada border is, except that you see fewer of the absolute darkest purples. As you can see, the canadian population density is very slightly less than that of the U.S.

If your telcos can't wire that solid block of pruple in the east even as well as Canada has wired its solid blocks of purple despite having an economy that dwarfs Canada's by orders of magnitude, you have an economic/legislative problem you need to fix.

Western China could be mistaken for ocean.

Mann, Bradley & Hughes (authors of the definitive 1998 study attacked by McIntyre and McKitrick) responded today with:

"McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have [...] used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98."

Scientific observers await the peer review of the MM publication to determine whose science-fu is stronger. Meanwhile, greenhouse deniers have yet to pull rabbits out of their (*ahem*) hats to explain how the Workweek Causes Climate Changes. Or they can join Timothy in celebrating propaganda like the obviously corrupt Economist. Just remember to wear your sunscreen.

You're quite right that human actions play a massive part in all these kinds of problems, but those actions are partly present day and partly historic. The actions of our (westerner's) ancestors cannot be forgotten - I personally believe they mean we owe a debt to those who are now blighted.

And indeed you're right also that GM food has, on the face of it, the possibility of helping. But, the dangers of GM food cannot be underestimated. Both medical (there are simply too many unknowns IMHO) and economic - as you say, these countries will go from living on hand outs from the west to depending on the western corporations for their lives. Hardly a great step forwards. The fact is there is already enough food for all these people, it's just we keep it for ourselves.

Incidently, I've never heard anyone claim the Sahara is shrinking before, I'd always been under the impression it was growing: Link and another and another.

Think about it, Solar panels and Wifi will both work great after they get rid of all those pesky trees.
Then they can report to the world, about a mud slide burying a neighboring town, in just a few seconds.

There is another issue at work with the rise of sea levels, plain old thermal expansion.

Although the capacity of the oceans for absorbing energy is pretty immense, keep pumping energy in and they will eventually warm up. As they warm up they will expand, causing the sea level to rise. The releative importance of this effect compared to, say glacial melting is debatable and currently under study (10s of cm per degree as a "cricket pitch" figure). If you want to know a bit more try a random link from Google To see the effect for yourself, get a deep pan of cold water place it on the stove and fill it to a miniscus. Then heat gently and note how long it takes to spill over (don't heat too gently or it will just evaporate).

CFCs and their replacements, HCFCs and HFCs, are all tremendously potent greenhouse gases. They have global warming potentials several thousand times that of carbon dioxide. The ozone problem is pretty much solved because global CFC production has dropped to near zero following the implementation of international treaties to protect the ozone layer. However, the global warming potential of HFC and HCFC replacements is worthy of concern.

Global warming is caused by the sun.

Just as it is true that global warming is caused by the sun, so my body generates most of the heat that keeps me warm. Nonetheless, if I wear too many sweaters, I will get too hot. Taking them off will cool me down, despite the fact that the heat is all coming from my own body. The same principle applies to the atmosphere. The earth's temperature is determined by a radiative balance. We can't change the sun, but we can change the atmosphere (our sweater), and that can cause the earth's temperature to change.

Actually, my guess is that, while an ice cube in fresh water won't raise the level as it melts, an ice cube in sea water probably would (but a good bit less), since fresh water is less dense than sea water -- but it would be far less than the 10% expansion of ice when it freezes -- but I'd have to test that guess to be sure.. That and thermal expansion of water as it warms can have an effect on sea levels.
Remember that the ocean is hundreds (and thousands) of feet deep, so a 0.1% overall thermal expansion would have a pretty noticable effect on sea levels.

The real threat to sea levels, however, comes from the antarctic ice cap which is not floating. When that sucker melts, we'll be in deep trouble (if you'll excuse the pun).

It's not a laughing matter - it's easy to make jokes when you live in North America where the population density is 32 people per square mile - in Asia it's 203 - but for Hong Kong we're talking 6,571.14 per square kilometer.... a smaller area than square miles. Also a large proportion of Hong Kong is uninhabitable mountains or isolated islands - the real habitable area's density exceeds the 20,824.38 quoted for Macau.... I mean Hong Kong people go there to escape the crowds!

Hong Kong's population grows by 1 million every ten years and everyone has to be accomodated. The large proportion of people live in high rise residential on reclaimed land, and construction is the number one source of garbage in Hong Kong. When you add up all these issues then any way to improve construction efficiency and sustainability and reduce waste is important.

Now all this might be moot - I mean Hong Kong is literally on the other side of the world.... but hang on... check out this article in the Economist. Predictions are for half a billion Americans by 2050. Where are they going to live?

The Integer project has relevance here.

Living in Hong Kong is like living in an Arcology and many of the trends visible here will need to be transferred to North America if the population does increase to 500,000,000 people.

So next time you crack a joke about living in a cubicle 24/7 at work and play - you might just be fortelling the future....

It's not a laughing matter - it's easy to make jokes when you live in North America where the population density is 32 people per square mile - in Asia it's 203 - but for Hong Kong we're talking 6,571.14 per square kilometer.... a smaller area than square miles. Also a large proportion of Hong Kong is uninhabitable mountains or isolated islands - the real habitable area's density exceeds the 20,824.38 quoted for Macau.... I mean Hong Kong people go there to escape the crowds!

Hong Kong's population grows by 1 million every ten years and everyone has to be accomodated. The large proportion of people live in high rise residential on reclaimed land, and construction is the number one source of garbage in Hong Kong. When you add up all these issues then any way to improve construction efficiency and sustainability and reduce waste is important.

Now all this might be moot - I mean Hong Kong is literally on the other side of the world.... but hang on... check out this article in the Economist. Predictions are for half a billion Americans by 2050. Where are they going to live?

The Integer project has relevance here.

Living in Hong Kong is like living in an Arcology and many of the trends visible here will need to be transferred to North America if the population does increase to 500,000,000 people.

So next time you crack a joke about living in a cubicle 24/7 at work and play - you might just be fortelling the future....

The technique they use to estimate this is called a species-area curve. As others have explained, you intensely survey a very small piece of land, and can statistically correlate that to how many species you'll find in a larger area.

Some regions, like the tropical rainforest, are very high in species. You might have a certain type of plant that has five insect species that can only survive on that plant, and those insects might have little parasite wasps in them that specialize only in that insect, etc.

That's why instinctions rates of species can be confusing. A few types of ecosystems are biodiversity hotspots. You might find ten thousand distinct speies in a cubic meter. Whether these species are as "important" as a less-specialized species that is more widespread and adaptable is a matter for debate. But in terms of estimating the total number of species, the species area curve holds across different types of ecosystems. As you spread out from the small plot you surveyed in detail, you encounter new species and repeat species at a predictable rate, until you hit a new type of ecosystem.

A really good article called How many species are there on Earth?" explains all of this in much greater and more accurate detail.

They currently produce as much as 85 million tons per year.

When the polar ice caps melt, the ocean level does not rise. Why? because as ice they displace the same amount of space as they would if they were water. It is achimedes' principle.

Oft stated, but actually wrong (even ignoring the fact that some polar ice is on land). When the ice melts it melts for a reason - the sea has warmed up. And when the sea warms it will expand. See this Nature Abstract or even from USA Today

Despite the overwhelming opinion so far that there is no global warming I can't help but scratch my head and wonder why people seem to be in denial about it. Calls for "more research" seems to be a typical response to the non-believer but there is a crapload of research already out there supporting this theory. Check out http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html and look at the picture at the top of the page. Is the satellite that took the picture lying? Did the scientists that control the satellite alter the data? Come on, there's a huge freakin' hole in the atmosphere and anybody can take a picture of it given they have the right technology to do so.

Doesn't it seem odd that we're about the only nation in the world that hasn't accepted the global warming theory and that we're the one nation that will suffer the most economically if we enact the necessary cutbacks and reforms? Do you think that the oil and automotive industries aren't trying to protect their interests and are at this moment lobbying hard in Washington to stall or kill any global warming related reforms?

It's beyond me how a statement like "show me an environmentalist and I'll show you a cult follower" earns a score 5:Insightful rating. All scientists and environmentalists that support pro global warming theories are cult followers and have no real basis to support their beliefs. Right. I think hell would freeze over before a "Show me a Linux user and I'll show you an anti-Microsoft anti-innovation zealot." statement got modded to score 5:Insightful.

Note that previous page of that site mentions that weathering of silicate rocks uses carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Also, the geological carbon cycle has 1,800 times more carbon than the atmosphere. Our climate has a lot more variation than our last thousand years. Well, maybe you'd rather just look at the last 300 years, if the Little Ice Age messes up your statistics. Or the last 30 years, as some have used, because the 1960s had an unusually cold winter and so makes "warmer" easier to show. And please do ignore that we've stopped the prairie fires that used to cover the central plains of North America.

Note that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor which is just a wee bit hard to measure and control. And we can only hope that we don't see another Iceball Earth.

It is true that nature can adapt, but it is far from clear that the rate at which natural processes can change to accomodate our fouling of the environment will be sufficient to sustain life. Take a trip down to the Ecology or Zoology department at your school and talk for an hour with someone who studies how the natural world works.

What matters is the difference in extinction rates. Are new species evolving faster than they are being driven extinct?

Of course, none of this really has a bearing on whether we should save endangered species or not. The best policy may be to nuke the world, increasing the extinction rate and the new mutation rate at the same time. Forget bringing back one extinct species...let's make a million new ones!

As others have said here, there's no natural reason to save species, clone, or not clone. The issue of saving species is one of self-preservation: we may need some of them one day. The issue of cloning is (to me) one of resources--are there better things to do with the laboratory space?

Anway, here are some links:

• Heat Island Group
• The Use of NOAA AVHRR Data for Assessment of the Urban Heat Island Effect
• The Urban Environment
• Cities Are Heat Islands

Bruce