Slashdot Mirror

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

FTA:

...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.

Uh, no it doesn't.

This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".

The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

http://climateprogress.org/201...

Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.

http://climateprogress.org/200...

Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi

Nuclear power is on a negative learning curve so over all, I'd expect the "make work" aspects to increase. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/

The average output is 55 MW so that comes to $13/Watt. Estimates for the cost of new Turkey Point nuclear power from a couple years ago were about $8/Watt and assuming about 80% up time that comes to $10/Watt average capacity. With typical nuclear power cost overruns, we'd get about $20/Watt. Given that nuclear power is on a negative learning curve http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/ it seems as though the cost of the solar plant is pretty good.

There's a straightforward approach to sharply cutting water use by solar plants: the Heller System, though it doesn't sound like this plant is going to use it.

There's a straightforward approach to sharply cutting water use by solar plants: the Heller System, though it doesn't sound like this plant is going to use it.

The oil companies aren't profitable enough as it is? I'm sure Exxon-Mobil can get by just fine without any subsidies.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

"it forecasts that 2010 will probably end up being the hottest year since records began in 1850, surpassing the previous high recorded in 1998."

"Each of the last ten years features in the top 11 warmest years recorded in all datasets."

Saw this too, 1934 hottest year on record as something skeptics point too. Except this is only in the US, not global temps.

Here 80s hottest, then 90s, then 00's

any other questions? :)

There has been some recent thought on causes of the high cost on nuclear power and it looks as though atrophy may not be a significant cause but rather a result. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/

The number one comment is that (new) technology will save us. Ummm. yeah. In Northridge CA, and in SF CA, bridges fell during earthquakes that were built to the (then) latest seismic standards. Bugs occur in control software. Human error (some idiots mixed up two valves at Diablo Nuke plant last year causing a scramble at the plant).

Nuke is clean and cheap is another common Nuke industry talking point parroted by the /. commentators. Nuke power is really the most expensive source of power when you strip away the hidden costs ($0.25 - $0.30/KW/hr). http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Worse, the contamination and fossil fuel use in mining uranium is invariably ignored by the pro nuke folks. A study by the Canadian government shows the safety risks: http://www.ccnr.org/bcma.html. Currently, most uranium is enriched using power from burning coal, making nuke power a very carbon heavy source of energy. As we transition away from enriching uranium in centrifuges for nuke plants (we have to, there isn't much uranium left to extract), perhaps this will change, but current nuke energy is far from carbon neutral., but then we have other issues (huge worker safety issues, and still waste issues) as we move to reprocessing fuel.

One guy said the extent of the Chernobyl disaster was 50 people died (as if the only deaths were those in the first weeks of the disaster):

Even the IAEA says that 4000 people will have died http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf And, most literature not affiliated with pro industry groups has extremely high estimates of the total death toll (up to a million, but these groups also have an agenda, so the truth likely falls somewhere in between). Since the IAEA report doesn't include those immediately evacuated into other countries (a significant number), it is probably not even suitable as a lower bound.

Since the disaster contaminated hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of farm land, and only a few thousand square kilometers were excluded from agriculture (indefinitely) the effects will be ongoing for thousands of years. The contamination spread across Europe (western and eastern) and the UK.

One commenter said if meltdown, rods would puddle on the floor, no biggie-- FTA:

According to experts interviewed by The Associated Press, any melted fuel would eat through the bottom of the reactor vessel. Next, it would eat through the floor of the already-damaged containment building. At that point, the uranium and dangerous byproducts would start escaping into the environment.

At some point in the process, the walls of the reactor vessel â" 15 centimetres of stainless steel â" would melt into a lava-like pile, slump into any remaining water on the floor, and potentially cause an explosion much bigger than the one caused by the hydrogen. Such an explosion would enhance the spread of radioactive contaminants.

If the reactor core became exposed to the external environment, officials would likely began pouring cement and sand over the entire facility, as was done at the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine, Peter Bradford, a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a briefing for reporters.

At that point, Mr. Bradford added, âoemany first responders would die.â

And, of course, we have the waste issue. Currently a few miles from my house, there are dry casks filled with nuclear waste from the Diablo Canyon nuke power plant. There is no place to safely dispose of this waste, so they just collect it on-site-- first submerged in tanks, now in dry casks. The vessels for this waste storage are not built to the standards of the reactor containment.

Finally, Nuke would not exist in the US

We have quit a lot invested the current way of doing things so some prodding is justifies. But, if you look at new generation, renewables do pretty well. Wind has been playing tag with natural gas for several year and solar put in 16 GW of capacity in 2010 while nukes did less than 3. Both wind and solar will be getting cheaper still so eventual replacement is inevitable as the old stuff breaks. But inertia is expensive. The cost of using coal is much higher than what turns up on your electricity bill, about $0.178/kWh in extra costs. http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/16/life-cycle-study-coal-harvard-epstein-health/

There is no debate?! Didn't you read the article?

Bastardi is not a climatologist -- and his "objections", as outlined in the article, sure show it. (For more on his cluelessness, see here.) Using him as an example of debate about climate science is like citing a medical doctor who does not accept evolution (like, for example, shining nutjob Ron Paul) as evidence that there's some "debate" about the reality of evolution among biologists.

The guy gets paid big bucks because he has a habit of correctly predicting weather

Questionable.

The main fact about the far-north is that temperatures are not measured there. Not by satellites, not by regular stations.

The warming there is simply made up: "estimated" in the words of Jim Hansen.

See the point 1) in

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/

With such "estimates" Hansen makes every year as warm as he wants.

Satellites show clearly cooling for more than 12 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979

Maybe that was your conclusion after reading that book but it was not the same conclusion that others had..

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/14/superfreakonomics-errors-nathan-myhrvold-intellectual-ventures-bill-gates-warren-buffet/
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-new-book-superfreakonomics-pushes-global-cooling-myths/
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate

This made me chuckle: "the oil at a solar thermal plant".

The proliferation of solar thermal power plants is one of the worst-publicized success stories of the modern age. Not that there isn't tons of stuff googlable about it:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20012060-54.html
http://terrainforma.ca/2010/09/20/the-promise-of-thermal-solar-power-activist-and-educator-sheila-watt-cloutier/
http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/30/the-solar-power-you-dont-hear-about/
http://carbon-pros.com/blog1/2009/06/solar_thermal_at_utility_scale.html
http://venturebeat.com/2010/02/22/energy-dept-gives-brightsource-solar-thermal-a-1-4b-boost/
http://www.abengoasolar.es/corp/web/en/index.html
http://www.acciona-na.com/About-Us/Our-Projects/U-S-/Nevada-Solar-One.aspx
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-power-plant

I'm not sure that sitting with the big boys makes a lot of sense. They can't seem to get back up again. Constellation Energy and Exelon both seem to be stuck in their chairs. http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/12/exelon-john-rowe-nuclear-renaissance-constellation-energy/ I'm sorry you don't like math. Wishful thinking about new nuclear power does seem to require innumeracy though.

It is now a known fact that at least one journal (Climate Research), when publishing papers that the "top dog" climate scientists didn't like, then faced retribution from those same "top dogs" who conspired to then boycott said publication (to not publish in it, or even cite any publications in it) to manipulate its editorial staff.

What crap. Been reading Cato.org much recently? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022

Try http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/05/cato-institute-patrick-michaels-falsehood-stolen-emails-climategate-michael-mann-peer-review/ and follow the links, notably to the statement of the Editor-in-chief of "Climate Research", here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

"Climate Research" was indeed manipulated, but but the "skeptics", not the "warmists". One editor slipped in some crap papers (which have since been comprehensively demolished). When the other editors complained and requested that an editorial explaining what happened be printed the "skeptic" refused, so the other editors resigned.

hydro is the only renewable that can be used to trim baseline load

Actually, solar thermal can maintain baseload by using molten salt to store heat energey during the night. Besides being incredibly useful, the idea of a huge tower of molten salt is just dang cool.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. Nuclear power won't meet the world's energy needs either, not in any realistic scenario.

To replace enough fossil fuel use to resolve the climate change problem, we would have to build 3 nuclear plants per week for 50 years. The expense involved would be incomprehensible.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/

http://keystone.org/files/file/SPP/energy/NJFF-Exec-Summ-6_2007.pdf

Even under extremely agressive but realistic growth scenarios, nuclear could only cover about a tenth of our projected requirements.

Wind, by comparison, does surprisingly well, as does solar thermal, but they won't be able to cover it all either.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

In fact, not only is there no silver bullet, there are no silver b-bs either. Any realistic scenario requires significan efficiency gains -- in other words, we're going to have to consume less!

That's the bit that people really have trouble coming to grips with, at which point they tend to retreat into a fantasy world of some kind.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. Nuclear power won't meet the world's energy needs either, not in any realistic scenario.

To replace enough fossil fuel use to resolve the climate change problem, we would have to build 3 nuclear plants per week for 50 years. The expense involved would be incomprehensible.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/

http://keystone.org/files/file/SPP/energy/NJFF-Exec-Summ-6_2007.pdf

Even under extremely agressive but realistic growth scenarios, nuclear could only cover about a tenth of our projected requirements.

Wind, by comparison, does surprisingly well, as does solar thermal, but they won't be able to cover it all either.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

In fact, not only is there no silver bullet, there are no silver b-bs either. Any realistic scenario requires significan efficiency gains -- in other words, we're going to have to consume less!

That's the bit that people really have trouble coming to grips with, at which point they tend to retreat into a fantasy world of some kind.

Are they doing everything? Probably. Were effective safeguards in place?

Were best practiced followed? Sure doesn't look like it. They continued drilling after the gasket came up in pieces. They just didn't want to stop. Also, they didn't have "a remote-control shutoff switch that two other major oil producers, Norway and Brazil, require.” Was this an unforeseen event? No. It was known to be a possibility. It was known to be a rather large possibility. Yet they didn't prepare for it.

You bring up car accidents. We don't shrug them off. You're liable for them. That's why you have insurance. In fact, sometimes, you're even held criminally liable.

You're arguing that it's okay for someone to completely externalize their risks. When you through your own negligence destroy other people's livelihoods as seen by the impact on the shrimping and tourist industries, your liable for that. The whole idea that BP is such a small company that damages should be capped at $75 million, while simultaneously bringing in quarterly proffits of $10 BILLION is absurd. They owe for the clean up. They owe everyone impacted by their negligence lost wages. If that's $20 billion, so be it. They can certainly afford it, while still turning a profit.

But I'm sure we should let the free market handle this. After all,these gods among men, deserve the profits they make while simultaneously ruining the lives of their lessers.

Here are citations for a GWP of 72 over 20 years:

• citation
• citation
• citation
• citation
• citation
• citation

Those above do not, AFAIK, take into account the greenhouse gases that are formed when the methane itself reacts with other parts of the atmosphere. They all talk about the methane breaking down quickly, but carbon dioxide and ozone are two of the gases formed when that happens IIRC.

There are also reports that don't mention time frames that list methane as anywhere from 10 to 58 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

The 100-year figure you're likely to read is anywhere from 20 to 33 GWP for methane, with 33 being common in recent reports.

I'm not a climatologist, but I know how to read news sites and I know how to search the fucking web for my damn self. Do you?

The thermal energy balance for a solar panel runs vastly in the other direction. If our solar panel is pure black, and 14% efficient, then for each kWh of electric power that comes out, there are 7 kWh of heat that were absorbed and radiated. But each kWh it generates it eliminates the release of 1.4 pounds of CO2, which during its lifetime in the atmosphere will absorb 210,000 kWh of heat. So the energy balance for the solar panel (when it's connected to the US grid) is about NEGATIVE 209,993 kWh(heat) per kWh(electric) -- since some fossil power plant somewhere is being turned down based on its generation.

And if we're that concerned about albedo, we can make our roads, roofs, and parking lots whiter.

...a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it.

source: http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/

I've spent several hundred hours researching this issue. Frankly, you're wron.g

>>1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308 (translation: it is expensive)

The actual cost of the plants they're building in the south are half this. And a lot of the cost has to do with NIMBYs and (ironically enough) environmentalists, who ought to all be very pro-nuclear. The actual cost of nuclear per KWH is the only source comparable to coal. Dirty coal. CC Coal Plants are 2x to 3x the cost per KWH of dirty coal.

You want to know what doesn't make economic sense? Anything that costs more than double or triple the current cost of energy. Guess what that includes? All green technologies. Solar costs roughly 6x to 150x the cost of coal.

Look up the costs yourself, and become educated. This is a mix of government, industry, and hippie cost estimates:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/eiaenergy2016.png
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/ocean_policy/documents/te_workshop_cost_compare.pdf

>>2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.

The waste problem is a social construct, not a technical one.

>>3/limited liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

It's a good thing. Because of idiot movies like the China Syndrome, people think that nuclear power is dangerous, when nuclear plants are actually quite safe. Even left-wing France produces the lion's share of its power through nuclear, and has done so very safely for the last 30 years. Compare this with the huge numbers of people killed every year in coal mining accidents and indirectly through the radiation released into the atmosphere by coal.

>>4/fuel-dependency

There's plenty.

No, not really.

From an article that discusses the professor's presentation:

"But what do we say to people who say the lag proves current warming isn’t caused by CO2? We know that orbital changes (the Milankovitch cycles) kick off the ice ages – this was predicted 50 years before we had data (in the 1970s) to back it up. But temperature never goes far without the CO2, and vice versa, but sometimes one lags the other by about 2 centuries. And a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it."

Read through the article, then watch the lecture. Professor Alley makes a compelling, accessible argument.

But we have had more than 10 years of cooling. How many more years does it take to be climate?

Oh to the contrary, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the hottest on record. Now if you have evidence supporting your position then share it and let us see if it stands up to peer review.

Falcon

And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?

Maybe in the UK but not where I am. It's warmer than usual here. Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today, and yesterday, it was 29.4F. Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt. Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the hottest on record.

Falcon

lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from

And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.

also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.

Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.

now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.

Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.

however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"

And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.

there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy

And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?

Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.

Also don't

lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from

And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.

also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.

Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.

now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.

Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.

however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"

And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.

there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy

And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?

Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.

Also don't

Also, link: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year

Like this:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year

Completely in agreement with climate models.

NH = "Northern Hemisphere"

"Average NH temperatures fell 0.6-0.8dC 1998-2007, and will fall more sharply in 2008-2009."

That's an old deniers' trick. 1998 was an out-lier, an exceptionally warm year. So if you use a 5-year average, then it'll appear that temperature actually fell during 2000's. Of course, 2000-s is the hottest decade and 2009 is the tied for the position of the warmest year on records ( http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year ), so you have to stop at 2007.

Or you could just point out that the current weather does not -by a long shot- match any of the predictions (made BEFORE it started). For any non-political theory, that would do it.

Specifically that the IPCC predicted a warming of 0.12 degrees +- 0.05 degrees in 2000. From 2000 to 2009, however, there was a cooling of just over 0.1 degrees. That's over 4 times the maximum error they predicted. If you take pure satellite data, it's even more of course.

Before I get accused of heresy (not that having the facts on my side will prevent that, but hey, one hopes against hope):
-> IPCC prediction according to it's 2000 report : http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/wg1spm.pdf figure 5 : uniform rising temperatures for the entirety of the 21st century : every year is warmer than the previous year from now up till 2100, including the lower error bar
-> consistent 10-year dropping temperature http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/08/world-meteorological-organization-wmo-2000s-warmest-hottest-decade-on-record/ (which is a somewhat misleading headline. 2000-2010 may be the warmest decade, but 1995-2000 would be the warmest 5 year period. Wouldn't want to indicate warming has stopped, even temporary, now would we ? That'll just lead to skepticism. There was a time when skepticism WAS science, but hey)

Needless to say, if this occured within any exact science, all scientists would be sent back to the "put all your crazy ideas on a napkin" stage, and the theory that produced the errant predictions sent to the bin.

(and while I fully agree this hardly constitutes a cooling trend over the long term, it is far outside of the error margins for the theory, so something is horribly wrong with the models, making their predictions useless at best, dangerous at worst)

The real question is where is that doubt being manufactured? There is an entire industry manufacturing that doubt. Those who do not like the conclusion of science have funded a massive industrial doubt complex. Those industries are tobacco, oil, coal as well as those who do not believe in evolution. For just one example take a look at right wing oil billionaire Koch funding just one of is pet DC PR/thinks to the tune of $151 million. Also take a look at the US chamber of commerce's massive effort to attack science to the point that many other companies such as Nike and Apple are being driven out. These movements don't just happen they take big bucks!

"Its been cooling for a decade and there is even an email about it with one of those guys asking the other what they should do about the current evidence, with a hint that the instrumental record (direct observations!) must be wrong."

WRONG! I F&@#(G WANT TO KILL ANYONE WHO REPEATS THIS TRASH! DO THE F##$!#G GOOGLE SEARCH FOR IT!

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.php

Links to credible information on that. In particular, I will bet 20 right now that hydropower is CHEAPER than coal or nukes. Hell, if you use a LITTLE bit of intelligence, you would realize that hydropower will be cheaper than either coal or nukes. Why? Because it is STILL cheaper to put in a dam than either coal, gas, or nuke plant (assuming suitable location). In addition, you have free energy after that. And geo-thermal has already been shown to be cheaper than nukes (but there are few locations for shallow geo-thermal).

You'd lose your bet. Unless you're talking about the amortized price. The CEC was primarily interested into the 10-year amortized wholesale cost of building a new plant, which hydro is not especially cost-efficient at. Of course, it gives you flood control and other benefits as well.

Here's some links to get you started. Enjoy:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/eiaenergy2016.png
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/ocean_policy/documents/te_workshop_cost_compare.pdf

Your source sucks.

Here's a better one.

Thoroughly debunked. You've proposed your theory, and it's a poor fit for the evidence. Too bad, because solar-cycle-driven climate change is a neat, tidy explanation that doesn't require us to do anything drastic, like raise somebody's taxes. Now we're left with conventional climate models to explain the evidence: care to try again?

Seems to me that your conclusions were already made by your pocketbook and you went looking for evidence supporting your conclusion to satisfy said pocketbook.

Thoroughly debunked. You've proposed your theory, and it's a poor fit for the evidence. Too bad, because solar-cycle-driven climate change is a neat, tidy explanation that doesn't require us to do anything drastic, like raise somebody's taxes. Now we're left with conventional climate models to explain the evidence: care to try again?

"Lovins said the reason for the decline is cost: on an even playing field with no hidden subsidies, nuclear is simply more expensive than other options, especially co-generation."

"Nuclear is dying of incurable attack of market forces despite what the industry wants you to believe," he remarked, adding that micropower offer more climate solution per dollar spent than nuclear."

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html

And my favourite: the Nuclear Wonderland! (Now a tourist attraction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300

So, what you're saying is that you'd be happy to support cap and trade, if only some of the money collected were refunded to the working poor?

No, I'm saying I would support it if it didn't negatively effect the poor and middle class people period. That's pretty hard to do with the trade part because all costs of passed down to the consumer.

I'd say, "Right there with you, buddy," except I've learned from time-worn experience that any time a conservative talks about the effects of a policy on the working poor, they're invariably working to protect the interests of the rich.

You know, we didn't have massive defaults on loans and people loosing their jobs left and right until around 2006 when the democrats took congress. The interesting part here is that gas prices didn't go above $2.50 until them. Maybe you should rethink this conservative verses liberal thing because I don't think it's panning out the way your seeing it.

As for helping the rich, I don't care if someone gets ahead or if someone already ahead gets more ahead. We don't have a finite amount of money and if they hoard it all, we just create more with value and worth caused by out actions. What I am apposed to is purposely holding someone back which is what this cap and trade will do. If Joe Sixpack is happy working at the factory and living the way he does, then who am I to say he needs more or less, it's his life to live how he wants.

Energy prices were only a small contributor to this recession. In Feb. 2008, when oil was near its peak, energy accounted for about 6% of the family budget (up from 4% in the 1990s) [src]. The real causes of the bust are the ones that have been widely reported, and your attempt to scare us with the specter of rising energy costs is more than a little bastardesque.

That's only if you don't figure in the increases in the costs of food, clothing, and so on, all of which was inflated because of their reliance on energy. BTW, gas peaked at $4.02 a gallon, not $3.14 in which the article stated it's current price was in 2008. This is important because at the tipping point for everything else, gas was roughly 30% higher and other things like electricity costs were jumping to. And please look at the dates, your article is 2/27/2008 and the increase in rate demands were in 8 of 2008- a little lag. Taking a wild guess, I'm going to say that right before the collapse, the budget was more like 8-10% for energy and the over all increase in costs due to energy costs rising was between 30% and 60% depending on how much driving you had to do.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/24/james-hansen-john-christy-house-ways-and-means/
In the interest of balance.

We probably going to self-destruct pretty quickly here. Let's not forget this lesson, and store some carbon for next civilization 50000 years from now, maybe they will get a clue.