Slashdot Mirror
Another Study Finds Earth's CO2 Emissions Have Flattened Over The Last Three Years (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press:
Worldwide emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have flattened out in the past three years, a new study showed Monday, raising hopes that the world is nearing a turning point in the fight against climate change. However, the authors of the study cautioned it's unclear whether the slowdown in CO2 emissions, mainly caused by declining coal use in China, is a permanent trend or a temporary blip...
The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year. That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed. "This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."
Last week a study suggested earth's plant life is absorbing a greater percentage of global CO2 emissions -- although reductions in China could also be significant. According to the article, almost 30% of the world's carbon emissions come from China.
The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year. That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed. "This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."
Last week a study suggested earth's plant life is absorbing a greater percentage of global CO2 emissions -- although reductions in China could also be significant. According to the article, almost 30% of the world's carbon emissions come from China.
That the rate increase is going down isn't good enough, alas. That means it's still increasing. We need a reversal, with less CO2 pumped out than what is absorbed, and we're nowhere near that yet.
Still, it's a good first sign, but we're still getting worse, not better.
So why did the UK & USA go to war in Iraq on the basis of chasing weapons of mass destruction that probably did not exist at a cost of some $1.1 trillion? Answer: because it suited other goals that politicians wanted. So: today politicians are chasing short term goals and keeping their eyes shut tight to the probable huge long term consequences of not dealing with climate change.
Is it? It has always been touted as being very,very cheap, but it never was.
And I am sure the nuclear industry didn't factor in the long-term costs of how to store away the nuclear waste safely, for generations. Or the costs of dismantling a plant. Or of course the costs when something bad happens. 100 billion $ total cost of Fukushima disaster.
CO2 in the atmosphere, and the world's CO2 output over a year, isn't the same thing. They're correlated, but with a long delay (in the order of decades or longer IIRC). The atmosphere itself, oceans, forests etc all act like buffers. So if the world (read: mankind's) CO2 output would drop to 0 instantly, CO2 in the atmosphere will stay high for a long time no matter what. Adding more CO2 just makes the problem worse. So a more accurate way is saying that the rate at which we're making the problem worse, has slowed down / flattened. We're still running, and still in the opposite direction of where we should be going, just our [running in the wrong direction] has slowed down.
Once atmospheric CO2 (and with that, average global temperatures) passes certain levels, all kinds of secondary effects may kick in: melting of permafrost areas, melting of oceanic methane ice (yeah I know not CO2 but still caused & contributing to same problem), forest fires due to extended droughts, etc, etc.
No you dont " ruins the site for a couple hundred years" here is a list of dissmantled nuclear powerplants and as you can see it did NOT take 100+ years to release the sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
as for accidents, chernobyl will never happen again, fukushima contaminated a very small area (yes small) and the contamination will be gone in 30-40 years.
The fact is that nuclear power is magnitudes better than fosil fuels from a health point of view.
se:http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lifetime-deaths-per-twh-from-energy.html
I would add that Gaddafi after seeing what happened in Iraqi decided to own up to a whole bunch of WMD that we basically didn't have a clue about and allowed them to be removed. It is highly unlikely this would have happened without the Iraqi invasion.
The problem with the invasion of Iraqi was not the invasion itself but the utter lack of post invasion planning by Bush and his fellow bunch of morons.
How much has Gore made so far?
"His name was James Damore."
Seriously?
Yes, contrary to your very narrow minded view of the world, this is a subject still open to debate.
The problem exists.
You can't even define the problem beyond 'warming', which has been shown to have occurred before on large scales. You can't actually define the problem beyond what you are extrapolatinging might happen even though you have absolutely 0 concrete evidence to support your theories about whats happening.
The models aren't failing.
The models you choose to select aren't failing ... of course thats just because you make up some bullshit numbers and formulas then pick the ones that closest match reality even though they have no basis in reality. The process is only slightly more scientific than throwing darts at a dart board with theories attached and picking the one that gets closet to NOT the bullseye, but instead whatever number you think is going to support your argument today. Next week, different except of a weather pattern that contradicts what you said last week.
Plenty of models don't predict your doom and gloom and predict a little more of whats actually happening rather than whats not happening ... you just ignore those models and call them wrong. If the evidence doesn't agree with you, you throw it out.
There is scientific consensus.
Yes, when you put yourself in a situation where the only people you talk to are people that agree with you, getting a consensus is easy. Of course, most of the 'consensus' you base your self on isn't even actual science, its unproven theories on top of unproven theories that leave out massive amounts of data only to prove your own personal point.
Once you actually pull full data sets in, neither the climate deniers nor the climate doomsayers have any indication of what they say being true.
The only fact in this argument is that this has all happened before. The rest is speculation that you want to call facts.
No one on this planet has anything more than a theory about what happening to the climate. Everyone could move forward and hell, more people might actually listen to you when you stop claiming things as facts which any 3rd grader could point out they are different from facts in obvious ways, like direct observation. Speculating based on something you dug up from thousands of years ago just makes you look stupid, then on top of that you pretend that there is absolutely no question as to your methods of dating and determining temps at the time were correct ... except next year when a study comes out and tells us those numbers were all wrong and now its even worse@!#%!@#%.
How the fuck is it, you guys are so absolutely fucking sure of yourself, when every few months there are more contradictions.
You wouldn't understand science if it hit you in the face.
I'm not arguing either 'side', i'm arguing that both of the 'sides' are fucking idiots who don't know what science is, they've just picked a team to join, you included, and you're too stupid to know why you're on the team. I'm guessing you also voted for Hillary and can't imagine how she didn't win, these two things are directly related: You're delusional :)
Note: I did not vote for Trump, and I do believe the climate is changing
There is scientific consensus.
Sure, if you select just the people who agree with you, 100% consensus. Of course, as soon as you find someone who is a subject matter expect ... but doesn't draw his salary by scaring people about global warming research papers, suddenly there isn't a consensus.
There is at least 1 store a month on slashdot contradicting one side or the other ... but you think there is consensus. You only hear what you want to hear, truth be damned.
The "good news" here is t
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It's fashionable to pretend that it was all based on bloodlust but for those of us who were alive at the time, it seemed like it was the right thing to do. The decision was made with the best information at the time and in retrospect it was a mistake.
I was alive at the time, and it was a transparently stupid thing to do. It never looked like the right thing to do, and it was obvious before we even went in that it would spiral out of control. The administration sold it on lies and misinformation, and a lot of people bought it.