Slashdot Mirror
Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming and Humans Are the Cause (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming, according to the the most comprehensive study ever of climate science by U.S. government researchers. The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming. The findings contradict statements by President Trump and many of his Cabinet members, who have openly questioned the role humans play in changing the climate. The report states that the global climate will continue to warm. How much, it says, "will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." Without major reductions in emissions, it says, the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit relative to pre-industrial times. Efforts to reduce emissions, it says, would slow the rate of warming.
Twitler will have it pulled.
News for 'tards; Jewish propaganda.
Jeezuz, the trolls are getting pathetic. Do you think you can sow doubt by sounding like a third grader on Ritalin? Thanks for playing though.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. How has this been allowed to go on without anyone warning us?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I suspect that 1Kelvin is kind of at the level of the noise. Especially considering average temperature is around 300 Kelvin and taking a measurement to the nearest degree of ambient outdoors it pretty much not realistic. Call me back when we are outside the noise.
Global temperatures just dropped below 2014 values. If we are suepposedley warming, where is the warming? Looking at the chart back past the year 2000, where is the warming?
One again, climate alarmists are the real deniers, the ones peddling fantasy that goes against measured results. That's not science.
"the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit"
It's ok, we just build some more coal power stations, turn up the air-con, and it's all good.
"the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit"
It's ok, we just build some more coal power stations, turn up the air-con, and it's all good..
The reason why the report had such an easy passage out the door, all too late, no stopping it now, damage done, all we can do now is attempt to mitigate harm. No deny it, because it will be worse next year and the year after that et al and in fact realy catastrophic years could be in there, really catasrophic. Denial and fucking around and fuck everyone I wont more money now, too late even for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... You are already sinking and it will start to happen faster, done deal, you bought and you own it whether you want it or not.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
on Ritalin
I think you mean off Ritalin.
Since Republicans are in power, they will stop this socialist global warming in it's tracks . Problem solved!
Since it's all a Chinese hoax, there's nothing to stop. Donald of Orange is always right, right?
"The assessments are required by an act of Congress; the last one was published in 2014. "
So we have these laws requiring the government workers to model climate change and make assessments of it, those models are used by military and civil planners to anticipate flooding, food shortages, etc. Driven by the best models the scientists can build from all the data.
And we have Scott Pruit, head of the EPA, climate change denier, essentially driven by Hannity of Fox News, who in turn is simply sponsored propaganda of a dying coal industry. Pruit repeats basic flawed logic and misdirections to pretend its not happening.
Notice the split? Scott isn't working from the science or the data from under him, he's working from the sponsored commentary on Fox News. But then that's just paid for propaganda, it's not science. So you have one group working from real data and models that bypass his agency, and his agency working from PR puff pieces written by industries looking for favors.
That's not healthy.
What if the head of the Defense Department did that? Suppose US was at war with Russia and Russia hired Hannity to push its propaganda. Instead of making choices based on all the data and science the government could muster, you'd have a military undermined from the top by its own boss. You can see that now with the Russian cyber attacks against USA, Fox is doing a full on deflection. Not a denial, a deflection. They know Russia is doing that, yet trying to get their viewers to ignore it as a non-story.
Glad that's over. Next issue?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I thought he was being generous with 'third grader'.
Here in the Netherlands all electric trains ride on wind energy.
-- Cheers!
Cue the level headed debate with a focus in facts, solutions and mutual respect.
You need to get your priorities figured out. CO2 is on track to wreck society in a way far more serious than not being able to easily drive your car 9000 miles in 10 days.
Yeah, globally it is cooler than 2016 and may or may not end up being cooler than 2015 but that's all. 2017 is going to end up being the 2nd or 3rd warmest year in the temperature record.
Most people don't need to drive 9000 miles. 20 to 50 a day will work. We can still use some fossil fuels but not more than can be absorbed by the environment. Energy can be stored in many ways. My favorite Idea is to use excess production of wind and solar to pump water into reservoirs (fishing anyone?) and then release as needed, e.g. at night.
Battery tech keeps getting cheaper and more capable. We can already move submarines for a week on lithium batteries. Over time more batteries will show up in heavy equipment.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I would say believe the opposite of corporate propaganda.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Nope. You can't legislate or decree away reality. Reality always wins.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Is this a report by a massive government or is the report itself massive? How big does a report have to be to be called massive?
The problem isn't denying that there are environmental problems with our industry. The problem here is that most of the international agreements being done in regards to the environment gives exemptions to China and India, because they have to "Catch up". China gets a free ride to build some of the most polluting industry in all of our history because of political interests and business interest, meanwhile, the western world needs to go back to medieval times, but without the wood burning in the winter.
The fact is, unless we all have a fair agreement in dealing with these problems, it will never work and we'll be back at square one. Trump is correct that these agreements aren't fair to the US, because they really aren't at all. The exemptions give more reason to outsource to China, meanwhile increasing China's industrial capacity. It doesn't solve our environmental issues when it's just being outsourced to another country in a far worse scale. All of you are guilty for accepting this and buying their products as well, even if you live in fancy Germany. This problem needs to be tackled together and our technology needs to be shared to do so. Blaming "Republicans" or Donald Trump is just silly, when we all know China and India is heavily influencing these agreements for their own benefit.
Here we go:
https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
That's poetic in a way. Riding on the wind.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We need to keep making it warmer, it's too cold up here in the winter. Let the others suffer in the summer.
In other news, Donna just threw Hillary under the bus in her new book.
Crazy town.
You mean, they'll be from China? Did you even bother to read what I even wrote? You realize the USA has some of the most aggressive environmental protection than all of the world, right?
Oh, you're full of reality denying bullshit alright.
Keep your head in the sand, snowflake. That way you won't notice it when climate change and the oceans rising cover you up.
Take your horse shit and eat it. Eat it raw.
There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Okay, enough already! I got it. We are all doomed unless we lower our carbon footprint and the reason for out carbon footprint is the burning of coal, petroleum oil, and natural gas.
We'll we can't just turn everything off, that's just asking for death. We can scale back our energy consumption in some ways. We got our LED lights, low flo toilets, four cylinder aluminum cars running on ethanol (which is alcohol abuse in my mind), we got public busing running on natural gas (better than diesel but not best), electric trains, planes(?), and automobiles. Our houses have triple panes and double insulation and not a single pet, heat pump HVAC, and wood burning furnaces. And we are recycling, reducing, and redoing, or something like that. But that's just nibbling about the edges really.
To kill the big beast that is coal and oil we need a rethink. We should look at the goals here:
- Provides heat, light, electricity
- Cheap as coal
- safe as coal
- greener than coal, at a minimum, greener than natural gas is great, but getting as close to zero CO2 is best
- as reliable as coal
- domestically sourced
- domestically built, operated, and maintained
- available today
- did I miss something?
Stretch goals (goals we can strive for beyond having met the main goals):
- provides transportation (including to Earth orbit and beyond)
- Cheaper than coal
- Cheaper than natural gas
- Cheaper than wind
- Cheaper than solar
- even more reliable
- safer that coal
- safer than wind
- not just domestic but locally sourced
- did I miss something?
What energy source can meet the most of these points? I know of a few options but I'd like to hear others come up with answers and we can discuss. We hear the term "all the above" when these questions are asked so give me some all the above solutions for the all the above requirements.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
What I take away from the headline is that size does matter.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
This is why they should not say that it will get warmer. They should say that majority of humans will die and remaining will fight for whatever food might remain. We have less than 10 years left.
Thank you friend.
No one speaks for the birds. Who will think of the birds that die from wind vanes?
These wind vanes kill our flying friends and then who would be left to carry the olive branch when God floods the Earth again?
No one...that's who.
No one.
I find it fascinating how so many in the tech industry, immersed and surrounded in science, can somehow rationalize against widely accepted knowledge.
Listen, I'm aware current scientific conclusions/understandings can be very very wrong. We thought the Earth was flat for awhile (some still do) and we thought the universe rotated around us, but when reasonable evidence was presented to the contrary, the scientific community accepted reality and began iterating to the next discovery.
If you have valid disproof against global climate change, then provide the evidence. If you don't, affix your dribble with "...in my opinion..."
Sooooo... whatcha gonna do
Educate? Change expectations?
Maybe we need a new paradigm : anyone retardedly trying to deny global warming at this point gets their non-functioning testicles removed and fed to them with tartar sauce.
You have stumbled upon one positive aspect of global warming without even knowing it. The potential reduction of human population by DANGEROUS GLOBAL TESTICLE WARMING.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
"If you shoot an eagle, or kill an eagle, they want to put you in jail for five years," Trump said. "And yet the windmills are killing hundreds and hundreds of eagles. One of the most beautiful, one of the most treasured birds, and they're killing them by the hundreds, and nothing happens. So wind is a problem."
I can't believe that some people think it's OK to just kill all those beautiful eagles. The symbol of American freedom.
The Great Salt Lakes comes into mind....oh well, it was in the past, so it does not count, right?
As Einstein said, everything is relative....so if take Earth as a base point, everything else rotates around it. :D
Its true that the other celestial objects are taking pretty crazy turns, but hey, they still do it around Earth
I, for one, welcome our climate-changing overlords!
Seriously, it's way too cold out there.
Here we go: https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat...
What they are doing was already done in Canada by Stephen Harper. It was the major reason why he and his so called Conservatives got their ass handed to them on a plater in the last election. What they did was try to muzzle and pre-screen scientific data findings coming out of all scientists hired by the government of Canada. HOWEVER the Canadian public saw exactly what the assholes were up to and turfed their collective asses out of Ottawa. What happened afterwards was a purging of most the right wing nut jobs in the conservative party and some positive changes to bring some sanity back into the party.
Let us hope that the US does the same thing to Mr Trump next year by cutting the balls off the Republican controlled house and senate and turning Mr Trump into a yellow headed toupee sporting lame duck for the remainder of his term in office. I doubt that he is stupid enough to do something to cause his impeachment or that the whole Russian thing will bring down his castle, but trying to muzzle and castrate scientists could and should be an issue that will make enough intelligent Americans hand him his ass on a platter in 2018.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Typical /. response.
A. Study produced by eminent scientists based on lots of research, taking many man-years of effort to produce, shows clear conclusion.
B. Random /. poster, misrepresents article, then says: "nope, I know better".
[Misrepresentation is pointing out the article doesn't explicitly say that most CO2 is produced by humans, but ignores the clear statement at the beginning of the article that says: 'It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming,' ]
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You realize the USA has some of the most aggressive environmental protection than all of the world, right?
Do you realize that Americans emit twice as much CO2 per capita as China, and eight times as much as India? Expecting them to make equal cuts is ridiculous. The cuts need to be where the waste is.
List of countries by per capita CO2 emissions
As Einstein said, everything is relative...
Einstein never said that. He said that inertial motion is relative. Rotational motion is not inertial, and is not relative. Objects move linearly relative to other objects. But objects rotate in an absolute sense.
If you are locked in a black box, there is no way to determine if you have constant linear velocity. There is also no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But you can detect rotation by using a Foucault pendulum or other scientific instruments.
The rationale is that there are economic externalities. Having established that, the argument goes that if Europe and USA did not absorb the cost of these externalities, then why should other nations?
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
Is measured in billions of years. We have had instruments capable of precise temp measurement covering the earth for what? 150 years max? How is this not extrapolation from a statistically insignificant sample?
So, China & India get to execute the work exported by Western corporations at lower costs due to softer environmental rules and slavery conditions and wages hm, hm, somobody makes fat profits from this ideal combo and I wonder who doesn't see it ...
Just so you readers know, that very long post above was copypasta'd from an anonymous coward on a Tesla public forum.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Georgia guide stones for the noobs:)
You donâ(TM)t even get basic figure right, current CO2 concentration is over 400....
The empirical data show the Transient Climate Response is 1/3rd the modeled value, down by nearly a factor of 10 from the modeled value a decade ago. The ECS is about half the modeled value. See Figure 7 of the following peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.iieta.org/sites/def...
Stop listening to people and look at the empirical evidence of the satellite and balloon datasets for yourself. The UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis is now falsified at the 95% level and the observed rate of warming matches the rate for the last 150 years where changes in solar magnetic activity cause the well-attested Little Ice Age and we've been warming out of it ever since. If you deny the 3 satellite and 7 balloon datasets in favor of the Lysenkoist Government position then you are an anti-scientific Flat Earther.
Buzz Aldrin (Second Man to walk on the Moon) and a lot of other astronauts are skeptical about the UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
You would think the doomsayers would be happy that the Earth was not being destroyed by modern technology. but no, they appear to want to cling to their apocalyptic delusion in defiance of the observed data.
ps. the surface data sets are completely worthless. Most people who cling to them don't know that nearly 50% of the data is now 'estimated' based on assuming the IPCC model is true. The surface data sets are no longer 'observations' according to the Scientific Method, they are in fact 'hypothesis'. The data are the satellite and balloon data sets.
If only a pandemic would wipe them like a shit stain from the asshole of humanity. I really hope, if it does happen, it rids us of the worthless fucking Vegans. I really wish they didn't exist and it would be nice if some disease wiped those worthless beings from our world.
Sorry amigo, you are quite wrong. Look at Figure 7 of the following paper:
http://www.iieta.org/sites/def...
Take a look at Figure 7 of the following paper. CO2 is not an issue, nor is the WATER VAPOR that is the core of the UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis. The computer simulations are wrong by a massive factor of 3
http://www.iieta.org/sites/def...
Using facts as an argument... How rude.
It was dying. That was last year. We're under new management.
Coal mining is way up. Miners are getting hired. Mine engineers are getting hired. Coal exports are way up.
We now export to China, bigly. China used to buy from North Korea, but now China buys from us.
but trying to muzzle and castrate scientists could and should be an issue that will make enough intelligent Americans hand him his ass on a platter in 2018.
If there were enough intelligent Americans to hand him his ass, he wouldn't have gotten past the primaries.
The problem with democracy is, it is mostly a vote against something. A voter can say "I won't support this corruption" and vote for the other guy. He can't stop the corruption, which leaves the USA in a position of self-collapse because US parties don't purge corrupt policies. The first consequence being, when Trump loses, his corruption remains. The second consequence being, there's nothing sane to replace him: The government now protects his corrupt polices. It's effect will extend to party insiders, who won't demand better policies but better propaganda to bring voters to their cause. Then the cycle repeats.
In 2008, the Republican party promised to obstruct everything the Democrat party did: It's no longer about finding a middle ground, it's about bullying whoever disagrees with the Republicans. Maybe the Republicans will be so weak that won't be possible but they spent a lot of time building a gerrymander so that they never truly lose power. The probability of the Democrats being able (and willing) to undo Republican corruption is almost nil.
Of course, the Democrat party recently took a lot of things for granted, to their detriment, so they are suffering too. There are 101 studies explaining how Clinton and Democrat policies aren't attracting voters but few studies exploring what the voters want. It's something most outsiders can see: The Democrat's inclusive policies ignored basic economic principles and it's voters who suffered for it. The party can either "bring some sanity" themselves, or wait for Republican greed and incompetence to send the voters their way. Historically, it's been the latter choice.
Yep - try to educate people who think that nothing can save us because "9000 miles in 10 days, almost always moving" is a basic requirement for the existence of life...
Per capita rates are a red herring.
The environment does not care about per capita rates. The environment is affected by absolutes.
China is pumping out more than the US and EU combined. They are set to double their output in less than a decade while the rest of us are reducing our CO2 emissions. There's plans in the works for 700 new coal power plants to be built in China. We just had this discussion yesterday.
Everyone knows that ShanghaiBill is a Chinese shill living in SV. Let's not allow shills to run this discussion.
Yes compared to developing poor countries.
Compared to other western civilised countries no not so much.
First of all, the problem with the treaties is that because the large polluters (US included) have such a varying level of enerfy infrastructure the treaties signed are not binding. The Paris agreement is about common emission goals that countries ought to strive to reach, there are no mechanisms in it to impose sanctions on nations that fail to meet theirs. So to speak of 'exemptions' in such a treaty is nonsense to begin with, you can't be 'exempt' from sanctions that do not exist in the treaty. Would it be good to have some kind of sanction system in place? Yes, yes it would, but if you think the US government would ever agree to internationally binding treaties that would impose sanctions on US trade should its goals not be reached, you're occupying an entirely different political reality than I am.
Second of all: why do you think it'd be realistic not to account for the fact that massive infrastructure overhaul will not happen immediately and give these countries realistic timeframes in the treaties? China at the moment gets roughly 2/3rds of all its energy from coal and has 4 times the population of the US with increasing private car ownership and you think giving them 13 years time to turn their greenhouse emisions downward (the paris agreement limit for when China's promised it will reach peak CO2 emissions is 2030 and they've also agreed to reduce their carbon intensity by 60 % by the same date, which means they have 13 years time to essentially redo the majority of their energy production) is somehow excessive? Wtf?
Thirdly, do you realize that China has very much woken up to the fact that it is within their own national interests to cut down on emissions? The level of pollution in many Chinese megacities is so bad (quivalent to smoking 1.2 packs of cigarettes just for breathing the air) its having significant adverse health effects leading to increased health care costs and declined productivity if they are not addressed. It's a major issue in domestic Chinese politics because the people don't like the status quo at all, which means if they keep making things worse they'd push the country towards increasing political instability which is certainly not something they want. The idea that China will just keep building polluting tech even though they're already struggling with massive pollution issues is not based in reality. They're building massive amounts of nuclear power plants and heavily focusing on renewables, but as is obvious to anyone with half a brain, this level of change will take a few years to accomplish. They're currently on the track to meeting their 2030 goals.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Do you realize that Americans emit twice as much CO2 per capita
And do you realize that it does not matter one whit for Earth's climate ? If you, as in one person, farted even a million times more methane than an average human, it would not have mattered the same - because the average farters number in billions.
If you push social justice agenda, please do say so overtly. Otherwise, please do remember that climatic processes deal with absolutes. Not anybody's "fair shares" or any such crap.
CAPTCHA: refute
These agreements will be used in ISDS at some point ...
They have already been used against Spain and Italy for failing down their solar investments ...
Well, they could do that in the U.S. Trains make up such a minuscule amount of traffic...
"will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." NOT saying 'by humans'.
True. Large-scale carbon dioxide emissions from any other source would be just as problematic wrt. global warming. However, I'd consider those somewhat unlikely to happen, though not impossible (two obvious possibilities would be alien invaders from outside the solar system setting up carbon-dioxide-emitting facilities, or large scale spontaneous coal seam fires).
Also: it does not say humans emit the greater part of all CO2.
Yes. Some things are omitted, either because they are well known (like humans emitting the greater part of carbon dioxide, or Earth being a planet), or because they are to be implied from context (such as the report referring to Earth, not Mars by "globally"). This has the benefit of a finite report length, which helps with writing and reading.
Philipp
Doesn't help the USA a bit. Hardly anyone here rides trains. If we did, we'd still need to rent a CAR(!) to get where we're going from the nearest train station, and that might STILL be 500 miles.
You need a reality check. In order for your scheme to work, you have to invent an electric car that people will buy. If it will not perform as well as a 1987 Yugo in every respect, people will not buy it. If they don't buy it, then you have no solution to the problem.
I see my original post is considered flamebait. Well, excuse the hell out of me, I am just sick to death of these touchy-feely people whining over this problem without having the remotest f'n idea of an actual solution. They have NOTHING to cure the problem. No, living in a cave in the dark with no electricity will not work, most everyone will die down to the levels that hunting / gathering and subsistence farming with animals will support them. That's nowhere near the 320 million people in the country. And of course geoengineering it the ONLY sector that POSSIBLY COULD, MAYBE, offer a mitigation to the problem, but the whiners go all sideways when you mention it, further raising suspicion that their only actual goal for this is to scheme a way to cart trillions of dollars out of the USA in boxcarloads. Well, F that. Come up with a REAL solution and we can talk. But absolutely no one has a damned thing to offer that will ACTUALLY WORK, all they have is ways to diminish the quality of life and harm prosperity with virtually no effect at all on the actual problem. Sick if this, I tell you.
Conservatives do not fall apart just because you show them what they believe is erroneous. They live in a world of denial. Many on the Left do as well.
You are wrong. EVERYONE needs a car that will go 1000's of miles in a short time, because none of them know when they're going to have to get in it and outrun a hurricane bearing down on them, or drive out of a wildfire area or some other sort of disaster. None of these emergencies allows for driving 200 miles and then taking several hours to get charged back up to be able to drive another 200 miles.
And it's not a matter of need, it's a matter of want. If you have your car sitting there in the showroom and it will go 200 miles on a charge, your would-be customer can only think that he cannot get off work on Friday night, drive all night from St. Louis to Vail, and go skiing mid-Afternoon Saturday. Bingo, he buys a gasoline car instead, so you have no sale and therefore still no solution to the problem.
Plus, such electric cars that can perform less-than-a-Yugo-but-are-the-best-we-have are still hideously expensive. For a solution that works, you have to be able to buy them for the same prices as cars on the market right now. If I can buy a $12K econobox and your electric is $100K, or even $35K, I will still buy the gasoline econobox because its the best deal. You can't force people to buy your solution to the problem when they can't afford it.
If it won't do that - if it won't perform as well as a 1987 Yugo, people will not buy it. If they don't buy it, then you have no solution to your problem. Hey, I'm just re-stating the problem, and noting that it has no solution. There's no point in whining about the problem unless you can provide a viable solution.
Want a solution? OK, here's one. Build the hyperloops big enough to carry cars. Build it out so it covers the entire USA such that there's a terminal within 50 miles of absolutely everywhere. An electric car will have not problem handling driving 50 miles. So move the electric car at 700 miles per hour in a hyperloop sled. Pricey? You bet, but it would at least work, that is, if you can get enough solar and wind and such to power the hyperloop in a the first place. I see that the trend has become to at least plan to tunnel the hyperloop instead of raising it on pylons into the air. I'm sure that will destroy the economy of it, making it far too expensive to actually complete when trying to tunnel 600 miles across Kansas, and then doing it about 70 times in order to have terminals absolutely everywhere you need them to allow the pitiful short-range electric cars to work. I'm not sure there's enough cubic money in the universe to do it...
Here in the Netherlands all electric trains ride on wind energy.
No, they don't. All that "100% wind" comes down to reality is about whom do they pay their electricity bill, nothing more.
To elaborate on why it's impossible for NS to run on "100% wind":
1. It gets its electricity simply from the grid and thus it is impossible to control or even to tell where the actual electricity does come from - however, knowing the actual dutch electricity mix, an overwhelming majority of it comes from burning coal.
2. Wind is a rather unreliable source of power - it may happen that the actual power usage of the trains exceed the actual power output of all the contracted wind farms (as the latter number may very well drop down to practically zero) and thus it would be very inconvenient to really run trains with just wind-generated electricity.
Real life is overrated.
If you are locked in a black box, there is no way to determine if you have constant linear velocity. There is also no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But you can detect rotation by using a Foucault pendulum or other scientific instruments.
That's not entirely correct, I think. Acceleration is constant across the entire black box, but gravitational force depends inversely on the squared distance to the attracting mass, i.e. the force should be slightly different at the top and bottom of the box.
What is the European Foundation?
that's a pretty stupid point. it seems pretty fucking obvious that it takes more energy to keep 1.4 billion people alive than it does 300 million. ignoring reality is not going to win anyone to your stupid misguided side.
i can't tell if you're deeply stupid, or if you merely think the people reading your post are deeply stupid.
China's emissions per year has been falling, and they canceled all new coal power plants 2 years ago.
"Per capita rates are a red herring" - only to those that are total wasters. China's population is many times larger than most places so their total pollution is bound to be larger, just imagine if its "per capita" usage was the same as the USA. They are also leading the world in solar and also shutting down polluting factories, they are working on their problem. Those 700 coal power stations are around the world, not just china. China has big paws in Africa and many other small struggling nations.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And it's too hot down here in the summer.
Plus Donna's crazy claims were debunked as her intentionally lying to sell a book by the DNC producing the actual documents she lied about in under an hour after her claim.
Here's a hint, Donna thought July 2016 was August 2015 and confused two documents.
all you are doing is inviting mass migration to your area as it gets too hot, dry and a lack of water in those hotter areas.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
What is the European Foundation?
I assume a made up organisation that sounds vaguely official?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
thats what ignorant trolls do best as they have a lack of understanding.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It was also debunked, 3/4ths of that paste is drivel that has no basis in facts, and the last 1/4th require you to have quit studying science after learning step 3 of the scientific method.
i can't tell if you're deeply stupid, or if you merely think the people reading your post are deeply stupid.
Not or, but and.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Source?
Nobody would have expected it!
...and fossil fuel consumption curbs sexual assault because you can't do it with the lights on. Seriously, if such morons can get government positions or even become president, why am I worried about losing my job. US politics seems to be the career path for the dumb and inept. I guess I'd be overqualified, but do not have a chance anyway because I did not inherit millions from my dad's shady businesses.
If you are serious about the removal of CO2, I suggest a ban on CO2 injection into beverages (e.g. soda pop). That costs nothing to do and will have an immediate effect.
Not only will it reduce the CO2 footprint, it will improve your health!
How many of you will take me up on that?
...that says climate is warming and humans are the cause than that just cinches things up.
We don't need no steenkin' scientific method when we've got massive government reports. Everybody had damned well better fall in line now because a massive government report means the science is settled and anyone who doesn't immediately begin nodding their heads in agreement is the proper target of invective and threats.
People have to understand that in the twenty-first century science is no longer encumbered by the need for a demonstration of the validity of a hypothesis. If enough scientists decide a hypothesis is verified than by God, it's verified.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
As Einstein said, everything is relative...
We, he seems like an expert on the subject, considering he was banging his cousin.
So there's that.
We burn carbon in order to do useful things. We measure the usefulness of things with money. "Waste" means burning carbon without doing something useful.
So the relevant metric isn't a country's total CO2 emissions, or CO2 emission per capita, but CO2 emission per dollar of GDP. If one country emits more CO2 per GDP than another one, you can decrease CO2 emissions by moving production from the former to the latter, while maintaining the same total production.
And on that score, the US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton. European countries (Germany, Netherlands, UK, etc.) are around $4000/ton.
I'm pretty sure a question can't be contradicted, only answered with some form of, "you're wrong".
Global Warming is 100% BS and lies.
How do you say Ritalin in Russian?
but if AGW is as bad as you claim it is - life ending etc, then China is
Choke on your borscht, Alexei.
I flipped a heads, then a tails, then a tails. Therefore, the coin is broken. It should go heads, tails, heads, tails...
GP's post is slightly inaccurate in that China haven't cancelled all of their plants, but they have massively scaled back. In the meantime Trump has pulled us Out of the Paris Accord and is actively planning To ramp up coal use.
Tell me again which country is the bad actor?
Per capita rates are a red herring.
The environment does not care about per capita rates. The environment is affected by absolutes.
While this is true, it's also a huge fallacy. Given there are 300 million Americans farting, producing twice the quantity of methane than a ranch full of cows, it's more productive to reduce the methane emissions of that farm than it is to shove a cork up the butts of every American.
You're right. The environment doesn't care who you are or where you arbitrarily draw some boundary. So we're back to what is *your* emission, and guess what, it's a fuckload higher than those of your Chinese counterpart.
Okay, a troll?
No. Absolute disgust.
I know climate change is real and happening.
But conclusions like this help exactly nothing.
It's about as useful to furthering climate science and solutions as the kid from Kindergarten Cop standing up with the "boys and girls" genital line.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Decent rebuttal. :-)
I'd like to chime in just to say that the reliability of wind energy and trains in the Netherlands might therefor not be coincidentally correlated...
I've moved to Switzerland almost 20 years ago, so meanwhile the NS may have improved, but in the other hand, the Swiss railways set an awfully high bar, perhaps even higher than the ticket prices they demand...
about whom do they pay their electricity bill, nothing more.
That is all you need. When you preference giving company extra money over their competition because they are greener then the competition starts dying. You can see this too in the Netherlands who just opened a new coal plant last year. The company who did so immediately wrote down 2.9bn euro off their value and questioned the long term viability of what they just built as the cost of wholesale electricity plummets due to customers literally gifting the greener part of the industry in exchange for killing the dirty.
Directing your money in the appropriate direction is making your energy green. That's how market forces work.
2. Wind is a rather unreliable source of power
I see you've never been to the Netherlands. :-) The only thing more reliable than the wind is the fact that the sun won't shine again until April.
Keep up on the news it was both Elizabeth Warren and Donna that claimed the same things; and it was warren who is being blamed for making up some stuff.
But then you're assuming there's subjective context. Just because the President thinks smoking or leaded gasoline don't cause health problems, doesn't mean objective scientists should be ignored.
It's not a "fuck you". It's reality. It's physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Do you think mother nature has a personal vendetta against you when an acorn falls from a tree and hits you in the head? Or a seagull decides to drop a deuce on you while flying overhead?
~X~
To be fair the Netherlands have solved only one small part of the problem. We are very good with localised initiatives (getting cars out of the cities, polluting cars out of the population, running green trains, powering energy efficient homes), but we suck quite badly on the broader country policy. A policy that emphasises making it easy to get around by bicycle, but also does nothing to stop people driving literally halfway across the country for their daily commute to work with more cars per capita than much of the rest of Europe, highways in gridlock that are the stuff of legends. Or broader energy policy that allowed a brand new coal plant to open in Maasvlakte and then didn't punish the company when the proposed CCS project didn't get bolted on top of it.
We're one of the few countries in the EU where CO2 emissions were worse last year than the year before, and already one of the most polluting per capita (though I disregard that last statistic as a large portion of that comes from the industry that exists solely to support the rest of the EU).
Running trains on wind energy is something that can be considered both a no brainer and a good start, but hardly an answer.
Ritalin in Russian is spelled with a 'V'.
"Vodka"
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"essentially driven by Hannity of Fox News" - got a source for this?
"simply sponsored propaganda of a dying coal industry" - got a source for this?
If the industry is dying - how can they afford Hannity on the payroll? BTW - Natural gas is killing coal for economic reasons - not environmental conspiracy reasons.
"the Russian cyber attacks against USA" - got a source for this? All evidence that has been presented so far indicates that most of these hacks were not hacks but intentional leaks.
Since they are planning to build 700 new coal fired power plants.
"Waste" means burning carbon without doing something useful.
Huh?? Waste is the non-useful portion of the output of a useful process. Nobody's "burning carbon without doing something useful" - There's no $$ in it. There are an unlimited number of useful processes that produce waste as a side effect.
Lol coming from the guy who would cut down an entire virgin forest for a new golf course.
on Ritalin
I think you mean off Ritalin.
Good correction!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Stepping aside from what happens with the wind isn't blowing (I'll assume they have some other 'green' source of energy for those times, although maybe they don't?)...
When you say they can't work out where the power comes from, do they not have some sort of electricity meter? Surely they must have to pay an amount of money for an amount of usage to some sort of electricity company, right?
Can that electricity company not say "they used X units of electricity last year, and we bought Y units of electricity from a wind/renewable generator, and we sold Z units to other people". Assuming Y > X, and that the "Z" consumers weren't contracted to buy 'green' (or not contracted to buy more than Y-X units of green), then they can quite reasonably say "all trains run on wind power", can't they?
This is how it works in the UK for domestic (and at least some commercial) electricity purchase. If it's not true because of some reason, then I'd like to know why I've been mis-sold electricity for over 15 years.
Since Republicans are in power, they will stop this socialist global warming in it's tracks . Problem solved!
Since it's all a Chinese hoax, there's nothing to stop. Donald of Orange is always right, right?
I never could figure the Chinese hoax angle. Musta been something he picked up from his Leninist buddy Steve.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There are several points you are missing. Everyone may need a car that can go more than 200 miles, but they don't need every car they own to have that capability. Families with two or more cars may prefer an electric car and a hybrid or gas car. I don't drive my car 9000 miles in a year, and would be fine with one short range electric and a longer range car for my family. My situation is far from unique. Many people would accept renting a car the few times a year they needed more range. Your prices are way off too- there are several all-electric cars available with MSRP in the high $20ks, way less than $100k. Yes, more than $12k but most people don't want a $12k car, electric or gas. Your strawman who is going to Vail isn't going to want a $12k car either. If I'm comparing a ~$30k gas car vs a ~$33k hybrid or electric, the hybrid or electric is probably still a better deal when you factor in fuel costs, maintenance costs, and rebates. I drive less than 30 miles a day, why would I care about extra range that I would rarely use?
Also- 200 miles to escape a wildfire- is that a wildfire or a meteor impact?
I walk to the Round Lake, IL Metra (train) station, about 1.5 miles from where I live, take that to Chicago Union Station, walk from the Metra platform over to the Amtrak platform, ride the California Zephyr to Emeryville, CA, get off the Zephyr and wait 1 hour, hop on board the Capital Corridor train which takes me to the San Jose, CA station, walk from one platform to another, hop onboard the VTA Light Rail, take that to the S. Bascom Ave. station and walk 2 miles to my parent's house every year for the Holidays. No rental car needed. The reason I am able to do this is that I am not a Millennial, I am old and independent, unafraid of the dark and whatever lurks outside.
If YOU are unable to travel anywhere without a car, the problem is not public transit, it is YOU.
Nope. You can't legislate or decree away reality. Reality always wins.
This reminds me of a story in I think either Discover Magazine or Scientific American. It was referencing novel about a Government that decreed that humans would become aquatic, and grow gills and live underwater. Update reports on the effort were pretty funny.
Written during the cold war era, and in Eastern Europe, it was obvious in hindsight that it was a jab at Lysenkoism, the communist party dogma alternative to evolution and biology.
Now that I had that memory awakened, do any of our Eastern European friends have a clue about the title and author?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Blaming "Republicans" or Donald Trump is just silly, when we all know China and India is heavily influencing these agreements for their own benefit.
Cool story bro. So you are saying that unless every single nation on earth is 100 percent online, we just go ahead and drive the bus off the cliff because it's more fair to do that.
Especially odd that the present solution of the Republican party is to re-open the mines and emulate China.
You don't realize it, but your argument - which brings up some very good points about the politics of the situation, exactly proves my point.
You gloss over the science facts then dive right into the politics. That does ignore completely that The Republican party overwhelmingly and their leader uniquivocally deny that there is sich a thing as greenhouse gas global warming.
Meanwhile, you argue for allowing China to control your actions.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You mean, they'll be from China? Did you even bother to read what I even wrote? You realize the USA has some of the most aggressive environmental protection than all of the world, right?
We're working on ending that now. Be a little patient, m'kay?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Looking at that list, you should be shifting your outrage from the US to Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, and Curacao.
Yeah, per capita is dumb when comparing pollution rates between countries. Per country independent of population is much smarter. *rolls eyes* Do me a favour and punch yourself in the face.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Nope. You can't legislate or decree away reality. Reality always wins.
Perhaps not, but people still live in the reality of their choosing.
You realize the USA has some of the most aggressive environmental protection than all of the world, right?
Do you realize that Americans emit twice as much CO2 per capita as China, and eight times as much as India? Expecting them to make equal cuts is ridiculous. The cuts need to be where the waste is.
List of countries by per capita CO2 emissions
We'll all drive the bus off the cliff with our different political spin to make us happy. Meanwhile I suggest you move to Beijing to enjoy the air quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China
Note he was writing of the USA's environmental protection laws, not just CO2.
And he's right. We do have some good Environmental protection here. It isn't perfect, but it does allow us to have a better environment than we would otherwise. Water is cleaner, we're recycling a lot of stuff that used to go into landfills - it isn't perfect, but then again, perfect is often the enemy of good. The one-time air pollution capitals of Los Angeles and Pittsburgh now have remarkably clean air. The times I was in LA I was surprised that it was pretty clear, and Pittsburgh which I am very familiar with, is now a jewel of a city.
We really need to do something about CO2. Squabbling about the talking points will ensure that we don't.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you are locked in a black box, there is no way to... distinguish between gravity and acceleration.
That's because there isn't a difference to distinguish. If you're in a gravitational field, you will accelerate. You may not move, though, if you're subject to a force accelerating you in the opposite direction; e.g., if you're sitting on the floor of the box.
I can pretty much guarantee two things here: First, proponents of this report will demand that we do something this very second before we all die. Second, within a week, the cracks in the validity of the report will begin to appear and within a year, the entire thing will be debunked. This is how every attempt to use fear and crisis plays out. The goal is never to solve any problem, only to amass power.
If you don't like NPR, here are some other sources:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-real.html
http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachel-licker/what-is-the-national-climate-assessment-the-most-comprehensive-report-on-climate-change-in-the-u-s
http://www.themorningsun.com/article/MS/20170822/LOCAL1/170829886
And links to the actual document:
PDF file draft as of June 2017: https://assets.documentcloud.o...
New York Times link to the draft report: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
National Academy of Sciences Review of the Draft report: https://nas-sites.org/americas...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
My friends on the Internet and our Government of Billionaires says this ain't true!!
I do have to say that comments on this thread have the lowest signal to noise ratio (or I should say "signal to troll ratio") of any comment thread I've ever seen on slashdot.
Anybody have anything to say about the actual report? (or about the draft report-- NPR apparently got a prerelease version, but the actual final version is due to be released at 2pm today.
Did you know that China is one of the worst nations wrt co2 / $ GDP, while America is in the lower 1/4 for emissions / $ GDP. This is far more important of a normalization since it is businesses and gov that decide, not u and I.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Slashdot's scientifically illiterate population of twats think it's all a conspiracy from BIG GREEN. Dopey cunts might as well be flat earthers at this point.
Long Live Operation Mockingbird!
And if a Chinese person sold another Chinese person a 10 Trillion dollar bowl of rice, and then the other Chinese person cut the firsts hair for 10 Trillion dollars. Then they would be at the very bottom of CO2 / $ GDP. How much less CO2 was produced...
Measuring CO2 against GDP is even more stupid than measuring it per country. Lines on a map and little bits of green paper shuffling back and forth don't make CO2.
It's what you do with the energy and the USA has done plenty with ours.
So many things wrong with your posting as well as paris agreement. I'm on a phone so will answer this fully later on. However, China says that they will reduce 'intensity', which is another way to say emissions / $ GDP. 2 ways to reduce this. First is simply lower emissions. This is the honest way. However, with china building 35-50 GW of new coal plants, and not simply replacing old plants like so many claim,ZERO shows it will not happen. The second is to change the metric from emissions / $GDP to emissions be/$ GDP(ppp). This is what China is arguing for. By lowering their money relative to Dollar, they encourage more factories there without having to worry about emissions. Iow, China is cheating on that one as well. Then u have ppl like you arguing that China is burning less coal, as well as building fewer plants. China has stopped some coal plants from being built, but those were simply the areas. Iow, it has nothing to do with stopping co2, just where it occurs at. However, China is converting those 'stopped' coal plants to burning methane. Where is the methane coming from? Not natural gas. They are building massive numbers of factories that convert coal => methane. This process is not horrible since it gives u a nice stream of CO2 (i.e. 1/2 of the co2 that coal would have produced ) that can then be buried. What is China doing with it? Dumping to the atmosphere. Iow, they are cleaning up city air, while emitting even more CO2. Finally, China's emissions numbers do NOT match up with OCO2 and Japan's co2 sats measurements. According to them, China's emissions numbers are not only low, but are still increasing. Keep in mind that China is one of a few nations that does not allow outsiders to take measurements, nor allows Chinese scientist to publish those numbers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, trump has said that he will push coal. However, American utilities are not building any new coal plants AND we are closing them quickly. America is already around 200 GW of coal plant capacity and is expected to be around 150 GW by 2020. The problem is that China continues to add 35-50 get of new coal plants ( not replacements ) AND are converting coal to methane which will generate a great deal more CO2.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The word is logorrhea. No need for a phrase.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Who no doubt copy-pasted from some kock bros site.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What a retard. You think the amount of CO2 changes when the exchange rate between Yuan and US dollar changes?
Yuan goes up 2% CO2 goes......LOL (try filling in the blank simpleton.)
More like Haiku...
In the Netherlands
All electric trains travel
On wind energy
Modern civilization dates from the first widespread use of the automobile, i.e. from about 1910. Thus the snippet reads
the past 115 years are "the warmest in the last 107 years."
There's a problem here.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It's simple: If mining fossil fuels is banned by law, then people will buy electric cars or use alternatively-derived fuel. This is no different than what happened with CFCs, lead paint or asbestos. We already have REAL solutions that work well enough for most people, and more progress is being made every day to improve them.
That would not be the equivalent of returning to "hunting and gathering", and your assertion that it would just proves that you're an ignorant whiner with no grasp of the gravity of the current situation. For example, you don't think that letting most of the world's coastal cities end up under water would "diminish quality of life and harm prosperity"?
Okay. Sure. If you moronic assclowns say so. It's funny how you liberal maggots refuse to believe ANYTHING the current administration says, yet swallow this like a $5 hooker in a back alley.
You dipshits are priceless.
China has been taking a role as a leader in making use of coal as an electricity source more clean and responsible. For instance, the country built new ultra-supercritical coal plants (~44% efficiency) before the United States. Chinas coal fleet has currently (2017) an average efficiency of 38.6% compared to the USA with 37.4%. In 2009, China required companies building new plants to retire an old plant for every new one built.
Tell us how much more coal America is producing this year? How much more is it burning for electricity? Both are more than last year before Trump.
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.
China already is at lass than half the level of the US. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to cut your levels in more than half...
I'm not clear on why shifting our focus from a country in which we live and vote to yelling at a country where we have zero influence seems like a better idea to some people.
No, you're a troll, a trolling troller, who trolls trollingly.
In the Netherlands
Journey on electric trains
I ride on the wind
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
China has been taking a role as a leader in making use of coal as an electricity source more clean and responsible. For instance, the country built new ultra-supercritical coal plants (~44% efficiency) before the United States. Chinas coal fleet has currently (2017) an average efficiency of 38.6% compared to the USA with 37.4%. In 2009, China required companies building new plants to retire an old plant for every new one built.
Yes they are replacements, and yes they are more efficient, and yes Chinas coal use is dropping.
But only from an objective viewpoint!
You can delude yourself for decades, infect others, and go to your grave without ever knowing what you missed.
Memes that defy reality do not necessarily get selected out, and memes based on reality do not necessarily survive. Reality is merely a factor within the fitness function.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.... ...and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
So, you're saying that if Clinton had won they wouldn't have published it? I think that's unlikely. I think it was published when it was finished, and that would have happened regardless of who was in the Oval Office.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Doesn't mean Trump won't tweet about how it's 'fake news' or 'fake facts' or 'they need to be fired' or writing up some bullshit Executive Order that declares the whole study and all the data to be false. I'm just waiting for that to happen. Or at the very least he'll order it all burned and ignorned and go on dragging us back to the 1950's.
I keep piling on blankets, putting on MORE thermal underwear, and throwing more and more logs on the fire, and I just keep getting hotter and hotter!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Actually, not to be argumentative, but birds DO use their waste as a weapon--a sick, nasty, disgusting weapon. You're right on the other point though.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
And who really believes all this global warming stuff, not many unless they are getting paid to do so.
Yes there are plenty of people who demand you give lip service to it but as long as you do that there is no threat where anything actually has to be done.
You have to be literally, clinically deranged to see Russians behind everything you dislike. Russians are the new 17th century witches. You would have made a great resident of Salem if you were born a few hundred years earlier.
Do you understand anything about how money and business work?
Yet some knuckledraggers will STILL call it "fake news". Stupid ignorant fucks.
Stop increasing the number of heat producing humans.
Per capita rates are NOT a red herring.
What gives a person in the US the right to dump more CO2 into the air than a Chinese person?? Yes China is increasing CO2 output rapidly, but that's because they are becoming more wealthy, closer to the US. If the world were to catch up to the US standards of energy and resource consumption we'd be totally screwed.
Yes absolutes are what matters but it is the absolute as a species which matters, not absolutes along national boundaries. And every person within this species has just as much responsibility as another person.
That's ridiculous. By that logic, smaller countries like New Zealand and Australia that have high per-person emissions but low absolute emissions because of low populations, should be given a free ride?
You could define any arbitrary sub-division to support a given position. For example, California total emissions would be way more than Rhode Island, but that is completely meaningless because the populations are so different. Should we apply much stricter reductions to the californians more than the rhode islanders? No one would advocate that, but that is similar to the approach of viewing China vs USA on total emissions.
In terms of managing the effect people have on the environment, it makes much more sense to compare the per capita emissions of those regions (or any regions), because it relates closely to what people *need* to be using and emitting, because requirements are also per person.
If we want to work out how much people should pay for government services (aka taxes), are the rates based on the the total contributions of the two regions, or is it per person?
You're right that nature doesn't care about how we measure. In that sense, the choice to measure in these groupings we call "nations" is completely arbitrary and counter productive. Nature doesn't know about China or USA, it's knows about 7 biliion people that are all contributing to the problem. Just some people are contributing more than others.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
You're a faggot with no concept of the facts.
You also are missing many things. First is that not everyone can afford 2 cars. I have 2, but one is 19 years old. I can't buy one for long distances and one for around town, especially since the one for long distances has to also be relatively new or it will be breaking down 1500 miles from home, which sucks. You also miss the fact that if someone is buying gasolinre cars because their electric won't do the job, then they're still buying gasoline cars, so why the H would they drive an electric with a 200 mile range when they can drive a gasoline car with a 400 mile range. My Subaru WRX has a 400 mile range.
OK, you don't need a 200 mile car to get out of a fire, but if your loved one is on his / her deathbed and has maybe days to live, and you're 2000 miles away, and don't fly, then you've got a 30,hour drive ahead of you. That's with gasoline. It would be much longer stopping for a few hours every 200 miles.
And yeah, lots of people drive very long distances in a year. I sold my 3 year old WRX a couple years ago with 124,000 miles on the odometer, for a 41,000 miles per year average. I get around. An electric just would not do, and I can't afford a 3rd car to be driving in less than 100% of the time. Nice that you can get by with 9,000 miles a year, but I can't. There's lots of us, BTW, that drive a lot 'cuz air travel sucks now. The TSA wants to feel you up and the airlines want to beat you up, and I'm not up for either of those, so I drive. Been that way since the flight back from Iraq in 2011. Took just one flight since then, and that's it. So I drive.
Build the automotive hyperloop and I'll ride it unless they get the damned TSA involved with that too, but that should be rich trying to search every vehicle that drives onto the thing.
The bottom line is that with your consideration of short-distance electrics and hybrids, you STILL can't leave the oil in the ground, and so it will STILL be emitting CO2. That's not a solution. There is presently no solution, and may or may not ever be a solution. Casting huge percentages of the population into poverty and therefore an early grave (poverty kills) is no sort of humane tradeoff for forestalling a fraction of a degree temperature rise by 2100. Implement a real solution, or at least propose one that gets to 0 CO2, or quit trying to diminish everyone's prosperity for no actual solution.
Says the AC.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It takes no energy to keep people alive. Electrical generation is a very new invention. To say that global warming can be reduced by allowing total CO2 output to increase while per capita rates decrease is denying reality.
The mod points spent on the posts like the ones I am replying to shows this discussion is emotional ("stupid point", "fucking obvious", "stupid misguided side") rather than logical. Its a series of idealogues arguing their perception is more important than facts.
It would penalize regular people more while leaving the policymakers untouched.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The official report with revised language has more validity than this.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
and thus it would be very inconvenient to really run trains with just wind-generated electricity.
Obviouslly, the railways use a grid. So obviously they know how much wind power they feed into the grid.
2. Wind is a rather unreliable source of power - it may happen that the actual power usage of the trains exceed the actual power output of all the contracted wind farms (as the latter number may very well drop down to practically zero) ... ... and then find a plausible reason why they should have zero wind. Hu?
You are so smart and nevertheless so dumb.
Ever looked on a map? I suggest to look up where Netherlands are
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That makes no sense, as usual for your posts. Western energy sources, even in the dirtiest countries, are still cleaner than China's. Any counterpart, i.e. someone with the same job and lifestyle, will produce less CO2 in the west than in china.
Why shill so hard for the country that is polluting the most? Why change the goalposts so China is always good and western nations, no matter how aggressive they are at changing policies, passing laws, adjusting lifestyles, and expending money to fight the problem, is always bad?
Easy answer: this conversation, for you and many others, has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with emotion.
Per capita is the most important metric.
Every human who is above acerage *easily* can refuce his CO2 output.
And every government governing over such poeple should enforce it.
You are just an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think you're deeply wrong, and Republicans really are a special case on this, different from everyone else.
You're talking about unfair policies, but Republicans protest the facts that other people used to come up with those unfair policies.
In my state, Republicans just tried to remove global warming and evolution from public school science curriculums. The people stopped them, but if more people had been Republicans, we would be paying tax money to teach kids that science is worthless. This happened in fucking 2017. We should be having learning-from-observations-is-pointless arguments in 517, not 2017.
If Republicans could acknowledge truth and stick to politics I wouldn't have a problem with them. I might even be one of them. But they don't seem to think they have any chance of winning the political fight, so they try to undermine the reasons for policies (instead of getting involved in creating policy) and it has become an agenda of dishonesty and misinformation.
Get Republicans to STFU on this "AGW is a hoax" and "evolution is just a theory" bullshit and instead talk about "here's what we're going to do about AGW" or "evolution makes me uncomfortable because it undermines my mystic beliefs" and I'll stop blaming them. As long as they keep lying about objective facts, though, the blaming will continue. We can't talk politics until we stop denying facts.
Maybe the reason we have unfair treaties for dealing with pollution, is because Republicans keep trying to get out of having to address pollution by saying it isn't happening. Well, that's how to stay out of policy-making. Instead of trying to get a fair deal with China, Trump is just trying to legalize pollution as much as he can, and that's going to be expensive for everyone.
Just this week there is a big push in Congress to hinder the business of Tesla that makes all electric cars.
When are you people going to get it? Even if there is climate change, the big push in government is all about money, It's to get control over you and your money.
* If they were serious about going green, about climate change they would outlaw any new plant being built from pollution into the air, water and land.
* If they were serious about going green, I wouldn't have to pay $6000 just for a permit to build a windmill. A permit is nothing but a permission to do something. Imagine how many people are not going green all because of that permit fee. Make it $100 and lots of people will build them. The same is true with permits of Solar and geothermal.
* If they were serious about going green, there wouldn't be any restrictions on people collecting rainwater. For every gallon of water collected, that is a gallon of water that doesn't need to go through the treatment plant, through the filters and the pipes. That is less energy and less ware and tear on the equipment. 100% of all water goes back into the water table, and each gallon I collect is a gallon I don't have to take from the city.
* If they were serious about going green, there wouldn't be restrictions on making your own gardens. Less gas used to deliver produce to the stores.
* If they were serious about going green, they would stop making and re-taring roads year after year. Abandon many of them, let nature and the locals reclaim them. Less energy and waste. America has more roads than any other country on Earth.
I can go on and on but at the end of the day, all the propaganda on Earth isn't going to brainwash all of us into accepting a carbon tax which is what this story is really about. I will NEVER pay any carbon tax.
Don't worry; global warming makes volcanic eruptions much more probable, and the eruption of the Yosemite supervolcano will cause a nuclear winter-like event that will more than compensate for the warming caused by massive C02 and methane emissions. Face it, in the long run the Earth does regulate it's own temperature, and massive global extinction events are just part of that regulation mechanism. Just like parents used to say whenever we whined about something terrible happening to us as kids: "100 years from now, nobody will know the difference!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"The planet isn't f-ed... we are!" https://www.goodreads.com/quot...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The psychotic, murderous legacy of communism on full display. Hatred of free speech, radical censorship, bloodthirsty ambition. Stalin would love you.
I heard a rumour they invade their neighbours with tanks and killings and shit like that.
If they both paid standard income tax on those 10 trillion dollar (yes you're a moron) haircuts and rice then yes those would be valid to add to GDP but since your ridiculous straw man bullshit isn't how things are actually calculated, kindly go fuck yourself.
That's just silly. They interview Republicans, conservatives, even David Duke for cryin' out loud. And this morning I heard the reporter challenge a Democratic senator on a point about the GOP tax plan. There's a reason NPR was rated as more balanced than most news organizations back in 2011 or so, even leaning slightly right.
> China is pumping out more than the US and EU combined.
That's because USA and EU have relocated their all polluting industries to mainland China and are now simply re-importing whatever industrial products they need.
If PRC stopped polluting (producing) the american and european people would be barefoot, bare chested, sans TV, phone and computer very soon. You can't deny the desire that the same products PRC now makes for US and EU people, from cars to medicine, should be available to its own people soon.
Therefore the whole world need to become much greener very soon or there will be WW3, because there aren't enough natural resources and pollution sinks to sustain western-style wasteful life quality for 7+bn people.
Because people there AREN'T living the way we are. Why is that so hard for you buffoons to understand?
They don't live alone in 2,000 sq ft conditioned boxes, they don't drive SUVs that get 5mpg (don't even mention EPA estimates because they don't account for actual driving styles), they don't do 90% of the dumb self centered bullshit Americans do. A giant corporation produces more garbage than my small business, that doesn't mean I get to just throw shit into the street and go "but more stuff blows out of their dumpster!"
We have the most wasteful living habits of anyone on the planet, we use 24% of the energy on the planet with less than 5% of the population.
Some people are murderers. That doesn't mean you get to be a rapist. If you're only willing to change if literally everyone else does first that makes you one of the shittiest people on earth. Congratulations! You're exactly why our species won't actually survive another 1000 years
Actually, NPR leans FAR right, or else
WHERE IS THE LAS VEGAS BASED GUN CONTROL NEWS instead of endless loops about a truck driver
Yes but we can always reinterpret reality to suite our whims. Extreme weather? Cities getting swamped by hurricanes? Rising sea levels? Melting glaciers and sea ice? Obviously God's punishment on the illegal alien Islamic homosexual libtards who have corrupted our country with this satanic lie of climate change in order to steal our coal jobs and decrease shareholder value. Harrumph!
Holy shitty transit plan Batman!
As a real adult, I'd do that trip as a drive to the airport, fly to SFO, drive to parents in rental. Done. Not take 3 days to make a 6 hour trip. And my trip would cost less, too.
Chicken Little, we can all figure out that changing the formula for paint is not a bfg and not in any way comparable to your 'jack boot thug end of a gun' idea to just declare everyone's life should suck because you say so.
You can't even prove global warming exists beyond the natural effects of coming out of an ice age and you want is to let you fucking shoot us for not adhering to your religion?
You're no better than the Muslim fanatics running people over and raping women for not wearing sacks.
Yes, trump has said that he will push coal. However, American utilities are not building any new coal plants AND we are closing them quickly. America is already around 200 GW of coal plant capacity and is expected to be around 150 GW by 2020. The problem is that China continues to add 35-50 get of new coal plants ( not replacements ) AND are converting coal to methane which will generate a great deal more CO2.
Well then, We should get busy releasing as much CO2 as we can! That'll show those Commies! 8^)
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
why? Just because China is a joke and many on the left continue to let them be, does not mean that America or the west should be.
America continues to drop our CO2 on a yearly basis. And in spite of the idiot that we have in office, we will continue to drop our emissions.
BUT, in order to stop the CO2 growth, we need all nations to first stop building new coal plant and then start replacing them with AE and nukes.
In fact, America needs to start replacing our Nat Gas electrical plants sooner, not later. Problem is, that in America, we have about 200 GW of nat gas capacity and most is relatively new. As such, we will end up like China and will take decades to phase these out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why do people think this is a left / right issue? The left and right wing of government constitute one bird of prey, and the people are the field mice.
Not to be pedantic, but it most certainly does require energy to keep humans alive. Or other living organisms for that matter. The energy in question is measured in calories, and your need for it is what leads to your feeling hunger.
Obviously the person you're replying to meant industrial energy, not food energy, but are you seriously suggesting that all will be fine if we just revert to pre-fire (fire itself being a release of chemical energy) levels of human existence?
still chinas problem and benefit for allowing whatever environmental costs it takes to produce that widget for that price, so the gps point stands. that widget has that value, and china is using envirocredit and someone in the us is profiteering.
maybe if there wasnt somewhere to outsource to we would hace better paying jobs and a less disposable culture in the usa
What a pile of entitled assholery. Most of the "useful" things you wank on about are either 1) burning over a trillion a year on the imperial budget or 2) banks passing other people's money back and forth, claiming fees along the way.
Neither of those things are in any way useful to the human race.
China produces less than half as much CO2 on the only measure that counts, per person. It will take America 50 years to drop to the levels of China. Except China is also dropping, so it will take double or triple that.
Only someone who doesnt understand coal would think you need to build a new coal plant to burn more coal. Coal plants in America aren't running at 100% utilization, so easily could produce much more CO2 without building new plants.
Only someone lying, with some hidden agenda would claim such nonsense.
Its simple. If mining fossil fuels is banned, many people will not be able to afford cars at all, thus increasing the poverty level when they have to take jobs within walking distance of where they live (and zoning laws have made sure that they are miles from their work, ANOTHER modern self-inflicted problem by the so-called "planners", 18 wheelers will cease to move at all because there are no batteries that big, and airliners will sit motionless for the rest of time. Oh, you might get nukes into cargo ships, but the terrorists would just hijack them and use the cores to build dirty bombs all over the world. Ban fossil fuels and society would come to a screeching halt, with economic suffering on the scale of Venezeuela. IOW, it just won't work, we don't have the tech, your law would kill millions, impoverish most of the country.
Again, you have no answers. This is not going to be solved by any legislature, it is going to have to be solved by armies of scientists and engineers, or it won't be solved at all. Geoengineering is probably the best approach, but as I've written elsewhere here, the "environmentalists" have a cow rather than to shortcut their bid to inflict maximum harm on the USA with austerity measures to punish this "evil" country, and of course cart trillions out of this evil country to distribute to the world's poor (which will end up in various dictators' and politicians' wallets worldwide.)
Just in case you were wondering...
Just more fake news from the sino-liberal conspiracy to destroy the U.S.
#maga
I don't understand this argument. Value is value. If China valued its emissions more, it would raise the price of its goods to compensate. You do realize why other nations are upset that China undervalues its currency, don't you?
And if you think the average markup on goods purchased from China in the US is 600%, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
CAPTCHA: nonsense. How appropriate.
They will be using this latest report to (politely) beat some sense into their fellow conservatives. The CCL training is for politeness, the Chair of the Conservative Caucus likes to tell conservative members of Congress that others will rant and chant and block your doors, but CCL will walk with you, talk with you and open doors to new solutions.
Libertarians often lurk within the conservative caucus, since they are often more liberty-oriented and individualistic than the liberals.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Everyone with an iq over 80 that made it past third grade. Ftfy.
Gott in himmel, political ideologues.. this is not about politics or gdp or borders or..
We can collectively choose to save the planet (and ourselves), or individually choose to perish. You think there's somebody out there writing about who was right when we're done?
Gott in himmel, political ideologues.. this is not about politics or gdp or borders or..
We can collectively choose to save the planet (and ourselves), or individually choose to perish. You think there's somebody out there writing about who was right when we're done?
This is the way of humanity. Especially when the money is in the hands of the people causing the problem, and the inertia of the others.
It isn't like this is not exactly what has been going on for many years.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Gott in himmel, political ideologues.. this is not about politics or gdp or borders or..
We can collectively choose to save the planet (and ourselves), or individually choose to perish. You think there's somebody out there writing about who was right when we're done?
This is the way of humanity. Especially when the money is in the hands of the people causing the problem, and the inertia of the others.
It isn't like this is not exactly what has been going on for many years.
And I've come to the final conclusion is that people who don't give a damn about shorelines and other life simply like the warmer weather
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I guess the fact that the guy that just left NPR was also the head of the NY Times escaped you.
Here - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
They are about as leftist as they come.
Actually, NPR leans FAR right, or else
WHERE IS THE LAS VEGAS BASED GUN CONTROL NEWS instead of endless loops about a truck driver
Only if you are one of those people that thinks someone can lean so far to the left they're on the right.
No, they'd slap you if you said they were on the right and you were close enough to slap.
Why do people think this is a left / right issue? The left and right wing of government constitute one bird of prey, and the people are the field mice.
Because it is. Controlling CO2 is just a means to an end. The left wants to control you and everything about your life. Health care, education, jobs, political boundaries (aka state lines, etc), even where you can crap and park your own tractor, car, trailer, etc. Regulate everything. Obummer did a LOT of that. CO2 is just another way to bankrupt everyone so they can take over. Guys like Algore get really rich over something that is happening anyway and has been underway for over 1000 years. Just look it up, when Romans invaded England, they grew grapes there and the sea was much higher. So we're returning to where we were. Coming out of a little ice age.
Per capita is the most important metric.
Why not per societal contribution or per dollar earned per person pe ton of CO2 output.?
People can pick whatever metric they want that requires them to do the least amount of effort. Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA.
US by the way, is number 14 on the per capita greenhouse emmissions list, down around 3.25 million tons of CO2 per capita since 1990. from 23.23 per capita, to 19.9 per capita in 1013.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's? Or India's per capita as it is now, while allowing India to raise theirs to ours present per capita?
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions? If we had 10 times the population but emit the same per capita as say Armenia's at 2.9, it's all good, no problem at all?
Dunno about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there.
In the end though, we are all simply going to argue until it doesn't much matter any more. Don't buy a house in the Florida Keys, Outer Banks, or Houston Tx - that's for certain.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.
If the US is therefore responsible for China's emissions, the cure for that is for the US to not buy anything made in China, and when we do not buy their goods, they do not produce any emissions that the US is then responsible for. And the only country that is not responsible for the emissions caused by China's exports is therefore China, following your logic.
That sword bites both ways though, because the US also exports goods. Therefore, other nations are then responsible for the CO2 Emmissions we produce as part of exported goods. Indeed if China chooses to bootstrap their economy by ignoring safety and environmental basic concepts, and not use pollutino controls, it seems like they are responsible for their emissions. Because the counter argument is no one is responsible for theirs either. Fuggidaboudit.
I know a lot of people are going to try to argue that it is somehow "different" in the case of the US's export product caused CO2 emissions, but if I don't get marked down to troll immediately I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And who really believes all this global warming stuff, not many unless they are getting paid to do so. Yes there are plenty of people who demand you give lip service to it but as long as you do that there is no threat where anything actually has to be done.
Let the grownups talk, will.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The rationale is that there are economic externalities. Having established that, the argument goes that if Europe and USA did not absorb the cost of these externalities, then why should other nations?
Well then, I'm happy I live in the Northeast US at 1500 foot altitude. It'll be pretty warm here in the winter during my lifetime, but some miles less drive to get to the beach.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And it's too hot down here in the summer.
Plus Donna's crazy claims were debunked as her intentionally lying to sell a book by the DNC producing the actual documents she lied about in under an hour after her claim.
Here's a hint, Donna thought July 2016 was August 2015 and confused two documents.
What is "Donna's" Curriculum vitae? Or is this just another always never relevent to science political talking point?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
20 gallon car fuel tank consumes 20,000 cubic feet of Oxygen i.e 2500 sq.ft. house https://animagraffs.com/how-a-...
Casteism
Holy shitty transit plan Batman!
He obviously enjoys it.
As a real adult
Oh, fuck off.
I'd do that trip as a drive to the airport, fly to SFO, drive to parents in rental. Done. Not take 3 days to make a 6 hour trip. And my trip would cost less, too.
He has the time to spend on travel he enjoys. You don't. He's better than you. Suck it up, loser.
You attack that imperial budget with your x-wing rhetoric! You are the Luke Skywalker of basement dwellers. Be proud.
Per capita is a nice metric and all, but then you can argue that India and China are completely justified in bringing up their CO2 emmmissions to the pointy where they are putting out the same per capita as the enemy, the USA.
No one is arguing that. Especially as it is complete nonsense. Why, how and for what purpose should China or India or any other aim for reaching the same per capita CO2 production like the USA?
The argument is that the stupid american a*****es should cut back to sane levels.
So do we decide that the USA must reduce their per capita output to Burundi's?
This is called a straw man.
And bottom line: all nations have to cut down to ZERO, and that quite quickly.
Does the planet's atmosphere pay attention by the per capita emissions?
It doesn't, another straw man. However the one with the economic power to do so, should do it, especially when they are the worst polluters.
no about you, but I was taught that the energy retentian characteristics of an atmosphere is directly related to the amount of greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how many people place the gases there. So, we demand that the biggest per capita polluters cut down, and hence in the long run, the amount gets reduced in the quickest way. Of course you could start with those who produce the least ... with no measurable effect :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.