Slashdot Mirror
NASA: Arctic Sea Ice 2nd-Lowest On Record (earthsky.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from EarthSky: NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said on September 15, 2016 that summertime Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum on September 10. With fall approaching and temperatures in the Arctic dropping, it's unlikely more ice will melt, and so the 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum extent will likely be tied with 2007 for the second-lowest yearly minimum in the satellite record. Satellite data showed this year's minimum at 1.60 million square miles (4.14 million square km). NASA said in a statement: "Since satellites began monitoring sea ice in 1978, researchers have observed a steep decline in the average extent of Arctic sea ice for every month of the year [...] The sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas helps regulate the planet's temperature, influences the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, and impacts Arctic communities and ecosystems. Arctic sea ice shrinks every year during the spring and summer until it reaches its minimum yearly extent. Sea ice regrows during the frigid fall and winter months, when the sun is below the horizon in the Arctic." The NASA/NSIDC statement explained why the melt of Arctic sea ice surprised scientists in 2016. For one thing, it changed pace several times: "The melt season began with a record low yearly maximum extent in March and a rapid ice loss through May. But in June and July, low atmospheric pressures and cloudy skies slowed down the melt. Then, after two large storms went across the Arctic basin in August, sea ice melt picked up speed through early September." NASA posted an animation on YouTube that "shows the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover from its wintertime maximum extent, which was reached on Mar. 24, 2016, and was the lowest on record for the second year in a row, to its apparent yearly minimum, which occurred on Sept. 10, 2016, and is the second lowest in the satellite era."
The real crisis is why there hasn't been a good Star Wars movie in that timeframe.
The GOP, the oil industry, and The Donald ALL agree!
Stories from Nature Magazine suggesting permanent droughts in California http://www.nature.com/articles... are just fear mongering to distract you from your civic obligation to consume conspicuously and excessively!
Industry must continue to grow eternally, or the financial Apocalypse will happen!
remember, Jesus will come and fix everything, so its all good!
For every arctic, there's an antarctic.
It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an...
That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature
That it is up from the lowest and bouncing back.
Gee that was fun. Can anyone play ?
"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences." - Robert Green Ingersoll
Reality doesn't give a fuck about you or anyone else. You are not being presented with an option where you get out of the consequences of conspicuous consumption. That is the point idiot.
When I'm president we're going to have massive ice, all right? Strong, powerful ice that grabs you by the shoulders and pushes you down on your stomach and shows you what real ice is all about. Barack Obama let the ice get all thin and runny, which is really really sad. I'm going to make sure the ice is thick and hard and respected everywhere, all right? Respected everywhere. And it will be white, American ice, not muddy ice.
You are welcome on my lawn.
For anyone interested in how this is being driven by increased ocean warming, here is an in-depth report which is worth a read!
https://www.iucn.org/news/global-warning-ocean-warming
PROPOSE YOUR SOLUTION....
Don't get so excited. It was right there in the summary, more clouds and lower atmospheric pressure
The second law of thermodynamics will not be wished away any time soon. Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat. Human use of energy sources currently outstrips the rate that energy is sequestered in the earth's crust. Increased technology will perpetuate the need for more energy, and more energy sources.
As a species, we are confronted with a painful choice. Continue like there is no problem, destroy the biosphere, and die-- or cut back on technological and industrial advancement so that our resource consumption remains at parity with what our biosphere can handle, and maybe survive.
Those are the choices we have. Magic pixie dust where Jesus makes the earth cooler so you can keep driving an SUV is not one of the choices.
Yup, and when the planet enters an iceage from increased cloud cover, I am sure all that technology will enable continued use of intensive agriculture, which needs sunlight we won't be getting because of the clouds.
Nature will decimate the human population most brutally.
But it will all be OK, because none of that will actually happen, so drill baby drill!
u arent fooling any1 w ur bulsheet pope
The second law of thermodynamics will not be wished away any time soon. Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat. Human use of energy sources currently outstrips the rate that energy is sequestered in the earth's crust.
That's not the main source of increasing global temperatures. Particular means of generating energy release greenhouse gases, and with greater amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect causes increased temperatures.
You haven't been paying attention. We don't have time, even if we just dumped money on fusion research.
The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. We had a chance to turn this around in the 70s, but blew it because climate change is a myth.
Spending money on fusion was a boondoggle, remember?
Do you think I LIKE that we are well and truly fucked, because of conspicuous consumption by idiots like you? Fuck you, no.
Enjoy the future mass extinction idiot.
This is true, but at current atmospheric co2 levels, even switching to wholly green energy at this point will continue to see global temperature increases, because of the atmosphere's new thermal capacity, and inability to radiate heat away into space.
And just to add an ironic twist, it was the tree-huggers like greenpeace who raised public opinion against nuclear power, and thereby sealed the fate of the planet while the fossil fuel people counted their money
Hey, fuck ass. PROPOSE YOUR SOLUTION.
AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades. Here is what we need to do:
1. Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it. Promote female literacy (literate women have fewer and healthier babies than illiterate women). Promote clean water, vaccines and peacekeeping. Families have fewer children when they are more confident they will survive.
2. Invest in alternative energy technology.
3. Invest in energy storage technology.
4. Stop building new coal power plants.
5. Stop shutting down working nuclear plants. It may or may not be economical to build new news, but to shut down working plants is absolutely idiotic. Fortunately, only Germans are dumb enough to do this.
6. Continue to research possible global engineering solutions, like oceanic iron fertilization, sulfate aerosols, etc. It would be foolish to deploy these now, but we need to better understand the consequences so we can make informed decisions in the future.
7. Use market pricing and "smart meters" to shift demand to fit intermittent supplies of alternative energy.
8. Invest in fusion research, and thorium reactors.
9. Figure out how to do carbon sequestration economically.
10. Shift to a transportation infrastructure that is not based on oil.
11. Conservation: LED bulbs, variable speed DC motors, solid state magnetic cooling for refrigerators and ACs.
12. Stop doing stupid crap that wastes resources for mainly political reasons: Ethanol subsidies in America, wood pellet subsidies in Britain, etc.
We are already making significant progress on most of these. None of them require us to live like the Amish.
Yup, pretty much.
The best we can do now is damage control, the train has already derailed.
Bwahaha, nice satire of paranoid RWNJ.
I guess we should be looking at geoengineering, then...
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
Its always amused me, RWNJ the denialist nuke fans have this amazing cognitive dissonance, where they claim climate scientists are corrupt, and make up climate change data, then believe the paid nuke industry shills who try to tell us nuke is safe., I would believe an independant academic any day over an industry employee.
Bwahaha, ranting RWNJs are a tiny minority, I really enjoy their butt hurt of the pathetic cowardly brainless fucking cunt in moms basement. You couldnt win shit you twisted dumbfuck, you cant even spell fixable.
Wait 9 fucking minutes eh Slashdot, when this stupid fuck can post mutiple times a minute, what a load of shit.
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
In Norway, 25% of all new cars sold are electric. Imagine how many people will buy them once they actually make sense. By current trends, that is only 5 to 10 years out.
How much oil is used in manufacturing those cars and building and maintaining those roads or generating and delivering the electricity they run on?
We know how to replace most of it with electric vehicles, and the more intractible problems (Notably trucks) can be mitigated with tighter emission standards and hybridized designs.
Thats the thing, we dont need to completely convert to zero carbon emissions, we just need to get it to a point where we have brought us a century or two to find a *complete* solution.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Its always amused me, RWNJ the denialist nuke fans have this amazing cognitive dissonance, where they claim climate scientists are corrupt, and make up climate change data, then believe the paid nuke industry shills who try to tell us nuke is safe., I would believe an independant academic any day over an industry employee.
No form of energy that can sustain our current daily energy needs is safe. Coal, oil, natural gas all come with a price. In fact, over a long period, all of these kill more people each year than nuclear. And that's based mostly on 1970s reactor technology (due to the hurdles in building new ones).
The argument that Nuclear is completely unsafe when looking at the plants in operation today is kind of like arguing that cars are horribly unsafe because the study only looked at vehicles in Cuba (i.e. mostly all from the 50's). Much like car design, Nuclear reactor design has advanced. For example, molten salt reactors can be designed to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown, even in the conditions that happened in Japan.
It's not so much tree huggers that have been the issue but the cost and cost overruns that are typical of large civil engineering projects. There have been more lucrative investments to make, which has meant that the nuclear power industry has been relatively starved of investment. A counter example would be France in the 1970s, but there the state owned electrical generation company was building them, bypassing the finance issue.
*Jedi-mindtrick-handwaving*
"This isn't the global warming you're looking for..."
Don't worry, it works on the feeble-minded.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also known as the "lalala, if I can't hear you, you haven't said it, and it won't happen" position.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Relax. Basically all we do is to release the carbon that has already at some point in the past been in the atmosphere, so we know that the planet and life on this planet will continue.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Once fossil fuels run out this century we'll know.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
...are as bad as PBS telethons when it comes to trying to scare the public into giving them money. "please giving us funding or we may lose this precious resource forever blah blah fake tears flimsy research yackety schmackety." /yawn
It takes 7 gallons of crude oil to make 1 car tire. http://www.maxxis.com/media/420097/flowchart.pdf ...and those are vital for personal transportation whether you're riding something "green" like a bicycle or driving an automobile. Either way if you're alive in the 20-21st century you've done your part contributing towards global warming so enjoy it while it lasts. No amount of doomsaying or hugboxing is going to change things unless all personal transportation comes to a halt and the world shifts to public.
None of them require us to live like the Amish.
Indeed - even if you compare the amount of energy used in America per inhabitant with the same for Europe, you can see a significant difference, and I don't think most Americans would feel life was uncortably primitive if they wen't to stay here. To think that only something like 150 years ago, Americans were incredibly tough pioneers, who survived on next to nothing and still managed to build up a great nation; things have gone downhill somewhat, it appears.
It is perfectly possible to live good, comfortable lives wasting next to nothing in terms of resources - you just have to be open minded and inventive.
Nobody has the slightest clue as to why the ice melts and when other than it is temperauture related. What a surprise!
Actually, we don't. The most expensive cars are simply good for "in this region." The less expensive cars are only good for "around town." The batteries run down far too quickly, and take too long to recharge. No electric car today can perform as well as a 1989 Yugo. In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA. No electric car could do that today. Then there's the trucks, locomotives, ships, boats, and airplanes. We absolutely do need to leave the oil in the ground, because the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to take 100,000 years to be scrubbed clean as it is. We're just adding to it every day.
And there's not a lot of hope in sight. People currently working the battery problem are not having a lot of success. See:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...
This scientists are currently coming up with just one answer on batteries, it is Lithium, and Lithium is inadequate. And we can't simply say that Lithium batteries are expensive and we'll just spend what it takes because that hammers the poor, driving those that are in poverty deeper into it and casting those that are just making it now into poverty. Poverty is more deadly than smoking, as it will take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for 7. Converting to batteries now would be a cruel, elitist thing to do.
We're either going to have to solve the battery problem, or solve some way to operate our vehicles on grid electricity done with nukes and geo. Wind and solar are too intermittent - the wind stops blowing at night and your iron lung becomes your coffin.... Not many iron lungs left, but there's the emergency room operation that goes dark, the backup generators fail to start, and the patient dies for lack of electricity in the ER. Dunno how to get grid electricity even to cars, let alone airplanes and boats in rivers and ships at sea.
Right now, we're really screwed. Will the brave scientists find the magic battery and save us like they did when they invented nuclear weapons and ended WW2? Stay tuned.
In Norway, its reaching the 25% mark because unlike a lot of other countries, Electric Cars is exempted from quite a few regulations, which makes them significantly cheaper.
That still do not change that if the genie is in the bottle, its not out: Before Tesla, Leaf and a few other brands arrived to the marked, the electric segment where electric scooters converted to small city cars
Cue the over-the-top vituperation by both sides.
> Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it. Promote female literacy (literate women have fewer and healthier babies than illiterate women). Promote clean water, vaccines and peacekeeping. Families have fewer children when they are more confident they will survive.
But that's racist.
Would you claim that 9000 miles in 10 days is a common occurence? Or is, perhaps, most driving either "around town" or regional at most?
"denialist nuke fans"? I think you'll have a hard time finding examples of that. AGW minimization is a reason FOR building more nukes.
You would believe a person who has no experience in the industry over someone who does? That speaks volumes. Where else would you apply that logic. Lets see, would you believe academics over doctors? academics over climate scientists? academics over bridge engineers? You don't think academics are agenda driven?
Your blind dismissal of anyone who actually works with and fully understands the technology is simply your decision to remain ignorant and live within your entrenched belief system. What makes it worse is you don't even have to listen to industry employees because there is plenty of credible information available. But you choose to ONLY listen to the fear mongers.
Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat.
Well, the solution is simple. Attach a device to every person to capture that heat to turn it back into energy to fund further activity thus generating more heat and so on and so on. Holy fuck, I think I just invented cold fusion!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, Norway had one quarter where what they call EVs represented 25 percent of new vehicle registrations. This was primarily hybrid electrics, not electrics, so they still are burning gas. And this of course does not include used car sales, trucks, etc. But its nice for you to fall for the headline with tingling glee.
Sure, looking up a few comments above when Antarctic ice increase was discussed it didn't matter because it wasn't land ice, its only "sea ice".
This story is about "sea ice" and it matters because it is low.
So in other words it works like this..
Land ice is only important if the results supports AGW
Sea ice is only important if the results supports AGW
If either of them doesn't they are not important. Your own words... Either one can easily be ignored if it doesn't match what you want to see.
I understand you can't figure out why people don't believe you, but its fairly simple. When you change the goalposts literally minutes apart because facts you didn't know prove your previous statement wrong you lose credibility. Eventually no one believes you, which is where you are now.
Either sea ice matters in both the Artic AND Antarctic, or it doesn't and this entire story is BS. Choice is yours, but your argument looses either way.
The sad thing is if AGW is real and is ignored because idiots like you try and sound smart by lying and hoping no one calls you out for it.
Right now global warming isn't due to entropy from our energy being converted to heat. It is from increased amount of Carbon Dioxide and other gasses which are preventing the heat (mostly from the Sun) from getting reflected back into Space.
The fix is simple, but it will take effort from the population.
1. Use less CO2 for energy production. Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Nuclear...
2. Increase the growth and spread of CO2 absorbing life such as trees.
Now this won't fix all our environmental problems, but we can slow down global warming, to a rate where we and other life forms can adapt to the new normal.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. "
Excellent! It must therefore be easy to give 100%-probability predictions about terrifying climate conditions in the not-too-far future! Come, let us have some.
"The electricity sector in Norway relies predominantly on hydroelectricity." [Wikipedia]
Wow that took long. No wonder conservatives are considered fucking idiots.
Who gives a fuck about the planet. Or even "life" in the abstract. Human life and human civilisation has never existed with all that CO2 in the atmosphere.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
It seems the majority of Antarctica is gaining more ice faster than the peninsula is shedding it... http://www.nasa.gov/feature/go...
2nd lowest? that means global warming is improving! global warming is over! celebrate?
no one is suggesting we live like the amish
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I don't trust their results.
Dude.
I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that attitude. Threatening violence isn't going to help anyone.
So the current measurement ties the previous record low, back in 2007, some nine years ago... which implies that the "Arctic Sea Ice" then increased after 2007, only dropping to it's previous low after nine years.
In other words, the amount of arctic sea ice varies, and is not in a continuous decline, which begs the question "Why did Arctic Sea Ice increase after 2007?".
Ken
Yup, pretty much.
That was the sound of your credibility deflating.
No, in the 70s the problem was global cooling and the coming ice age.
If we acted in the 70s we would have focused our collective energies on solving the "global cooling crisis", not the intermediate "global warming crisis" or the current catch-all "Climate Change Crisis".
The problem with 'settled, indisputable, scientific facts' about the climate is they keep evolving.
Ken
Why "especially in Africa"? Please explain.
A few quick points to ponder:
1) Norway is a tiny country.
2) Car ownership is a luxury few Norwegians can afford.
3) 25% of a small number of new cars purchased in a small country is meaningless.
4) The vast majority of those electric cars are being bought by Norwegians that derive their income from the oil industry.
Ken
Don't have a cow man.
No, it is an easily-proven statement regarding the infrastructure needed for electric cars to replace gasoline-fueled cars.
A 1989 POS Yugo can go several hundred miles before needing a refill, it can be refilled in about ten minutes, and refuling stations are ubiquitous.
A 2016 electric vehicle can not do that, nor can a hybrid, without resorting to running almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
Ken
"invest in new.."
"continue to research..."
"figure out how to..."
That's just a 'hope' strategy for many of the things you listed. We have solutions already that don't require unrealistic visions of massive social changes or expectation of paying for what is systemically unaffordable. We should continue to research and develop new feasible solutions, but we can't depend on them. We need to massively expand nuclear along with our growth of wind and solar, otherwise we are just 'hoping'.
Climate change has always been inevitable. I wish we'd stop conflating climate change with AGW Climate Change. Nobody denies the climate changes. I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore, either, just the extent and what's the likelihood of actually being able to stop or slow it. We can't have a meaningful conversation about it when either "side" falls back to name-calling and yelling.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Screwed? Well, if AGW turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't be the first consensus science conclusion that turned out to be wrong on account of some subtle but wide cockup and corruption of the scientific process. Good science works, bad science doesn't. And it takes several decades to figure out if something went wrong. And if anyone wants to deny this point, please present your crystal ball.
Wouldn't one be a bigger idiot if he assumed cars and tires and building materials are only manufactured in Norway, or petroleum burning vehicles were not used to support delivery of the materials?
I wonder how these alternatives affect things in the future when they are done on such a massive scale they can actually replace fossil fuels. Enormous wind farms will have immediate effects on weather, possibly farther spread than you would think. Pretty much all energy on the face of the planet comes from the sun, which also affects weather patterns - wind, rain, everything - so what happens when mass areas are covered with solar panels. What's the environmental impact of altering ocean currents in an attempt to generate energy from them? Even fusion... what's the impact of pumping massive amounts of sea water through these systems? Wouldn't that eventually affect something? It seems like we can't win if we keep demanding more energy. At least the air will be cleaner, though.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You forgot about the acid rain and the loss of all monuments - Followed by Ted Danson predicting that all the oceans would be dead DEAD in 20 years...
I still remember watching the news guys out by glaciers using tape measures to spread the fear.
Good times!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
The global warming catastrophe myth is just as much of a joke as the doomsday scenarios insane religious folks cook up every 10 years.
The earth has been around forever, and been through worse than a few billion morons driving cars, spraying aerosol cans, and running factories.
By the time any of this nonsense actually happens, humanity will be long dead to even matter.
Relax, you'll live longer and die happier.
I wonder how these alternatives affect things in the future when they are done on such a massive scale they can actually replace fossil fuels.
Petroleum is not only a fuel. It has a far nobler use is as a raw material. We need to keep reserves to use as raw material.
Yes. Damn global warming, and damn OPEC. Every time oil prices go up, so does the price of LEGO.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades."
The consequences will unfold over decades, but the problem is certainly immediate and it should have been "solved"/mitigated 15 years ago. I agree nearly 100% with your proposals as to how to address it. Anyone who thinks to world will revert to Amish style living tomorrow is just naive. The biggest problem we have is ignorance mostly due to the intentional spread of misinformation, the "Merchants of Doubt". We won't agree on how to solve the problem, but it's ridiculous that people still believe there isn't one.
Yeah - but we've been examining this issue for quite a bit more than a few decades, and it wont go away. So lets say we wait until we unequivocal evidence. It will be too late by then - because there is a thirty year lag between the CO2 emitted and the effects.
In Norway, 25% of all new cars sold are electric.
Jolly good! Now tell me where do they get their energy from.
Why "especially in Africa"? Please explain.
Because fertility rates there are higher?
Go look it up, I'm not your secretary. I already found you one easy answer using 10 seconds on the internet.
I don't subscribe to the "I think this with no evidence, you prove me wrong" line of thinking.
Wow. Maximum Pessimism. The ability to travel long distances with an EV is practically here. Fast Charge DC and 200+ mile affordable (average price) EVs coming this year and the next and only increasing and growing cheaper afterwards. Please have a look and plugshare or Tesla's supercharger map. How well do you think gas cars would work without gas stations?
As for "Lithium is inadequate", do some research before stating something so false. Lithium-air, for instance, has a higher theoretical gravimetric energy density than gasoline, given that most of gasoline's energy is wasted as heat. The energy is combustion is not just from the gasoline. It also uses oxygen from the air. Today's lithium-ion batteries used are just adequate, but the potential exceeds that of petroleum. "Batteries are expensive" is so terribly short-sighted. The costs of plunged and are forcasts to continue under $100/kWh. And that's without any advancements. A short look at battery history shows we've come a long way in technology and costs and the EV revolution is driving R&D, which is key.
True, but why should I give a shit about human life?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Go look it up, I'm not your secretary
Wasn't your previous post about how easy it was to look it up?
Only to find out that you looked up the wrong thing? While calling other people "idiots"?
Fuck you.
Human activity requires energy. Used energy becomes heat.
Well, the solution is simple. Attach a device to every person to capture that heat to turn it back into energy to fund further activity thus generating more heat and so on and so on. Holy fuck, I think I just invented cold fusion!
Add a really really hot cup of tea and you could even make it into an infinite improbability drive!
My god! Stop with the hysterics, would you? Just turn up the heat and grow indoors. What's the damn problem? Some of you people need to smoke more weed.
anti-nuke hysteria, fanned by the cold war and the Chernobyl disaster, and promoted in the press by pro-oil interests, resulted in the US putting a moratorium on the construction of additional nuclear power stations, and the increased buildout of coal and petroleum fired power plants.
How is acknowledging that the NIMBY movement that was so easily motivated by these factors were instrumental in the reaching of that policy decision, in any way credibility deflating?
To this very day, this group is STILL vocal against nuclear power, even demanding that funding for fusion not go forward, erroneously believing fusion energy to be polluting with long lived radioactive waste.
I was simply acknowledging the point made.
And since you made up "their" comments yourself, all you're doing is proving that what YOU "think", not what those you're pretending to answer for think.
And today you have unprecedented dieback of essential coral heads and reefs, whales washing up on shore in record numbers, seals and walrus having significant difficulties with their habitats, massive reductions in polar ice, the near complete disappearance of the glacier at glacier national park, severe population reductions of oceanic tuna, and a whole host of other things.
More fear mongering my good sir?
Nope. Global cooling was proposed by all of 3 climate scientists, who were on the fringe.
It was amplified by the mainstream media who engineered a controversy for ratings.
For a more factual accounting of the science of the 70s, here is a nice informative link
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
This month will be the hottest september ever recorded.
Just wait and see. ;P
This is true, but at current atmospheric co2 levels, even switching to wholly green energy at this point will continue to see global temperature increases, because of the atmosphere's new thermal capacity, and inability to radiate heat away into space.
Wait until Methane starts doing its magic. Boy, it's gonna be a party!
The clathrate gun has already fired
http://www.natureworldnews.com...
THERE ARE NO ETHANOL SUBSIDIES. wtf if your problem with ethanol? Work for exxon or something? btw exxon still gets their subsidies! read up!
and yes, oceans too.
http://www.americanscientist.o...
Petroleum is an excellent fuel for transportation and distilling into various fuels, PLUS an excellent source of long-chain carbon for plastics.
To keep that scale in perspective: 1000 years ago we were in a dark age with comparatively ignorant civilizations. 1000 years from now, today will look similar.
Missing the "terrifying" part.
Why "especially in Africa"? Please explain.
Because fertility rates are far higher in Africa, and that is the only place where families often have more children than they want because contraceptives are unavailable or unaffordable. Africa also has the lowest literacy rates, the lowest vaccination rates, and the worst public sanitation.
1. 61st largest country.
2. 17th in cars per capita, 0.584, above Germany, UK etc
I'm not sure that anybody actually still denies humankind has at least had an impact anymore,
Yeah instead they don't talk about it and set up shadow organizations to figure out new and convoluted ways to take data out of context to keep supplying fox and friends with sound bites to win the coal miner and oil rig worker vote.
Serious question, Why Africa? India and China both have higher populations than all of Africa as well as centralized governments and (I'm guessing) a higher overall per capita consumption rate which makes them lower hanging fruit. Not to mention the US where the per capita resource consumption more than makes up the difference in population. Population growth rates may be falling in all 3 countries but population is still rising.
I think the real solution is to transition away from an economic model that relies on younger generations supporting older ones. How? Robots of course!
Do you have problems with contextualization?
Here, let me help you.
This september, Like the august before it, and the July before that, and the June before that..... ... ...
are all closely following the predictions of global temperature increase due to increased atmospheric CO2.
That the predictions favor the production of a practically uninhabitable planet in the next 2 centuries is pretty fucking scary.
That month after month after month has corroborated the predictions, makes the prediction pretty fucking scary.
Thank you, and good night.
In 1989, some friends of mine drove a 1989 Yugo in the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days of circumnavigating the USA.
No they didn't
https://www.onelapofamerica.co...
Maybe your year is wrong but I didn't see a yugo in 88 or 90 either. Anyway, your post and the article are classic goal-post moving. When we had 70mi/charge electric cars we need 200 mi/charge. Now we need 500 mi/charge even so Americans drive an average of 30mi/day. And next year when the 500mi/charge car comes out you won't be satisfied without your 9000mi in 10 day car.
Nevermind that since 1990, Li batteries have doubled in power density and dropped in price by a factor of 6 every 10 years. Obviously that trend can't last forever but Li batteries are good enough for cars...TODAY!
my only beef with fission is the waste. (fusion I believe will remain a pipe dream, but the research should continue)
we can't even pass an annual budget, which makes me very skeptical of trusting those folks with planning out and financing a multidecade (ne: century) plan for dealing with nuclear waste. hell, they aren't even really dealing with the waste we already have.
and its a really big downside.
and given the advancements in other fields, particularly renewables, I don't see the pros outweighing the cons with nuclear.
if we didn't have such abundant solar wind and tidal energy, I'd be all for nukes. but here on this planet, I see little need for it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
as the denier myth about cooling once again rears its head.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
why do you fools keep quoting actors when trying to mock science?
also, the damage of acid rain is pretty clear and indisputable: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
and that's just on statues, not counting the increased PH of lakes and streams and the effect of that on the species present.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Not quite. If CO2 emission levels were cut by 60%, the total CO2 in the atmosphere would start to drop. Plants and the ocean would store it away more than what we are generating.
The Earth will radiate excess heat away at night, and generating green energy uses less heat generating processes and the Sun will have less CO2 to heat up in the atmosphere.
man made climate change is a myth, thanks for clearing that up for us
OK, it was 87 - I thought that happened during my 2nd 1-lap, but it was my first. We were car 10, my buddy was in car 65 in a Yugo. We won, BTW. Anyway, I just misremembered the year.
And no, electrics can't do that, they''re not ever going to be doing that in ordinary lithium batteries. Those things need about a 10X reduction in price and a 2X - 3X gain in performance so they aren't so big and heavy and the cars don't have to be shaped like an airplane in order to cut the wind.
As for how much driving I need per day, today is a 40 mile round trip to town. On the days that I eat Pizza at Pizza Hut, it is a 30 mile round trip in the other direction. Yes, lotsa days I eat pizza and go to town both on the same day. Lotsa people drive 50 - 70 miles each way to work because they can only afford real estate down here in the boonies and the work is mostly in the big city, DC. The Tesla will do that, but it is around $100K.
I don't really think we're going to have electric vehicles 100% for a few decades. We can't just replace 90% of the cars with electric 'cuz then we'll lose the economy of scale with gasoline and more importantly diesel, and the the costs to move things by truck will have to contend with $10 - $20 / gallon diesel and American's lives STILL will be diminished with huge living cost increases.
Maybe someone will eventually stumble onto a better material than Lithium to store electricity. Maybe cold fusion wiil become real and every vehicle will have a reactor. But we either solve this 100%, so's we can leave the oil, gas, and coal in the ground, or we add to the CO2 in the air. Perhaps we can construct enough "scrubbers" to capture the CO2 out of the air and turn it back into carbon and oxygen, but that sounds expensive. But then at some point we _still_ run out of fossil fuels, even if it is 300 years in the future maybe, so we're still needing electricity and better batteries.
Actually, tesla's Model S, X, and shortly 3, MAKE actual sense. They replace competitors that costs as much or more, get around 20 MPG, is much quicker, has decent range, and has a growing super charger infrastructure that allows for quick recharges.
In addition, the M3 will do the same again. It will replace competitors, such as the BMW 3 series, that costs as much or more, they get under 30 MPH, and the M3 will be quicker, cheaper to own, has a decent range, and use of a massive super charger network, etc.
Now, the leaf, the bolt, the ZOE, etc are all EVs that do NOT make sense. They are replacing ICE based cars that costs in the low $20,000, are rigged to be slower (yes, these EVs are very capable of being quicker, but are electritronically governed), take forever to charge, and with the exception of the bolt, have no decent range.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What if the waste wasn't quite as bad, or as big a problem, as you were led to believe?
That is simply wrong. The 25% is pure electric, not hybrid electric. If you include hybrids, you are close to 50%. It is of course a new phenomenon, and only 2.7% av vehicles on the road are fully electric. The reason is cheap electricity (from hydroelectricity) and tax advantages (no VAT on fully electric vehicles++).
2) Car ownership is a luxury few Norwegians can afford.
Wrong. Car density per capita is around average european.
4) The vast majority of those electric cars are being bought by Norwegians that derive their income from the oil industry.
Wrong. Roughly 12% of Norwegian employees have jobs directly or indirectly related to the oil industry. 12% is not a "vast majority".
It's conceivable that we could arrive in a situation where we generated enough heat to cause severe problems, but this isn't it. The problem is CO2 emissions, which trap more of the Sun's heat inside the atmosphere.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
NASA and NOAA people and guys like Al Gore push loads of this stuff leading into every election. It's meant to stoke-up a certain portion of a certain niche of a segment of voters.
We have such sea ice mapping from satellite images for approx 50 years of the planets 6000000000+ year history, and of that 5/600000000 sample, we tied for second worst (meaning there was one just as bad and one worse). This also means that we had plenty of years with MORE arctic sea ice even though we had MORE emissions in the western world. Air quality in American big cities was vastly worse in the 1970s, when we used to joke in Los Angeles that we did not trust any air we could not see (smile) and yet there was MORE arctic ice. If the response is that the rest of the world is polluting more now, then my response is simple: OK, but that does not mean the solution is to make life worse for middle class and poor Americans by adding more taxes and regulations, which clearly do not offset the completely uncontrolled emissions of places like India and China. It only harms American workers if we shut down an American coal-fired plant if China open 3 new ones...
It this ice data good info? Sure
Should we pay attention? Sure
Is it proof that the planet is being destroyed and we need global socialism and wealth re-distribution accompanied by prison and/or re-education camps for anybody questioning the related data, data handling, data interpretation, and most-importantly: prescribed "solutions"? Nope.
The geologic record is clear that the planet has been FAR warmer in the past with FAR higher CO2 levels and thriving life. The record is also clear that the planet has been FAR colder in the past, with reduced life. The record is further clear that the past changes between hot and cold preceeded human interventions.
Norway is a very prosperous country, wealthier than the US by many measures (higher GDP per capita, AND much lower inequality). To paint car ownership as a "luxury few Norwegians can afford" is just plain ludicrous.
And less than 10% of the Norwegian workforce has anything to do with the oil industry. That's a lot, sure, but unless you've got some supporting evidence I'm sceptical of your claim that those 10% are accounting for all of that 25%.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
Pretty much.
Before satellites started measuring for the above issue, I was assured by the popular alarmists that Acid Rain would of seared most everything 30 years later, and killed off all the rivers , streams , lakes, and well...
Oceans.
Rage on Popular alarmist!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I do hope they get it worked out, but I was speaking of the present. According to the Wikipedia entry for Li-Air batteries, they still need significantly more development to be suitable for automotive uses. That may or may not ever happen. I hope it does. I would _love_ to have an electric car that will do everything my Subaru WRX will do now, including not breaking me up when I have to pay for it. Replacing the batteries rapidly would be a suitable substitute for having several-minute charging, so that's not a big issue in my book. It just has to work at the -30 degrees F that I've experienced in NW Ohio during the blizzard of '78 (My 77 Jeep started right up) and not commit suicide because of the temperature. Again, I _want_ an electric car, but I want to be able to set out for one of my favorite destinations, Tucson, Az. for events that I participate in there, and be able to doing in the same amount of time as I do with the WRX. That is about 3 1/2 days. I normally do 600 - 800 miles a day for the 2400 mile journey. Sitting around and waiting for a 45 minute charging of a battery would not work. Otherwise, electricity should be far more economical than gasoline in terms of $ per energy unit. I want that.
more.fronteirs.to.plunder..MUAHAAHHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!!! aCoffcoff
No reason at all.
Unless you like living.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I think you're confused, Norway is almost as large as California. Sure it's not a large country, but that hardly qualifies as 'small' any more.
It's also richer per person then the USA is or almost any other nation in the world, so if Norwegians can't afford cars, then I presume almost no one can? And if that's the case I suppose replacing the transportation infrastructure won't be so hard, because no one can afford cars anyway?
Also that the country isn't 'huge' doesn't really mean their solution can't work for everyone else. At a certain point you have sufficient scale to show it works well enough. Norway has over 5 million people, not amazing, but not terrible either, certainly a point where you're seeing some real scale starting to show up.
Worst... Troll... Ever...
But to get your investment in plant infrastructure back you half to run them for that length of time. And that's ignoring the subsidized costs of plant safety, plant security, and storing the waste for thousands of years.
Which is:
1) Vaporware, same as thorium reactors
2) Far more expensive than renewable energy
When it's cheaper to bring sugar cane-based ethanol to that remote Eskimo village by dogsled than it is to build one of these mythical reactors, why bother? That's the real achilles heel of nuclear power: cost. You can roll out renewable energy sources faster, more safely, for less money. Nuclear power is pure corporate welfare, as it cannot exist or compete without taxpayer support.
Uh, no, it's not. Not even close, as nuclear power simply is not cost effective compared to other renewable power sources, which have none of the safety issues and don't take a decade to build.
Bullshit. This is the same USG that is happy to tell both the citizen and the consumer to go fuck themselves if it means some corporation can get a buck. Or have you paid no attention to coal ash spills, oil train fires, pipelines that leak hundreds of thousands of gallons of petroleum tinto the surrounding land? The real reason you haven't had new nuclear plants built is they are completely unjustifiable, and cannot exist without massive subsidies from the taxpayer.
Safety: even assuming there will never be another Chernobyl or Fukishima, you still have to store that waste for thousands of years.
Cost: the real achilles heel for nuclear power. You simply cannot justify building nuclear power plants when other sources of energy (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, sugar cane ethanol) can be rolled out far more quickly, far more safely, for a fraction of the cost.
Disagree? Then feel free to name the nuclear plants that roll the full cost of mining, refinement, security, safety, and storing it's waste for thousands of years into the rates charged to customers.
Smarmy western elitism + eugenics, charming. Problem: your self-centered ass uses the same amount of resources as 32 of those Africans that you wish would stop breeding.
Then there's the trucks, locomotives, ships, boats, and airplanes.
I get your point about airplanes (hint: there will be no more), you may have a point about trucks, ships and boats (sailing will probably be back, but it has a few drawbacks), but what do locomotives have to do with that?
Locomotives run on diesel, so more CO2. Could they run on electricity? Maybe. We have 100's of thousands of miles of freight rail, and converting them all to grid electricity may or may not be possible. Ever notice that tunnels have only inches of clearance? Where do you put the extra wiring? And of course we still can't make the grid electricity with just solar and wind because if the wind stops blowing at night, we're screwed. Maybe solvable in the long run by a global high voltage DC power grid, but then do we want to rely on electricity from potential enemies like Russia just to get electricity from the Ukraine? We should, as a strategic plan, keep our electricity generated within our borders, but to do that, we have to be able to store solar and wind electricity. We can't yet do that.
France is the world's largest user of nuclear power, they've been running on it for the last 50 years to provide upto 80% of their domestic power needs. Unsurprisingly they're also at the forefront of reactor design.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."