Slashdot Mirror
New Study Confirms the Oceans Are Warming Rapidly (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from The Guardian, written by John Abraham, who discusses the rising ocean temperatures and the important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy: The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, "global warming" is really "ocean warming." If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established. These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming. In the paper, we describe perhaps the three most important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy. First, sensors can have biases (they can be "hot" or "cold"), and these biases can change over time. Another source of uncertainty is related to the fact that we just don't have sensors at all ocean locations and at all times. Some sensors, which are dropped from cargo ships, are densely located along major shipping routes. Other sensors, dropped from research vessels, are also confined to specific locations across the globe. Finally, temperatures are usually referenced to a baseline "climatology." So, when we say temperatures have increased by 1 degree, it is important to say what the baseline climatology is. Have temperatures increased by 1 degree since the year 1990? Since the year 1970? Since 1900? The choice of baseline climatology really matters.
Umm... the article is linked in the summary?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we can get it warm enough the oceans will start to evaporate, countering global warming's rising sea level.
"...it does seem to me that the world has become more verdant over the past several decades..."
You do realize that as you age, your spectral sensitivities deteriorate? Specifically loss of sensitivity towards purple and yellow-green confusion. In other words, as you get older, the world simply appears greener:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220102614.htm
"... I have become immune to scary reports and will simply ignore this one."
Oh, that's something entirely different. This means that you are an idiot. This may be age related, but it is entirely possible that you have always been an idiot.
"But after 20+ years of exaggerations, and occasional falsification..."
Oh dear, you aren't only an idiot, you are a liar as well. What occasional falsification?
Just for your amusement, you may want to look into the Ocean Warming Studies of Richard Muller, funded by the Kochs. He started out as a "Sceptic"; he felt that not enough rigor had been applied. He came to the conclusion that the situation was worse than first appeared. The Kochs paid for it because they had long-term planning to do; they're continuing to deny Warming is but PR gibberish for Koch Suckers like you.
"Am I imagining this, or are increasing temperatures and CO2 levels causing plant life to flourish?"
Which is it, no Warming or only Good Warming? You really should make up your mind. That is, if you ever had one.
change in heat content since 1970=3 e23 J (from TFA)
SHC of water =4e3 J/kg/deg C
mass of oceans = 1.4e21 kg
temperature rise is 3e23/1.4e21/4e3, about 0.05 deg C
Hmm, in 50 years? Colour me unexcited.
As a person who has lived his whole life in Arctic I can tell you that the thousands of years old permafrost is melting. Biologists are fighting against time to preserve mammoth DNA because the carcasses are finally rotting.
..is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)
Sadly, even if that were true (7% seems quite a lot though, any link?), that is of little comfort to many people in the temperate region. We don't exactly need or want tropical diseases and bugs here. We're just fine with the way things are now.
Ezekiel 23:20
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
The priesthood has spoken. AGW acolytes will be along shortly to mod anyone to -1 who dares question the IPCC Assessment Report holy book. The unadjusted data will be kept under lock and key while everyone is instructed to accept based on faith that the oceans are warming rapidly. The AGW cult is even more profitable than the LDS cult, and this will no doubt be used to justify even more wealth redistribution.
Richard Muller & his team looked at a truckload of "unadjusted data" in his examination of the surface temp record & came to the same conclusions & roughly the same trends as NOAA et al. Looks like the raw data lies as much as the adjusted.
As for wealth redistribution, Trumpcare is trying to fix that by giving an $800 billion tax cut to the 1% & will deprive about 20 million Americans of their healthcare
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I spent more than a few of my childhood & adolescent years in tropical regions. It's all lovely, until you meet the critters.
Centipedes that can kill snakes, swarms of flying cockroaches, GAAAHHH, and bugs that get under your skin - ever have scabies?
I did and it sucks, a lot.
I'll gladly suffer through winter as long as it means never having to face those critters again.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
As an _actual_ oceanographer, there is nothing to see here.. it's honestly kinda busch league and I'm a little surprised it got published given the glaring error in the conclusions, but whatever. I've given up trying to talk sense into people.
I must protest. Trump has no idea what's in that bill. It runs several pages long, which is several pages - one of attention span he doesn't have. His support is merely because he's trying to pee in all the corners Obama visited before him. He has no bright ideas of his own.
Ok.
It doesn't show an "increaase" in much of anything. It shows an increase in heat content, i.e., a quantity of energy per unit area as defined in equation 1, when integrated over an area. You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2). You're correct that the number is based upon temperature, but then you go off the rails...
BZZT. The figure 1 data is not an average. It's a quantity integrated over depth (equation 1), then over the area of the ocean basin (figure 1), to give you a change in the quantity of thermal energy versus a comparison point -- modern day . You'll notice that the units on the Y axis are Joules, not degrees F or C.
Somehow a TOTAL of an ADDITIVE quantity (increase of thermal energy in each of four oceans making up the "global" ocean) of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.6 added up to 1.8 -- x10^23 Joules. As everyone would expect.
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Global warming causes climate change, fuckwit
Interesting read but I have to admit I'm skeptical. I work in the field and its common knowledge that sensors are few and far between outside of normal travel lanes/coast lines. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ is the site I most often use and its quite lacking all things considered. From TFA (I know, I know) "Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used, for instance high-resolution model outputs, sea level data, etc." While these models are decent, they won't perform the best in extremely data sparse areas which can easily skew data when working with over a large area. Not claiming its wrong, just that the lack of live data makes it difficult to honestly assess the situation.
Apparently, falsification to "hide the decline" isnt fraud.
Exactly why would you argue there was falsification or fraud involved in that case ? Do you even know what "hide the decline" referred to ?
I wasn't the one pretending that money is the motivation behind publishing such findings. I was actually responding to someone claiming that these scientists publish results that support global warming with the sole intent to make money that way.
My rebuttal was that if the goal is money, there was more to be had by pretending that global warming is a myth and becoming the "science" mouthpiece of some corporations that have a vested interest in fossil fuels and heavy industry.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Models themselves ARE political ideology.
Umm... what am I? I think social services, taxes and government spending are a good idea. but I also like guns and think that using them isn't outright wrong as long as the reason is right.
Care to point me to my pigeon-hole?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now, now. It's not fantasy and fakery. It's religi... ok, it's fantasy and fakery.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Having said, that. My daughter as a science fair project did a computer model of ocean warming and it's effect on CO2 gases and therefore climate change. I have a profound appreciation for the science and it's really a complex and difficult model. So much is not known. For example, it's extremely sensitive to water temp, and water temp changes with depth and just think about the varying depths of water in our oceans. Now add in some under water volcanoes!
.Nuclear baseload. We've known how to do it for half a century. That alone would resolve most of the CO2 issues.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
As is, looks more like an attempt at social engineering (lowering everyone's standard of living except for the "Right People")
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Because the polar ice caps melting were not enough observable evidence? Slashdot, why are you just recycling the same stories over and over again. When are we going to get something new to talk about instead re-hashing all the same crap?
We'll make great pets
"Me? I'm winning"
Nah, you're not. I know it, you know it, we all know it. You're just trying to psych yourself up so you don't collapse in tears.
Seconded, and double that down when - not if - we have to resort to such things as seeding the oceans with iron-sulfur nutrients to grow carbon-gobbling algae.
If you really want to make an AGW priest squirm, mention the success of the Haida experiment.
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative). "Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this". The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it. (And, yes, I understand the concept of using government money to get production up to scale so it'll be more economically feasible - I understand it but I also understand the world doesn't work that way).
Do you have ESP?
And you are just a communist, nigger loving ape-eh-shit, so go die in a fucking fire fucktard.
Ah, I see you've been forced to play your trump card.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it
A big problem is that the environmental cost of fossil fuels is not included in the market price.
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Maybe your children are immensely smart because I looked at the graph and found it confusing and misleading.
lucm, indeed.
A good example of the Salem Hypothesis in action.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative).
Sure man, what are you then, a full-on reactionary?
"Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this".
That's the right-wing soundbite, actually. They scream it all the time. Attacking leftists, and meanwhile, they throw government money at EVERYTHING they want.
The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
You mean a company that the right-wing dogmatically lies about, claims they don't even have a working product, and fails to admit that the reason for their failure was simply due to dropping solar prices, which was itself a result of MASSIVE Chinese subsidies?
Most can't even remember that it was part of a larger program, which was a great success overall, or even that it was wait for it, wait for it, a BUSH-PROPOSED program. That's right, compassionate conservative, Bush the Younger, came up with the idea. Yet who do you think they mysteriously blame?
Bad enough getting the circumstances wrong, the person blamed isn't even the right one.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it.
Anybody with a brain remembers a little company called Enron that broke California's power system. Sorry, but the government exists to restrain such impulses, and it is necessary.
(And, yes, I understand the concept of using government money to get production up to scale so it'll be more economically feasible - I understand it but I also understand the world doesn't work that way).
So you think you understand, but you don't. Because it turns out that it does work that way, in China, in the US, in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Russia, in Japan,in India and all across the world.
Quite successfully too. With railroads, and highways, and power plants, and farms, and steel mills, and the Internet, well, the list goes on. It's so funny to see you chant your superior comprehension even as the words coming out of your mouth so you are so very mistaken.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
Here I am! I find man-made global warming to be very obviously real, and feel that some fourth generation nuclear plants would an excellent addition to our energy supply. You may now take the problem more seriously!
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
You've always got excuses, but the fact is that mining is shitty, and uranium mining is extra-shitty. Uranium is the least concentrated ore we mine, and we never seem to actually bother to clean up the toxic mine tailings adequately. Nuclear advocates also never seem to account for the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and making waste safe. Even if we were to reprocess the waste, the cost would be beyond astronomical, which is why that's a non-starter. Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic, so you've built yourself a position which doesn't require you to change your lifestyle. That's very convenient.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
.Nuclear baseload. We've known how to do it for half a century. That alone would resolve most of the CO2 issues.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
As is, looks more like an attempt at social engineering (lowering everyone's standard of living except for the "Right People")
So that would be me then, I've long advocated nuclear power in Australia as a means to get rid of our aging coal power plants. We've got large uranium deposits, a geologically stable continent, and the fuel security alone would be worth it.
So many people are terrified about nuclear power though, and the cost of building new plants tends to put the rest off particularly with the price of wind and solar slowly dropping.
Leftwingers think that gun control means you get a gun if the reason is right.
I'm a far left winger, and I think you can be deprived of a gun if the reason is right, but that you should otherwise be permitted to own one. I don't think that pretending guns don't exist is a liberal value.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
It probably doesn't care as you or I care. But certain political ideologies are more aligned with physics than others. It's like the old canard about information wanting to be free. Information behaves that way, so you should take that into account when building societies. What other aspects of human nature should similarly be accounted for when assembling political ideologies?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The title is "Area Integrated OHC [Ocean Heat Content]."
The Y axis is "OHC [Ocean Heat Content] *10^23 J [Joules]."
The X axis is Year.
If you interpreted any of that to mean that Fig. 1 plots an average temperature, then you've failed a task that average 4th-5th graders have mastered.
And the other two who responded refute your statement stereotyping leftists/liberals.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
You don't... In fact, MANY on the right support "green" energy development where it makes sense both for the environment and economically. The *problem* is though, most of these "green energy" initiatives require massive subsidies and regulations to make financial sense, and this means bigger more intrusive government.
In general, the "left" is obsessed with bigger more expensive government and higher taxes while the "right" is obsessed with smaller government and lower taxes. Then you have the political tactic of isolating voting blocks by carving out interest groups, which ends up dividing the "right" which is accused of wanting "dirty air, dirty water and death" from the "left" which is accused of being big government globalists.
The truth is, both sides generally agree that environmentally friendly energy generation is a good thing. The only real question is about how far do we go with our government programs and regulations to achieve this? From my perspective, the left doesn't want to actually debate the real question, they just want to demagogue and call their opponents names... Your mileage may vary of course, just don't tell me the "right" doesn't care, we do, we just don't think the economics of all these government programs you want are a net positive in the long run.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I think you should be allowed to have a gun unless there's a reason you shouldn't. Sounds similar, I know, but I want the burden of proof on the one trying to take it away, not the one trying to get it. You needn't prove that you should have one, I need to prove that you shouldn't.
Aside of that, please just say what you want to say. It's kinda tedious trying to guess what someone implies. It's usually used by people who try to hedge their bets, because you guess what they meant, refute it, only to get "Oh, that's not what I meant" with the implied "keep guessing, maybe you come up with something you can't refute".
No. Sorry. Not playing. What do you mean?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
People here seem to identify me as left leaning. I certainly support a strong regulatory framework, higher taxes than we have now, socialised healthcare and a strong welfare state. Do I classify as an AGW zealot? Dunno, but if you think global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by the CO2 we're releasing then I think you're a fucking moron. Does that make me a Zealot? You decide.
And I regularly come into nuclear and climate related threads advocating for nukes.
Finally if you think the opinion of a rando on the internet makes a difference whether or not AGW is a thing, then again you're a fool.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
More shitty moderation. How is this trolling. The parent tried to assert that he and his family's expertise in IT and engineering gives him some special ability to assess a fairly complex and interrelated set of scientific disciplines. The Salem Hypothesis, specifically, deals with the tendency of engineers to conflate their training and skill set with science, and more specifically this applies to the propensity for people who claim to be scientists who reject biological evolution to actually be engineers. I don't think it's a stretch to extend the Salem Hypothesis to other people who try to make fallacious appeals to their own authority to attack scientific theories inevitably being engineers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You are either very young, have a very short memory. I remember the climate when I was young and I know how much it has changed. It has changed quite drastically, I assure you.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
you have to pass the bill to read what's in it.
we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,
Please explain the major differences between the meanings of those two statements.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
New study confirms
Say instead that it 'suggests'....as it is we are talking as if humans are infallible and there is no political pressure around these issues....isn't it fair to discuss the data before proclaiming the confirmation of truth? Isn't this lack of logical process the source of all ignorance n the world?
Yeah I think it is a misunderstanding of biology that forests and grasslands are a carbon sink. Forests just rot and release carbon in a state of equilibrium. The real sinks are at the bottom of the ocean where things are anaerobic and this process isn't really well understood.
love is just extroverted narcissism
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
I support universal single payer healthcare, a strongly enforced regulatory framework for environmental protection, a good social safety net to provide economic protection, and higher taxes to pay for our public infrastructure and services. I also strongly support the expansion of nuclear energy as part of the solution to deal with AGW. I've stopped donating to environmental advocacy groups that come out against nuclear energy.
I understand why political preferences have a big impact on policy of energy generation. That makes total sense.
Denying basic science behind AGW, based on political preference makes no sense.
The debate over policy would be much improved if we start with accepting the objective facts.
Sure thing. Here ya go, Repug:
On NBC News’ Meet the Press Sunday morning, host David Gregory resurrected a favorite right-wing attack on the Affordable Care Act, asking House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to defend her 2010 comment that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
Gregory’s treatment of the quote was fairer than most, and Leader Pelosi handled the question capably, but it’s worth looking back to see how this became such a popular attack on Obamacare.
That quote, often truncated to “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” or even just paraphrased to hew to the right’s narrative of the quote, has been perverted to mean that the Affordable Care Act was just too many pages, and Democrats just wanted it passed without anyone reading it, and rammed it down America’s throat. While Gregory at least read the whole quote, his interpretation was similar to the narrative that developed over time, that “there was such a rush to get this done—no Republicans voting for it—and now there are unintended effects of this that were foreseen at the time, that you couldn’t know the impact of, and that now this is coming home to roost?”
ALSO ON MEDIAITE
Grabien-Bill_Hemmer-220779
Play
Unmute
Current Time 0:01
/
Duration Time 4:55
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%
Fullscreen
The influence of that narrative is a testament to the effectiveness of a relentless echo chamber. Here’s how Pelosi’s quote was covered by Politico on the day she made it:
Pelosi: People won’t appreciate reform until it passes
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.
“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the billbut I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”
During a 20-minute speech, she touted benefits she thinks will be tangible to the audience’s employers. She said there’s support for public health infrastructure and investments in community health centers that will reduce uncompensated care that hospitals now need to deliver.
“You know as well as anyone that our current system is unsustainable,” said Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The final health care legislation, which will soon be passed by the Congress, will deliver successful reforms at the local level.”
Almost immediately, though, the conservative media seized on the quote, and perverted it into an indictment of the law’s complexity. The meaning that was so perfectly plain to an objective reporter on that day has been completely lost.
Here’s the full text of the speech that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delivered on March 9, 2010, via press release from the Speaker’s Office:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:
“Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.] Don’t we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America’s counties? Thank you, Valerie. Her wealth of experience – as a mayor, a state legislator, and an educator and a county executive – makes her an innovative and effective leader for the future. At this time of great challenges, her
But, looking at the history of Plant Vogtle and screwed up its construction is, I am left wondering what exactly China is doing to build as many as they are "on schedule."
The truth is, both sides generally agree that environmentally friendly energy generation is a good thing.
Because who is going to come out and say, "yeah, I like poisoning the air, and creating a toxic environment"?
What they do, instead, is deny the science with spurious rebuttals, attack the scientists with false claims, and create pity for the plight of anybody impacted by the change. The playbook is quite obvious.
The only real question is about how far do we go with our government programs and regulations to achieve this?
That is a question, but not really one, or perhaps you might say, it's not specific enough to address, so the question needs to be modified in to a form that can be effectively answered.
And it's hardly the only impediment to the discussion. You mentioned several above, for example. so did I. But you need to acknowledge they exist, rather than deny the problems.
From my perspective, the left doesn't want to actually debate the real question, they just want to demagogue and call their opponents names...
From my perspective, you are demonstrating a desire to demagogue and call your opponent names, right here.
You might have established some credibility by stating that "many on the right and left" rather than singling out on side, as if the "right" didn't have more than sufficient demonstration of that offense to make the log quite apparent.
Your mileage may vary of course, just don't tell me the "right" doesn't care, we do, we just don't think the economics of all these government programs you want are a net positive in the long run.
Nope, I'll tell you that the "right" has demonstrated a complete opposition to any and all programs whatsoever, combined with a complete denial of any information or knowledge gained, and a willingness to state outright falsehoods. Sorry, but there is a real log in thine own eye, and all the hand-wringing you have about the "left" only makes for a false sanctimony that if you were sincerely interested in in a "real" discussion, you would avoid. Now, of course, that you've said it, you will have to make amends for your errors, and correct yourself.
I doubt you can, because it turns you, you aren't interested, but instead wish to demonize and attack the "left" yourself.
Just another perspective. You aren't appearing genuine. You're looking like fraud and a liar. If you want to change that, heal thyself.
And here's another. Man-made global warming is real, 90-something percent of scientists and 99ish percent of climatologists agree. Nuclear baseload is where it's at. Gen IV reactors, especially MSRs could mitigate much of the problems of current reactor technology if the NIMBYs would let the technology progress.
You say the right supports green energy, but doesn't like the subsidies that green energy gets. I feel this is a bit disingenuous - if the right has a problem with subsidies, why is it that they aren't equally against fossil fuels, which receive 5-10x higher subsidies than renewables?
A solid 25-50% of us (left leaning AGW zealots) want more nukes.
The problem is very few want them close by, and not many on the right want them either.
Nobody wants to take the risk of a Nuke they pushed for going bad politically, no company is willing to take the risk of a Nuke going bad (the risk is extremely socialized), the same lobby that doesn't want renewables doesn't want Nukes.
Basically they are a non-starter, in the US they were even before Fukashima, but now they are pretty much globally.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Here's the issue as I see it.
Renewable WILL be economically efficient (even ignoring the massive spillover costs of fossil fuels, and even ignoring global warming) quite soon. In some cases it already is.
The country that makes it an "almost every case" situation is going to have a thriving and huge industry. As German companies bought the 80s - 90s wave of US innovtion (because it wasn't immediately viable) and Chinese companies are beginning to buy this wave, what we're going to end up with is marginally less expensive energy with the profits going overseas. Subsidies were about future longterm exports.
Though I do agree that government betting on companies is bad (Solyndra), subsidies that all innovators can get equally to get a decade or so ahead of the rest of the world in innovation seem like a no brainer.
Fund with a tax on a small part of the spillover cost of fossil fuels (or just shift the existing subsidy budget, and don't let them keep measuring natural gas density after a bend in a pipe line).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
And yet those same people, who don't understand the difference, feel totally qualified to shit all over a study done by people for whom understanding such things part of their day to day job.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
As far as AGW is concerned, while the universe is telling us what is happening, what to do about it falls squarely in the political realm. That's because all the solutions harm one group instead of another. Urban dwellers are fine with solutions like eliminating fossil fuels but rural folks don't have electric tractors and long-haul trucks. Poor people in northern climates want to keep their natural gas furnaces, and well-off elites want to keep their commercial air flights.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Nice gaslighting! Kudos to you sir!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If they support open pit mining and toxic waste, which is what you do when you support nuclear power, then they're centrists. I realize that the Democratic party has confused a lot of people as to what the left actually looks like, but raping the biosphere ain't it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While I'm not particularly left-leaning in the political spectrum where I'm from (but then again, our centrists are left of Sanders), I'm definitely believe AGW is this biggest threat to civilization to date.
I'm all for responsible use of nuclear energy, and it should definitely be a part of the solution. The biggest problem for nuclear is costs, but increased activity in the sector could get the costs down to manageable levels.
Nuclear is however not *the* solution. Short term we need to put money into other projects as well, where capacity can be built faster. A new nuclear project started today will not produce anything before after 10-15 years, and with the large construction costs (both in money and co2) short term reduction is better achieved by building hydro, wind and solar. The solution is not one single technology, but investing in all of them.
The most dangerous philosophy when trying to tackle AGW is not denial, it's the old guard environmentalists who think we can get out of the mess by reducing consumption (of power and goods) and being frugal. No matter how much we cut consumption, the rising wave of the Asian middle class will out-consume any reduction achieved elsewhere. AGW is a problem that we must invest our way out of - and investment in nuclear (both power plants and research) must be part of the solution.
---- Sig. gone.
Not a huge fan of turning our oceans and atmosphere into a 100% man-managed ecosystem
I'm a huge fan of exactly that. Further, I think that it is necessary in the long term. I think we're very, very far from knowing how to do it, but that we should start learning. Now. We've already unintentionally altered the planetary environment, now we should learn to do it on purpose and in the way we want.
[Haida is] a promising result.
I don't know about that. It wasn't a well-conducted scientific experiment. We can, and should, do much better. Still, the basic concept is good.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
To this Anonymous Coward: Wow - You must really hate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (its official name) to turn a climate change article into an anti-LDS blast. Being Mormon, and knowing how angry, belligerent, and willing to spread misinformation and half-truths solely to tear down a sect/philosophy, I can understand how you can be so capable of closing your eyes on hard climate change numbers.
To all other Slashdot readers (atheist, religious, or somewhere inbetween): While there are some Mormons that ignorantly think differently, our church takes no stand on this debate. It's a human failing - not a religious one. I know that climate change is occurring and the hard numbers are clear.
Just as importantly: Religious or not, can you at least empathize with what us Mormons have to put up with? Crackpots like this poster spreading lies and half-truths all the time - sounds just like when they attack climate change science.
You can show them the temperature numbers, the photos of glaciers, the past record of corporate interests hiding the truth to turn a profit, etc. - but they ignore it and attack you. It gets to the point where you just start tuning their anger and stupidity out. And then we're ironically labeled as closed-minded cult members again - just like this guy labeled all of you. So insidiously hateful and stupid...
In this context "confirm" simply means that additional evidence was found to validate or corroborate something that was seen before. It's not a claim of infallible truth. The word "suggests" would be wrong, because that would typically indicate a novel finding.
Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them.
Sure, this sounds pretty cool.
This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
As long as it actually makes fiscal sense, then sure.
But if you want to crony things up and waste tax payer money (i.e. Solyndra) then no.
So... What kinds of subsidies do you think fossil fuels are getting?
I'm given to believe that this is actually a damnable lie which being often repeated is blindly accepted as truth by some. Every time I get someone to actually try to detail what these things might be, I find that the are either non-existent (and the poster is mistaken) or they are not unique to fossil fuel producers (such as the ability of a company to deduct the cost of capital equipment as an expense.) About the only thing I can come up with that *might* be a subsidy is the leasing of Federal lands to producers, but I believe that is a competitive bidding process....
So... Citation please....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yeah I think it is a misunderstanding of biology that forests and grasslands are a carbon sink. Forests just rot and release carbon in a state of equilibrium.
In a state of equilibrium, yes. If high CO2 levels cause vegetation to get more extensive, thicker, etc., it creates a new equilibrium with more gigatons of carbon tied up in living plants, thus removing those gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere. This obviously cannot lower atmospheric carbon concentrations back to pre-industrial levels, because assuming it can drop CO2 levels signficantly, as soon as they drop to the point that the vegetation level starts to die back, the carbon tied up in the dead plants gets released back in to the atmosphere (most of it, anyway).
I'm not suggesting that we can just sit back and assume that plant life will solve our problem for us. It won't. But it likely will soak up some of the excess carbon.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Left != liberal. One can be a liberal right-wing or a liberal left-wing. One can also be a liberal authoritarian (!) just as one can be something like a humanistic fascist.
So because it has gone well so far, just keep doing it? How does that theory work for playing Russian Roulette?
I didn't see the article you refer to, so I'll take the numbers at face value. That sounds great.
But what if the next degree hotter means 3% more arid areas and 4% more forest, then the next one is 7% more arid and 1% more forest ...
Can we at least agree that at some point, the heat across the globe - if it continues to go up and only up - will cause more arid areas than vegetative ones?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I have seen many examples of people wishing to be attacked so that they can use their "right" to shoot people. No - not "I'll use my gun if I need to defend me/my family/other people" but "I hope those * comes into my property so I can shoot them". Most of the time supported by other keyboard warriors. In most cases his isn't a one-time thing but something that is aggressively repeated and clearly not intended as being ironic or just joking around.
So... What kinds of subsidies do you think fossil fuels are getting?
Legal immunity. Military protection. Underpriced access to public lands. Research grants. Loan programs.
I wouldn't say subsidies, so much as financial benefits to ameliorate their costs and liabilities.
I'm given to believe that this is actually a damnable lie which being often repeated is blindly accepted as truth by some.
I'm given to believe that you revealed your personal bias. You did just say you have a tendency. I suggest you reflect on how to avoid this tendency.
Every time I get someone to actually try to detail what these things might be, I find that the are either non-existent (and the poster is mistaken)
So you claim, without evidence.
or they are not unique to fossil fuel producers (such as the ability of a company to deduct the cost of capital equipment as an expense.)
A subsidy does not have to be unique or exclusive to be existing. Strange how you indicated the false nature of your objections so quickly.
About the only thing I can come up with that *might* be a subsidy is the leasing of Federal lands to producers, but I believe that is a competitive bidding process....
So... Citation please....
Nope, the leasing of Federal Lands is often considered to be under market price.
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/federal-coal-leasing-fair-market-value-and-a-fair-return-for-the-american-t
http://policyintegrity.org/documents/6.1_Sanzillo_coal_lease_PDF_.pdf
https://thinkprogress.org/controversial-sale-of-federal-coal-yields-low-prices-with-only-one-bidder-a469a34d62e5
http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-set-fair-price-exploiting-federal-lands-346880
Bullshit! How the fuck can someone be so confused to think "left" mean not (ab-)using natural resources? IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LEFT OR RIGHT - MANY EXTREME RIGHT GROUPS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS A GOAL!!!!!! (repeat)
Do us all a favor and at least read wikipedia about political views and their meaning before writing such a load of stinking crap! Better yet read some literature (scientific or at least factual) about the history and use of ideological terms.
Bullshit! How the fuck can someone be so confused to think "left" mean not (ab-)using natural resources? IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LEFT OR RIGHT - MANY EXTREME RIGHT GROUPS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS A GOAL!!!!!! (repeat)
No matter how many times you repeat that, it will still be wrong. If you support the destruction of a common resource by corporate interests then you are not a liberal, who wants to see corporations controlled for the good of others — by definition.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Good luck with that. The UK have recently agreed that French and Chinese state entities should build the Hinkley Point C reactor. Unfortunately, the price agreed for the energy is twice the current wholesale price. The trouble with nuclear energy (apart from the waste and decommissioning costs) is that there are always huge delays and cost overruns. With proven simple technologies like wind and PV, this does not happen.
Left != liberal.
What? Who told you that? That's exactly what left means. Left is liberal, right is conservative. The other primary pole is anarchist/authoritarian. The so-called "leftist" party in America, the Democrats, is completely centrist; they are center left/right, and they are center up/down (for lack of a better frame of reference.) The republican party is also relatively centrist, but upper-right of center; they believe that government should have a right to tell you what you can do in your bedroom, but they also believe that government should be used to crush corporate interests whose goals don't align with theirs, and they are more authoritarian in general than the democrats, favoring stiffer penalties for crimes, favoring making more things crimes, etc.
Most people in America have no fucking idea what liberal even looks like.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, and by the time you figure out that the climatic momentum is poised to wipe out entire ecosystems with 100 years, you will be knee deep migrants from climate change at your doorstep.
But don't worry with regard to wealth distribution as regardless of how much wealth is redistributed, we are all about to bake ever and ever so slowly bake until we are done.
If you believe that, I have some property at Chernobyl and Fukushima I would like to sell you.
Boat gives off heat, of course the data says it's getting warmer.
And oil doesn't come from plants or dead animals, it comes from earth's core, stop calling it fossil fuel.
That you've been modded +1 Informative for these moronic statements is just idiot icing on the cretin cake.
Nuclear reactors are generally not economical and (safe) mining or reprocessing is hard to do.
But having some view on how viable nuclear (fission) reactors are and how the impact mining can be allowed to have have nothing to do with the left-right spectra. It doesn't generally have anything to do with an environmentalist view either - nuclear reactors have several advantages and realistic alternatives aren't free from environmental impact. Renewable resources also require mining (often open-pit), also require heavy metal-filled waste to be disposed of (uranium being a heavy metal is the main problem in processing - not it being radioactive) and require more land area with more infrastructure etc. to be comparable. Effective generators require "rare" elements for magnets and the mining process isn't too environmental. Effective solar cells also require a lot of poisonous chemicals and elements, they also require significant processing to produce elements of sufficient purity.
You are so correct. The cost of wind and solar are now a small fraction of the cost of nuclear when all costs are considered. Given the very real prospect of radioactive contamination that may persist for tens of thousands of years, nuclear fission holds no commercial promise. Nonetheless support for research for containable fusion reactors should be sustained..
And according to drinkypoo, you are a centrist based on that one criteria alone.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You also are not a liberal, according to drinkypoo's statements above.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Let's hear from one of the scientists involved.
"This is the first time we've actually seen ice from the High Arctic," said Barber, who has studied the impacts of climate change on sea ice for decades.
Typically when people think about climate change they think about thinning ice, but Barber points out the warming action also loosens ice and broken icebergs can travel long distances on ocean currents.
"It's very much a climate-change driven phenomenon," said Barber. "When you reduce the extent of the ice and reduce the thickness of it, it becomes more mobile."
Thank you for the novel. Now please give me an answer to my actual request.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Many believe the "It's settled science" party line, but there are quite a few people in the field of climate studies who don't.
Less than 1%, if you're talking about actual climate scientists.
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
Yes, everybody involved in climate studies knows this. They are also quite sure that man is responsible for this one. The science behind CO2 is well understood. CO2 has actually been responsible for quite a few climatic changes in the past (although on a much slower timescale)
2. How much actual harm does climate change actually represent? There are lots of theories about this, but the past predictions of catastrophic events have mysteriously not proven accurate (Al Gore, I'm looking at your "Inconvenient truth").
Al Gore is not a scientist. Real scientists are generally much more conservatives in their prediction. A few exceptions get a lot of press, because scary predictions sell papers. The real harm starts slow, and gets gradually worse over centuries. The problem is that the reverse is equally slow. So when we do get catastrophic events, it will be too late to stop them.
How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested?
Thank you for proving my point. You're debating policy again. A disease doesn't go away just because you don't like the cure.
There are many sources regarding energy subsidies that can be found with a Google search. Here is a thorough paper which looks at the subsidies in various categories: http://www.misi-net.com/public...
As for specifics, subsidies range from depletion allowances, energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances, exploration and development expensing, credit for production of nonconventional fuels, reduced government take from federal oil and gas leasing, etc.
You'll have your answer, as soon as you finish reading it.
But if the cure is worse than the sickness, do you still do the cure?
I don't think your average person has any clue what war actually is or how many of the suggested "climate change" solutions will drag us closer to war. Hunger, sickness and a world run amok because there is no sane capitalistic economy with overwhelming military power to check the historically cyclic chaos that is obviously coming if the USA willingly and unilaterally gives up it's economic and political power. We don't remember WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam because most of us never lived though them, those who did are wondering what kind of pansies they've raised if this global warming thing gets you wound up.
Then there is the whole, "How bad can it be?" question that we have no idea how to answer. I hear all the dire predictions and new stories that you agree are mostly hype, and I openly wonder what are we actually trying to avoid here? What is global warming going to cause that's overall bad? Look that up and you get hype... Historically, war is a deadly affair, and trust me, that's where we are headed if the USA loses it's abilty and/or it's willingness to keep order.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2).
Just a small nitpick here. The units are energy/area, as in J/(m^2) not energy/(area^2), which would translate to energy/((m^2)^2). I'm not sure just what that would be, but it's clearly not what you intended.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
[Waves hand in the air] "Me! Call on me, teacher!"
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As for specifics, subsidies range from depletion allowances, energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances, exploration and development expensing, credit for production of nonconventional fuels, reduced government take from federal oil and gas leasing, etc.
Depletion Allowances: Is basically the way you treat the loss in the asset value (the oil well) as you produce oil. It's exactly like how you treat a mine when you produce ore. So it is not a "subsidy" for the oil industry, but the rules used to determine the tax treatment of oil production.
Energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances: Are again, just tax rules used to govern how the industry can take depreciation deductions. They don't afford any novel or unique benefit to the oil industry and are not a subsidy.
Development Expensing: Are common tax rules used to determine the deductions for the costs of developing new oil resources. This is like any business making capital investments in buildings or infrastructure, so again this isn't a subsidy.
Credit for unconventional fuel production: Seriously? This is a credit for producing bio-diesel and distilling alcohol for motor fuel and you think it's a benefit to the Oil Industry?
So, in your case, all these are simply rules about how taxes are collected (or deductions allowed) and are NOT subsidies where government money is PAID to the oil industry. I know that in liberal land, tax deductions are subsidies and restraining future budget growth below the planned amount is a budget cut (even if the budget is still going up year over year), but come on, think about what you are saying and what the words mean.
IF you want to see subsidies, go take a look at all those "green" energy "investments" that the last administration engaged in... Where they actually loaned money to dodgy companies who went bankrupt and the government never got their cash back. That's a subsidy if anything is. But all this stuff you are pointing to are either common tax treatments for depreciation and deductions for the cost of doing business are NOT subsidies, they are just specific rules for the oil industry to follow when determining what taxes they have to pay.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We mine a lot more coal than uranium, and we mine various other things.
Which is an argument for better regulation of uranium mining, not an argument directly against nuclear power.
As a fan of civilization, I have to endorse mining Mines have tailings, which are often dangerous in some way. Radioactive tailings are dangerous in one more way than non-radioactive tailings, and I don't see that as a big deal. Are you saying that an environmentalist can't support civilization?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Chernobyl isn't going to happen again. Fukushima might, but it's really not that bad compared to what harm other power sources have caused.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Lots of pumped storage goes underground. This has most of the drawbacks of fracking, but there's a lot of underground rock out there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think you know how climate change (no quotes) is dragging us closer to war. It will make areas significantly less habitable. It will destroy food and cash crop production in many places, with lots of farmers not having the ability to substitute something of roughly equal value. This will leave a lot of hungry and sick people without their previous ability to feed themselves and stay healthy. This means refugee flow, and that can lead to war.
So, tell me, how do solar panels lead to war?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're absolutely right and I noticed that a couple hours after posting.
I blame switching from (energy/(length^2)) to (energy/area) to avoid cries of "what the hell do you mean, length" while rushing and caffeine deprived.
I also figured the correction wasn't worth yet another post.
Except that that's already happening. We're putting more fossil carbon into the air than remains there, so we know something is absorbing some of it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You must not have ever seen the black dirt in parts of the midwest. Sure, a lot of this carbon is left behind from burning prairie grasses, but the color of the dirt alone says there is an excess of carbon.
Does it matter that forests and grass are not a true carbon sink? Losing them is a net carbon loss. Preserving them or expanding them is still important. The equilibrium will keep some carbon perpetually sunk.
Tax breaks that benefit a specific sector or segment of society are indeed subsidies, since they represent foregone government revenues, meaning they are a cost to government. At the end of the day, it has the same effect as handing out money to those sectors. Its like if you owed me $20, and I said I'll give you a break - just give me $10 versus if you owed me $20, gave me the $20, and I gave you $10 back because I was generous. At the end of the day, I only have $10 of the $20 I was owed, and you have $10 you originally wouldn't have.
Also, you should look up what credit for nonconventional fuel production is - it doesn't lend your argument credence if you don't understand what the various breaks are. Nonconventional fuel production covers fuel production from oil from shale and tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, biomass and coal-based synthetic fuels. Coal producers have been the primary beneficiaries of this credit, which is $14B from 2002-2008.
So tell me, how much money was spent on these boogeyman "green" energy "investments"? What was the bankruptcy rate of those companies? Citation needed...
What would get grant money flowing in would be publishing a theory that explains the observations well without AGW. That would attract a great deal of attention. You don't seem to understand how science works.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
In theory, sure, but in reality, that's a conservative world view that seems to be missing from politics in the US at the moment. Could have something to do with the fact that the most powerful voices on the right are the Koch brothers, who own a fossil fuel empire. Could have something to do with the rise of a right wing voter who only seems concerned with opposing liberals. I dunno, but I think it's pretty clear the right wing doesn't have renewable energy as an interest and hasn't in decades.
Fourth generation nuclear power plants are air cooled. No water needed.
Nuclear power takes less resources per energy produced than wind or solar. Wind takes ten times as much steel and concrete per installed megawatt than nuclear. I've had people ask where all that concrete goes, it goes in the ground. To hold up that big windmill takes a very large and heavy anchor in the ground. Wind and solar may be cheaper than nuclear now (it's not but we'll assume it does for argument sake) but how long will that last?
The costs in nuclear are in engineering and regulation. Once that is figured out then nuclear still wins on how much concrete needs to be poured for the energy produced. This includes solar. What do you think keeps all those solar panels from blowing away in the wind? Concrete, steel, and aluminum. There is a limit on the costs and that is in materials. Nuclear needs one tenth the materials for the same power and energy compared to wind and solar.
How much will it cost to use nukes?
In time it will cost one tenth as much as just about anything else.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I want to join in on the far-left wing nuke lover party. "Coal particulates kill more people every year than a Chernobyl would, and nuclear is the only feasible option for making our carbon goals." Bam. That converted me pretty rapidly years ago.
Perhaps OP is making a no-true-scotsman argument, if you're a left-leaning AGW zealot you must by his definition be anti-nuke? IDK, but I think most people on the left aren't really anti-nuclear power.
Perhaps OP is confusing greenpeace and other environmental groups with the majority. Much like some of us on the left tend to conflate the NRA's extremist positions with the broader right wing?
Totally agree, but that works both ways. We don't count the environmental impact of wind turbines, for instance, or their abject ugliness. We don't count the environmental impact of building solar panels, which is significant. The reality is that we're bad at that, but if we could count it it's likely that solar panels would still look better. It's just difficult to count what we cannot see.
Do you have ESP?
It would mask the warming but not get rid of the Co2.
It's not solar panels, which I am absolutely not opposed to in any way, by all means, put them up where they make financial sense.... However, I do believe that unilaterally giving up economic advantage by regulating cheaper power sources out of use when our world competitors are not IS the issue. First, it doesn't actually succeed in reducing emissions (countries like China are not going to stop any time soon) and second it weakens our economy and thus our ability to protect ourselves which is stupid from a geopolitical perspective.
Also, your theories about the effects of global warming are a bit alarmist from my view.... If the big problem is fossil fuel use, then if you are going to advocate the elimination of their use, you condemn the world to starvation a whole lot sooner than even your dire global warming "the sky is falling" predictions. Do you have any idea where fertilizer comes from? We used up all the natural sources of that a LONG time ago.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"In time it will cost one tenth as much as just about anything else."
We've had nukes for 60 years now. Any idea when you expect that to happen?
The tax treatment of oil companies isn't uniquely beneficial to them. Their tax burden per dollar sales is in line with other industries. They pay their share of taxes. These are NOT subsidies, the big oil companies pay LOTS in taxes too.
These subsidies for wind mostly ARE: http://www.nationalreview.com/...
And an Oh By the Way.... Wind couldn't make it on it's own w/o the subsidies. Why? Because it doesn't make enough money to pay for itself.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We've had nukes for 60 years now. Any idea when you expect that to happen?
When the government stops regulating nuclear power like it did 60 years ago.
I watched a YouTube talk about the state of affairs on fourth generation reactors and this person in the know said that in the federal regulations under the heading of air cooled reactors is a blank page. If the reactor is not a solid fuel, water cooled, water moderated, reactor the government simply lacks the means to create a license for it.
The Democratic Party has been the primary holdup to new regulations in nuclear power since the Carter administration. The Democrats lost big in the last election. I'm seeing good things possible in nuclear power from Trump, Pence, and Perry. I don't know if I can "expect" anything but this is something we have not seen since modern air cooled reactors were more than a theory. We saw air cooled nuclear reactors in the time Nixon was POTUS but he killed the development to help out his political buddies in California where they were developing water cooled reactors, the kind capable of making nuclear weapons.
The only reason nuclear power is so expensive is because of the regulations. Democrats have been saying nuclear power is dead because it costs too much, which gives them an excuse to not write new regulations. Nuclear power has been caught in this death spiral for at least four decades. As soon as the shackles are loosened enough that just one nuclear power plant can be completed then we will see them built by the dozens like we did in the 1970s. At that point the argument that nuclear power is too expensive to work is demonstrably false.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Alright... I wasn't going to comment but I must.
If the area is radioactive for tens of thousands of years, that means that it is decaying slowly and that the risk is quite minimal. It confuses me when people are more afraid of something with a half life of tens of thousands of years vs. something with a half life of five hundred years.
It's the shit that rapidly decays that you have to worry about. That's sending out a whole lot of particles, quickly.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
His point is that plant growth can absorb some of it, but not all or even most of it. Really, they can barely store any of it for very long.
No, that's not my primary point, and I actually disagree with the last part. My point is that plants *can* store some of it, in the form of increased biomass, and they can do it as long as CO2 levels stay high enough to maintain the "greener" equilibrium.
A subsidiary point is that this mechanism cannot absorb all of the carbon. Assuming that living plant biomass is correlated directly with CO2 level in the atmosphere (because CO2 promotes photosynthesis and therefore growth), absorbing all the excess CO2 would reduce CO2 level, and therefore reduce living plant biomass. The now-dead excess plant biomass would release most of its carbon back into the atmosphere, thereby raising the CO2 level. So wherever the new equilibrium point is, it will be at higher than "normal" CO2 levels.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm not sure why you say "except". I never denied that it was already happening. I didn't know that it was, but it makes sense.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Funny you say that...
We recently learned that the coral die-off is over.
Huh...
Before you go full retard, I see strong evidence to suggest the cause of climate change is human output. I am a scientist.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Poor fool of indeterminate political party can't even read a sig.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Keep parroting your Dogma, lefty, and enjoy losing for the next 8 years. Me? I'm winning.
Winning?
That's what Charlie Sheen said and now he's selling off his Babe Ruth memorabilia to pay for his supply of tiger blood
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Look, it's not really that people don't believe THIS story. The problem is story selection. Everyday, someone with an agenda pulls a "OMG the sky is falling" story from some alarmist website. We're simply sick of it. What you're seeing is the backlash.
If everyday I pulled stories similar to what happened to here this weekend (end of JUNE in Toronto it was HAILING) filled with snarky comments about "global warming", you'd be annoyed too.
Oh I've seen plenty of "hey, it was a bit cold today, where's my global warming".
But after all this time, the deniers & the clueless don't understand what tipping points are, that once certain events are triggered, there's no quick path back to what we used to consider normal
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Oh, you replied. Sort of.
I have read the speech. I stumbled over the rambling repetition and inconsistencies, but read the whole thing.
Other than the exact wording, Pelosi is still saying that the politicians must pass the bill before anyone can find out what is in it. Surely if the bill is so full of wonderful things, she could detail a few of them for the people. Like how you get to keep your insurance and doctors, or how everyone's premiums will be reduced by thousands of dollars. But, No, apparently we could not find out about that until everyone blindly passed it.
The real joke of all this is that the bill she shoved through the House of Representatives was simply wiped away by the Senate bill, so all of the wonderful things Pelosi might have been thinking of were gone.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Wow talk about conflating things. That article claims that loans and loan guarantees are subsidies, which is pretty much the opposite of a subsidy.
There's a mumbo-jumbo factor to this, like when a developer tells his manager that he has to refactor a lambda to upgrade an O(2n) to an O(1). Why not do jazz hands as well.
Here's what the intro says in the link:
Inconsistent global/basin ocean heat content (OHC) changes were found in different ocean subsurface temperature analyses, especially in recent studies related to the slowdown in global surface temperature rise. This finding challenges the reliability of the ocean subsurface temperature analyses and motivates a more comprehensive inter-comparison between the analyses.
And in the conclusion:
Substantial uncertainty in the decadal OHC redistribution globally among the three datasets prevents reaching a conclusion about the relative contribution of each basin to the global OHC changes. To understand the relation between OHC changes and the global warming slowdown/hiatus, we need quantify the storage of heat not only during the hiatus period but also during the decades before the hiatus. So we recommend a comprehensive evaluation in the future to quantify the impact of insufficient ocean sampling on historical OHC calculations, i.e. the performance of different mapping methods.
Now tell me how you reconcile that with that 4th grader conclusion that the ocean temperature has risen 1.8 Celsius.
These graphs are misleading.
lucm, indeed.
I don't think that it would resolve most of them. There's a hell of a lot of issues with CO2 currently in the atmosphere and oceans now.
You can count me as one of the several you have just found.
Now that you're starting to take the problem more seriously, what are you doing about it?
This is an example of the fossil fuel industry's PR groups propaganda. Not only does lowering greenhouse emissions raise everyones standard of living, compared to paying for adaptation, but there's no plausible reason for such a social experiment.
Perhaps I can point you to some of the raw data that you're looking for. Which is it that you think is kept under lock and key?
The fossil fuel industry has about a $33 billion dollar stake in this.
And you think that there's someone in the fledgling solar panel industry that is paying all the scientific organisations in the world to sell them a bit faster?
You do realize how blatantly implausible that is, don't you?
The money in the PR game is all on the anti-scientific side.
Because science is neither left nor right. In fact there is a consensus amongst economists that we should be reducing greenhouse emissions.
However, there is about $33 billion dollars at stake for the fossil fuel industry, and their PR workshops have shown that if you tie misinformation to a political position, then people become very resistant to evidence.
So that's what they've tried to do.
You don't need to read the political or PR blogs to get a handle on the science. There's scientific literature and science communicators out there.
If the individual has shown that he is a threat to society as a whole then yes, he should be deprived the right to a gun, or any device that enables someone to be a serious threat to society. I do expect someone who wishes to handle a gun that he knows how to do so responsibly. This would of course include cases where said individual has killed someone under circumstances other than self defense (or relevant similar scenarios), but I would even include cases where criminal negligence handling firearms would warrant removing the right to it, e.g. when you have kids around and leave loaded weapons lying about. Weapons are dangerous and need to be handled with care. And I do expect people who wish to do so to do it responsibly and in a way that minimizes the chance of innocents coming to harm.
And I do think that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons do not belong into the hands of untrained personnel. For safety reasons. It's very hard to store them safely and even harder to handle them in a way that ensures no damage to bystanders (or yourself). I would also think that handling more intricate and complicated weapons to be dependent on showing that you know what you're doing, this could take the form of a test similar to a driving test, and I could envision this being handled by local weapon owner societies, who have an interest in keeping more destructive and complicated weapons in the hands of trained and responsible individuals, if only for the reason that accidents with such weapons could lead to legislation against owning them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Given the very real prospect of radioactive contamination that may persist for tens of thousands of years, nuclear fission holds no commercial promise.
Many areas in Australia already have higher levels of background radiation due to the large amount of granite in the rock, other areas like Maralinga are already contaminated thanks to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. We are also considering importing and storing other country's radioactive waste because the ground is so stable and we have desolate areas nobody lives in.
It's a problem, but it can be managed. I think it makes a large amount of sense given the geology in Australia, other countries can make their own decisions on what makes sense for them.
Why even assume there must be corporations in order to abuse natural resources? Do you realize how utterly idiotic that is?
Yes it is a complete mess and one axis doesn't come close to describe even _normal_ political views.
Who told me that? Nobody. I have studied = read books about the topic. I also have a brain.
There are many right-wing liberals, there are many left-wing authoritarians. There are many left-wing people (the majority) that want do decide how people should live their lives. There are many right-wing people (not the majority) that think people should be able to do what they want withing limitations. But even so authoritarian views (which isn't really what most right-wing people is about - that would be conservatism) doesn't rule out liberal views in some areas. In fact most people except hardliners actually have a very complex mix of views about different areas of life.
Your idea that environmentalism is linked to the left-right axis is wrong, really wrong. Your linking of (I assume) your ideas of everything to the political label you chosen is idiotic. It is wrong. It have so many counter-examples in the real world. It skews your views of others, make it harder to discuss and reinforces you-vs-them thinking which is one of the most dangerous things in the world.
Climate change skepticism, creationism, anti-vax, anti-GMO, HIV denialists. All different aspects of the same kind of stupidity. History will judge your ilk harshly, and rightly so. You're a bunch of fucking dickheads.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Thanks for sharing your dumb opinion. It's special just like you.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It was a program designed to literally bankrupt the west. Sounds like a Chinese conspiracy to me.
May your little unreality bubble never pop, dear dopey cunt.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
That's enough for about 97% of slashdot.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Don't worry, nobody here believes this stuff. On account of how they don't want to.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
When you don't like the conclusions of science, just put 'science' in quote marks! Cognitive dissonance gone, just like that! They're not scientists, they're priests! Yay!
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Global Warming alarmists told us: NYCity would be under water now along with most of the California coast! They told Us in 2009 the world would run out of food and billions would die.
Cite this
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
"I'm a complete fucking mong, ignore me or I'll actually make you stupid"
- FTFY.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The longer the contamination, the less energy being released per unit of time.
It's pretty simple particle physics.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I might want you to have liability insurance so if you damage me or my property with your gun I'll at least get reimbursed. Aside of that, as far as I'm concerned, buy a tank for all I care.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think in some cases there's a streak of contrarianism. Contrarianism has its place, but only if it is matched with some actual ability to critique the model. Even among the skeptics who do have some ability to critique the science, like Spencer and Curry, you'll note that their so-called critiques end up in rather odd places like the Wall Street Journal, and they never seem to publish any of their devastating critiques where it actually counts; in primary and peer reviewed literature. In general, in any scientific discipline, researchers who avoid peer review for their more astonishing or hyperbolic claims are immediately suspect.
I think there are those who deny simply because they don't want to see their way of life change. I think these people probably know the reality, but cognitive dissonance allows them to function at a level whereby they can deny AGW, even as they know it's true. Others, I think, simply don't like that AGW's best solutions are going to require some sort of market intervention, so they're ideologically opposed. These are the people I often post the response "Do you really think the universe gives a damn about your political or economic views?" These ideological skeptics probably are a sub-category of the first group.
Then there are the likes of the Koch Brothers, powerful men who know damned well what's happening, but don't give a shit, and want to make as much money as they can while they can. Everyone knows fossil fuels' time is coming to an end. Oil prices are not rebounding, in part because the shale oil industry is basically in "pump out as much as you can while you can" mode, because they know perfectly well if that oil isn't pumped out of the ground in the next 10-20 years, it may never be pumped out of the ground. Better to make a marginal profit now, even if it means prices continue to crash. So these are the really nefarious people, the people who really don't give a shit what damage they do, just so long as they pad their pockets, so far them even the more sensible solution, which is some sort of carbon tax, directly interferes with profits, and thus must be attacked.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How do you do pumped storage against gravity? Pressure? Wouldn't the loss from gravity on the draw of the storage really hurt the storage efficiency equation?
It's pretty simple particle physics.
Undeniably true... However, this shouldn't be used to support an assertion that a contamination of isotopes that may persist for tens of thousands of years is somehow safe.
Those isotopes decay into isotopes with short half-lives. And those kill.
Chernobyl will not be safe for tens of thousands of years, because covering a landscape with enough relatively safe isotopes can produce a biologically important amount of short-lives isotopes on an ongoing, though slowly declining, basis.
As it happens, I do know more or less where fertilizer comes from. I also haven't heard of battery advances that would make electric aircraft and long-distance ships possible, and there's more areas where fossil fuel is needed.. We're not getting rid of fossil fuels any time soon, but reducing the amount we use will be useful, even if it's not complete elimination. We're advancing technologically rather fast, and so slowing warming down until we can do something better about it sounds like a good idea. We may find that we can fix most of the problem with geoengineering without causing too many other problems. If we could get enough power from other sources, we could even unburn the CO2 in the air.
I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'm pointing out that the warming will disrupt some things pretty badly, and that will mean refugees from global warming, There will be disruption, and disruption always raises the probability of war. I don't have any quantitative guesses, but I'd say that global warming is a lot more likely to start wars than avoiding global warming.
We're in a world now where major powers pretty much do not directly attack each other, so high-level geopolitical maneuvering is likely to remain peaceful. If the US cuts emissions, that will help (remember I said above that I want a large reduction in fossil fuel use, since a complete stop won't be practical for some time yet), as the US is the second-biggest emitter, and not far behind China. Europe, China, and India seem to be trying to move away from fossil fuels, for whatever reasons.
Last I saw, I'd expect China to wind up with a bigger GDP than hours. The last figures I've got immediate access to (2013) put them about 20% behind the US, and growing faster. If we retard our economy somewhat, and China doesn't (which doesn't seem to be quite the case), the crossover point where China has the world's biggest economy will happen earlier, which I don't see is a tremendous concern.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You may wish to look and see the current research being done in Chernobyl. Animals are doing quite well, surprisingly so.
I am not saying it's safe. I'm saying it's not nearly as huge a problem as people seem to think it is.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
10 hottest years ever, all over the last 14.
What "cried wolf"?
Wrong.
More growth = faster death = more rot = CO2 balance pretty much where it was....OR we would not now be at a 1 million year maximum
You can do these searches for yourself, you know. But look here and here for a start.
Could once again be green. They've found hippos, crocks and such in the desert. 2000 years ago the oceans were a lot higher than they are now. Romans used to grow grapes in England, places in Greenland are emerging out of the ice that are about 700 years old. We're coming out of an ice age. CO2 is a symptom, not a cause.
The summary contains two links, one to an article that discusses how the data is crap - same story as the atmosphere, the satellite data doesn't jive with the manipulated ground data, and a second link to a story in the Guardian. For the reader who isn't paying attention they both might be misconstrued as scientific studies.
As long as one resorts to trickery and misdirection people are going to think you're making shit up.
Murphy was an optimist
Wrong. More growth = faster death = more rot = CO2 balance pretty much where it was....OR we would not now be at a 1 million year maximum
Wrong. More growth does equal more rot, but it also means more gigatonnage of biomass at any given time. If the normal (pick a normal) tonnage of biomass is X and the amount (at equilibrium) with higher CO2 is Y, then the carbon in (Y-X) is actually removed from the ecosystem. You'll still have more rotting, meaning more turnover, but we're talking about an equilibrium state, so for every gram that is returned by rotting, another gram is absorbed by growth.
Note that this means that plant life acts as a carbon buffer. As CO2 levels rise, plant biomass rises, absorbing some of the excess carbon. As CO2 levels fall, plant biomass decreases, releasing the stored carbon. (This is all predicated on the assumption that plant biomass does vary with CO2 levels; which I don't actually know for certain, but makes sense.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is OLD "news"! Plus... it gets worse: http://www.newser.com/story/19... http://www.newser.com/story/18... http://www.newser.com/story/17... http://www.newser.com/story/16...
How can we take seriously people who believe in the 90%-99% consensus (The party line is 97% you need to get it right).
Every study that tried to demonstrate this consensus had such horrible methodology it would be laughed at in any other field.
This means you are gullible, have read news papers, the mainstream media and just believe what others tell you.
You may wish to look and see the current research being done in Chernobyl. Animals are doing quite well, surprisingly so.
Yes, I know they're doing quite well. They also have obscene levels of birth defects... I'm not saying it turns it into an un-survivable hellscape, it's just a far cry from what any person wants to live in.
I am not saying it's safe. I'm saying it's not nearly as huge a problem as people seem to think it is.
We agree... mostly. I still think that's a pretty huge problem for human habitation.
It's not the apocalypse, but I would rather try to make my living in Death Valley than Chernobyl. I've seen the geiger counters when they go through a "hot" spot. Big fucking "no thank you."
I suspect, as you clearly do too, that the OP is conflating "pumped hydroelectric storage" with "compressed air storage". The latter has been used at a number of sites, using cavities made by solution in rock salt bodies (not fracking, as the OP suggests).
I'd concede that it would be possible to use a good "gas sand" with high porosity and permeability as a "pumped (compressed air) storage" site. Of course, if you had a good sand, then you wouldn't need to frack your rock (in fact, it would probably be impossible). Naturally, as you suggest, it would be advantageous to use a working fluid of as low a viscosity as possible. So gas rather than liquid.
On the down-side, although the top of the storage rock formation would be tight against the gas you inject, the bottom side would not be tight. Over a period on the order of days, your pumped-down gas would dissipate by dissolution into the pore-space liquids, as well as pushing the GWC (gas-water contact) down. Now, that might not be a big problem if you're pumping up by day and decompressing by night (heating ; vice versa for AC), but it's certainly something that you'd have to consider in the reservoir engineering (yes - it is a profession ; one I'm only marginally qualified for) for your proposed "pumped (compressed air) storage" project. The answers in one formation + structure + pressure regime may well not be the same for the same formation in the next structure along the basin trend. Oh, did I mention the likely effects of pumping large volumes of gas one way through a set of pore throats, then reversing the flow, then reversing the flow ... the magic word you're looking for is "fatigue" ; it's not a problem I've head of for gas-storage wells (because they load up on gas in summer and release it in winter ; not 360-odd cycles/year), but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of wells around the world that produce significant amounts of "sand" along with their oil or gas flow. It's another issue the reservoir engineer has to consider - and addressing it is why horizontal drilling was developed years before being put to use in fracking.
I can see why the reported sites used specially-made salt-dissolution caverns.
Pumped (compressed air) storage is certainly doable. But the environments in which it's likely to be a workable solution are much more restricted than anyone who thinks of it as a panacea is going to like. Of the oil province I've spent most of the last 30 years drilling in, only about 1/3 has rock salt at depth, and over 95% of that is tens to hundreds of miles out to sea. Which raises the costs by a factor of about 10.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Oh, there is a quick way back. We've got the records of the last time something like this happened. I have steered 30 or 40 oil wells to their target using those records. Nice clear marker horizons.
100 to 120 millennia. That's the quick way back. If you consider ~10^5 years to be a short period of time, which as a geologist, I do. I've got a rock specimen in my front garden that represents a 1,300,000 millennia hiatus in a line in the rock. A hundred millennia is less than the endurance (so far) of human beings.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It's a damned sight bigger than that. Hell, that's of the order of decommissioning costs for the UKCS only.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Huh? You mean this? "Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic"?
So, first off, you think Drinkypoo is the sole arbiter of what constitutes liberal views? And you think liberalism can be reduced solely to environmentalism and has nothing to do with economic policy?
Both of those stances are pretty bizarre, and that's ignoring that I never suggested we should just allow unregulated open pit mining and dumping of nuclear waste just anywhere. We should still do what we can to mitigate the environmental consequences of nuclear energy.
But you know what's also bad for the environment? Open pit coal mining. And lithium mining. And really just mining in general, which is unfortunately needed for all sorts of things, including for "green" energy options.
There's always going to be trade-offs. The only way to completely eliminate the environmental consequences of human activity is to completely eliminate humanity.