Slashdot Mirror

This doesn't address the fact that they are raping the earth for the minerals to build these batteries.

Huh? Lithium comes mostly from evaporite deposits. Don't see why you would "rape the Earth" to get at evaporites, which generally don't require deep mining. You want to see what "raping the Earth" means, look at coal mining: https://grist.org/business-tec...

Steel and Aluminum now are some of the most recycled materials there are. And there is plenty of the product left to recycle.

Well, lithium is one of the most easily recycled materials there is. And, of course, not just internal combustion cars, but electric cars are also made out of steel and aluminum.

Not saying Electric is bad, I just prefer honesty when promoting them.

We already have an alternate power source to avoid this - nuclear power. But rather than use this pre-existing power technology which solves the problem, environmentalists insisted that we dismantle that existing solution, and roll the dice on hopefully developing new and untested power sources in time to avert disaster.

Fortunately a lot of people are working to make nuclear power safe.

China has started its first pebble bed reactor and has plans to build more

a bulldozer driver was killed, when his vehicle overturned. Couldn't they drive the bulldozer remotely?

There's no reason to use a remotely operated dozer to fight fires which doesn't also apply to every other use of a dozer. But doing that would be massively expensive, so we don't do that with any of them. Sadly, it is cheaper to hire another dozer driver. The most common causes of deaths of dozer operators are 1) rolling the dozer with them in it (or just sliding down a hill so far and fast that they are killed) or 2) parking the dozer and then walking around below it, and the soil shifting and the dozer falling on them.

There are remote-controlled robots that can climb stairs. Let's put a camera, mike and speaker on one of them, and send it into a burning building. The robot would search for people, and for a safe exit path for the people.

We do this already, though not so much in fires and more in structures in danger of collapse. In fires, we also want someone who can swing an ax, or carry an unconscious human. So we risk humans. Eventually when we have robots capable of doing all those jobs, we may switch to robots.

I'd love to see a team of chemists and experienced firefighters get together, and figure out a new, better way to put out fires. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but if it takes several days to put out a wildfire, then we need to figure out a better way to put it out.

Fire has becoming even more unpredictable than it always has been. Back in the Valley Fire seasoned firefighters were literally saying that the fires were exhibiting behaviors they've never seen before. Lately the big problem has been the increased incidence of fire tornadoes. They are created by winds which are created by fire, and filled with burning fuel of varying granularity all the way up to chunks of flaming wood the size of charcoal briquettes, which can be distributed across sizable areas by the tornadoes in question. This enables the fires to jump breaks that they would otherwise be unlikely to cross.

The chemists would be the experts in removing heat, fuel and oxygen from the fire. The firefighters would share their experience of what the environment is, when fighting a fire. They would say that a solution sounds good, but it won't work because in a real fire, the environment is too crowded, too windy, whatever.

Yeah, that's exactly what they say. When you have a big fire, you can reasonably do three things. You can concentrate on not letting it spread, you can smother it, or you can cool it. Consuming its oxygen doesn't usually work, especially once it's large, for the aforementioned reason that they create their own weather. They create heat updrafts which draw in more air, and if you consume the air that the fire is using, it's largely irrelevant because more air will rush in. Consuming the air before it got to the fire would essentially require another massive fire. You can try to consume the air by bombing, which does sometimes work, but note that the only reason that the Swedes were able to bomb their fire is that the fire was actually on a bombing range and there were no repercussions to bombing it some more.

This doesn't mean the problem can't be solved, but it does help explain why even though a lot of effort is spent on researching fire suppression, it doesn't often produce a lot of results. In the end, the best approach to fighting fires is to stop fighting fires. The natives of California deliberately set fires every year. These fires kept down both undergrowth that permits fire to spread r

Since nobody has yet demonstrated a fusion reactor that generates even one watt of power, no. Maybe some day, but not "now".

I'm sorry to say you are in error. As just one example shows: " In 1997, using this fuel, JET set the current world record for fusion output at 16 MW from an input of 24 MW of heating and a total input of 700-800 MW of electrical power"

Perhaps you meant that no-one has demonstrated a fusion reactor that generates a positive Q value (i.e. generates more power than is used to run it). If so, then your thought was correct, you merely misspoke.

However, the technology, specifically the magnet materials, has come a long way in the last 20 years. There are now at least a couple of very promising projects under construction and testing. If I were a betting man I would probably be willing to place money* on there being viable fusion power within the next 20 years, and, if that's the case, it will snowball from there.

*I've heavily moderated this thread, hence the anon post. Has nothing to do with the bet ... honest!

Whibla.

"Co2 is up, heat is up", the paleoclimate has spiked both CO2 and temps regularly about every 120k-140k years ago.

Yes but today's warming is 10 times faster. Such rapid change will be devastating on a scale never seen before in a natural cycle.

...ethnocentric narcissism...

Nice ad hominem! But logical fallacies don't work on thinking people.

What is there to offset? The sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

Mass starvation/war on a scale never before seen.

Something tells me people are or will be working on other ways to make fertilizer. Failing that, there are other ways to make oil.

Also according to these sources fertilizer is made not using oil but natural gas:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
https://grist.org/article/2010...

No, I would definitely need a lawyer, the kind who can successfully defend a drunk driving case on the basis of entrapment!

The idea of "clean coal" was either a Bush or an Obama idea depending on how you butter your bread; Definitely Obama was a huge advocate there for a while.

A good pair of links about Obama's schema, one at the start of his administration and a retrospective a couple of years ago:

https://www.scientificamerican...
https://grist.org/climate-ener...

Ferret

To be fair, the solar PV industry itself and their proponents greatly underestimated growth as well, but lets not let that get in the way of a good EIA bashing session;

http://grist.org/article/mckin...

As usual, someone misinterprets data for their own personal agenda. When the ratios of C02 and/or light are changed, plants food production changes. Increasing light or C02 makes plants create more sugar and less vitamins , proteins and important nutrients. Plants are becoming less and less nutritious as the C02 level raises.
http://grist.org/briefly/veggi...

This is why Trump won the election, instead of trying to actually debate, you just immediately jump to insulting the poster for being stupid instead of actually trying to convince them of your side.

You might be surprised, but Trump didn't win the election because of any such thing.

He underperformed George W. Bush. He was below Obama, and Hillary. Only chance let him slink into office.

No landslide. No great gains. Not that you'll accept that, you have to blame the evul mean libruls.

The left might be surprised at the number of people they could persuade if they actually debated people instead of insisting that every issue is not open for discussion because the other side is wrong.

You might be surprised, but the left is used to dealing with the number of people on the right who are non-persuadable and who can't be debated, because they insist that the left isn't worth discussing anything with since they are wrong.

What can you in that circumstance, except move on?

Because at a certain point, you wash your hands of somebody, and that's what is happening with most of the discussion on AGW, pollution, and more.

Ever think about that?

According to google, the primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.

See, this is where you show a lack of integrity, because you know what? According to google, the folks talking about Global Warming know that, and can give you intelligent responses on it.

You'd think you'd mention that.

I remember just a few years ago, everyone was freaking out about the ozone disappearing (which is a greenhouse gas), now it's too much co2.

It wasn't ozone disappearing. It was the Ozone Layer a beneficial shield that blocks UV radiation. And yes, we were worried about the effects of various human activity, including CFCs on it.

Of course, once the Montreal Protocol was enacted, it became less of an issue, like leaded gasoline> or Acid Rain.

Amazing, huh?

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor. I honestly would like to know is C02 that much more potent than water vapor or does it somehow behave differently?

You would? You know this discussion has come up before, right?

You know, if you showed some awareness that we've already been over this, maybe you'd persuade people that you're worth convincing, and not just consumed by your own hand-wringing as you feign disgruntlement over a couple of anonymous cowards being uncivil.

Hiding behind the mantra of "the other side is evil and stupid so I won't engage" doesn't help anyone.

Hiding behind t

Food as America's newest religion

Messed up link in prior post

Also read this.

Coal isn't the cheapest fuel and has multiple logistical challenges renewable generation avoids. Nuclear is profitably run by French state (85% ownership), and is increasing in Finland. Germany is increasingly involved in Energy trade due to its central position in Europe, so the eventually outcome may be 100% renewable which work for industry - Porsche has a solar-powered factory in Berlin-Adlershof.

The distinction between residential and commercial establishment has been a staple for a long time, and it has a lot of value...

...for middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, but not for the inner-city neighborhoods that subsidize them. That's right, single-use zoning is a form of reverse welfare that subsidizes the middle- and upper-classes at the expense of the poor.

Also, what's the value in prohibiting someone from building an apartment building next door to a factory? You'd think it would be good to bring jobs to a city without bringing traffic.

In Japan by contrast, they do things a little smarter than the USA's clumsy approach to zoning. Instead of single-use zoning, they allow anything of a lesser nuisance than the area is zoned for. A grocery store is less of a nuisance than a factory, so they allow grocery stores in industrial zones. An apartment building is less of a nuisance than a grocery store, so they allow apartment buildings in commercial zones. And a single-family house is less of a nuisance than an apartment building, so single-family houses are allowed in multifamily residential zones, but not the reverse.

If every neighborhood in a city had to become self-sufficient in city spending versus property tax revenue, you can be sure that people living in middle-class, single-family residential zones suddenly faced with massive property tax bills would do everything in their power to attract bed-and-breakfasts, corner stores, and the other tax-efficient amenities that existed in our neighborhoods until we legislated our freedoms away in the aftermath of WWII.

torrent sites aren't illegal...unless you live in some totalitarian shit hole.

Which, as USians, many /. readers do. And even if they don't, the LEOs from said totalitarian shit hole are forcing their corporate masters' will on other countries, so the rest of us get to "benefit" from said shit hole's demands. (See what was done to TPB and what they're attempting to do to much of the world with TPP, TTIP and TISA.)

Except he did boast about being the greenest director of all time and about Avatar sending an environmental message. So no, not Michael Moore (though both make fiction), just James Cameron.

If coal is replaced by natural gas, that is "cleaner", in the sense that per KWh of power, you do emit less CO2, it isn't exactly a switch to green power.

If you run the coal plants out of business too quickly, you simply end up with a shortage of electricity, leading to brownouts and blackouts. Wind and solar are being installed, but it will take many years before they approach the volume required to replace the 39% of electricity the US generated from coal in 2015.

And yet we hear about utilities having issues with solar power, and private wind power. You can have all of the power shortges you want because you know that without coal, there will be shortages. I am a dumbass, because I'll just put up more solar panels and supply what I need, all owned by me, and not a utility, for which I'll just get along fine.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...

I think the problem is you are stuck in a paradigm from maybe 1970. Solar power is for satellites, wind doesn't exist, and battery technology is zenithed out at ni-cads.

But time doesn't stand still. I already use a lot less electricity than I used to. Everything in the house is as efficient as you can get, lights are LED, and I've increased the quality of life by doing so.It isn't just solar becoming cheaper and more efficient, the generation/use equation has the parts moving toward each other.

As soon as the battery technology gets to the right price point, I'm cutting the power company completely off. In the meantime, the more people who are not on the grid, the less power generation needed. That solves part of your problem.

Another issue is that if you don't build in an area already with electrical service - well it isn't the days of the rural electrification project any more. You get to pay the cost of the poles and running the wires. So in today's world, solar is quite often the most cost effective installation.

Times aren't just a-changin, they have changed.

I can suggest some other mandatory certifications to allay consumers' fears and help them make political statements:

• "Grown in Vermont" — replace by your state or an even lesser locale as needed.
• "Fair Paid" — all of the workers involved were paid at least double the national minimum wage.
• "Minority Grown" — no Whites among the workers involved. Optional sub-certifications can be added to specify, which racial minority in particular was involved.
• "Grown by Whites" — no, scratch that, that's like sooo racist...
• "Femininely Grown" — for the fish without bicycles.
• "LGBT Farmed" — to help all those LGBT farmers in their struggle for acceptance.
• If you identify as some other Foo-American, I sincerely apologize for failing to mention Foo — it was outrageously exclusionary and harmful of me. As soon as the hurt from my unwittingly virtually punching you in the face subsides, feel free to add the "Foo Raised" or "Proudly made by Foo" at the top of this list and we shall all cheer.

The compliance with each label's statute shall be monitored and enforced by the Attorney General and penalties for violations shall be up to $1000 per day per person.

Now, of course, if we interpreted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as broadly as we do the First Amendment, none of this would be possible... But, hey, what good is a Democracy, if the majority can not impose its will on an (unpopular) minority?

Personally, I have been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for over 40 years. The vast majority of people who claim to be oh so very very concerned about CO2, on the other hand, have been among those obstructing nuclear for over 40 years. Warming is their chickens coming home to roost. Unfortunately, those chickens are crapping all over those of us who do not deny arithmetic, too.

"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." -- Stuart Brand

Repeating what I have posted previously when the topic has come up, many of the environmentalists worried about the climate do advocate nuclear power.

James Hansen, for example, is probably the most well known person warning about climate change. He is strongly in favor of nuclear power. He stated: ..continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

http://grist.org/news/more-nuk...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
http://www.takepart.com/articl...
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-...

Many of the environmentalists worried about the climate do, in fact, advocate nuclear power.

James Hansen, for example, is probably the most well known person warning about climate change. He is strongly in favor of nuclear power. He stated:

..continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

citation: http://grist.org/news/more-nuk...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....

Or, check out this one:
http://www.takepart.com/articl...

Yes, only one!

http://grist.org/cities/miami-...

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Yes, there is growing evidence. If the oceans became anoxic in past global warming extinction events, then it stands to reason that anoxia is a risk in the anthropocene.

And that temperature risk is on top of the acidification risk which is already being felt.

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean...

You have to be in deep denial to think the oceanic (or land-based) food chain "seems just fine". It is anything but.

There is no "do nothing" option. We have the choice of continuing current biosphere-damaging industrial processes (the real extreme here) or switching to processes that stay within ecological limits that the biosphere is able to handle.

Of course he is, as they should be conflated. Nitrogen fertilizer production is tied directly to natural gas. Take away natural gas production and billions will starve!!!

http://grist.org/article/2010-...

none of the prediction models have ever been validated

False.

The rest of your arguments are irrelevant. Your choice to post as AC was a wise one.

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.

Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.

... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.

Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

And you are responsible for more than half of what's up there.

Last I heard the US is around 30% and that share is dropping.

I live in a place where the city keeps trying all sorts of ridiculous ways to force people out of cars and onto bikes, such as spending small fortunes to shrink down roads and doing nothing particular with the space on the sides, putting up all sorts of obstacles in the road (such as constant turn lanes, alternating between left and right) to turn 3-4 lane roads into effective 2-lane roads, building new buildings without any parking, tearing down existing parking, etc. And among their reasons for trying to force people off of cars is "safety for cyclists". But even if they succeed at making their goal of forcing a dozen or two percent of the population to switch from cars to bikes, they're only going to increase the total number of transport deaths.

I think I know the Silicon Valley city of which you speak, if you are referring to the recent changes in the road where I live. Especially if said road has a hill that is over 10% grade in spots.

See this link on bike statistics, based on what it says it looks like the risk may be doubled (if 2% of the deaths are accounted for by 1% of the trips), but those could be misleading. I'm guessing the better metric is time on the bike, not miles traveled.

As others have noted, a person burns about 3000 joules extra per hour on a bike, and 100s of kilojoules per hour in a car, so it's a no-brainer that overall cyclists use less energy if you are only doing personal travel, regardless of the food transport and other factors (also consider cyclists are just burning excess calories they would have already eaten).

How much that compares to the overall carbon cycle? Hardly at all and most of the changes you discussed are symbolic.

But again, this thread is about a father and husband who died while riding, it's a sad day for that family and some of the comments on this thread are disappointing.

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

As alcohol has proven, most people use drugs responsibly because there are social and economic pressures to do so.

Except when cities encourage irresponsible alcohol use.

Here is why you are wrong: http://grist.org/climate-energ...
Essentially, because the current climate change is 10x faster than the 100k year changes known.

PS: we were not designed.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

According to this, you are currently in Stage 2: "We don't know"

(on the page each line is a link to the rebuttal information)

We don’t know why it’s happening

        Models don’t work
                We cannot trust unproven computer models
                The models don’t have clouds
                If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
                Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
        Prediction is impossible
                We can’t even predict the weather next week
                Chaotic systems are not predictable
        We can’t be sure
                Hansen has been wrong before
                If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
                The scientists aren’t even sure
                They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

LOL regulatory capture :)

http://grist.org/politics/2011...

To put this in a bit of perspective, earthquakes were pretty much unheard of in the state when I was a kid. Yeah, seismologists would probably tell you there were some, but not ones anybody ever noticed. We used to console ourselves that, yes we have tornadoes, but those you can prepare for. At least we didn't have Earthquakes like California. Hahaha, suckers!

In 2014 we had three times more earthquakes than California.

Every form of energy has an environmental cost, the cost of making windmills and solar panels are mostly hidden in China, so Al Gore and his buddies can pretend that the cost doesn't exist.

That would be a great argument except the majority of wind turbines used in the US are also made in the the US these days and the plenty are exported as well.

I bet there are other toxic lakes just outside the processing plants that make solar panels too, since China currently doesn't care much about pollution.

I've been to China. They care about the pollution plenty. They also care about trying raise hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. You think doing that while protecting the environment is an easy thing to do? It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and decry what they are doing but claiming they don't care is simply not fair or true.

Apocalyptic Pentagon report on global warming could spur action on Capitol Hill

be cost effective to extract uranium from seawater,

Two things about that. #1 It is horribly expensive at over 15 to 30x the cost of current uranium. #2 The extraction process requires absurd amounts of oil based 'net' to extract the atoms of uranium.

Nuclear is already an expensive method of electricity production. Saying that this method of extraction is 'cost effective' is highly misleading. in 2010 Uranium prices spiked, the ocean extraction process would still have been over 7 times more expensive, not to mention there are only prototypes and estimates of cost at this point. Some of the estimates have put the cost of extraction at well over 100x current uranium cost.

The most advanced materials, which can be reused several times, can draw between three and four milligrams of uranium per gram of plastic each time theyâ(TM)re used, says Costas Tsouris, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who is working on that system.

http://www.technologyreview.co...

Uranium obtained using the traditional process today would cost between $1,000 and $2,000 per kilogramâ"about 10 to 20 times the current market price, says Schneider. (The price of uranium did rise to around $300 per kilogram as recently as 2007, however.) The new process could cut that cost significantly.

Current price is around $31 per pound ($68 a kilo).
http://www.mining.com/chart-ur...

A sharp spike in uranium prices in 2007 had many people scared in terms of the sustainability of the nuclear industry, [at $100 per lb]

So if the nuclear industry is unsustainable with mined uranium then it is completely unsustainable with ocean extracted uranium, which realistically costs around 20 times as much.

How's that nuclear waste problem coming along? Perhaps the mafia can help.

Just make sure that nuclear waste doesn't leak. Oops.
Radiation leaks force transfer of nuclear waste from New ...
Nuclear waste leaking at Hanford site in Washington, again ...
After $40 Billion , America's Biggest Nuclear Dump Is Still ...
Radiation leak at nuclear waste dump raises questions ...
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free ...
Thousands of radioactive waste barrels rusting ...
Japan Times: Now 400 tons a day of toxic water is estimated ...

Because nuclear accidents stopped happening after Chernobyl right? Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

But hey, todays new breed of super-human won't make the same mistakes as those past

California is adding so much solar that it is covering reduced hydro from the drought. Shouldn't be tough to cover this as well. http://grist.org/news/solar-is...

"Somebody ought hand renewable energy a cape and be done with it...." http://grist.org/news/solar-is...

the article (well, blog, by 'a guy', whose main reference is the book that im guessing he's selling) points only to volume of arctic sea ice, which leads to a faulty conclusion. melt is the far more important feature, as surface volume can and does fluctuate as a function of many complex interactions, even in a global warming scenario.
See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Several recent reports, however, paint a more complex and disturbing picture where the intensifying winds are speeding up below surface currents bringing more above freezing water in contact with deep ice around Antarctica. Twenty of the ice shelves and many of the glaciers that feed them are melting from below.
for some more reputable sources (quickly online), you might want to check out
in any case, i would encourage you to note more creditworthy sources, such as perhaps:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/...
or even
http://grist.org/news/antarcti...
which makes some more credible references.