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.
"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.
Here in the Netherlands all electric trains ride on wind energy.
-- Cheers!
We are in a fucking interglacial, it is SUPPOSED to be warming. However, overall trend of the entire Holocene is down. Eventually we will freeze dickhead.
Here we go:
https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Double my expenses? Sure. I've lived in a country where most of my expenses were up to 5x what I'm currently paying in the USA. Medicine? Don't take any. Insurance? that's already 4x the norm for the rest of the world here. How far would I be willing to go? Whatever it takes. You short term thinkers have no place in the world. Most of the things you take for granted, and complain that they are already too expensive, like gasoline and electricity, are downright dirt cheap by the rest of the world's standards. I say remove the government subsidies in the USA and let you people discover what it's like in the rest of the civilized world.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
This doesn't tell the full story.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/14/c_136525357.htm
China is also halting the construction of many new coal plants as well.
In addition China is also closing down a lot of plants that were inefficient and polluting too much in favor to newer versions. Lastly, a lot of these coal "plants" that are being constructed are actually just an expansion of another coal plant that already existed.
I think you don't realize how good you have it. Without those subsidies, gasoline costs north of $8/gal (~$2/l) at the pump. Just like it does in the rest of the world. You're changing your argument again. Nobody was talking about clean energy in the thread you're responding to. We were talking about the price of gasoline and electricity. People in the USA bitch about electricity being $0.10 per kWh. Try around $0.80+ for the rest of the world.
I have a 5 bedroom 4 bath house in the USA and my electric bill is $60/mo because I turn shit off. Same habits when I lived overseas? $200+/mo
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
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...
Yes. We are seeing warming at 1/3rd the rate of the UN IPCC AGW models. That rate of warming is consistent with NATURAL effects due to solar magnetic variability and its effects on water vapor (a much more potent gas than CO2). This is a continuation of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The following paper shows in Figure 7 how badly the AGW models are wrong;
http://www.iieta.org/sites/def...
The observed warming you are showing is consistent with NATURAL warming for the last 150 years. It is a whopping factor of 3 below what we would observe if CO2 caused water vapor effects that the UN claims.
You can call me any label you like, but you are not practicing science until you address the 3 satellite datasets and 7 balloon datasets that all show warming consistent with NATURAL causes. nb: the surface dataset is now 50% estimated and is completely worthless, but I'm sure you already know that, right?
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.
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.
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.