'Moore's Law' For Carbon Would Defeat Global Warming (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: A streamlined set of goals for reducing carbon emissions could simplify the way nations approach the quest to reduce human impact on the planet. A group of European researchers have a refreshingly straightforward solution that they call a carbon law -- or, as the Guardian has coined it, a "Moore's law for carbon." The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it. The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term." Dramatic changes would naturally have to occur as a result -- from quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations, to longer-term policies like phasing out combustion-engine cars and carbon-neutral building regulations. If policy makers followed the carbon law, adoption of renewables would continue its current pace of doubling energy production every 5.5 years, and carbon dioxide sequestration technologies would need to ramp up in order for the the planet to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century, say the researchers. Along the way, coal use would end as soon as 2030 and oil use by 2040. There are, clearly, issues with the idea, not least being the prospect of convincing every nation to commit to such a vision. The very simplicity that makes the idea compelling can also be used as a point of criticism: Can such a basic rule ever hope to define practical ideas as to how to change the world's energy production and consumption? The study has been published in the journal Science.

Comments

It Doesn't Work That Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Moores law for transistors works with roughly the same amount of investment each year. This doesn't work in many other areas. You can't double clean energy production every 5 years without doubling the investment.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[Mr D from 63]

Lets apply Moore's law to all our problems.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! Half the wars every 10 years means world peace by the end of the century!

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the Moore's laws every year!

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[radarskiy]

Do we apply Moore's Law to the blockchain or apply the blockchain to Moore's Law?

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[blindseer]

Moores law for transistors works with roughly the same amount of investment each year. This doesn't work in many other areas. You can't double clean energy production every 5 years without doubling the investment.

Yes and no. To keep up with growing demand and retiring of old power plants and other consumers of fossil fuels there is always new construction. New coal and natural gas plants are built every day as are new factories for cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships. We cannot just stop building these thing or our economy goes to shit and people will die from starvation and what not.

What we can do is declare that every year we will double the replacement rate of fossil fuel burners with nuclear powered equivalents. This year we build one nuclear power plant. Next year, now that we have people trained in the building of a nuclear power plant we spread them around and train more people so they can build two. The year after we build four, after that eight nuclear power plants. We keep going until we reach a rate by which we are building nuclear power plants at the rate in which they are retired.

If we are building gigawatt scale nuclear power plants then we reach this goal fairly quickly since in the USA this would mean building something like 10 to 15 nuclear power plants every year. That's one new nuclear power plant going online roughly every month. Anything less means we are not bringing our carbon footprint to zero.

When it comes to other fossil fuel burners like heating, transportation, and so on this can mean using synthesized fuel or converting to electricity. Either way this increases the demand on nuclear power needed. Wind, solar, and hydro power cannot produce liquid fuels directly. What they can do is power fuel synthesis plants. Jet planes need kerosene or something equivalent, they cannot run on electricity. We can synthesize hydrocarbons, keep pumping crude out of the ground, or we can not fly any more.

The money invested in the switch to nuclear power would still double every year but this would only replace the investment we'd be doing in fossil fuels. Total money spent would remain roughly the same. Any claims that nuclear power costs more than coal or any other power source is bogus. Any knowledgeable engineer can tell you the materials and effort needed to build a nuclear power plant is nearly identical to that of building a coal plant. The cost difference is purely in the fucked up regulations from government.

If the government regulated coal power like it did nuclear power then we'd be building nuclear power every time if only because of the radiation that coal plants spread into the environment. You think that coal power is free from radiation? It is not. That coal dust and soot contains radioactive elements dug from the ground and spread into the air and water. Nuclear power would destroy these elements. We'd still be digging them up but then we'd turn them into stuff that isn't radioactive any more.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[phantomfive]

It's actually heading that direction. It's hard for us as Americans to feel it because we've started getting involved in more wars, but overall the world has been improving and improving.

One way of looking at it is, "rich people aren't willing to risk their lives in war" and as the world gets richer and richer, fewer people are willing to fight in battles.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[LouerVoitureStMartin]

double clean energy production every 5 years recommanded only if you are work Oceane Car, location de voitures sur Saint-Martin https://oceanecar.com/

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Moores law for transistors works with roughly the same amount of investment each year.

Per factory? Surely not. Per industry? Definitely not as it has scaled up tremendously. The improvements are ever harder to make.

Compared to this, doubling clean energy production within a few years is comparatively easy: as long as the price of the energy is comparable, all it takes is to maintain existing production capacity which is around 100 GWp per year now. Whether that purchase of capacity qualifies as investment to you is the interesting question: it's a substitute for coal and gas consumption of individuals.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[Hognoxious]

You want to halve peace. GP wants to halve wars.

If only we could think of a way to settle that...

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[blindseer]

Nuclear powerplants take a variety of skills and take longer than a year to build. Whilst you might able to break ground on plant two and three whilst plant one is in subsequent phases of construction even that won't happen in year 2.

We aren't starting from zero here. There are already many nuclear power plants being built around the world. People are already getting training in nuclear power. Also, as you point out, it takes a variety of skills to build a nuclear power plant. Much of those skills coincide with existing power plants. Not everyone building a nuclear power plant needs to be experts on nuclear power. Most of them merely need to be experienced in building a power plant. Since we've never stopped building power plants we have plenty of people already trained in this. Since nuclear would replace fossil fuels then they'd merely see a job for nuclear power replace a job for fossil fuel power.

In terms of skills to build an actual reactor, someone working on the job for a year would not be qualified a group of untrained staff the next, so there would be very quickly a skills shortage without a massive additional training programme.

Then train them. What's the problem here? There are already plenty of universities capable of training people in nuclear power. The US Navy trains plenty as well. Again, we are not starting from zero here. It takes four years to get a BSE in nuclear engineering, so start training them now. By the time they graduate we can have all kinds of nuclear engineering jobs and put them to work.

Since for a given level of output nuclear plants are more capital intensive the amount of investment required would not be flat.

That's just plain false. Capital expenses for nuclear power are so close to that of coal power that they are effectively identical. The cost difference between coal and nuclear are purely legal, and if we fix that then people will naturally shift to nuclear power because that is where the money would be.

Whilst I think nuclear could be a useful part of future energy production, your plan is unrealistic.

Saying something cannot be done is a self fulfilling statement. The only reason nuclear power has not outpaced coal is because the government has deemed that it cannot. Several times in the past, decades ago, we've seen nuclear reactors go from nothing to fully operational in less than three years. A blank sheet of paper in 1951 to the USS Nautilus in 1954. If we cannot repeat that today then it is only because we told ourselves so.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[Entrope]

When X is in its early adoption phase, "doubling X within Y time" once is easy. It's hard to keep doing it several more times.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[angel'o'sphere]

Capital expenses for nuclear power are so close to that of coal power that they are effectively identical.
Perhaps you should look into the numbers before writing nonsense like this.

However the discussion is mood anyway, as long as the waste problem is not solved no nation is going to invest majourly in to nuclear anymore. Considering that wind and solar are cheaper anyway and quicker and more flexible set up ...

Several times in the past, decades ago, we've seen nuclear reactors go from nothing to fully operational in less than three years. A blank sheet of paper in 1951 to the USS Nautilus in 1954

Do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a tiny submarine reactor versus a power plant?

With the right materials available I build you a reactor in half a year, by hand, as a single person. The principles are super simple. Getting it "working" as in "safe" is a bit harder, getting it to a few hundred mega watts for production of electricity makes it "complex" at least and if you would care to check how big those beasts are you would understand why construction time is over a decade. Construction time, not time to approve it, get the protesters silenced and finally construct it.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[A nonymous Coward]

Moore to the point, Moore's law was an observation of a natural trend. This is the opposite, typical of so much legislation.

Moore's law is like having a speedometer needle showing the speed, or a thermometer showing the temperature. Legislation which tries to change society pretends changing the observation will change reality: move the needle to slow down or speed up; move the pointer to raise or lower the temperature. In reality, you need an entirely different device to do that.

"So let it be written, so let it be done" sounds good in movies, but it don't do squat in real life except muck things up.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[pipingguy]

It's all about the headlines, flash messaging. The public (who are treated as 5th graders by media and marketeers/spinners/manipulators) knows Moore's Law = Magic Technology Something, so just transpose 'Moore's Law' into the Climate Arena as a solution to a problem and wait for the government dollars to flow in in response to public pressure.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[blindseer]

Do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a tiny submarine reactor versus a power plant?

No, but you did bring something to mind. If we can build a small nuclear reactor in that time, then we can build ten in that time. We can build thousands in that time. This is the concept behind the small modular reactor. Once designed and the patterns laid out for construction they can be mass produced.

Something on the scale of 10MW to 100MW can fit on a train or barge. Build them in a factory, ship them to the power plant site, hook them up to a generator, and off you go. There is no reason we cannot do this. Big or small doesn't matter. The only reason we've been building these massive gigawatt scale reactors is because the regulations are such that only building them this big makes economic sense.

If it's so easy to build a 10MW reactor compared to a 1000MW reactor then just build 100 of those 10MW reactors instead.

The point is we know how to solve this problem. The only thing holding this back right now is the regulation on nuclear power, basically the powers that be aren't properly motivated to issue licenses for these reactors and so none get built. There is no physical reason we cannot be building nuclear reactors on a mass scale, and do so safely and economically. We've simply told ourselves it cannot be done and so it cannot be done. Once we tell ourselves it can be done then it will happen.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[hackwrench]

Once war has increased to the point where everyone is dead, there will be infinite and everlasting peace.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[hey!]

Well, your point is well taken: Moore's law is an empirical observation, not the result of a plan.

However it doesn't follow in the least that doubling clean energy requires a doubling of investments. That's because clean energy is actually benefits more form economies of scale than fossil fuels. To double your output of electricity from coal, you may get better at building coal power plants, and you may enjoy some economies of scale as people invest in infrastructure to transport coal, but you still have to pay for twice as much coal. Renewables use slack resources that are simply being thrown away now: sunshine, wind, water flow etc. Of course there are physical limits to renewables, but we're nowhere near them yet.

Re:It Doesn't Work That Way

[rtb61]

Just another empty stupid marketing meme, Moores law on climate change. I'll put forward a real and valid climate change law, "The Underwater Front Law". The stupid lead addled fuckwits will do bugger all, until we are all under a metre of water and then they will go nuts looking to blame people and start peddling crimes against humanity at targeted individuals and corporations (this from buildings falling over when they get crushed in the surf zone during peak tides and storms). Then we will see some real effort a likely peak a 2 metres above current sea levels before we see reductions. The only reason action will be taking because they rich and greedy exclusionary water front properties will be the ones wiped out economically and by the sea. The under water front law, the more multimillion dollar properties wipe out the sooner climate change action will occur.

First scam, to push their insurance for those properties on people who they excluded from access to the waterfront, multi-millionaires ripping of the working poor yet again. Then billions of working poor taxes spent on vainly trying to protect those underwater front properties. Then scams to sell those underwater front properties to property investment funds which the banksters will sell to mug investors and corruptly paid off pension funds with ludicrous claims of high capital values and great rent returns (scam, the high rents will only be payable whilst the property is occupied, so inflate capital asset by high rent and long lease and abandon both with first storm leaving the investment fund to go bankrupt)

Then they will blame scientist for not doing enough and the public for failing to take action but hey, tasty tasty, tanks, planes, aircraft carriers and submarines, learn to eat 'heavy metal' America because you will need to in order to survive.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[K. S. Kyosuke]

All you need now is to "double it several more times". We'll probably never need anything more than that. I don't think we're at the inflection point yet, and still, even the current capacity is indicative of a sustained global 3000 GWp installation - 100 GWp of annual production with 30yr lifetime of every year's output. That alone gives you about 30% of current world's electricity generation, so in fact, just doubling it once would cover 60% of world's generation eventually. The rest would be best covered with other sources, since you get diminishing returns on solar installations, although the vast majority of places isn't quite there yet.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[Entrope]

Your conclusion is only viable if you make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions:

• Global power consumption does not increase (it quadrupled over the last 50 years)
• The ~60% of current energy consumption that is not electricity generation (vehicle fuel, etc.) is replaced by... nothing
• We solve the battery problem for intermittent power generation (most renewable sources are inherently intermittent)
• The whole world generates electricity from solar power as efficiently as Phoenix, AZ
• Solar and wind power production stops chewing through rare earth elements

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The population doubled over the last 50 years, and civilization spread in the same time period. You're not going to see the same pattern over the next fifty years as the current decadal growth rate is one third of what it used to be fifty years ago, and unlikely to increase again. Likewise, the same doubling of installed PV capacity, for example, took only something like three years in the recent decade, so even your doubling or even quadrupling of needs over five decades would amount to almost a blip in the short term. Fifty year predictions or social and technical development are completely off anyway so I'm not going to discuss them.

Also, PV panels require no rare earth elements and even wind turbines could manage without them, except that for some wind turbine manufacturers it's apparently more convenient at the moment to use them. I've already responded to this bullshit so many times that I've ultimately come to regard any mention of "rare earths" in connection to solar power as the shibboleth of the ignorant masses that never bother to educate themselves on things they're so eager to complain about.

Re: It Doesn't Work That Way

[Entrope]

Per capita power consumption doubled in the past 50 years, and there's no reason to think it won't again -- most of the world's population is still in developing economies. Population growth will also continue, although not at the same pace as in the past. If your point about long-range social forecasts being hard is that this article had no business being published in a reputable journal, I agree, but if we're going to debate the merits of the article we have to make some long-range projections.

As I said earlier, you cannot reasonably compare growth rates during early adoption phases with steady-state capacity, and you are also confusing installation growth rate with production growth rate (which is the derivative of the former).

While indium, tellurium, and other uncommon and/or hard-to-refine elements -- which are critical parts of modern solar cells -- are technically not rare earth elements, they are often treated as such in popular media and policy analysis.

So, congratulations on finding a pedantically correct but practically irrelevant issue with half of one of my points, while ignoring or pretending away the rest? Maybe you should try to debunk some of your own bullshit sometime.

Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

It really doesn't take much to get published in Science these days, does it?

Re: Good grief

[pD-brane]

What is so bad about this paper? Did you read it?

Re: Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Unless the summary is fundamentally inaccurate (which I don't see you suggesting), the paper is just a science-veneered, prolix riff on the ages-old saying, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Re:Good grief

[hey!]

Not as little as it takes to get denialists to upvote empty rhetoric posing as criticism.

Re:Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way) to see the "consensus" attack dogs come out to defend the kind of mindless drivel that is this paper, published in what alleges to be a scientific journal.

It's doubly hilarious that, rather than even attempting to justify why the mindless drivel is anything but, you simply fall back on the reflexive ad hominem "denialists" -- this, in the midst of a high-horse post about supposed "empty rhetoric."

Post may contain irony

Indeed.

Re:Good grief

[hey!]

It's hilarious (in a sad sort of way

More of the same BS. This is not an argument, it's posturing.

Re:Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

This is not an argument, it's posturing.

Ok, Matt. Though I've already spelled it out elsewhere for another coy poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- once -- that you're not just trolling and you really can't see why the burden should be on people like you to explain why there's a cogent thought in this paper worth discussing, not the other way around.

The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!??? By the time our parents kick us out, we'll never have to work again. We could just, like, go to the bank and tell them they need to do this and stuff, 'cause we'd be totally poor if they didn't. DUUUUDE."

I sure do hope you can see (1) why a thought process like that -- which is indisputably mathematically correct, and yet utterly decoupled from reality -- shouldn't ever leave that basement, much less be published in what professes to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and (2) that most professedly sentient beings would not haughtily demand a blow-by-blow explanation as to why.

Re:Good grief

[hey!]

>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???

Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.

Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.

Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.

Re:Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Somewhat like the paper wraps a large number of words around a really basic (and laughably ridiculous) premise, you've wrapped a large number of words around a really basic troll technique: isolating one thing I said, plugging in your own set of silly assumptions (e.g., that a couple of tokers in their parents' basement have already saved enough money that a ~10x increase would leave them financially independent, and that they could stay in their parents' basement for the 33 years it would take to reach that point), ignoring the larger context of my analogy, and having your way with the resultant straw man. Thus endeth the benefit of the doubt.

The big-picture point you're ducking is that the authors' math requires worldwide reductions of a degree and over a sustained of a period of time that will not happen. Once more, and all together now: Will. Not. Happen.

Though they of course can't suffer the loss of face that would result from saying this in plain English, the authors themselves pretty much admit their entire premise is a pipe dream: "We cannot predict where civilization will be mid-century, but a decadal staircase based on a carbon law, if adopted broadly, may provide essential economic boundary conditions to make a zero-emissions future an inevitability rather than wishful thinking." So if every country of any size across the globe commits to a framework that would force them to implement every single condition the authors say is required for such sustained reductions at such an aggressive rate (including, according to the authors, little no to oil use worldwide less than 23 years from now -- there are many other hilarious examples, but I think that one most succinctly captures the wide-eyed naivete of it all), ipso facto those reductions will happen. Really sage stuff.

Thus, my original point fully stands: a supposed peer-reviewed science journal is simultaneously wasting space and flushing what remaining credibility it might have by publishing what the authors themselves basically admit is really just a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale -- one which, when you strip away the sciency-sounding veneer and cloud of two-dollar words, is qualitatively indistinguishable from my example.

You strike me as a last-word sort of guy, so have at it. I've spent more than enough time putting the rattle back up on the high chair on this one.

Even easier:

[waltlaw]

Pass a law giving everyone a magic wand.

Re:Even easier:

[religionofpeas]

If only we had enough people that could get their heads out of their respective asses and do the math then they'd realize we had the answer to CAGW sixty years ago

The Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors were commissioned in the '70s and '80s, so sixty years ago would have been too early to start.

Re: Even easier:

[religionofpeas]

Way to focus on one totally irrelevant fact and ignore the whole point he was making.

What if I agree with the rest ?

Law mandated technology

[JWW]

I love how political types think that we just need to mandate using less power, oh and this time at ever increasing rates because that worked for a few decades for transistors.

Ironically, computers are one of the least regulated industries on the planet.

If you want to see what mandated goals do, check out your health insurance bill, the government has been regulating that industry for 40 years.

Re:Law mandated technology

[_merlin]

If you could take an ancient Athenian and bring them to the present, they wouldn't recognise our "democracy" as being the same thing as theirs at all. They restricted the vote to males over the age of 30 with military service (no concept of universal suffrage), they had direct democracy (not election of representatives), and they also had ostracism as a disincentive for abuse of power. It's also worth pointing out that ancient Athens was far more stable under tyranny than democracy.

Re:Law mandated technology

[AmiMoJo]

We can legislate lower energy use, because at the moment we are so wasteful. For example, ban inefficient cars and require people to demonstrate a need for bigger engines. We already do that with other kinds of pollution.

There is not the political will to do that in some countries, while others are talking about banning most combustion engine vehicles in the next few decades.

Re:Law mandated technology

[pipingguy]

They can't balance budgets, reduce violent crime in notoriously bad areas, stop economic decline but love to posture and pose about SavingThePlanet while spending Other People's Money. What's wrong with this picture?

Re:Law mandated technology

[CrimsonAvenger]

and require people to demonstrate a need for bigger engines

So, what in the Constitution allows the Federal government to do that?

And assuming you can contort that out of the Constitution, you're setting things up so as to give neat new privileges to the wealthy and connected...that'll go over well.

Re:Law mandated technology

[CaseCrash]

In case you didn't notice we have no choice but Tyranny. So lets make the best tyranny we can. The one we'd rather live under.

Re:Law mandated technology

[religionofpeas]

You don't choose your tyranny, the tyranny chooses you!

Re:Law mandated technology

[geoskd]

because that worked for a few decades for transistors.

If the politicians had mandated moores law for transistors, computers would still be the size of small offices and have less compute power than an MP3 player.

Re:Law mandated technology

[geoskd]

So, what in the Constitution allows the Federal government to do that?

Our Constitution was written at a time before Humanity was fundamentally capable of wiping all life off the face of the planet. There is a whole class of things it was never intended to deal with. They could not possibly have understand what the consequences of free speech would be on something like the Internet, nor what the right to bear arms would mean in a society where any citizen could learn how to build weapons powerful enough to kill thousands of people at a time. Our Constitution is held up as a shining example of enlightenment, but its true genius is that it was supposed to be modified when the times required it. We are long since past due for some serious constitutional changes, but as long as our country is so politically divided, and our citizens are so demonstrably ignorant, we don't dare let anyone near that document.

Re:Law mandated technology

[squiggleslash]

So, what in AmiMojo's post mentions the Federal Government?

FWIW, yes, since the mid-nineteenth century, after the creation of railroads and the adoption of a national currency, the Federal government has had power over virtually all commerce due to the fact it's allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and the things I just mentioned makes all commerce effectly interstate. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but things change. This changed 150-200 years ago and yet there's always someone who thinks that the government doesn't have the right to regulate something the constitution now gives it the power to do.

Want to change that? Either amend the constitution, or put up real barriers between the states.

Re:Law mandated technology

[dj245]

I love how political types think that we just need to mandate using less power, oh and this time at ever increasing rates because that worked for a few decades for transistors.

Ironically, computers are one of the least regulated industries on the planet.

If you want to see what mandated goals do, check out your health insurance bill, the government has been regulating that industry for 40 years.

The government doesn't have that much to do with US health insurance costs, in my opinion.

Today, March 25, 2017, the population of the USA has access to the most advanced medical care in history. And tomorrow it will be even more advanced. The advancements in medical science in the past 10 years, let alone 50, are absolutely staggering. The government meddling in the healthcare market is only part of the picture. There is simply a lot more procedures, medicines, and devices on the market than there were last year. And the same will be true next year. The USA has figured out how to advance medical technology reasonably well. Now we have to figure out how to provide value for the dollars spent. That isn't an easy thing in an industry that is primarily for profit.

Even in a 100% cash-based, market type solution with no insurance whatsoever, you'll still have the problem of the dentist/doctor/surgeon who recommends fixing 15 problems when a value-based approach would recommend that 3 be addressed. I know this to be true because I have been with and without dental insurance during my career and it made no difference in the value basis of the recommendations that I received.

Re:Law mandated technology

[JWW]

If you're actually claiming that the Internet changes everything and we need to rethink what free speech means, then the founding fathers were far far wiser than you are....

Re:Law mandated technology

[Agripa]

I love how political types think that we just need to mandate using less power, ...

It worked for drugs and alcohol didn't it?

great insight!

[ooloorie]

The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it.

Great! While you're at it, why don't you also legislate other simple overaching goals, like halving the murder rate every decade, doubling economic output every decade, doubling IQs every decade, and halving deaths from cancer every decade? Heck, go all the way and double life expectancy every decade too! You can probably hire some of the central planners of the former USSR to make that happen, they have nearly half a century of experience in how to set goals like that and achieve them.

The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term."

If by "bold action", you mean government corruption, followed by economic collapse and hunting rats for food, and finally bloody revolutions, that is certainly true.

Re:great insight!

[iggymanz]

You won't need to worry about the murder rate with the starvation, disease and poverty this carbon halving would cause.

Re:great insight!

[mean pun]

You won't need to worry about the murder rate with the starvation, disease and poverty this carbon halving would cause.

Unless your local government scores 0.1 T[*] or higher, it will be smart enough to implement the required measures without significant inconvenience for their population, and only above 0.5 T there is any chance of additional starvation, disease, or poverty due to these measures. Happily only a few countries have such a bad score. I'm sincerely sorry for you if you live in such a country.

[*] Where T is a measure of incompetence. The USA is at 1.0 T at the moment. There are a few countries that score higher, but not many.

Re:great insight!

[pipingguy]

"we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade"

At what CO2 PPM do plants and vegetation begin shutting down - 200PPM? We are supposedly at 400PPM now.

Re:great insight!

[religionofpeas]

At what CO2 PPM do plants and vegetation begin shutting down - 200PPM? We are supposedly at 400PPM now.

Emissions, emissions... we must halve emissions....

Re:great insight!

[iggymanz]

"incompentence"

loaded words for nations using that which has increased human lifespan, reduced disease and poverty, increased human life and driven progress. you don't know how your civilization works.

Re:great insight!

[ooloorie]

At what CO2 PPM do plants and vegetation begin shutting down - 200PPM? We are supposedly at 400PPM now.

I was being sarcastic. However, you seem as confused as the climate alarmists: shutting down carbon dioxide emissions would simply return us to pre-industrial CO2 levels eventually, and even that takes centuries. That's one of the reasons why action on climate change is pointless.

Re:great insight!

[pipingguy]

The fact that it'd take centuries to achieve means that progress would be impossible to measure effectively so everyone would just have to believe that "improvement" was happening.

If we have to go in one direction with CO2 concentration it should be up, not down. Like temperature, which is preferable: warmer or colder?

There is never much focus on the benefits, only the (potential) downsides.

These and other aspects of the whole neverending crisis-mongering convinces me that it's a money and power grab.

Re:great insight!

[religionofpeas]

The fact that it'd take centuries to achieve means that progress would be impossible to measure effectively

We have very good monitoring of CO2 levels. It would be very easy to detect that they stopped rising, or at least rising more slowly. Of course, the climate will continue to get warmer for a couple of more decades, before reaching a new steady state.

There is never much focus on the benefits, only the (potential) downsides.

That's because the downsides are much bigger than the benefits.

Re:great insight!

[ooloorie]

You're confusing me with an AGW activist.

If we have to go in one direction with CO2 concentration it should be up, not down. Like temperature, which is preferable: warmer or colder?

Changes to carbon emissions are largely irrelevant at this point. Even if we stopped emissions completely, it would take centuries for carbon concentrations to fall significantly. On the other hand, further carbon emissions won't have much of an effect either. We couldn't warm the planet much more if we tried.

These and other aspects of the whole neverending crisis-mongering convinces me that it's a money and power grab.

Of course it is.

what's the next plan?

[khallow]

The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade.

And if we don't do that, say because developing world countries have better things to do than turn their economies upside down for First World causes? What's plan B? Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the real world strategy of adaptation not the imaginary ones of radical greenhouse gases emission reduction.

Re: what's the next plan?

[mspohr]

India and China are leading the world in renewable energy adoption.

Re:what's the next plan?

[adjustinthings]

I would argue that global population is the elephant in the room in every world saving discussion. Approx 350,000 people born everyday right now and is only speeding up. Becoming sustainable with a rapidly growing population is mind boggling.

Realistically the only goal for the entire planet right now should be nuclear fusion.

It should be the new space-race!

Re:what's the next plan?

[khallow]

Half of Bangladesh being under water is a "first world cause"?

It's not that hard to move a hundred million people. The US, for example, does it every few years.

If anybody will survive catastrophic climate change it will be the "first world".

Come up with evidence first for this alleged "catastrophic" nature. You clearly haven't been reading actual research.

Plus, most of the "first world" is in a temperate climate zone which means it will be warmer, but livable, unlike say the tropics in such a scenario.

Most of the warming won't be in the tropics. And once again, if that really is a problem at some point in the distant future, then move the people. It's not that hard a problem.

Re:what's the next plan?

[khallow]

I guess someone needs to pick up a few ranks in diplomacy. Too bad they'll only have at most a few centuries to figure this dilemma out.

Re:what's the next plan?

[khallow]

What you say sarcastically I say with conviction: we only have a few centuries at most.

Your conviction is very valuable to me. I'm going to worry about real problems now.

Moores Law

[oldgraybeard]

i don't think these individuals understand what Moore's law is about!
"quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations"
Good Grief!! Shakes Head ;)

Re: Moores Law

[pD-brane]

The authors of the paper don't mention Moore's law. It is one individual who compares this with Moore's law: a journalist. This is just usual bad journalism, combined with typical jumping to conclusions by Slashdotters who never seem to read the paper referred to. Come on, be happy that at least some articles here refer to peer reviewed papers that are often of a much higher quality than most other material here, so why not read it!

Beyond idiotic

[argStyopa]

Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.

It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.

The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.

Re:Beyond idiotic

[TooManyNames]

But I really want the proposal in and of itself to accomplish something... like, really bad. Why oh why won't reality just play along?!

Re:Beyond idiotic

[ooloorie]

The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.

It's the eternal pipe dream of progressives, fascists, and socialists: the intelligentsia commands, and the serfs jump to make it happen.

Re:Beyond idiotic

[erice]

Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.

It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.

That's not exactly true. Moore's Law started as an observation but it soon became an expectation: a required pace of advancement that every fab (IDM for foundry) had to match if they wanted to remain competitive. Over time, the amount of investment required to meet the target increased, and the number of competitors dwindled. Only four remain today in general logic. The economics and the definitions for advanced nodes have become dubious.

The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.

But your conclusion is spot on. Even when keeping Moore's Law going became difficult and not just a natural progression, there was still a lot of inertia and economic imperative behind it. Research enabled innovations which enabled products which became tools that enabled new research, etc.

By contrast, there is no pipeline of innovation for reducing carbon emissions. There is a lot of work going but there is little connecting it all. A better wind turbine might not do much to help build the wind turbine after that much less better solar cells or biofuels. There is no reason to expect that progress will follow any particular pace or even be consistent.

Re:Beyond idiotic

[dbIII]

Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.

Actually it was. Moore set targets for development at Intel. The observation of a pace of technical advance came later and had to result in more of a "fuzzy" version of Moore's Law.

The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.

There is a lot of that about. At the G20 meeting a couple of years ago the "achievement" was proposing a couple of percent of economic growth.

Re: Beyond idiotic

[MattskEE]

That's not entirely true. It started out as an empirical observation about the pace of complexity increase of integrated circuits, but then it also became a roadmap, once the "simple" scaling was panned out, for development so that the new technologies and innovations needed to keep the pace were ready in time for a new node's debut.

Re:Beyond idiotic

[hey!]

Well, there's good reason to hope on the carbon emissions front.

The global trend toward replacing coal with natural gas will have a massive impact on human CO2 footprint. And this isn't the result of the strangling hand of regulation either: gas plants are simply more economically efficient and easy to run. It also coincidentally generates less than half the CO2 per kwH that coal does.

This trend alone makes hitting world CO2 goals a lot more feasible. A better electricity grid will allow more diverse energy sources as well. It's really quite feasible to increase electricity production while reducing CO2 emissions.

In that case ...

[PPH]

... we'd better crank up our carbon production before this goes into effect. So we'll have an easier time cutting back later.

HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Any plan that says it will phase out coal in 10 years and oil in 20 that doesn't involve lots and lots of dead humans is beyond ludicrous.

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[ChrisMaple]

See also: people of all races are the same, men are the same as women, taxation doesn't hurt business, Karl Marx was a good person.
Two can play that game.

Invalid and dishonest generalizations serve no good purpose.

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[fustakrakich]

These views are being censored

Lies! The users who don't read at that threshold are simply filtering the views themselves, but they are still there.

Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[RazorSharp]

Posts criticizing global warming are downvoted because this is a site for science geeks. A post criticizing natural selection will also get downvoted. Just because there isn't a (-1 dumb) option doesn't mean mods won't act like there is.

What an innovative solution

[Dunbal]

If we simply cut our carbon emissions in half every decade, the problem goes away. It's so elegant and simple - if only someone had thought of this before! And for my next trick, I will solve poverty by printing unlimited amounts of money and just giving it to anyone who wants it.

Re: What an innovative solution

[mspohr]

I like your idea for a universal basic income.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[firewrought]

An evangelist speaks from emotional fervor based on tradition. A climatologist speaks from disciplined scientific enquiry. Tell me, are you being paid to shitpost, or do you do it out of sheer paranoia?

Re:That's just wishful thinking

[Crashmarik]

Bingo. That's exactly what this is wishful thinking trying to ride the coattails of a very successful observation of how the world works.

Re:No, in reverse

[dwywit]

It's more like "halve the emissions", not "halve the energy". See, it's about trying to generate electricity for us to use, while reducing the byproducts that are bad for the environment.

Glad I could clear that up for you, and thanks for your contribution to the debate.

Re:No, in reverse

[russotto]

It's more like "halve the emissions", not "halve the energy". See, it's about trying to generate electricity for us to use, while reducing the byproducts that are bad for the environment.

Not fooling anyone; it's quite clear that many of the same people who want to cut CO2 emissions will fight tooth and nail against any large-scale energy project regardless of CO2 emissions. Nuclear produces waste, wind kills birds and requires ugly transmission lines, solar damages the delicate desert enviroment and increases the albedo of the planet, don't even f--ing think about hydro, etc.

With help from governments it is doable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax credits and cheap government loans would make solar and wind power cheaper. The phasing out of low mileage cars and trucks would reduce CO2. And the phasing out of low efficiency lightening and appliances would also reduce CO2.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[mspohr]

The world could currently support 10 times the current population if we stopped eating meat.
www.cowspiracy.com

Abstract Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing global warming is not an intellectual problem that can be solved by smart people. Its a political problem that requires creating balance between competing interests. The problem isn't setting a goal, its getting everyone engaged in solving the problem so that they are assured that they are not being asked to assume all the burdens while others get most of the benefits.

People who fly to conferences on global warming ought to be asked just how important their presence at the conference was. Because the typical airline trip contributes more to global warming than a typical household does in two months. The solutions to global warming are not going to be found in more investment, its less consumption that is needed. It would seem that means the burden is going to have be placed on those that are consuming the most. That means the rich and powerful, so the problem is unlikely to be solved.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[fredrated]

The world could currently support 10 times the current population if we stopped eating meat.

Wouldn't that be wonderful.

Exactly

[ishmaelflood]

I'll pick on India, as I like to. For the most part (ie >50%) people there are desperately poor, have unreliable power, no proper sewage system, fairly corrupt government, and are indian. There is not much we can do about the latter. But for the rest of it even their monumentally stupid government realises they need to get people off the subsistence farming model and for that they need electricity. And, since airy fairy renewables are not cost effective without subsidies, that means coal. And lots of it. Whatever western wankers might think, the impact of the west on CO2 for the next few decades is tiny compared with the third worlders who want, reasonably enough, to join the first world party.

Re: Exactly

[Hognoxious]

as the engineering is more challenging

Is that because they can't look it up on stackoverflow?

Pls kind guru's what size of heating exchanger is needful ... is urgent!!!

Believing crazy things

[Okian Warrior]

Virtually all of the posts critical of global warming are now at -1. These views are being censored, despite raising very credible objections.

See also: creationism. vaccines cause autism. chemtrails. lizards control whitehouse. smoking is good for you.

wake up sheeple!

So your argument is: "because some other people believe crazy things, your position is crazy".

That's your argument against climate change sceptics. Right?

I've read a lot from people who have theories of how the universe works, or how to make a free energy system, or how to make anti gravity.

Occasionally a physicist (or chemist, or whatever) will point out a logical flaw in that person's theory, and ask them to explain the inconsistency.

You can probably imagine what their response is.

I just want to be clear on where you're coming from.

We can point out potential flaws in the measurements, theory, prediction models(*), and political actions, and ask for an explanation.

And your response is "because some other people believe crazy things, your position is crazy".

That's what you're saying. Right?

(*) A good potential flaw: Why is there more than one predictive model for climate? Shouldn't there be only one model that everyone uses?

Re:Believing crazy things

[religionofpeas]

Why is there more than one predictive model for climate? Shouldn't there be only one model that everyone uses?

Simple. The models aren't perfect (models usually aren't), and there are different ideas from different groups of people on how to improve them.

Re:Believing crazy things

[Tenebrousedge]

You've never examined the evidence for global warming it seems. Hint: it has nothing to do with models.

Re:Believing crazy things

[Tenebrousedge]

if you can't explain what's causing it

Bzzzt. It's very well explained.

predict the future by modelling the data

Predicting the future is hard, especially when you have to take into account human reactions to what you're doing. Modeling the entire planet plus whether or not humans take action sounds hard enough to me that I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack. That the warming will happen is driven by fundamental properties of atmospheric gases, and this has been obvious since Tyndall in 1856.

Personally I have little doubt that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere every year is contributing hugely to global warming, if global warming is indeed real, but I keep an open mind. Personally I don't give a fuck what the current scientific consensus for anything is. Most new scientific discoveries go against the current scientific consensus. Fuck scientific consensus up it's closed minded ass.

Dipshit. Go learn the science then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. We've been trying to falsify this theory for over 100 years. It was considered completely invalidated throughout the entire first half of the 20th Century. The consensus did change. Read about it.

Open minded my ass.

Re: Believing crazy things

[sg_oneill]

I hope you're wrong.
Even if everyone agrees that the Earth is getting warmer, if you can't explain what's causing it or predict the future by modelling the data, then why blame carbon in the first place?
  We don't "model the data", that's just pushing words together. Outside of initial conditions and tuning the model to closer match the data , modelling is a-priori to the measurements. The data however is a century of observation and millenia of core samples ,tree ring samples and other geophysical datasets. Those all match the theory quite closely.

As to the reasons , that was never in doubt. We've understood the physics of chemical spectrum absorbsion since the 1800s and scientists have been warning about CO2 infra red behavior since the last 1870s , calling it the "greenhouse effect", in the parlance of that era". Fourier and other colleagues quickly determined precisely how CO2 affects Light and why (although the complete picture on the mechanism would wait till the dawn of quantum physics some 50 years later in the early 1900s). What changed in recent times was the ability to quantify just how much CO2 we where putting in the atmosphere (almost more an economics question , but satellite readings help!) , where in the atmosphere the CO2 settles , and most importantly how the energy into the climate system is distributed ( thermal and kinetic components )

Maybe it's land clearing.

destroying carbon sinks certainly isn't helpful

Maybe it's solar activity.

No. Solar variance has had a miniscule effect at best

Maybe it's cloud seeding from Jets. Maybe it's an increase in meteorites.

No and no, although aerosols from aircraft might actually be helping keep temperatures down to a small degree

If you are unable to create a model that uses your "evidence" which agrees with historic observations

Currrent models are actually remarkably accurate when tested against historical data

and predicts future observations, then what business have you got going around telling everyone what's causing global warming?

Don't believe the conspiracy theorist blogs , modern modelling is getting very accurate as much as is possible with dynamic systems. Beyond the maximum possible accuracy we however have to trust in fundamental physics , and good old common sense that the vast majority of atmospheric scientists are not tied up in some vast left wing conspiracy to lie about physics for no god damn reason

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[Evtim]

And these extra people won't need anything else but food? Look, there is enough air for 100 times more population, let's go...honestly how many times...oh forget it

i have one too

[KingBenny]

stop breeding for one, preferably two decades, filth

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[religionofpeas]

I'd rather eat meat than have 10 times the current population.

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[religionofpeas]

Notice that nobody ever addresses the objections, because it's simply not possible for the AGW supporters to do so.

On the contrary. All objections have been addressed over and over again. Deniers just keep repeating them. All the information is out there, and can be found with a few simple google queries, for those interested.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[religionofpeas]

So even the Democrats don't seem concerned about CAGW any more.

A bit simplistic, right ? Just because someone is concerned about AGW, doesn't mean that don't have any other objections to things that could reduce CO2.

sounds like

[KingBenny]

sounds like "trump says its ok", i like the Trump shift as a means of we are not okay with your ancient louis 14 way of doing things as for the rest im not really into CEO morgan politics
a simplified rule will be abused by marketeers, theres certain laws you nerds living in the universe need to acknowledge, get out into the metaverse, spend some time
a 'simple" set of rules will be used by each faction to prove what they were saying before
five minutes with your sensei for you then you come tell me im wrong

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What, so Karl Marx was a bad person? As opposed to whom? And taxation hurts business about as much as water kills you. It's all about the dose.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[blindseer]

A bit simplistic, right ? Just because someone is concerned about AGW, doesn't mean that don't have any other objections to things that could reduce CO2.

There's AGW, anthropogenic global warming, and there's CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. If we can agree that the globe is warming, and that humans are causing it, then the question is if this warming is cause for concern or not. If there is no cause for concern, as in it's not catastrophic or even inconvenient, then having objections to some forms of CO2 reduction is understandable. If AGW might be a concern, short of catastrophic, as in it produces certain inconveniences and expenses, then objections to CO2 reduction efforts become more difficult to defend.

What we keep hearing though is that AGW will in fact be catastrophic. That if we do not do reduce our CO2 output immediately then we risk ecological collapse, mass starvation, environmental refugees, resource wars, and on and on. If CAGW is real then it becomes real hard to defend any objections to any means to reduce CO2 production.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we currently know of, safer than solar and wind based on deaths per energy produced. That alone is reason enough to support it. If the Democrats object to nuclear power given its potential to provide safe and carbon free energy then they must not see CAGW as a real threat. They are broadcasting to Americans that nuclear power is a greater threat to us than CAGW.

Any politician that objects to nuclear power is either willfully and criminally ignorant, or a CAGW denier lunatic that wants to see the world burn. The Democratic platform documents object to the development of nuclear power. The Republicans see nuclear power as a viable future source of energy, as seen in their party platform documents.

Am I being simplistic? Perhaps. I am working off of the assumptions and data given to me. If we assume that CAGW is a real threat, and data shows that nuclear power is safe, comparatively inexpensive, and carbon free, then objecting to the use of nuclear power is denying the threat CAGW poses or the threat nuclear power poses. The Democrats want me to believe two conflicting facts, one cannot see CAGW is real and still object to nuclear power.

At least the Republicans can pass on this. Some see CAGW as real, some are neutral, and some deny it as a threat. Since they see nuclear power as viable then their views on CAGW are, IMHO at least, irrelevant. If CAGW is real (and I'm not so sure it is) then we must use nuclear power. If CAGW is not real then nuclear power still looks good as a source of safe and inexpensive energy.

This harping about religion is projection

[Tenebrousedge]

You misspelled 'Arrhenius'.

India plans 60% Renewable energy by 2027

[Tenebrousedge]

What an interesting inversion of logic. Yes, CO2 pollution is a first world problem, and therefore something about India? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[Tenebrousedge]

I'm sorry you have chosen to disbelieve in objective reality. Unfortunately that issue does not seem to be self-corrective in the more typically abrupt sense. Would you like a remedial science education?

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[religionofpeas]

There's AGW, anthropogenic global warming, and there's CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

There's also VIAGW, very inconvenient anthropogenic global warming. It's not black or white.

If the Democrats object to nuclear power given its potential to provide safe and carbon free energy then they must not see CAGW as a real threat

Or maybe they feel that replacing a bunch of ships with nuclear versions wouldn't make a significant contribution to averting the threat, at least not compared to whatever negative opinion they have about nukes.

Interesting example

[Tenebrousedge]

He has a job to do with explaining why dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere should result in a cooling trend. Let me take a stab though and assume that you're talking about one David W. Titley, rear admiral USN, professor at Penn State. Let's see what Wikipedia says about him.

He was formerly a climate change skeptic, but later changed his mind after looking at the evidence of what factors influence climate—which are, according to Titley, "what are the larger things doing — what is the ocean doing? What is the sun doing? And what's our atmosphere doing?"[3] Since then, he has described climate change as "one of the driving forces in the 21st century" and said that it contributed to the 2011 Arab Spring.[4]

I guess you two don't keep in touch much. He had the courage to admit he was wrong and to learn the science. Maybe you should too.

The bad drugs

[Tenebrousedge]

What sort of colossal moron would focus on percent generation and ignore the top-ten list of production capacity at the head of the page? What the fuck are you on?

Re:The bad drugs

[ooloorie]

What sort of colossal moron would focus on percent generation and ignore the top-ten list of production capacity at the head of the page

The sort of moron that actually understands economics and the consequences of moving to renewables for a country. That is, if you want to see how a move to renewables relates to how a country operates, you need to look at the percentage of renewables relative to total generating capacity, not absolute generating capacity.

What the fuck are you on?

I can't tell: are you really as stupid and ignorant as you seem or is there some kind of propaganda school where they educate you? My guess is the former, but you're welcome to correct me.

Hard Science

[Tenebrousedge]

It's cute how you think you have any idea what would make global warming falsifiable. It's cute because you have no idea what the evidence is or how the theory was developed. Global warming is not based on statistics, nor models. Also, when it was proposed initially in 1896 it was immediately discredited, and you can find meteorology textbooks from the 1950s that not only deny that climate changes but explicitly deny anything but the most minor role to carbon dioxide. This is a theory that had to fight for acceptance. Sufficiently good evidence was acquired in the middle of the 20th Century to change that consensus, almost in parallel with Wegener's theory of continental drift. If you don't know why, go look it the fuck up.

Who indeed?

[Tenebrousedge]

Plastics and packaging don't contribute the the problem of atmospheric carbon significantly. The issue is that we burn hydrocarbons.

The amount of shitposting here is getting out of hand, and this "junk science" phrase being repeated so often is more suggestive of a botnet. If there is a mind behind this though, it's one that posted anonymously specifically to insulate themselves from a contrary viewpoint. Denying basic reality is its own issue, but I'm not sure what's worse, that someone has an interest in making it seem like there's a wave of moronic activity, or that there actually is.

The theory of global warming is at least as well established as plate tectonics or relativity, and predates both.

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[angel'o'sphere]

If you want a site where you can post anti global warming theories etc. then make your own site.

On this site we obey the laws of physics, as good as we can. And people who can not accept the truth shall not have a platform here in spreading their weird ideologies.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[angel'o'sphere]

People are more concerned about things like having a job, not getting killed by Muslims, and if they can catch the next Pokemon.
I for my part have no concerns on my top ten list like not getting killed by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists ... in no particular order of those religions and non religions.

Where do you live that you have concerns to be killed by Muslims? Sudan? Saudi Arabia?

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[angel'o'sphere]

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we currently know of
It is not.

Or do you again want to include working accidents like falling from a roof in case of solar or mining accidents in case of coal (which seem to happen mostly in the US, surprisingly for me) into "energy safety"??

The main reason Germany (and soon France) is dropping out of nuclear energy is safety concerns, especially regarding the spent fuel and waste, regardless of reprocessed or not.

and data shows that nuclear power is safe, comparatively inexpensive,
To what do you compare it then? In my country it is the most expensive power we have.Not on the energy bill, but on the tax bill.

I think it fixes itself in the next 30-50 years

[prolitariac]

Not a denier in most senses of the word, but I don't prescribe to the doom and gloom media portrayals or the fixes that involve countries paying for their carbon output to other countries, or any other such, socialistic in nature, fixes. I am a big fan of basic research and "sciencing" our way out of this problem.

  A couple times a month there are technologies on the front page of Slashdot that make me think if we did this at a large enough scale we could solve this issue. I realize there are often issues of scale that prevent this, but combinations of multiple technologies will hopefully get us there in the near future.

There was one such tech last month, I believe, that was a plastic and glass film that could be produced for 50 cents a square meter that would push a significant amount of energy off planet into space. I did some rough math on it and figured out that it would cost about 6 trillion dollars of the stuff to radiate as much energy back into space as global warming is estimated to be trapping. This is not counting the fact that you could put it on places that would reduce energy costs for air conditioning and refrigeration. 6 trillion is a lot, but it would be less than a percent of world GDP over the course of 10 years. As I recall, this was a material that actually existed and was not just some theory on the drawing board.

This combined with increased adoption of Solar, the potential for getting Fusion working in the next 20 years (I know always in the next 20 years, but some real improvements are happening), electric vehicles, and increased power storage capabilities could bring the world to carbon neutrality before the doom and gloom predictions come true. I think getting carbon neutral power generation tech into maturity and adoptable by third world countries trying to be first world countries is the best way forward.

We have learned over the past 30 or more years, it is very difficult to convince people that limiting their lifestyle or country to help fix a problem that will probably not have a noticeable effect on them or their family in the next 30 years. I suggest we immediately abandon that method as it just hurts the cause. Focus on the positive cool tech and money saving efficient ways of solving this problem and the denialists will slowly fade into the background while we usher in a world with inexpensive electricity and extreme efficiency.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[PoopJuggler]

I know you guys think denying climate change is cool and rebellious and anti-establishment but really you just look dumb.

Yet another case of Moore's law abuse.

[LWATCDR]

Do you want to lower CO2 emissions? The answer is simple.
1. Ban coal.
2. Replace coal with natural gas, nuclear, and wind.
3. Stop worrying about cars, trains, and planes. Power plants are the biggest producers of CO2 and are centralized.
4. Understand Solar is not the answer. The demand vs production curve does not work out. It is a good supplement in hot areas with a lot of sun in the summer but unless we go with orbital solar power stations it is not a good baseload solution. It just looks good and seems easy.

Why natural gas since it does produce CO2? Simple it produces about half the CO2 per BTU as coal does and is cheap. If you replaced every coal plant with natural gas you would have a massive savings in CO2 for a low cost. The next step would be to move large trucks, trains, and ships to natural gas. That would save about 20% on the CO2 they produce but since large trucks and trains have centralized fueling locations it would again be pretty simple to do.

You need to also think about the social cost of ending coal production You will be converting towns into ghost towns, Mining coal does pay pretty well and is pretty labor intensive. Sure you can retrain the miners for new jobs but those jobs will not be in the same location as the mine. You will not pay to relocate all the people in the town that depend on the mine. Think of the people that run the shops, restaurants, car lots, teach in the schools and so on. You can not get around the fact that you are going to cause a huge amount or problems and the idea of "job retraining " will not prevent it.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[pipingguy]

25+ years of failed, hysterical environmental doomsaying and you're calling skeptics names? Get out of politics, it's rotting your brain.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[mspohr]

You're destroying your health and the environment

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[religionofpeas]

Bullshit. Modern diseases are not caused by foods that have been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years. They've been caused by modern processed crap such as sugar, white flour and industrial vegetable oils.

As far as the environment is concerned, meat production is only a small problem.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[mspohr]

That's, just, like, your opinion, man

Re:Patrick Moore's Law

[religionofpeas]

CO2 and temperature have NOT moved in unison

Correct, there are many other factors, especially over longer time scales. Some of them play a small role now, but nothing significant. Do you think current scientific theories about the Earth's climate have a problem explaining the events during Jurassic ?

It is therefore not possible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature

Of course that's possible, just by looking at the physical properties of the CO2 molecule.

Carbon is not the enemy. It is actually the reason that we are alive.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have harmful properties. A glass of water is nice, drowning in a pool is not.

Re:The climevangelists are busy today

[I75BJC]

"We have 7+ Billion people on a planet that can support 3 Billion." Obviously, the planet can support 7+ billion people. It's nonsense/hyperbole/fuzzy thinking like this that really hurts your position and negates any truths and/or facts that you have to contribute. IMHO

Re:Global warming == Junk science

[religionofpeas]

It must be wonderful to have such a simple mind as yours.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[religionofpeas]

Where do you live that you have concerns to be killed by Muslims? Sudan? Saudi Arabia?

London, Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Nice ?

Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[religionofpeas]

You're right. I just googled shit smells good and got millions of hits to read and study. Thank you for that tip.

I stand corrected. I had assumed people would be smart enough to enter the correct queries, but I've overestimated your skills. Please accept my apologies.

Shows what you know.

[hackwrench]

There never was such a thing as honest money. My new mission in life is to get people to stop defending their ill-conceived notions as virtuous.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[hackwrench]

Ah, but I have no issue with looking dumb and my new mission in life is to get people to stop defending their ill-conceived notions as virtuous. I don't deny climate change or global warming, but I have yet to see a supposed solution worthy of anything.

You failed the meme!

[hackwrench]

It's double military spending every five years, not triple it one you uneducated beffoon!

Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[geoskd]

Unfortunately, having an educated opinion is a very difficult thing. A great many people believe they know the truth when in fact they do not. The simple truth is that as a species, we have only ever once invented something that allows us access to real truth. That single thing is the scientific method. My sad observation is that a large majority of people (even including many educated people) simply do not understand the scientific method, nor its consequences. They are not equipped to evaluate the information they are given as to its trustworthiness, and so they believe whatever information they are given that reinforces their own preconceived prejudices. Ironically, the scientific method has been applied to that very question and discovered that people are in fact extremely susceptible to self delusion in that regard. The net result of that effect is that people can be very easily manipulated into a course of action that is counter to their own best interests simply by manipulating the information they have access to.

By way of an anecdote, I would like to share the progress of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident investigation board. I think we can all agree that the folks at NASA are fairly bright individuals, and what we would consider to be champions of science. When they were collectively told that the prevailing theory about the accident was that a 5Lb chunk of foam insulation fell off the main tank and struck the front of the wing and put a large hole in it, most of them expressed their *expert* opinions that it was impossible. These people are in fact experts in the very fields of engineering and physics related to the theory. When the investigation board insisted on a series of experiments however, the results were shocking. The foam piece did in fact produce the hole that the theory predicted in contrast to the collective opinions of all those experts. After the experiments, the consensus changed as a result of the evidence and supported the new theory. The new theory also was supported by many other bits of evidence over the course of the investigation, which led the investigation team to conclusive findings.

The mark of an enlightened individual is not the ability to have the right answers all the time, in fact in our modern society, our instincts mostly betray us. The mark of enlightenment is the ability to change your mind when the evidence indicates you should. A person that "sticks to their guns" long after the evidence has pointed in the other direction should be ignored or treated for the mental illness they have, not followed blindly.

If you wish to be a better person, stop reading the "news" source of the hour, and look to the actual evidence that is available. The Internet has made all of that evidence available to all, but it has also given a huge voice to people who wish to express an opinion that is devoid of any scientific value. If you choose to go read the opinions of people who have not had to look at the raw data, then you are only deluding yourself that your opinion is based on anything other than schoolyard gossip.

I myself have not seen the data for AGW. I make no claims as to its validity or not. I make only the claim that almost everyone I have ever met forms the vast majority of their opinions on flawed information, and AGW proponents and opponents are worse than most.

The Yoo, Dawg! of Moore's Laws

[hackwrench]

I heard you liked Moore's Law so I applied Moore's Law to Moore's Law so you could double your efficiency while it also exponentially increased!

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[blindseer]

Or do you again want to include working accidents like falling from a roof in case of solar or mining accidents in case of coal (which seem to happen mostly in the US, surprisingly for me) into "energy safety"??

Why would you not include falling off the roof installing a solar panel as a death counted against solar power? Why would you not count a coal mining accident against coal power?

Let's flip this around. Would falling from a cooling tower at a nuclear power plant be considered a death against nuclear power? I think it should, just as if that person fell from a cooling tower at a coal plant, or a windmill tower. What of someone that died while mining uranium, is that a death against nuclear power? I think it should just as if that person was mining coal for a coal plant or mining aluminum for a wind mill factory.

In my country it is the most expensive power we have.Not on the energy bill, but on the tax bill.

That's not an inherent problem with nuclear power, that's a problem with the regulation of nuclear power. Nuclear power is expensive only because the governments around the world deem it so. We were able to build nuclear power plants 60 years ago, back when computers were the size of automobiles. We know so much more now, and have access to resources we didn't have then. We've been building nuclear power plants the same way for 60 years because the laws haven't changed to reflect new technology.

If we fix the laws then we can build nuclear power plants on an assembly line, like we do with commercial jetliners. We can build thousands of them in a year, have them tested and put into service. These are multimillion dollar machines with as much material, engineering, parts, labor, and such like any nuclear reactor. If you believe that this is not valid comparison then consider oil tankers, commercial office buildings, coal fired power plants, and on and on. We can make nuclear power safe, inexpensive, and do so on a massive scale if we only decide to do so.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[russotto]

Yeah, which would you rather have, a nice juicy steak or 10 times the number of neighbors?

In other news...

[Notabadguy]

In other news, Moore's Law for War would defeat global conflict. We just need to halve killings every decade.
In other news, Moore's Law for Rape would defeat global rape. We just need to halve rapes every decade.
In other news, Moore's Law for would defeat . We just need to halve every decade.

When "researchers" point out obvious things like "Reducing carbon would defeat global warming they are philosophers.

Scientists would posit something with a body of evidence to bring new facts to bear on the world around them - they just provide data.
Lawmakers would enact legislation to effect change within their body of influence. And if they're good ones, add enforcement.
Philosophers make grand statements like, "If we do good things, good things will happen."

Empty.

Sounds nice but...

[pubwvj]

This sounds like a nice idea but the actual implementation is a lot harder. Top down forcing this on people is very politically expedient and correct but the people proposing such things are not actually coming up with solutions, they're just dream about an ideal they want. The real world is a lot harder to deal with and isn't easily regulated and legislated.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[angel'o'sphere]

Why would you not include falling off the roof installing a solar panel as a death counted against solar power?
Because people falling from the roof have nothing to do with what they are actually trying to achieve on the roof. May it putting up shingles, solar panels or cleaning the chimney.
And: only people that grossly neglect safety regulations actually *can fall* from the roof. If you have more people falling from roofs to install solar power than you have people dying in accidents related to nuclear power (stumbling from a staircase, dying in a car accident) then your 'roof workers' have an IQ problem. This is not an issue of solar power.

Did not read the rest of your comment, you unfortunately usually only write nonsense, and I'm not in the mood for that today.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[angel'o'sphere]

In all those cities the likelihood to be killed by another human is extremely low, nothing compared to Sudan, Somalia etc. and for exceptions like the shooting at the Bacatlam in Paris, 99% of all murderings are done by 'random' citizens, whatever religion they might have.
In the cities you mention it is more likely to die in a pub brawl or get killed by a jealous mate of the girl you look on than by a 'muslime'.
If you really are concerned that you could die to a 'terrorist' ... you should consider mental help.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[Anonymous Coward]

10x the number of juicy neighbors, mmm

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[jdavidb]

Bullshit. Modern diseases are not caused by foods that have been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years. They've been caused by modern processed crap such as sugar, white flour and industrial vegetable oils.

A lot of them have been caused by the fact that without modern medicine, we wouldn't survive long enough to experience them.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[religionofpeas]

A lot of them have been caused by the fact that without modern medicine, we wouldn't survive long enough to experience them.

Except that we now have children with fatty liver disease and type II diabetes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Re:The climevangelists are busy today

[religionofpeas]

Obviously, the planet can support 7+ billion people

I can jump out of a building, and shout that I'm still alive. That doesn't mean the air can support me.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[religionofpeas]

In the cities you mention it is more likely to die in a pub brawl or get killed by a jealous mate of the girl you look on than by a 'muslime'.

For now, yes, but in the coming years, I don't expect the number of deaths in pub brawls to go up, whereas the 'muslime' killings will continue to grow.

data not opinions

[ishmaelflood]

https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...

is one take that is not out of line with most I've seen. Almost all projected growth in CO2 emissions to 2040 is China and India.

Re:Does anyone care any more?

[angel'o'sphere]

Why should it?

Solar cost *does* decline exponentially

[scatbomb]

Actually, while it's not as fast as Moore's law, the cost of solar historically has come down by 22% for each doubling in volume. Here's the solar learning curve: http://costing.irena.org/media...

Granted, at a certain solar production capacity the cost goes up again due to storage needs, but batteries also follow a learning curve: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jRpo...

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[scatbomb]

Look, I believe there is disciplined scientific enquiry on the topic, but some of the proposed solutions don't make sense. For example, doing the math on the Paris accord teaches us that following all of the goals set forth would reduce the global temperature by a whopping 0.05C by 2100 compared to business-as-usual. Before rushing to get on board with the narrative, let's do all the math and weight the pros and cons from a neutral perspective rather than just shutting people down who disagree with you. http://www.lomborg.com/press-r...

Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS

[Rakarra]

Oh, with Trump climate change just.. goes away? Burying your head in the sand doesn't work. It never has. At some point you have to accept reality, because reality will not pity your ignorance.

You're easily tricked, and likely think yourself clever for seeing through the smoke and mirrors you think are there, but to paraphrase Feynman, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[TheOneFreeman]

False, meat production is responsible for around 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Stop mixing up your feelings on your personal food choices with what is required of our species to actually survive the coming centuries.

Re:The climevangelists are busy today

[Kelsen]

I can jump out of a building, and shout that I'm still alive. That doesn't mean the air can support me.

It does, almost exactly as long as you are able to shout....

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Anyone who cannot express himself without the use of abusive language is an inarticulate motherfucker.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[BoogieChile]

Al Gore's beachfront mansion: 3 kilometres inland and 150 metres above sealevel? What beachfront is that?

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[Talderas]

Sounds more mooving than wonderful.

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or, for that matter, if we switched all of our landscaping to native edible vegetation, which, gasp, to pull this back on topic, would probably reverse the current carbon increase in the atmosphere..

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Obligatory Per Square Mile Link

Why we should plant more native edibles!

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[beastofburdon]

That's the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

Expose!! We do NOT want to: reduce Human impact...

[syntotic]

Expose!! We do NOT want to: reduce Human impact on the planet! That phrase is very telling, the right mind frame is to adapt the planet to Human needs. Reduce Human impact on the planet? To give more impact to what? Whom? (!) Say good bye! They must be very crowded in there! We want our impact to be sustainable, for instance, and permanent, and attuned to Human values... etc. I am very optimistic, but even then, since we invented fire we have been adapting to smoke and probably to more polluted environments. We claim economics, but even then I think we have some kind of imperative to leave no resources available without use, on principle. If at all we want there to be a HUGE Human impact so that when we say good bye and something else come by, it can say: Geez! There were some critters in here!

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[beastofburdon]

I honestly cannot remember ever meeting a vegan who was anywhere near sane, intelligent, or healthy.
I have met several that required multiple antipsychotics to not commit suicide, who also were plagued by seizures, and were at best average intelligence, usually far below.
Eat some fucking meat, and maybe after a few years of recovery you will be capable of understanding why you need it.

Re:Expose!! We do NOT want to: reduce Human impact

[syntotic]

(Oops! I think the author of the article hears voices, aka schizophrenia, hence the comment on the article famous phrase).