Slashdot Mirror


NASA Discovers Mantle Plume That's Melting Antarctica From Below (newsweek.com)

schwit1 shares a report from Newsweek: Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago. Mantle plumes are thought to be part of the plumbing systems that brings hot material up from Earth's interior. Once it gets through the mantle, it spreads out under the crust, providing magma for volcanic eruptions. The area above a plume is known as a hotspot.

[I]n a study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Seroussi and colleagues looked at one of the most well studied magma plumes on Earth -- the Yellowstone hotspot. The team developed a mantle plume model to look at how much geothermal heat would be needed to explain what is seen at Marie Byrd Land. They then used the Ice Sheet System Model (ISSM), which shows the physics of ice sheets, to look at the natural sources of heating and heat transport. This model enabled researchers to place "powerful constraint" on how much melt rate was allowable, meaning they could test out different scenarios of how much heat was being produced deep beneath the ice. Their findings showed that generally, the energy being generated by the mantle plume is no more than 150 milliwatts per square meter -- any more would result in too much melting. The heat generated under Yellowstone National Park, on average, is 200 milliwatts per square meter.

244 comments

  1. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly if Trump remained committed to a bimbo of a deal, none of this would've happened.

    A "bimbo of a deal" is not a phrase a native English speaker would use.

    I will bet you would also write a thousand dollars as, "1000$". Isn't that right, golubushka?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bimbo

    Bimbo? WTF do you come from? Curious.

  3. Now this is Slashdot worthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With the declining standard of news on this website, we should highlight the news which is nerd worthy.

  4. It's all fun and games... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until a gamma-ray burst or a wandering black hole takes us ALL out. Or maybe just a stay rock or "lone-wolf" terrorist messes up your day.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:It's all fun and games... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Until a gamma-ray burst or a wandering black hole takes us ALL out.

      What would the effect of a really strong gamma-ray burst be? I mean, I know generally we'd have a bad time, but how quickly would it strike, and what would it be like? Would there be time to point to the skies, cry out "Good lord! (choke!)"?

    2. Re:It's all fun and games... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Informative

      What would the effect of a really strong gamma-ray burst be?

      Bad. Really bad. They are the strongest electromagnetic events known to occur in the Universe. A big one can sterilize an entire galaxy. They are most likely to occur in the center of galaxies, which may explain why all known life bearing planetary systems are in the galactic fringes (disclaimer: data is limited).

      Would there be time to point to the skies, cry out "Good lord! (choke!)"?

      Unlikely. The initial burst can peak in 10ms.

      Gamma-ray bursts

    3. Re:It's all fun and games... by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

    4. Re:It's all fun and games... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      They would not sterilize the galaxy.
      They only would kill life on the side of the planet facing the burst.
      Hence half of the landmass and most of the water life will be unharmed.

      On top of that: a gamma burst will basically escape along the rotation axis of the object that is emitting it. Which is an extremely small beam.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:It's all fun and games... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Well I guess if you're happy with breathing nitrogen oxides, you'll be fine.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:It's all fun and games... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Gamma ray bursts typically have a beam angle between 3 and 20 degrees. Two beams are formed, opposite to each other, likely from the poles of the object that causes the burst. There are different types, the longer more powerful ones can convert up to a few suns worth of mass to energy in a handful of seconds. Smaller, more common, ones usually only convert about one thousandth as much. The effect on earth depends on the intensity, you would need to be within a few tens of light years and take a direct hit for it to cause epic devistation. However you can be moderately affected if you are within about 8000 light years. Roughly 1000 or so have hit earth since it formed. Even the strongest ones don't annihilate nearby star systems, much less the entire galaxy.

    7. Re:It's all fun and games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make all of our frogs turn gay. And then there's the computers. Goatse everywhere.

    8. Re:It's all fun and games... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about Yellowstone. That and the "stray rock" are much more likely than a GRB or a random black hole. At least I'll be a safe distance away when New Madrid flips, if all those Oklahoma earthquakes are releasing its energy.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    9. Re:It's all fun and games... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Would dogs and cats be living together?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    10. Re:It's all fun and games... by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Would dogs and cats be living together?

      Mass hysteria!

    11. Re:It's all fun and games... by eddeye · · Score: 1

      Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

      Whew. That doesn't sound so bad. For a minute there I was worried...

      --
      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
    12. Re:It's all fun and games... by dead_user · · Score: 1

      Total protonic reversal.
      Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

      God I miss being 12.

    13. Re:It's all fun and games... by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      what would really happen?
      or if you're serious, why would our molecules "explode"? I don't know jack shit about this stuff.

    14. Re:It's all fun and games... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      A big one can sterilize an entire galaxy.

      Citation required. Most models of GRBs also have the radiation being strongly beamed (a few degrees beam divergence), so while it's path of death and destruction could stretch from one end of a galaxy to the other, it's not likely to take out an entire galaxy (under most circumstances).

      They are most likely to occur in the center of galaxies, which may explain why all known life bearing planetary systems are in the galactic fringes (disclaimer: data is limited).

      Again, citation required. GRBs require vigorous interaction of compact objects. Compact objects get scattered by gravitational interactions, which spreads them away from their formation regions. I can't think of a mechanism that would preferentially concentrate them into the centres of (symmetrical) galaxies. I'd expect them to be concentrated in star-forming regions, from where they diffuse. If they have time.

      Citations :

      "The ubiquitously star-forming nature of the GRB host population is one of several lines of evidence linking GRBs to massive stars" (in Introduction to Long-Duration Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies in Emission and Absorption, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.007...)
      "In contrast GRBs occur in small, relatively low mass galaxies with high specific and surface star formation rates, and have a spiral fraction of only â¼10%." (in The host galaxies of core-collapse supernovae and gamma ray bursts, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.504...)

      Would there be time to point to the skies, cry out "Good lord! (choke!)"?

      Unlikely. The initial burst can peak in 10ms.

      This would (possibly) take out the Thargoids on one hemisphere of the planet. Several hundred km of rock (modest asteroid or moonlet) protects against gamma rays pretty well and very few planets or moons rotate in less than a few hours. There would be atmospheric effects, but also confined to one hemisphere and taking months to propagate to the rest of the planet. A bad hair day for sure. Lots of diaries stop in the next days, weeks and months. Global mass extinction ... rather more dubious. Unless you're pretty close to the source.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    15. Re:It's all fun and games... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Un-considered hyperbole.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:It's all fun and games... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      New Madrid is in Missouri isn't it? And the faults are a deep-running Caledonide trend, IIRC. So multiple kilometres below the intervals fracked in Oklahoma.

      New Madrid is pretty central in the continental USA, so it's closer to Oklahoma (where ever that is ; I'm not American and don't either know or care) than a lot of the country. But it's probably further than the couple of kilometres range of fracking-induced fracturing.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:It's all fun and games... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's been a LONG time since we had a complete extinction event on Earth. Another one is extremely unlikely to occur in the next few centuries.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Alternate theory: Maybe PopeRatzo is also a political sock puppet account.
    And the next question is whether this post about his dick makes it more likely that he's controlled by Don or Vlad.

    tl;dr: PopeRatzo: Trollin' since forever.

  6. Mantle plumes are not controversial science by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... but I’m not sure what’s going on with the idiots posting further up in this discussion.

    In addition to Yellowstone, there’s the plume responsible for the Hawaiian Islands. Interestingly, as the tectonic plate shifts, the plume remains more or less in the same place below it. Currently it’s under the Big Island (obviously); you can see the direction that the plate is moving by looking at the chain of islands.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It's the climate change deniers, they think that a mantle plume in the antarctic means they can blame climate change on that plume. But that would require the plume to start around the industrial revolution (to match the CO2/temp data), and be a worldwide effect, both poles, north and south, and all ice sheets around the world, every glaciers. A plume under each one.

      I view it as positive, the usual denial for the ice melts is to pretend there is no melt. A discovery of a plume that help explains why the ice is breaking up faster than predicted in Antarctic, and the latching onto that by the trolls, is really acceptance that the ice is melting. The trolls accept the ice is melting, but shift the excuse of the cause.

      So ice melting faster than expected in the south pole, how much faster do we need to implement the sea defenses. What are the consequences? What is the effect on the sea defenses predictions, is there any desalination species die-off possible, as from the North pole melt etc.

    2. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shift the excuse

      Except the AGW folks pretty much never deny that the ice is melting. They deny that POOR STARVING POLAR BEARS ARE FLOATING ON LITTLE CHUNKS OF ICE WOE IS ME BUY AL GORE'S MAGNIFICENT CFLS, which is not at all the same thing.

      The reasoning, of course, denies man-made influence. Which personally, I think is daft. You only have to look at the dust bowl debacle to comprehend that, yes, we as a species are capable of altering our environment on a scale never before imagined by life.

      So, here you're just switching one denial of man-made influence for literal proof of non-man-made influence. Ice is melting due to mantle woo, let's run our A/C while having the windows open, woooOOoooOOooooOooo.

      Not an improvement.

    3. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by bistromath007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The usual denial hasn't been to deny melting for like thirty years at least. Instead, it's posited that the melting is due to a natural cycle; we're coming out of an interglacial period and back into bed normalcy. The ice caps haven't existed for most of Earth's history, you know.

      Some of the people who don't buy AGW are actually scientists who modify their theories occasionally, believe it or not. That's where the crazy conspiracy shit comes from. There are some sound ideas in mainstream ecology, but so much stock has been put into shutting out legit dissenters that it makes them indistinguishable from dissenting crackpots. It should be obvious to everyone that this movement is more financially motivated than anything else.

    4. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      "back into bed"

      No, that is where I should definitely not post from. Slashdot has always been janky with my phone keyboard for some reason.

    5. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Currently it’s under the Big Island (obviously)

      Actually, it is under Lo'ihi.

      you can see the direction that the plate is moving by looking at the chain of islands.

      Kure is the last island in the chain, and is the northernmost coral atoll in the world. Beyond that there is a chain of seamounts that have eroded below sea level. The last is more than 80 million years old, and is on the edge of the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench, a subduction zone near Russia. It is likely that even earlier seamounts once existed, but they have been subducted back into the mantle.

    6. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're in an interglacial, coming out of an ice age...ice is SUPPOSED to melt. We're still a few degrees colder than the last interglacial, and if you look at the graphs they (their temps) do spike rapidly (for certain values of rapidly).

      That said, the wiki is amusing for both saying AGW started a thousand years ago, and that dinosaur-farts caused the Jurassic global-warming. Also amusing is how our atmo can have a 'runaway tipping point', but the plume heating under the ice can't? Something something phase change latent heat

    7. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      ... but I’m not sure what’s going on with the idiots posting further up in this discussion.

      Wow, have I, idiot been summoned?

      I never bought the "Iron Sky" story about Nazis fleeing the second world war to set up a base on the dark side of the moon. However, the Germans did have a fetish for U-Boots, so them setting up a secret base on Antarctica would not be implausible. The heat under the ice in Antarctica could be coming from the secret Nazi base.

      Them warming up their Sauerkraut could explain the plume.

      Sauerkraut is rich in vitamin C, and was discovered by Captain Cook to cure scurvy.

      In addition to Yellowstone, there’s the plume responsible for the Hawaiian Islands.

      Yeah, so I understand how the German U-Boots could get to Hawaii to set up a secret base there . . . but Yellowstone sounds like more of a challenge for folks wanting to visit there using German WWII U-Boots.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "climate change deniers" What is that? I have never hear anyone deny that the climate is changing. It does that all the time and has done so for all time. Is this just a childish attempt to label people to make them less credible? (kinda like calling Trump a racist?)

    9. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by blindseer · · Score: 1

      but they have been subducted back into the mantle.

      Would that be "basalt to basalt, crust to crust"?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of shit. DROUGHT cause the dust bowl. Just like it causes the fires in the west.

      To say that man can affect the earth like that is just plain stupid. Guess what, when it fucking rained again, the land was fruitful again.

    11. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The usual denial hasn't been to deny melting for like thirty years at least.

      It's weird then, that we haven't seen any climate contrarians responding to the denialists who say that volcanism is triggering the melting of the polar caps: and the related theory, that volcanism is causing the climate to warm. DOn't you guys care about this misrepresentation of your 'usual' theory?

      What IS this theory anyway? Is there evidence to support this theory?

      Instead, it's posited that the melting is due to a natural cycle; we're coming out of an interglacial period and back into bed normalcy.

      (a) What natural cycle?

      (b) Does this cycle appear in the climate record?

      (c) What triggered this cycle to start just when the industrial revolution started?

      (d) What suppressed the (experimentally proven) warming that otherwise would have occurred due to increased concentrations of CO2? Is the CO2 we released somehow different to the CO2 that was there before? How?

      Some of the people who don't buy AGW are actually scientists who modify their theories occasionally, believe it or not. That's where the crazy conspiracy shit comes from. There are some sound ideas in mainstream ecology, but so much stock has been put into shutting out legit dissenters that it makes them indistinguishable from dissenting crackpots.

      On numerous occasions I've asked denialists here on Slashdot to provide evidence for their posited theories, and they have not done so. I've been here for more than 10 years, asking for evidence. No evidence has been forthcoming. You want to know why people don't believe you?

      That's your answer.

    12. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Yes drought set up the dust bowl but poor agricultural practices exacerbated it greatly.

    13. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No, coming out of the last ice age (glaciation) ended about 8,000 years ago. Since that time the climate has been slowly cooling as you would expect from an examination of Milankovitch cycles. Each interglacial is a bit different because the individual cycles that make up Milankovitch cycles don't synchronize that well. There's no reason to expect that just because the last interglacial was a bit warmer that this one would be just as warm.

    14. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The proper term is "climate science deniers".

    15. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Megol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...
      You know.... No, you obviously doesn't...

      How about this: polar bears often starve. That is well documented since people first saw one. The conditions where they live are generally pretty hard even for something so well-adapted. Polar bears also often seek out the edge of ice-fields in order to increase chances of getting some food. That means that they are prone to located on "LITTLE CHUNKS OF ICE". Most time they can swim back to solid ice - sometimes they can't.

      The rest of your idiotic crap I'll not touch. Anybody that thinks Al Gore have anything to do with anything really should get their brain examined.

    16. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Megol · · Score: 1

      No. No.
      No, No. What, no real effect given the small amount of energy released. What?

      If I light a match it will add to environmental heat both indirectly (release of contained greenhouse gases) and directly (energetic reaction releasing heat). But it doesn't matter. You typing the crap above contributes more both indirectly and directly. As does me replying to a crazy AC.

      The only real connection to GW research is that this can help compensate measurements showing increased melting in this region - which is just another thing showing scientists trying to do science and continually refining their techniques in order to understand and predict how the world works.

    17. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Climate Skeptic" isn't really an appropriate term either.

      Ignoring evidence because it allows you to continue the status quo (blasting AC in summer, driving cars everywhere, massive industry giving you tons of plastic junk) is the exact opposite of skepticism. I would like to think of myself as skeptical of the climate change evidence (that is, perhaps some of the worst-case models are overestimates, perhaps natural cycles are coming into play as well, etc). Yet, considering the striking evidence collected by NASA over the last decade, retreating glaciers all over the world, increased violent storm activity potentially resulting from warming ocean waters, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (90+%), the fact that even large financial firms and oil companies who stand to benefit from ignoring climate change are incorporating climate models into their forecasts, not to mention the crazy amounts of pollution produced by 7+billion people every day... I would say it is ignorant and negligent to our descendants to not take action at this point, even if we're being a little overly-conservative here...

      If you look at it from a cost-benefit analysis prospective, I would gladly risk a percent or two of global GDP per year potentially over nothing if it could mean (even on an off chance) that it could drastically improve the well-being of future humans' lives. Especially since cleaner technology will have the added benefits of conserving scarce resources (such as oil), reducing pollution related health effects (and their financial burdens to society) and making our cities less nasty.

      I can be skeptical and still be cautious as well, even if it means giving up a few comforts I have grown accustomed to.

    18. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy theories? Like, in, there is ice over volcanoes in the artic also, but blame man for global warming? Dont investigate because it's the area the northern fleet hangs at, may find a sub with the same tools? Or how about, co2 is bad for humans, but good for plants, kills one, make the other grow better, settled science? Or paid science? GMO good? GMO bad? Which side paid for the results this time? Oh, our universe is coming out of a dust cloud, could life on earth be in trouble for the next thousand years, till we get to the next dust cloud? What feeds the sun, to keep it lit up?

    19. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your worried about air conditioning, data centers and the internet are a huge problem.

    20. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a graph here that will answer most of the questions. As you can see, the cycles started many hundreds of thousands of years ago.

    21. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Layzej · · Score: 1

      This graph illustrates nicely: https://www.climate.gov/sites/...

      Something happened over the last hundred or so years to abruptly reverse our course... but what?

    22. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your answer.

      To an offtopic question. This thread IS NOT about Global Warming!

    23. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The graph shows an increase, leveling off, and a decrease over a period of about 12,000 years. Did you pass 5th grade math? You should be able to read a simple trend line.

    24. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you realize what you're saying. 1% of GWP(in 2016 numbers) amounts to $700 billion dollars. It would be the equivalent of Wal-Mart shutting its doors tomorrow, and 1.2 million people worldwide losing their jobs. That's a conservative estimate, because I'm not accounting for ancillary employers. A lot of people would die in your scenario.

    25. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called the Michael Mann Fake Hockey Stick Graph and the U.K. Emailgate Hide The Decline Scam.

      That's what happened. Liars lie, they produce bullshit graphs to back their political agendas. Mann in particular. Go look up how real public history of statements. He is truly deplorable as a scientist but a great propagandist.

    26. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Interesting line in the description "Human deforestation and burning of fossil fuel has raised atmospheric CO2 to over 380 ppm in the last century, well above pre-industrialized levels, and "off the scale" of this graph top."

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    27. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore made a lot of money talking about climate change. Do not for a moment believe he cares about the planet while taking private jets to his speeches. http://www.bankrate.com/lifestyle/celebrity-money/al-gore-net-worth/

    28. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Megol · · Score: 1

      For those that doesn't understand why 0.15W/m^2 on a limited area would have no real effect do search for the levels of energy the same area would get from the sun (averaged over the year of course).

    29. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... As does me replying to a crazy AC....

      I've noticed that the ones who complain about AC's are always the high ID [+2,000,000] users, who are, as far as I see, also perfectly anonymous with a fancy [and most of the time instantly forgettable] handle. Please stop this ridicule trend. There's a reason for going AC. In fact, the smartest people nowadays, anywhere on the Internet, are AC's.

      Open your eyes.

    30. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wut.

    31. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never liked the phrase "climate science denier", it comes across too much like "heretic". Science is fact based. The truth on climate change is that we have a lot of facts (measurements, etc), but it's not so easy to prove the predictions. Shouting down everyone who doesn't buy your unproven predictions is bullshit.

    32. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You can spend 1% of GWP now or 5% of GWP in 30 years.

    33. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the climate change deniers...

      I was wondering how long before some asshole tries to blame Trump, Republicans, white males, etc.
      Liberals are so boringly predictable.

    34. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can spend 1% of GWP now or 5% of GWP in 30 years.

      In 30 years it will be SEP...

      (Somebody Else's Problem)

    35. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      ... but I'm not sure what's going on with the idiots posting further up in this discussion.

      Wow, have I, idiot been summoned?

      No. I think *I* was being summoned...

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    36. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      This would seem to be evidence against the posited theory. At no point on the graph does the atmospheric CO2 reach anything LIKE the levels we are currently experiencing.

    37. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have dust bowl deniers now? Jesus Christ.

      It takes nothing more than a quick glance at Google Earth to see that humans can alter millions of acres of farmland. Because all that farmland used to not be.

      But this has nothing to do with global warning. Which some quick back of the envelope math regarding daily gas sales will show to be super pausible at worst.

    38. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore could have made shit tons of money as a lobbyist, a lawyer, a consultant to CEOs, or sitting on a couch drinking vodka. Vice Presidents don't end up poor. He chose to do what he does because he believes it.

      A rich person who is in favor of higher taxes for the rich is not a hypocrite for not paying extra on his taxes. It wouldn't help anything.

      Similarly, Al Gore sitting in his basement shivering with no lights on helps far less than his traveling and speaking.

      He could cut back more. But that's not the point. The point is to encourage renewables and constructive legislation.

      This also ignores the fact that he tries to invest in carbon offsets to undo the damage done by that travel.

    39. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      All the climate science deniers have to do is come up with some science that explains the observations as well as or better than the current climate science. But they don't do that. They just loudly proclaim that climate scientists are in it for the money or some global communistic plot. They claim climate scientists are manipulating the observations when the methods they use to make the adjustments are available for anyone to see and make scientific arguments against. They claim like you did that scientists predictions are bullshit without fully understanding what the predictions are or getting specific about what is wrong with the predictions. Climate science deniers should put up or shut up.

    40. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Maybe take a second look? I think you missed something.

    41. Re: Mantle plumes are not controversial science by Layzej · · Score: 2

      It's called the Michael Mann

      This is by a gentleman named Marcott, not Mann, but it is consistent with the dozens of other temperature reconstructions of this period. It turns out that no matter who attempts a reconstruction, or what method they use, they end up with this same result. Rapid warming up until about 10,000 years ago. Cooling for the last 6000, then an abrupt reversal - an unprecedented spike in warming - over the last 100 or so. Any bold claims you make about what the "ice is SUPPOSED" to do needs to be based on evidence. Dismissing the evidence doesn't bolster your case.

    42. Re:Mantle plumes are not controversial science by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are people who are convinced, for one reason or another, that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, and are willing to believe anything else rather than admit that it might be. We call those "deniers". There are skeptics who haven't seriously looked at the evidence. Typically, when a skeptic does get around to looking at the evidence, they conclude that AGW is real and serious.

      Since climate science is showing us that AGW is happening, deniers have to malign an entire field of science. One technique is to pretend there's a large political conspiracy among scientists to impose some sort of government control over people. The conspiracy is typically US-centric, despite the fact that AGW is studied all over the world with pretty much the same results.

      This leads to libel, in which a denier will accuse scientists of being dishonest and corrupt, when the only evidence is that the scientists came to a conclusion the denier found utterly unacceptable. Deniers nitpick things, apparently in the belief that finding a tiny flaw in a large body of evidence invalidates all the evidence. They often lie, for example claiming that it's legally dangerous to not believe in AGW, citing lawsuits that claimed that companies were perfectly aware of AGW and planned around it while denying it for commercial gain, a process normally termed "fraud".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost every day, new scientific evidence is found that supports one side or the other. The debate is always evolving. This is very interesting!

    1. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% agree. Especially as the debate is about something that doesn't really exist. After all, there's no such physical thing as climate - it's an average of the weather over a number of years, i.e. climate == weather statistics.

    2. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, new data appears every day. The debate would be over tomorrow though if people accepted the economics of anything related to CAGW.

      The reason we burn coal, oil, and natural gas is because they are cheap. We can say they are abundant, reliable, and energy dense but that's just another way of calling them cheap. Solar power is expensive because it's unreliable, diffuse, and not necessarily abundant where it's needed. People tend to want energy when it's cold and/or dark where they are, and this tends to happen with then sun isn't shining. Storing, moving, and converting energy adds costs which only adds to the expense of already expensive solar power.

      How do we solve this problem? Look to energy sources that have a history of being cheaper than coal, oil, and natural gas. Those are wind, hydro, and nuclear. Wind and hydro suffer from many of the same problems as solar, such as not always being available where and when it's needed, which can add to the cost. Nuclear doesn't have this problem, it can be placed most anywhere we need it. We've even put this energy source to work on ships at sea.

      I guess we could say the debate is in fact over, use more nuclear power. We do that then we have cheap and clean power and we'll just have to find something else for congresscritters to prop up as a bogeyman to get us to vote them back into office again and again.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How do we solve this problem? Look to energy sources that have a history of being cheaper than coal, oil, and natural gas. Those are wind, hydro, and nuclear.

      There is no case in which nuclear is cheaper than coal, oil, natgas, wind, or solar. It's not even in the same ballpark. Cost estimates are always blown past like they don't even exist, the commissioning costs are always multiples of the estimates, and The People have to underwrite the insurance on the plant because no corporation will do it, so we ALL pay for it. As usual, you are using lies to sell bad technology.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we agree. Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are bad technology.

      Frack on.

    5. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Drill, baby, drill!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we agree, fracking is the worst thing, nuclear is the most expensive thing, coal and oil and gas are the outgoing thing we need to stop, leaving wind, solar, hydro and tides.

      BUILD THOSE SOLAR PANELS!

    7. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The nuclear cost problem is a regulatory problem.

      If BMW had to design a car from scratch every time they built one, each one would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

      Same goes with nuclear. We don't build enough of them, so we don't become more skilled at doing it. So we over-engineer.

      We should be designing a nuclear power plant, and building hundreds of identical ones in exactly the same way.

      We should also encourage smaller, rather than larger and more expensive power plants. One can build smaller reactors on a production line rather than have to build them on site. This will drive down costs.

      It is so hard to build nuclear plants that we can't create a production line of them in reality, and anyone who gets permission to build one wants to build the biggest they can, because that permission is hard to get.

    8. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I was told the "science is settled". Seriously, anybody who bought that line from Kyoto is a dangerous ass. That's not to say AGW is real or isn't, but if you aren't prepared to constantly assess new data you are part of the problem.

    9. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the government, you are only half right. The cost for operation of a nuke plant is more than other plants. Once you take in fuel costs, that changes dramatically. Total cost in Mills/KWh(a mill is 1/10 of a cent): Nuclear: 25 Fossil Steam: 37 Hydro-electric: 13.4 Gas Turbine: 33.24.

      https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

    10. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, new data appears every day. The debate would be over tomorrow though if people accepted the economics of anything related to CAGW.

      Yes, and if you accepted the failed economics of nuclear, you'd stop pushing it like a child on crack.

      The reason we burn coal, oil, and natural gas is because they are cheap. We can say they are abundant, reliable, and energy dense but that's just another way of calling them cheap.

      Nope. They're expensive. Vastly more so. Like the crack you take on your Cheerios. You just don't recognize the costs since nobody is going around directly billing you for the damage.

      Solar power is expensive because it's unreliable, diffuse, and not necessarily abundant where it's needed. People tend to want energy when it's cold and/or dark where they are, and this tends to happen with then sun isn't shining.

      That's probably why we invented power transmission and storage mechanisms, you think?

      Storing, moving, and converting energy adds costs which only adds to the expense of already expensive solar power.

      Storing, moving, and converting energy is already part of our existing electric grids. We spend billions on them already.

      How do we solve this problem?

      What problem? Things would be the same as before, so it's now a problem? That's like saying it's a problem that you have to drink because you're thirsty since you played baseball rather than football.

      Wind and hydro suffer from many of the same problems as solar, such as not always being available where and when it's needed, which can add to the cost.

      Nope, Solar doesn't suffer from any problems, in fact, if the sun cut off, you'd be DEAD very quickly. You might not notice for ~8 minutes, but shortly after that, you'd have real problems.

      Nuclear doesn't have this problem, it can be placed most anywhere we need it.

      Nope. Nuclear power production requires a considerable availability of water, a stable geological foundation, and it turns out that we also need to avoid flooding, earthquakes, and windstorms. Sorry, but they're excessive investments to make safe, and even when the investment would be preposterously cheap, the bean-counters cut corners and FAIL.

      We've even put this energy source to work on ships at sea.

      And it's failed numerous times there, in the US, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, China, and Japan. And we may have to put up with the military failures, but the civilian ones? Aren't necessary. Which is why all of them ENDED. The military? They're allowed to kill people from their own desperate stupidity, which is why they're so costly.

      Nobody else is stupid enough to do it. And you are NEVER going to get a nuclear-powered car, no matter how many Fallout games you play.

      I guess we could say the debate is in fact over, use more nuclear power. We do that then we have cheap and clean power and we'll just have to find something else for congresscritters to prop up as a bogeyman to get us to vote them back into office again and again.

      Your illogical and irrational fetish for nuclear power is ever more apparent. Sorry, but we don't need to put Congress into pumping more money into nuclear power just to get them elected.

      In fact, all of the billions almost completely wasted in the US on nuclear power construction since the 2000s could have been used to buy vastly more solar panels, wind turbines, LED bulbs, and home insulation that savings and production would greatly exceed the energy production from Watts Bar 2, which BTW, is not producing any power at all at the moment.

      It's shutdown. Billions and billions spent. Still down.

      Thanks, Mr. Atom, how else will you screw us?

    11. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Nuclear is expensive to build initially, given our current regulatory climate, but cheap to operate, and runs for years at 90% or more of nameplate capacity. What makes wind and solar cheap to install is that they are factory-built technologies. But now try to run them at more than a small fraction of nameplate.

      Standardized nuclear, regulated by type instead of by individual installation, is what will replace the fossil baseload. Imagine how much an airline ticket would cost if Boeing had to get a full set of permits from multiple jurisdictions for each plane it built?

    12. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We should be designing a nuclear power plant, and building hundreds of identical ones in exactly the same way.
      And if they fail all in the same way, the people around them are ...

      If solar plants fail, or wind plants, no one dies ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Megol · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power isn't exactly cheap. The systems we have now are more or less the result of countries wanting nuclear weapons and therefore developing infrastructure that can be used for civil reactors. But even so the civil nuclear industry have mostly survived on state financing.
      One of the costly things about nuclear reactors are when they get too old to economically use - dismounting and storing of radioactive parts is extremely expensive and takes a long time to do. With long time I'm talking of short-time storage of a huge amount of materials before they are considered safe to move to a long time (really long time here) storage. Do some search about it if interested.

      Nuclear power is inefficient and have to be placed so that the problems of that inefficiency can be handled. Cooling. Lots of it. Direct access of a large body of water is a plus and the effects on the surrounding areas due to increased temperatures have to be taken into account. If cooling towers are used the normal temperatures and humidity have to be known - high humidity areas means worse heat exchange.
      For safety nuclear power plants are generally built in clusters with an external protective barrier containing plants and support buildings. This takes space and there are requirements for placement of the structures.
      The reactor buildings themselves have to (if being a modern type of plant) be resistant to an external attack or an internal accident. That means a multi-layered structure of reinforced concrete.

      I hope I've shown that nuclear power plants can't be placed anywhere. They are expensive to build, there are many environmental requirements.

      In comparison a wind generator is easy to build, can be placed almost everywhere and there are no extra expenses. They produce much less energy though but distributed power generators have several positive effects in e.g. crisis situations, war etc.

    14. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The nuclear cost problem is a regulatory problem.

      False. We have those regulations because of actual problems with nuclear reactors in the real world. The regulations were created to deal with problems which already existed. To the extent that those regulations are a problem for would-be nuclear operators, they are a good thing.

      If BMW had to design a car from scratch every time they built one, each one would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

      BMW pioneered new technology in the i3 that is going to make that claim completely false. Also, you don't have to redesign a reactor every time if you actually have one good reactor design to begin with, then you only have to change the site design. Apparently, no one has a good reactor design.

      We should be designing a nuclear power plant, and building hundreds of identical ones in exactly the same way.

      Why? No one has yet come up with a reasonable excuse as to why that is the best method. The former excuse was that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter", which was always a lie. Given that this is simply not the case, The People would never have accepted the risk of nuclear power if they'd been told the truth. They have to accept massive risk for no reward. They would pay less for renewables.

      It is so hard to build nuclear plants that we can't create a production line of them in reality,

      So wait, you are arguing that we should build a bunch of reactors all the same, but then you say that we can't actually do that even if we want to? So uh, what exactly was the point of your message? Just derailment and distraction, huh?

      Nuclear is garbage. Uranium is the least concentrated ore we mine, so the secondary effects from the mining (virtually all of which is strip mining) are all out of proportion with the amount of fuel used. The fuel of course isn't actually used, and we don't actually have long-terms plan for dealing with it once it becomes waste. Breeder reactors are sufficiently complex and dangerous that nobody is even thinking about building enough of them to reprocess waste, and even that doesn't deal with all of the waste. If you build a small reactor you have most of the risk of a large reactor, and if you build a large reactor you're just concentrating large amounts of fuel. The only reactors with an allegedly flawless safety record are military PWRs. They require a sizable crew and frequent replenishment, and if the military has had a serious problem with one, they wouldn't tell us anyway — classified.

      We know how to solve the problems with renewables going forward, and we don't know how to feasibly solve the problems with nuclear, so promoting nuclear is evil and/or stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is expensive to build initially,

      And it's expensive to decommission, as well. And they never actually stack up enough funds to do that, and the taxpayer always gets left holding the bill.

      given our current regulatory climate,

      We have those regulations because nuclear isn't safe even with them, but certainly not without them. You shouldn't complain about regulations designed to keep the land livable, since you live on the land.

      What makes wind and solar cheap to install is that they are factory-built technologies.

      What makes wind and solar cheap to install is that you're not dealing with nuclear fuel. It's not some magical property of being built in a factory. It has to do with wind or solar power being easier to harness than the energy of the atom.

      But now try to run them at more than a small fraction of nameplate.

      It doesn't matter, because they are so very inexpensive. The money we save can be spent on building storage plants and grid expansion, which let the renewables do all the same jobs as nuclear. The whole system will be much safer and more reliable. The Grid is pathetic and needs upgrades anyway, so that's money well-spent no matter what form of generation we use.

      Standardized nuclear, regulated by type instead of by individual installation, is what will replace the fossil baseload.

      Absolutely not. There's not enough demand to mass-produce nuclear reactors, and every inch of every containment vessel has to be X-Ray inspected after installation no matter where you build it or how many you build. In practice, every nuclear reactor will always be a bespoke installation, at least in terms of the amount of time and effort which has to be spent on it. It's not cost-effective to build small reactors because of the engineering involved, and you can't just slap a large reactor on a truck and ship it off.

      No fever dream short of fusion can make nuclear reactors a reasonable source of energy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 2

      And if they fail all in the same way, the people around them are ...

      ... going to shut it down and fix it. This fix will also be mass produced and therefore inexpensive to implement.

      You seem to think that a nuclear power plant can only fail in only one way, a mushroom cloud of radioactive debris. That's not how they work. Most every spectacular failure we've seen in a nuclear power plant is because they are all unique, no one can ever learn where all the gremlins are, and if a problem is found the fix is almost always very expensive because no other device in the world is just like this one. Which means when problems are found they might not get fixed.

      We build devices with similar complexity, cost, and potential threat to life if they fail spectacularly. We call them passenger jets. One major difference between a passenger jet and a nuclear reactor is the reactor isn't six miles in the air with no where to land for hundreds of miles.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    17. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      That's a nice rant. Here's the deal though. We can use fossil fuels or build nuclear power plants. People claim that solar power will be as cheap and reliable as coal in 5 years. Okay, so what do we do for the next five years? It's burn coal or develop nuclear power. Then what happens if these promises of cheap solar energy doesn't happen? Then we're burning coal or using nuclear power.

      At least if we start with nuclear power now we have something low carbon to fall back on if solar doesn't meet it's promises of being cheap. Burning coal until solar gets cheap could mean burning coal until the sun goes out, and then for a few years after.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    18. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "expensive solar power"

      Solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time
      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html

      "nuclear power"

      Solar and wind 'cheaper than new nuclear' by the time Hinkley is built
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/solar-and-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear-by-the-time-hinkley-is-built

    19. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      We have those regulations because nuclear isn't safe even with them, but certainly not without them. You shouldn't complain about regulations designed to keep the land livable, since you live on the land.

      You might live on the land but *I* live in the clouds.

      Floaty floating clouds.

      High up in the sky.

      Just living on happy happy clouds.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    20. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      That's all great but meaningless unless compared to an alternative. Nuclear power is not cheap, but it costs less than living in the dark. We are running out of options and a lot of the complaints you've made can be addressed with more development of the technology. A big one you raised is the need for a large and complex containment structure. That's there to contain a steam explosion. We can fix that by not using water as a coolant. What else is there? Lots of things, and we won't know which one is best until we try them in real and actual nuclear reactors.

      Again, nuclear is expensive. It's going to stay expensive unless we spend the time and resources to figure out how to make it cheaper. Kind of like how we make wind mills and solar collectors cheaper by building more of them.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    21. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's a nice rant.

      Thanks!

      Here's the deal though.

      You misspelled "lie" there, though I know that's what you do, so I can translate easily enough.

      We can use fossil fuels or build nuclear power plants.

      And there's the lie, your false dichotomy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so what do we do for the next five years?

      The same thing we'd have to do for the next 15/25/35/50 years to build a single nuclear power plant.

      And that's being optimistic.

      It's ok, blindseer, we know you can't handle that reality, it gets in the way of your radiation dreams, so you're in denial.

      Sadly for you, the nuclear capacity of the world will drop next year, while the wind and solar will increase by a vastly larger amount.

    23. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Fortunately China does not believe any of these arguments, and just ignores the opposition rather than letting it use its lawyers to make everything it doesn't like too expensive by holding up projects for years. It has to get out from under the world's largest pollution problem, and although it already produces and installs more wind and solar than anyone else - cheap early deployment of factory-built tech, once again - it is under no illusion that it doesn't need baseload sources to support heavy industries and large cities.

      China is working on fusion too, and when you people fish for reasons to oppose it because big and industrial, they will become the major supplier.

    24. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      More people are killed fitting solar panels and installing / maintaining wind turbines than are killed by nuclear power plant failures every year.

    25. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that a nuclear power plant can only fail in only one way, a mushroom cloud of radioactive debris.

      Maybe a stupid question, but would not it be better to let the reactor melt completely and sink into the magma? Why is that a bad thing?

    26. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Solar and wind energy is cheaper than coal now in quite a few parts of the world and with the emergence of decent storage, its reliable. Its a long game, it will just take a while to get all the dots joined up as you would expect with a new energy infrastructure. It took long enough for the old infrastructure to get near decent and reliable once they finally decided whether to use AC or DC.

      Some places may not be able to take advantage of the renewables at this point in time so they'll just have to continue with the pollution option, but as more renewables come online and they will eventually contribute a smaller and smaller percentage of pollution so it shouldn't matter too much.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    27. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Almost every day, new scientific evidence is found that supports one side or the other. The debate is always evolving. This is very interesting!

      You're operating under a false premise: the new scientific evidence is piling up much, much more one one side, that which supports man-made climate change. Evidence against it is far more rare, and much of that is of dubious or poor scientific quality and reliability. The vast majority of climate scientists agree, while those who do not are largely backed by political and fossil fuel interests.

      Your statement is incredibly misleading and over simplified, if not just plain wrong, unless you clarify it by saying, "New evidence does support one side or the other, and almost all of it supports the same side." That is indeed how science works - not usually with one definitive finding to end all arguments, but a huge preponderance of evidence on one side that convinces most educated people, until consensus has been reached. In this case, that consensus has been reached, and deniers are simply that - people who will deny any legitimate evidence that does not agree with their tainted and ill-informed opinions.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    28. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Solar and Wind farms with battery storage go up a lot quicker than nuclear and coal plants and can go more or less anywhere. Some of the biggest problems with nuclear is who pays for it to be commissioned and then decommissioned when its run it course and how long before that land is safe?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is expensive to build initially,

      And it's expensive to decommission, as well. And they never actually stack up enough funds to do that, and the taxpayer always gets left holding the bill.

      Well, this is a bit unfair to phrase this way. Yes, nuclear plants have certainly been expensive to decommission. But to be far, we've only truly built and decommissioned one generation of nuclear plants. Most of the safety concerns have been addressed through the decades, and everything we've learned could be applied to new plants, including accounting for future costs. No one knew what today's financial and regulatory landscape would look like when American nuke plants were built, though today we have experience with all of those concerns.

      I won't deny that nuclear energy comes with a host of dangers and expensive practical and regulatory issues. In fact, we do need to regulate the hell out of nuclear power. But we have learned enough to operate nuke plants in a reasonably safe and clean fashion, with new plants potentially being more efficient over time than current solar or wind technologies. The cost of entry is high, and it absolutely should be, but I believe we should still be counting on nuclear power as a piece of the future energy puzzle. The goal should be moving away from fossil fuels (running!) as quickly as possible, and leaning a bit on nuclear while cleaner technologies scale up, and was we continue to develop cleaner technologies and fine tune our notions of what is acceptable environmental impact. If we start now, a new generation of nuclear power plants could be built which, in tandem with increased reliance on renewables, could end our reliance on fossil fuels as in as little as 10 years (at least in the USA and similarly-developed areas). Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the political will to move in that direction, or that quickly.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    30. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The xray everything requirement applies to the current Boiling water and pressurized water designs due to the high pressures being contained. If a different technology with lower operating pressures is used (Liquid Salt for example) the reactor primary loop does not need high pressures or xray quality welding.

      To get reasonable efficiency from the heat to electric conversion high pressures may be needed, but they can be kept away from the reactor.

      A second benefit of liquid salt reactors, is that they can be designed to burn up some of the otherwise waste isotopes.
      See more here:
      World Nuclear Association Molten Salt Reactors. Economics are currently not favorable, but the future could bring a more favorable climate.

    31. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That's a nice rant. Here's the deal though. We can use fossil fuels or build nuclear power plants. People claim that solar power will be as cheap and reliable as coal in 5 years. Okay, so what do we do for the next five years? It's burn coal or develop nuclear power. Then what happens if these promises of cheap solar energy doesn't happen? Then we're burning coal or using nuclear power.

      At least if we start with nuclear power now we have something low carbon to fall back on if solar doesn't meet it's promises of being cheap. Burning coal until solar gets cheap could mean burning coal until the sun goes out, and then for a few years after.

      One of the reasons no one wants to build new coal plants is that solar and wind are already so cheap the coal plants wouldn't be able to compete with them and the reason that no one built nuclear plants is that coal was cheaper than they were. It would be nice if we could get the cost of nuclear down enough to be competitive but there appears to be no prospect of that in the foreseeable future. The only thing holding solar and wind back is that it takes time to build it out just like it took 100 years to build out the existing power system. Once the price of storage gets low enough there's not much to hold wind and solar back.

    32. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Of course the cost of "fuel" for solar and wind is 0.

    33. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people are killed fitting solar panels and installing / maintaining wind turbines than are killed by nuclear power plant failures every year.

      Because we don't use nuclear very much. The time that nuclear did fail, entire cities were destroyed permanently and many people died. When a wind turbine fails maybe the two people working on it die.

      Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.

    34. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. Are NONE of you familiar with thorium reactors?

      Claimed disadvantages are: less development effort until recently, and less "quick efficiency" as a breeder reactor. But since they would be used to generate electricity, and the reaction products are part of the fuel cycle, not intended to be used externally for bombs or other reactors, that efficiency matters little.

      Among the advantages are: more abundant and easily obtained fuel, inherently much safer design (meltdowns are physically impossible), and greatly reduced waste, especially of the long-half-life variety.

      I should also add, as a side note: wind and solar have only been "cheap" where they are very highly subsidized. Which means: they aren't. Where subsidies have been removed or reduced, so have much of those industries.

    35. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know no one has yet built a thorium reactor that demonstrates economic viability. Once they do that we can talk.

    36. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      One major difference between a passenger jet and a nuclear reactor is the reactor isn't six miles in the air with no where to land for hundreds of miles.
      The other majour difference is: a plane crash kills up to 1000 in the plane and a few hundred on the ground.
      A nuclear power plant failure potentially kills millions.

      Anyway, the discussion is moot. If you have the money to build enough nuclear plants to replace all CO2 producing plants, you would be an idiot if you did not put the money into wind and solar and hydro or bio mass.

      But we all know: you would be an idiot who is going for the nukes, you told us often enough ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You have any number supporting that?
      I'm not aware of a single case of death in Germany regarding solar or wind installations ...
      What should be the cause of their death? Thin air?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Here's the deal though.
      The deal would be that you start reading up how nuclear power works, what is mined, how it is processed, what the waste is and what the costs are.
      It is embarrassing that you post this nonsense since two years, get corrected 100 times per thread, but insist to learn nothing.

      If I was your son/daughter I would be to embarrassed to go to school. Nobody can be as dumb as you are pretending to be; unless he is a professional troll or payed agitator for nuclear power (the later is unlikely as no power company outside China is anymore investing into nuclear power)

      https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      A nuclear power plant failure does not potentially kill millions. It just doesn't! Very few large weapons even have that much power.

    40. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The german thorium reactor in the 1980s failed badly.

      India is about to finish one right now.

      The idea of JaneQPublic, that a melt down is inherently impossible is false anyway. I bet such a reactor can be intentionally sabotaged easily.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    41. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the China that was choking on its own pollution, beset by corruption, and teetering on the edge of collapse?

      Good idea, let's follow their practices by having an authoritarian oppressive government that has no respect for human life too!

    42. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      nameplate. Wow ...

      If you have 100% of your power production with nuclear power plants:
      Then 40% are running at 95% nameplate (base power)
      Then 20% are running at about 50% nameplate (load following stage 1)
      Then another 20% are running at 20% nameplate (load following stage 2, around peak times)
      The rest is running at 10% or less of nameplate (peak following, balancing power)

      Nameplate or "capacity factors" are completely ridiculous "terms" for argumentation about properties of different technologies.

      In other words: it is close to impossible to run a country, or controlled grid, with nukes alone. You need pumped storage for balancing power, and/or gas turbines.

      Arguing with nameplate makes no sense, when you get the wind power and solar power for free versus coal or uran which costs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl killed a million. In an area that is not even densely populated.
      If the infamous three miles island plant had gone boom like Chernobyl you had several millions of deaths next years.
      Germany would be similar bad, basically every nuclear plant is close to a densely populated area. The main reason why everyone hates them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      From https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

      "In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources)."

      and

      "We in the United States actually care more about this kind of thing than most other countries, so our numbers are the lowest in the world. The global averages in energy-related deaths are significantly higher than in America, with coal at 100,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs (China is the worst), natural gas at 4,000 deaths, biomass at 24,000, solar at 440, and wind at 150. Using the worst-case scenarios from Chernobyl and Fukushima brings nuclear up to a whopping 90 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced, still the lowest of any energy source."

    45. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Choking on its own pollution is exactly why they're doing this. Carbon is a long-term, more secondary issue with China, while doing something about the unbreathable air in cities is paramount.

    46. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is for baseload, not load-following, so China is using hydro for that. Wind and solar don't load-follow either; in fact, the grid has to be redesigned ("Smart Grid") to allow such sources in the first place. The battery farms that will have to be developed to allow adding of renewables other than hydro will, if they work out, be add to the load-following capabilities of all the other sources.

    47. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl killed a million. In an area that is not even densely populated.

      This is a lie. Chernobyl did not kill a million people. The only people peddling numbers anywhere near that are anti-nuclear groups.

      Less than 100 deaths are directly attributable to Chernobyl.

    48. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Fusion was a wet dream 50 years ago.
      In our times it goes the same way as fission.
      The price will never be able to compete with solar, wind, biomass, hydro or what ever other form of renewables we invent. Not to mention that we are probably 50 years away from being able to build a fusion reactor that is net positive in terms of energy.
      Fusion might be a big thing in space craft propulsion, on the planet: never ever.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    49. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is not cheap, but it costs less than living in the dark.
      I start liking your logic.

      How much does living in the dark cost in your country? Perhaps you want to blame Germany again that "living in the dark" is more expensive here?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    50. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Obviously you don't know how they are constructed.

      Another one just came on line again... in the U.S.

      There have been SIX thorium-fueled reactors in the United States, and all were at least limited successes. The main reason they were not continued is that there was more established technology in the uranium-plutonium fuel-cycle reactors.

      Just more of your famous willingness to pontificate on things about which you are not quite up to speed. No surprise. I haven't been around here for a long time, but it didn't take you long at all.

    51. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      In other words: it is close to impossible to run a country, or controlled grid, with nukes alone. You need pumped storage for balancing power, and/or gas turbines.

      First, there's not too many people that will claim we can or should run the grid on nuclear power alone.

      Second, we'll hear people claim that we can run a grid on wind and solar alone. How? With storage. But you just defined "alone" as lacking storage. How would wind and solar work without storage? You dump your energy? That's wasteful, which just means it'd be expensive. Without storage wind and solar is just as useless as nuclear power.

      If we allow energy storage, like what advocates for wind and solar do, then we can in fact run a controlled grid on nuclear power "alone". We can say the grid is powered by nuclear alone because no energy is added except from nuclear, the storage just evens out the load so nuclear can match the load.

      To argue that nuclear power cannot power the grid alone means that wind and solar cannot power the grid alone. I believe you should drop this argument if you want to claim wind and solar are better than nuclear power, it does not serve you.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    52. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You think people haven't tried? The US federal government doesn't even have rules in place to allow them to license a thorium reactor. They'll claim that no thorium reactor has been proven safe so they can't issue a license. Well, it's hard to prove one safe if no license is ever issued.

      We've written ourselves into a comedy novel. Except it's not funny when it's real life.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    53. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      See what I mean, folks?

    54. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl was cleaned up by 600,000 conscripted soldiers.
      500,000 of them are proven dead now.

      Probably they all died to car accidents?

      You are an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    55. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can use nuclear power for load following if you want.
      France is doing it.

      And modern reactors ramp up faster than old ones which were specifically designed to be base load.

      Typical load following (noT: not balancing) plants are coal, all over the world. How you use a coal/hydro plant basically depends on context ... the 100 other plants you are running determine what you use with a certain gas/hydro plant.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    56. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry,
      you want to tell me that people die to "bio mass energy plant accidents".
      How the funk should that even be possible?

      Chernobyl killed about a million. No idea how you calculate that down to 90 per trillion kWh.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    57. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Pfft ...
      Always full with assumptions.
      Which country was amoung the first to build a thorium reactor? So, yes, I have a good idea what types we are thinking about and how they work. Actually I believe I learned that in school.

      However I'm not aware about a single working thorium reactor in the USA, and a quick googeling does not show up any as well. You have any sources?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Second, we'll hear people claim that we can run a grid on wind and solar alone.
      If someone claims that, he is an idiot.
      And if you believe him, you are an idiot, too.

      So now you want to argue with postulated idiots arguments ... or what?

      I believe you should drop this argument
      I never made this argument ...

      Of course, technically you could have a bunch of nuclear power plants, and a few load balancing plants, France shows that.

      So, I still miss your point, except that you think hat some people claim you can run a grid on solar and wind without anything to perform load balancing.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    59. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Sources?

      Here is mine:

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre...

      Now, as of 2005, only 50 deaths were directly attributable. So you need to find another million deaths less 50.

      Everything else out there is an estimate of the number of future deaths, and there is none that is credible that I have seen that goes beyond 50,000 eventual early deaths (everyone eventually dies though).

    60. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chernobyl killed about a million. No idea how you calculate that down to 90 per trillion kWh.

      Easy, it's called math. Take the number of deaths from an energy source and divide it by the energy produced. There are 400+ nuclear reactors in the world right now operating safely. One reactor blowing it's top it's going to move that needle much.

    61. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably they all died to car accidents?

      That Chernobyl accident was 30+ years ago. They probably died of old age. Life expectancy in Ukraine for males is 66 years.
      https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/life-expectancy-at-birth-male-years-wb-data.html

      I'm sure car accidents, drinking and smoking, and generally the hard life of being a soldier added to that and puts them below average.

    62. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany pays 2, 3, or sometimes 4 times what people in the USA (outside of Hawaii) pay for electricity. I'm sure living in the light there costs more there than it does here. Even compared to Hawaii the electricity is 20+% higher in Germany. We're doing just fine here.

    63. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the infamous three miles island plant had gone boom like Chernobyl you had several millions of deaths next years.

      But... it didn't "go boom". What's your point? That the US capitalists can make safe nuclear power but Soviet communists cannot?

    64. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The cleanup teams where about 600k conscript recruits.
      Nearly all of them are dead meanwhile, however they should be roughly 45 years old now.
      Nut perhaps you are right and they all died due to a natural case :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    65. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I still miss your point, except that you think hat some people claim you can run a grid on solar and wind without anything to perform load balancing.

      What is that load balancing? To make wind and solar provide reliable power it needs load balancing. Batteries? Those work with nuclear power. Pumped hydro? That too. Molten salt thermal storage? That can be heated up with a nuclear reactor just like a solar collector. Whatever load balancing you can come up with for wind and solar that would apply for nuclear as well.

      Then there are air cooled molten salt reactors that can load follow.
      http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-121/issue-9/features/coupling-integral-molten-salt-reactor-technology-with-hybrid-nuclear-renewable-energy-systems.html

      We can indeed run the world on nuclear power alone. Nuclear power is not just base load any more. This system is no different than the load following systems shown for solar thermal collectors. If solar can load follow then so can nuclear. The difference between using nuclear power and solar power to heat the salts is that a 1 GW nuclear power plant can provide as much energy in a day as a 3 GW solar collector. Take whatever price for thermal solar per GW and triple that, then compare it to 1 GW capacity of nuclear.

      Does solar still look cheap compared to nuclear now? If you say yes then you lie.

    66. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      45 years old now? That was 30 years ago? Did the Soviets have a habit of conscripting 15 year old children? They'd be more like 18 to 27, so add 30... 48 to 57 years old now.

      Average life expectancy is recorded as 66 for Ukrainian males. I had an interesting conversation with a Ukrainian and he told me that life expectancy varies widely and is highly correlated to education. Professors, lawyers, surgeons, engineers, and clergy quite often live more than 80 years. A conscripted soldier is not as well educated but they get, according to my Ukrainian friend, excellent health care from the government as part of their military pension. But this does little for those that choose to smoke and drink, eat poorly, and often have drug habits.

      Maybe not natural causes but heart attacks, lung disease (smoking), liver disease (alcohol), diseases spread by sharing drug needles (HIV, mostly), alcohol, suicide, traffic accidents, pneumonia, and industrial accidents, all rank high for causes of death.

      Claiming their deaths to be a result of radiation from Chernobyl would be very difficult to prove.

    67. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I never made this argument

      Then what is your argument? You are not making sense. I think you are just trying to stir things up.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    68. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure. However, the big, big problem with solar and wind is that they're not all that reliable. Once we have the big battery packs in place, reliability of power doesn't matter, only whether we overall make enough of it. That means we can use solar and wind, and they're cheaper than nuclear.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    69. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are really fantastical! As someone else already pointed out, Chernobyl happened 31 years ago, so for people who now be 45 to have been involved in the cleanup operation, they would have been 14 at the time.

      In any case, I would generally expect more than a third of people who were alive to now be dead, so just saying x number out of y are now dead is essentially meaningless. You need to talk about excess mortality - i.e. remove the baseline. And it must be radiation related.

      Anyway, what are your sources?

    70. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Which part of: the clean up troops where conscripted soldiers did you miss?
      They where basically all around 19 +/- 1.

      Greenpeace and the WHO assume far above 1 million dead ... google yourself.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    71. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      WHO most certainly does not assume more than 1 million dead. The last number WHO published was an estimate of 4,000 eventual deaths. Your remaining 1 million deaths are essentially made up.

      Greenpeace are very unreliable when it comes to facts.

      "Google yourself" is basically you admitting you don't have facts.

    72. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I posted the facts often enough here ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    73. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by vakuona · · Score: 1

      You have posted no facts.

      1 million dead from Chernobyl is a bare faced lie.

    74. Re:Climate Change: the debate continues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How often do I need to repeat that roughly 600k recruits where used as clean up teams and 90% of them are dead now 30 years later?
      The rest of dead are the people who lived in the ares and did not leave, and the few thousand spectator who watched the fire from the other side of the lake.
      If you are to lazy to gather informations and make up your mind: your problem.
      I was a witness when it happened, you obviously not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Re:Trump's fake NASA ''scientists" hide AGW by blindseer · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a cover up, I'm sure of that. This is to cover up the discovery of an ancient powerful alien device. This device is called a "door to the heavens", it's a transportation device that uses "Rosen-Einstein bridges" through space-time to allow people to travel astronomical distances seemingly instantly. One was found buried among ancient Egyptian artifacts and the other more recently found buried in the Antarctic ice. I have little doubt the power of this device is melting the ice. Perhaps this device has also attracted some unwanted attention from alien species? If that's the case then they have much more to cover up.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  9. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gonna guess DPRK

  10. Re: Trump's fake NASA ''scientists" hide AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I miss sg1 too :(

  11. Re:Global warming by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    Sure ... sadly this plume is not a global warming result but a work of nature. Thus the melting of the north pole might be from a global warming up, but the declining south pole ice caps could be very much the result of volcanic activity.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  12. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes little difference if Trump personally supports the Paris agreement or not, since it was an aspirational target, the states, companies and people still support it. The people who implement it, still implement it.

    You mean we don't need the government to save the planet? I completely agree. People don't need the government to mandate anything to save the planet. People can do this on their own, assuming the government is not preventing this in any way.

    The problem with government is that it picks winners and losers. One example are these stupid CFL lightbulbs. There's a government subsidy on them, maybe it's gone now, but they suck. I don't know anyone that buys them any more. People will get LED lighting now, or use one of those new "efficient" incandescent bulbs. Maybe the mandate sped up the adoption of LED because people wanted something better. Maybe it slowed it down because money that was dumped in CFL was not invested in bringing LEDs to market.

    Another problem with government is that it is slow. The CFL subsidy is also an example of this, it became obsolete almost as soon as it became law. If someone developed cold fusion tomorrow then it'd be tied up in all kinds of outdated regulations before it could come to market. At a minimum it'd have to compete with already subsidized wind and solar. Subsidies rarely help anything, it can just as easily hurt.

    Trump did the right thing on getting out of this agreement. It did nothing that we could not do on our own without it. I believe that we'd be better off if the government had a lighter hand on the environment. Sure, keep the air and water clean, but there is a thing as taking it too far. The EPA did a lot of good things in the past, but it became an agency without much to do very quickly. Instead of shrinking to fit the much smaller role it needed to fulfill, it grew and created new "problems" to solve. The US Department of Energy was created 40 years ago with the mandate to provide energy independence for the USA. They failed. I suspect that they will always fail because the people within the department will always have the suspicion that if they actually solve the problem then their jobs are at risk. Just like the DEA will never ever "win" the "war on some drugs". US DHS will never "win" the "war on terror". Has the Department of Education ever actually educated anyone? If people learned anything from them then it can't be anything good.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  13. Blast from the past? by Smask · · Score: 1

    Stuntaz?

    /Tru Pimpin

  14. Tectonic changes ahead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Removing millions of tonnes of ice over huge portions of land has know consequences. It caused the upthrust of central North America. At the end of the last ice age it also caused a drastic rise in sea level. If tectonic upthrust created by the loss of the Antarctic ice cap can trigger a volcanic reaction in the proported mantle plume there, then it is possible that mankind could soon see a major event that reshapes our coast lines with a very sudden rise in sea levels.

    Much is not known about the mantle plum under the ice as yet, for instance how large it really is. For all we know it might be more of a zit than a pimple full of puss, However if it is as large as the pimple in Italy or the mega pimple at Yellow Stone, it could burst with enough energy to create one hell of a rough ride for much more than just the worlds penguin population. Add on top of a sudden increase in sea level the effects of global warming the price of real estate in the Ozarks and the bush will increase drastically. Just maybe the red neck survivalists already heading for the hills and stocking up on amo are on to something, having good credit means squat when the price of real estate is beyond anyone without the use of fire arms.

    1. Re:Tectonic changes ahead? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The major deglaciation from about 20kyr ago to 10kyr did not cause huge outpourings from the volcanoes. Through-ice radar and echo sounding can penetrate back to bedrock and reveal the presence of ash beds in the ice, which can be crudely dated. Your concerns are not irrational, but something that your descendants 50 generations from now need to worry about.

      Agriculture has barely existed for 50 generations.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

    tl;dr: PopeRatzo: Trollin' since forever.

    You trolls always hate it when someone salts your game, but thankfully Slashdot has chosen to make your cowardice obvious with every comment. If you weren't a Russian sock puppet, you might be willing to log in and be counted.

    Of course, you could just be a stupid dick. But we can't tell if you're just a stupid dick or if you're a paid Russian troll, since you won't log in.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by religionofpeas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People don't need the government to mandate anything to save the planet. People can do this on their own, assuming the government is not preventing this in any way.

    Isn't going to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  17. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by blindseer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Would that stand for Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia?

    I find it amusing that there are people from California that want to emphasize that California is NOT a state, it's a republic. This distinction is somehow important, I guess because California has a relatively unique concept in law that any citizen can bring a law to a ballot and have it become law by a vote. I'm not sure if this is what defines a republic, but it is certainly democratic. The state has certainly been run by people that call themselves (big 'D') Democrats for a while now.

    Also amusing is how Californians take pride in that the state... sorry, republic, has the 7th largest economy in the world. This is nothing to be proud of since it was the 5th largest economy until Democrats and those public ballot initiatives shrunk the economic output. Just like the other DPRK I expect California to collapse within 5 or 10 years. That which cannot continue will not, and neither have an economy that can continue indefinitely.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  18. It makes no difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter whether the previous excuse was "solar cycles", "a tail end effect of the ice age" or "god is punishing us for gays" or "because cities have been built around the weather stations causing local city warming that's fooling the climate scientists (who have full satellite data FFS)"....

    Each time the reason shifts, its really acknowledgement of the previous denial claims faults. That's positive. They may not want to face the reality of it, or the consequences, denial is human nature, and you can't really overcome human nature overnight. But this is a step in the right direction.

    1. Re:It makes no difference by Imrik · · Score: 1, Informative

      Then the same also applies in the other direction. Other than global temperatures warming, (which is a 50/50 shot in a random environment) I have yet to hear an accurate prediction on the consequences of climate change.

    2. Re:It makes no difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The full satellite data has been called out for having a bias of showing "too little warming." You've lost. Whether the effects of AGW are overstated(or existent in some people's minds), its all moot. Globally, slightly more than half of all people consider AGW to be a very serious problem. The world as a whole is almost split on this issue. Countries with the highest carbon emissions have the least amount of concern. True or not, this is already over. People in the most developed countries just simply are not willing to dramatically change their lifestyle to accommodate the planet. It's not going to happen. All of the island nations in the world could sink and developed countries would change very little. You can keep beating your chest about it, but you've lost. The US has withdrawn from the Paris accords and France isn't going to be able to afford the subsidies to poor families to be able to effectively ban all gasoline vehicles by 2040. Not happening.

    3. Re:It makes no difference by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      you'll need to time travel to about 2100 to see if the predictions pan out. Its a slow process in human terms which, a bit like evolution deniers, many can't seem to grasp.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re: It makes no difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How convenient, eh?

      I also like how Climate Models claim to predict everything to the point that no matter what happens, it's the fault of AGW.

      Real Science requires that your theory is falsifiable.

    5. Re: It makes no difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are easily falsifiable. You just wait and see if the model matches what happened.

      The problem is that anthropogenic global warming is math, not science. You can't disprove AGW any more than you can disprove addition.

  19. Re:Global warming by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    but the declining south pole ice caps could be very much the result of volcanic activity.

    No, because the plume isn't a recent development. It's been there for a long time and was part of the local equilibrium. The decline in the ice must be from additional factors.

  20. All things that melt the Antarctica is AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All things that melt the Antarctica is AGW - non Deniers know this to be true.
    Huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land is caused by Climate Change.
    If you didn't know that you must be a Denier.

    Climate is now changing 1 degree per hour!!
    As the Sun cums up, temperatures rise an average 1 degree per hour.
    As the Sun cums down, the globe cools average 1 degree per hour.

    Awe nooo! This is making me feel all crispy.

    p.s. Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?

  21. Who would have thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That supervolcanos are powered by pollution? Hmmmm...Liberal hippies? Any comments?

  22. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone I don't like is a Russian

    This may come as a surprise but there are actually other non-native-English speakers on the Internet. Not everyone is out to get you, mr. Tinfoil.

  23. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, please try again. This is (interior) global climate change. The interior of the Earth is still cooling.

  24. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by blindseer · · Score: 0

    Did you even read the article you linked to? Under the solutions section it explains how non-government action and privatization can solve this.

    This is really a problem of the "bad" energy being cheaper than the "good" energy. If the "good" energy is cheaper than the "bad" energy then the "good" replaces the "bad" naturally. I keep hearing on how solar energy will be cheaper than everything else in 5 years, even without the current subsidies, so I guess all we have to do is wait for the problem to solve itself. We won't need any more government action at that point.

    Yep, in 5 years all of our global warming problems will be solved. At that point I'll just sell my current SUV to be scrapped for it's iron and I'll buy a new hydrogen-electric hybrid SUV. The local utility will rent my roof for its solar collectors, they'll be paying me for my energy. Utopia, just 5 years away and the government needs to do nothing.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  25. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you just love Trumps dick up your faggot republicunt asshole. davide.marney@netmedia.org

  26. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

    Under the solutions section it explains how non-government action and privatization can solve this.

    And how would that work for the global climate ?

    This is really a problem of the "bad" energy being cheaper than the "good" energy

    They aren't really cheaper if you would also include the cost of higher CO2 concentration and the effects it has on the global climate. A simple solution would be to calculate those costs, and add them to fossil fuel prices using a tax. At the same time, income taxes should be reduced by the same amount to keep it budget neutral.

  27. EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    According to the EIA the cost of most renewable technologies is now lower then many fossil fuel based technologies. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017
    still it is going to take a while to build out, and develop the load following technologies.

    1. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by blindseer · · Score: 2

      If you go to the last page of the report you linked to, where there is a nice chart that summarizes everything, tell me what you see? I see LCOE (levelized cost of energy/electricity) of natural gas, hydro, solar PV, and onshore wind being the cheapest, as I suspect most people expect. Geothermal costs are low too, but I'm not sure that can be used just anywhere.

      Look at the LACE (levelized avoided cost of energy/electricity) which is the more complex analysis, everything evens out, except onshore wind wins on being 10% cheaper and solar loses on being 10% or 15% more expensive. If people want their energy to be cheap and low CO2 then it's wind, hydro, and nuclear. The report you gave just shows what I stated before.

      Even with the simple LCOE numbers we see nuclear cheaper than coal, solar thermal, and offshore wind. As soon as people run out of rooftops to slap PV panels to, rivers to dam, and land to plant windmills, what are they supposed to do? Nuclear. If we are replacing natural gas because of it's CO2 output then we are going to hit a place where it is a choice between energy prices going up or nuclear.

      If you think it's impossible to run out of rooftops and rivers then come out to the US Midwest where I live. Not a lot of sun and flowing water right now, and winter is just getting started.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think it's impossible to run out of rooftops and rivers then come out to the US Midwest where I live. Not a lot of sun and flowing water right now, and winter is just getting started.

      Oh noes, the Ohio River has frozen....solid? Wait, wait, nope. Sorry, the spice is still flowing too. And if the Great Lakes ever freeze solid, you are already dead.

    3. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by blindseer · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of something. Growing up on the farm we had four tractors. One of which had a block heater, starter fluid injector, AND glow plugs. Dad ordered it like this because we needed this tractor to start, even in the coldest weather because the animals needed to get fed. I asked him once, what if we could not start that tractor? He said then perhaps we didn't need to feed the cattle that day. I took that to mean the animals would have frozen to death.

      My little story has next to nothing to do with your comment, but then you said nothing worth replying to. I thought I'd reply anyway to share since your comment brought it to mind. Have a nice day.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Page 18, table B2 shows the LCOE, capacity weighted, with hydro, biomass, and natural gas winning. Solar and wind are well behind. And those are estimates for 23 years in the future at that. You must have a different report than the original link...

    5. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the Great Lakes ever freeze solid, you are already dead.

      So I'm dead, annually. Year in, year out.

    6. Re:EIA DATA problem takes care of itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great lakes have not frozen solid in anyone's lifetime.

      The most that happens is a relatively thin surface layer of ice.

  28. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The US Department of Energy was created 40 years ago with the mandate to provide energy independence for the USA.

    The primary job of the Department of Energy is nuclear safety. It is in charge of the country's nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste. It also does energy research and other related things but nuclear safety comes first.

  29. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by Imrik · · Score: 0

    There is one major difference from withdrawing, the money going from the US to other countries to help them reduce their CO2 levels.

  30. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    write a thousand dollars as, "1000$"

    Oh no! He's a Quebecker!

  31. Little known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There isn't much we know about Earth's internal heat & mass flow. There's not much consensus about where magma comes from (not that I mean to suggest that it's thought that it has only one source). The Earth is not a ball composed of well differentiated layers (Crust, Mantle, Upper Core, Inner Core, etc.) in fact, it turns out, its a really BIG place with a composition that varies over time and space. Mechanics follows chemistry. Heck, we still don't know how long the Earth's dynamo will persist...speaking of extinction level events...

  32. Re:Trump's fake NASA ''scientists" hide AGW by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was buried under the ice to prevent aliens from travelling to our world via the "Rosen-Einstein bridges" and by burning so many fossil fuels we risk invasion by melting the ice from above.

  33. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have our proof at last that global warming IS melting the ice caps.

    Yes, the problem is it's an invasion from the Underground Empire of the Mole-People.

    In other words, this is TERRORISM FROM BELOW!

  34. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by blindseer · · Score: 1

    And how would that work for the global climate ?

    I gave you my answer, the market is always looking for "better" energy so all we have to do is allow the market to do this. In this case "better" is defined as being both low CO2 and low cost.

    They aren't really cheaper if you would also include the cost of higher CO2 concentration and the effects it has on the global climate. A simple solution would be to calculate those costs, and add them to fossil fuel prices using a tax. At the same time, income taxes should be reduced by the same amount to keep it budget neutral.

    Let me get this straight... I pay a tax because my utility chose to use dirty coal. But since this is a burden on the taxpayer the government pays me the difference on my income taxes. How is this an incentive to get off coal again? The utility doesn't give a shit, they want to sell cheap and reliable energy. If this means paying a tax then they pay a tax. So long as wind and solar are unreliable there is a cost to that, including the fuel to keep their boilers hot for when the sun sets and the wind stops.

    This is not a problem that taxation can fix. We need cheap, low carbon, reliable, and safe energy. We have that, it's nuclear fission. Or rather, we'd have it if the government allowed it.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  35. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "place like this", what exactly do you mean? All I see are a couple dozen neckbeards who think they have all the answers with a second of thought and everyone else in the world is stupid. No, can't say I see /. being a place that conservatives give 2 shits about. We've wrecked this site all by ourselves.

  36. Here, mod this offtopic, too, kids. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can afford the moderation, but you Trumpanistas only have so many mod points to spend. If I jump on that grenade now, you can't throw it at someone else who can't take the hit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Here, mod this offtopic, too, kids. by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe I'll join you in that exercise, my friend. Trumptards and other mouth-breathers who spend mod points here won't have them to spend on real science somewhere else.

      The thing is, it's not even trolling to point out that these right wing ultra-conservatives cheapen and demean every site they visit. But in that brief, shining moment when decent people have given up and gone elsewhere, they still have the spurious legitimacy still clinging to the site.

      It never lasts, of course. Before long, decent people understand the site has become just another bastion of anti-science, anti-technology conservative fucktardery.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re: Here, mod this offtopic, too, kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don? Donâ(TM)t you have a rally to go to? Itâ(TM)s beddybye time Don-don. If you take your bath you get TWO scoops of ice cream! Wonâ(TM)t that be nice?

  37. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    All I see are a couple dozen neckbeards who think they have all the answers with a second of thought and everyone else in the world is stupid.

    It's true, Slashdot is still full of Nuclear Playboys and Hydrogen Douchebags. But at least we've chased off the Free Energy Fanboys. Now they're all on electronics experimenter groups, crapping them up.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by omnichad · · Score: 1

    There was nothing wrong with CFL bulbs, when they were made well and had a good electronic ballast. The subsidy made certain junky brands nearly free and people ignored the more expensive better made bulbs.

  39. Man made climate change isnâ(TM)t real... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This proves that climate change is a natural occurrence that comes in cycles. Politicians were just trying to tug our heart strings for more tax money.

  40. I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by emil · · Score: 1

    ...and I do think that we have had a relatively small impact that could be quite harmful for our own survival.

    However, the earth has far more varied climate phases than we have seen in our current icehouse.

    Earth is more commonly placed in a greenhouse state throughout the epochs, and the Earth has been in this state for approximately 80% of the past 500 million years, which makes understanding the direct causes somewhat difficult.

    The Earth is currently in an icehouse stage, as ice sheets are present on both poles and glacial periods have occurred at regular intervals over the past million years.

    Permanent ice is actually a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth, occurring only during the 20% of the time that the planet is under an icehouse effect.

    1. Re:I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      However, the earth has far more varied climate phases than we have seen in our current icehouse.

      We didn't exist and couldn't have lived here in those more varied climate phases, so all that actually means is that it is entirely plausible that we will go extinct.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not follow that because we did not exist in times of more varied climate and that we would go extinct in those conditions that we are directly responsible for changes in climate today.

      Rapid climate changes have happened dozens of times in the past due to vulcanism. Ars Technica has a nice graph depicting them they published last week.

      Why then do we ignore vulcanism as a driving force thousands of times more powerful than industrialization because, "We didn't exist and couldn't have lived here in those more varied climate phases"?

      Why did no climate change model, no polar ice model, take into account the evidence we are discussing here? The models are bad and wrong. They leave out the largest factors in favor of guilt politics despite being wrong every year and ever increasing margins just to "prove" correctness.

      Imagine someone claiming that tomorrow might be -5 degrees, or might be 40, and then claim that the earth as a whole is warming because of humans if the temperature is anywhere within the band but they didn't even bother to model vulcanism and were taken aback by this hole in the ice-sheet. It's absurd.

    3. Re:I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      The article you linked to says:

      Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[18] (see Milankovitch cycles).

      Once again, I have to ask, how is this contradictory evidence proof of your theory?

    4. Re:I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Rapid climate changes have happened dozens of times in the past due to vulcanism. Ars Technica has a nice graph depicting them they published last week.

      Why then do we ignore vulcanism as a driving force thousands of times more powerful than industrialization because, "We didn't exist and couldn't have lived here in those more varied climate phases"?

      Your friend above said it was not due to volcanism but instead some unspecified 'natural' climate cycle. Also, that denialists who claim that the recent warming is due to volcanism are discrediting the mainstream denialist theory.

      So who should we believe - you, or the other guy?

    5. Re:I wouldn't call myself a denialist... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, civilization has developed over a few thousand years of reasonably stable climate. We have no experience with what's happening now.

      Global warming won't destroy the planet, and it won't wipe humanity out. That doesn't mean it can't be really, really disruptive and expensive to deal with, or that spending money on mitigation doesn't help.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  41. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by blindseer · · Score: 1

    You just gave an example on how CFL subsidies failed, and did so better than I had. Thanks.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  42. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The only way California might fail is if the tax burden imposed by the federal government becomes even more onerous. Even though we are one of the states that contributes most to operating the social programs used by mostly white people in the flyover states, and one of the states which gets the least back on every dollar sent to the federal government for that purpose (and for funding the blood for oil program) California still manages to operate in the black sufficiently to run its own social program providing no-fee medical service to residents with no money, sometimes including illegal immigrants who pick the majority of the food that everyone in the country eats which isn't machine-harvested.

    Without California, it's the USA that would go under.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The best lamp I own (if you put aside light quality) is a CFL over my stove. It has literally held up longer than at least half a dozen incandescents I've run through the same fixture previously.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Is plonounced GROBAR WALMING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Say it with me! GROBAR WALMING!

    Oh the ice caps are melting! It's humanity's fault! Yup! All you fuckin' EEEVIL humans! Fuckin' the world up for germs and lampreys and cockroaches!
    What you need to do is go back to huddling in caves and dying of stuff that's preventable with modern medicine!

  45. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by omnichad · · Score: 1

    The subsidies applied to the more expensive bulbs too. That's why I bought them. In fact, I have several years' worth and won't need to upgrade to LED for at least 10 more years.

  46. Climate change implications? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just curious how this may change the current thoughts on climate change impact on artic ice. TFA is pretty quiet about climate science. Perhaps theyâ(TM)re just scrambling?

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Climate change implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a small area on the other side of the planet, the Antarctic ice... Even if it does exist, which I didn't RTFA, the air temperature impacts the surface area of the ice more by melting the fresh water snow and making the water have less salt which causes the freezing point to get higher (32F instead of 28F).

    2. Re:Climate change implications? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Not at all. This is at the literal other end of the planet from the Arctic.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  47. Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by mysticgoat · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has taken way too long to scroll down to this first on-topic post. But correcting the moderator system to limit the damage by paid trolls is another topic.

    I have a serious question about the Antarctic mantle plume(s):

    The Erebus plume under Ross Island has been documented ever since the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957 and probably earlier. So has a second plume been discovered in the same area? Or is this story about confirmation of what was already known? WTF?

    Hopefully answers to this question will not get drowned by the paid trolls (and what I suspect may be paid troll fighters who keep the sewer floodgates open).

    1. Re:Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      The Erebus plume under Ross Island has been documented ever since the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957 and probably earlier. So has a second plume been discovered in the same area? Or is this story about confirmation of what was already known? WTF?

      Mantle plumes are a lot bigger than one volcano. For example, the Canary Islands (20-odd volcanic islands scattered over several hundred kilometres from the African coast) are the products of one plume.

      Erebus is on the other side of the Ross Ice Shelf embayment from Marie Byrd Land, and on an extension of the trend. The whole scale of the volcanic system is more comparable to the East African Rift (EAR) system, with around 90 sub-ice volcanoes recently identified. (There was a thread on it here a few months ago. I can't remember if I submitted it, or if it was someone else.) We don't have enough rock samples from the area to characterise the province well, but the EAR covers the range from basalt to carbonatite, within my career duration.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

      I recall reading some time ago that Mt Erebus had a unique type of low silicate lava that was suggestive of deep upwelling and I may have read more into that than I should have.

      Your reply suggests to me that relative to the continent above it, the plume is moving toward Mt Erebus. Does that make sense?

    3. Re:Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I recall reading some time ago that Mt Erebus had a unique type of low silicate lava

      An anorthoclase phonolite in the lava lake, which is pretty uncommon. But phonolites themselves are less uncommon - I've scrambled over phonolite lava flows in Tenerife (porphyritic with orthoclase crystals, not anorthoclase ; meh!) myself. Beautiful "entrail pahoehoe" structures (looks like the guts falling out of a cow being butchered) on a 200-odd meter frozen lava fall. The flow was before written history on the island IIRC, but is probably only little over a millennium old. Phonolite is itself associated with mantle plumes, but the association is not exact - it can be formed in other environments.

      Your reply suggests to me that relative to the continent above it, the plume is moving toward Mt Erebus. Does that make sense?

      Without a far more detailed seismic network than is plausible in Antarctica (to establish that there is a deep magma source, and that it is a plume with a central conduit from extremely deep in the mantle as opposed to a more complex structure such as the EAR (which contains at least one plume as a minor component)), I'd be very hesitant to accept that there is a plume anywhere near Antarctica. While the idea of mantle plumes is interesting and would explain some things, it's much much harder to generate the evidence needed to to demonstrate that this example is a mantle plume originating near the core-mantle boundary, and staying in a fixed location relative to the moving mantle above it. That's only been well demonstrated for the Hawaiian plume and the Icelandic one, TTBOMK, and both of them can only be seismically demonstrated to a depth of less than a thousand kilometres - which is not what the text books say a plume is meant to be.

      The whole "plume" story is attractive. But the proposed mechanisms for driving one are not convincing, the evidence is less than convincing, and the link between the proposed (unconvincing) mechanism and the observed rock types at surface is pretty weak too. I'm less than convinced by the whole story, and a lot of other geologists are too.

      I know geologists are notorious for being picky and disputative about evidence. That's because it's damned hard to see more than about a half a millimetre (500 micrometres) into rock. Which makes seeing what is happening a thousand or two kilometres down a little hard.

      Part of the "story" of mantle plumes is the proposal that they originate at the core-mantle boundary (+/- a hundred km or so - the thickness of the atmosphere) for whatever reasons, rise buoyantly vertically to the base of the lithosphere (undeviated by the convection currents over the 2500km of it's ascent), there producing a rather wide variety of undersaturated and/or peralkaline magmas. It's also a critical part of the dogma that the source regions don't move with time and they aren't displaced by the magma flow currents as the continents move above them. Which is a couple of bits of impossibility or implausibility too much for me, even after I've had my breakfast. And despite being asked, for decades, the "plume dogmatists" still haven't really produced a good answer to these questions. I remember reading about the theory, and these disputes with it, when I was a teenage school student in the late 1970s, when plate tectonics was fresh and new. Hell, I've asked questions like this after lectures by Dan "sea-floor spreading" MacKenzie about the history of plate tectonics, and he hasn't heard convincing answers either.

      Those quibbles over the existence of plumes at all don't change the fact that if there were an identifiable plume in the area, it'd be making at most a couple of cm/year in any direction relative to the crust. We haven't been observing long enough and we don't have enough data on eruption distribution (in space or in time) in the puta

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I, for one, are very appreciative of the time you have taken to write your last response. Thank you.

      This reply has been delayed as I am on vacation in Hilo and have intermittent and poor internet. We've spent a couple of days looking at flora and coastlines, including the southernmost tip of the USA (fantastic sea cliffs) and later today we will visit the Volcano Observatory on Kilauea where a friend of a friend may give us a tour, if her duties and the Pele's activities allow.

    5. Re:Mt Erebus plume? Or new-to-us plume? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I am on vacation in Hilo

      In that case, you' be sitting on the warmer of the well-attested mantle plumes on Earth. The wife and I were discussing holidaying in Iceland, the other plume, a few weeks ago - she saying I could go and freeze on on my own while she went to somewhere warm, and me agreeing.

      One of the aspects of the plume concept that just doesn't seem right is the longevity. The Iceland plume has been stewing merrily away for about 60 million years (it produced warping at the surface before patent eruption of volcanics about 58 Myr), during which time it has migrated about 500km relative to the spreading centre, but since then the Atlantic has spread by some 1500km, with the "plume" nailed solidly to the spreading ridge. But the theoretical description would have it stationary during all that time without the initial wandering. The Hawaii plume OTOH seems to have remained stationary as the Pacific plate drifts above it (no spreading centre involved there, simplifying matters) for some 85 Myr. It just doesn't seem right to have such stability at the same time as also having evident dynamism in the same system.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  48. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    write a thousand dollars as "1000$"

    That's because that's how you say it in words and that's also how all other units are used.

    Do you say "miles 500" or "pounds 500"? No, because that's stupid.

    You say "a thousand dollars", that's how it has to be written: "a thousand" followed by "dollars" which means "1000$".

  49. Re:Global warming by dlingman · · Score: 1

    but the declining south pole ice caps could be very much the result of volcanic activity.

    No, because the plume isn't a recent development. It's been there for a long time and was part of the local equilibrium. The decline in the ice must be from additional factors.

    Try telling that to the people that used to live in Pompeii.

  50. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    âoeMy super-power is that I wake up when bullshit is occurringâoe

    CNN must keep you eternally awake.

  51. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Native English speaker here that writes 1000$ here. Why? It's 1000 dollars, not dollars 10000.

    Just write it as I say it.

  52. Re: USA is still committed to the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    âoeif nobody follows himâoe

    Remind you of the âoelead from behindâ Obama admin?

  53. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s white old Democrats that predominantly run Cali. About half of those living there donâ(TM)t speak English at home.

    Once Cali succeeds, the massive wealth inequality will give rise to a dictator and turn it into another socialistic hellhole much like Venezuela. Enjoy your multiculturalism bitch boy :)

  54. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at/for/with NASA. Nearly 75% of our work force is conservative. Keep assuming everyone who doesnt agree with you is of lower intelligence. It makes the politics game so much easier for us.

  55. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ky is failing? The aerospace industry might have something to say to that. Last I checked, Amazon was about to move here as well. Oh, we also have the shining beacon of tech small business funding that is consistently pulling companies out of SV and NE.
    Keep spouting your none sense. Its fun. Especially about California. The state with 3-5 of the best universities in the world but is what 46/50 in public education? Or the state that has consumned nearly all their water growing lettuce in the desert?

  56. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While utilizing vastly more water than is required to grow the same food anywhere else, all while telling the rest of us how we should live sustainably. Federal Government moves were made before your lifetime to encourage people to move to California and its been riding that unnatural wave since.

  57. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah another Russian troll.

  58. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try telling that to the people that used to live in Pompeii.

    They didn't live in Pompeii for 150 million years.

  59. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Federal Government moves were made before your lifetime to encourage people to move to California and its been riding that unnatural wave since.

    Pretty silly, since nothing like that is necessary. Just sit back and let California be California, and people will move here. That's why this is the home of tech. When people have money, they want to live someplace that doesn't suck.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  60. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ky is failing?

    Well, it worked for me last night.

  61. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Amazon Prime Air is already operating from Hebron, KY and has been for some time - I saw one of their jets taxiing at CVG two months ago.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  62. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Why would success breed authoritarianism?

    Oh, you meant secedes...

    I guess thatâ(TM)s completely different. Besides the fact that many states tried secession about 150 years ago and it ended a bit rough for them.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  63. Arctic melt down . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ice melting is do to BP injecting 400 degree water into the oil wells to heat the thick oil recovery ( Prudhoe Bay ) . Watched it go on for 15 years , global warming my ass you jerks !!!!!!

  64. Re:Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Hylandr · · Score: 0

    I am sick of the latest "boogy-man". The far left and the entertainment industry have cried wolf way too many times.

    The same goes for :
    - Pedophile
    - Racist
    - Rapist
    - Russian
    - Terrorist
    - Global Cooling
    - Global Warming
    - Climate Change

    When will they get the clue that accusations aren't evidence and name calling is powerless irl? Fuck off already.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  65. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California sucks in so many ways it makes a vote for Trump look like the only sane choice.

  66. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't decide whether you work at or with or for NASA. So you're a contractor trying to mislead people.

    But there are plenty of smart conservatives. I don't doubt there are lots at NASA.

    It's just hard for liberals to admit something like that when conservatives won't condemn their obvious liars (Trump, Conway, Sarah Sanders, Hannity).

  67. Re: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Caused This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're saying "the left" cries "terrorist?" Ha!

  68. I blame by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    I blame Newcomen and Watt.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  69. Re:USA is still committed to the deal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The market optimizes for direct costs that a vendor incurs. It doesn't optimize for what's good for people. The basic concept is "externality", a cost not borne by the person making the decision to impose the cost.

    The market will push energy producers to the ways to produce energy that are cheapest for them, regardless of what they do to anybody else. If nobody pays extra for producing carbon dioxide, then the power companies will not care how much carbon dioxide they emit (except as a PR measure).

    We've seen the results of what happens when industries are allowed to pollute as they please. It's not at all pretty. Government regulation is necessary in cases like these.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes