Ocean Current That Keeps Europe Warm Is Weakening Because of Climate Change (washingtonpost.com)

The Washington Post: The Atlantic Ocean circulation that carries warmth into the Northern Hemisphere's high latitudes is slowing down because of climate change, a team of scientists asserted Wednesday, suggesting one of the most feared consequences is already coming to pass (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has declined in strength by 15 percent since the mid-20th century to a "new record low," the scientists conclude in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature. That's a decrease of 3 million cubic meters of water per second, the equivalent of nearly 15 Amazon rivers.

The AMOC brings warm water from the equator up toward the Atlantic's northern reaches and cold water back down through the deep ocean. The current is partly why Western Europe enjoys temperate weather, and meteorologists are linking changes in North Atlantic Ocean temperatures to recent summer heat waves. The circulation is also critical for fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, a key part of New England's economy that have seen changes in recent years, with the cod fishery collapsing as lobster populations have boomed off the Maine coast.

Comments

Ayup

[RightwingNutjob]

That's one of them-there feedback mechanisms that cools the poles in the event they get too hot. I recall hearing about it twenty years ago, in the context of "No, the world won't end because of global warming, the planet has feedback mechanisms to dump excess heat. That's how it's still nice and comfy here after billions of years."

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe needs to get ready for a few years of colder winters.

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

feedback mechanisms to dump excess heat

That sounds very inaccurate, slowing current won't "dump" the excess heat in any sense of the word. It simply won't move as much of it towards higher latitudes (at least that's the easy to imagine consequence). To "dump" the heat you'd need to get more of it to radiate back to outer space, i.e. negate the greenhouse gasses effects.

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner overlord.

Re:Ayup

[RightwingNutjob]

Yes and no. Yes in that the poles aren't "dumping" any more heat than they normally would be. They're just being heated by convection less and reflecting sunlight a little more. No in that if the heat stays at the equator, it'll radiate out to space faster. Remember: radiated power goes like T^4, but temperature drop is roughly linear with energy lost, meaning that the poles get colder at the expense of equatorial regions getting warmer, but the global average temperature doesn't increase and with more reflective poles will eventually decrease. Then the polar caps refreeze, the currents pick up and the whole thing starts over.

Re:Ayup

[Space cowboy]

Depends. Could be a blip (in geological time) of a few decades or hundreds of years, or the system could be bistable, and the new pattern becomes the norm for the next millennia or dozen.

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine the albedo playing a role and allowing the poles to warm up at a slightly slower pace compared to the scenario where currents didn't slow down.

I have a hard time believing the concentration of heat at lower latitudes would be able to counter the effect of increased planet-wide heat retention... Unless you're suggesting this will actually cause a mini ice-age with ice covering *more* surface then in pre-industrial age.

Re:Ayup

[modmans2ndcoming]

yeah....but not before it freezes the crap out of Europe.....

Re:Ayup

[Vreejack]

If AMOC stopped then the climate of Europe would line up with that of its corresponding North American latitudes. Which is to say, it would be come like Canada, not the North Pole. New Foundland is snowier than contemporary France but the latter's albedo would not significantly change. In any event, the AMOC is unlikely to stop any century soon without a significant forcing event. Perhaps if a meteor hits Greenland.

Re: Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

If europe becomes an iceberg won't that solve the sea level rise problem?

Re: Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

If europe becomes an iceberg won't that solve the sea level rise problem?

No, because everyone knows if you put a segmented tray of water in the freezer the ice expands to make ice cubes. It doesn't spill over the rim.

What? It worked for the mouth breathing warming deniers...

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look everybody, the Republican denialist faggot is back to tell us nothing matters again! We just can't get enough of this dumb cunt shitting gay Republican denialist bullshit talking points all over her bitch self, so fucking original.

When Trump goes to prison maybe he can get this bitch to help him pretend he's not really there?

Re:Ayup

[KiloByte]

Europe needs to get ready for a few years of colder winters.

For now, I'm not seeing any. Just see the "War on Christmas": when I was a kid, the Christmas was white every single year, with multiple months of snow. There wasn't a single white Christmas this decade. This year, there was a single day of snow, the day before Easter.

(Yeah, a real scientist would look at measurements rather than color of Christmas, but using this particular set of data points is far more accessible to an average voter.)

That's about it about northern Poland getting cooler. Once the current stops down for real, we'll see the effects, but for now, we're getting full brunt of literal "global warming".

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

Working in the domain of highly non-linear dynamics, I call bullshit on you. Read the f*ck some introductory books on dynamic systems or just shut up ignorant bastard.

Re:Ayup

[drinkypoo]

That's one of them-there feedback mechanisms that cools the poles in the event they get too hot.

Except if ocean currents slow down, weather becomes more localized. Same if the jet stream stops, which it will if the conveyor stops.

Re:Ayup

[TheRaven64]

A lot of the 'dumping' occurs as a result of having large areas of ice. Ice is white and reflects sunlight back to space (rather than absorbing it and reradiating it as IR, which is then trapped by the atmosphere). If a change in the ocean flow means that the ice caps cool, then it will cause more polar ocean water to freeze, which will result in more heat being dumped into space. I have neither the data nor the required spare supercomputer to tell you to what degree this will happen.

Re: Ayup

[AutodidactLabrat]

More bullshit
We burned the fuels, we dumped the CO2 into the atmosphere, we turned the blanket on "high"
There is a soloution, but it will take 200 years.
Turn OFF the lights!
STOP driving.

Re: Ayup

[pixelpusher220]

So when will the poles stop warming? Bonus question when will the increasing warming of the poles start to slow down due to this feedback mechansim?

Re:Ayup

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! Maybe this stops the migrants from coming.

Re:Ayup

[stoatwblr]

Ice forms on oceans fairly easily, but ice during arctic night paradoxically keeps the arctic warm(ish) by acting as an insulating blanket on top of the ocean. (the air's cold but life below the ice is busy)

Ice during the arctic day is a good light reflector but there's not so much of it anymore and the ice thickness is decreasing, meaning it disappears sooner in summer and takes longer to reform in winter. Both these add to the warming effects.

Snow on land needs moisture in the air and that comes from oceanic evaporation - mainly stuff bought northwards by the atlantic conveyor hitting cold polar air, so one of the effects in Europe can quite easily be colder, drier, less snowy winters - this was seen during the middle ages mini-ice age when the antlantic conveyor is believed to have slowed down. The effects included bringing cropping levels down by about 1000 feet across europe and generally moving agricultural bands southwards a couple of hundred miles.

Countering this is the heating effect of the oceans themselves. Air is a really poor heat carrier compared to water and it the real cause of concern should be small increases in water temperature. These have increased a fraction of a degree in the last 200 years, but that's equivalent to 1 degree or so of air temperature and makes it harder for ice to form (remember: it takes as much energy to melt 1kg of ice at 0C as it does to heat the resulting 1kg of water from 0C to 80C - and the same amount of energy needs to be extracted to freeze it - and that energy needs to be radiated into the air, which all things considered is actually a pretty good insulator.

This may be moot anyway, if the arctic ocean methane plumes(*) turn into a cascade failure or trigger a Storegga-style series of landslides(**). The effect of several Gigatonnes(***) of methane being dumped above the arctic ocean will be quite profound. it's probably not a coincidence that Storegga coincided with the knee point of the end of the last glaciation and rapid sea level rises over the following 3-4 centuries.

(*)Until 2006 the concensus was that methane clathrate plumes could never reach the ocean surface. News that they'd being doing that in the Leptav Sea (off the north coast of Siberia) since at least 2004 was met with widespread disbelief. By 2008 those plumes were over 1km wide in some areas and they're right on the edge of the continental shelf. Several climate physicists have summarised the news as "we're fucked", with the only questions being how badly and how soon.

(**) Storegga was a series of undersea landslides around 9000 years ago at the edge of the continental shelf off norway which released somewhere between 3 and 7GT of methane clathrates into the atmosphere. The heat forcing effect of methane is 20 times that of CO2 when averages over a century but it's more than 100 times higher in the first decade.

(***) Leptav clathrates are estimated at 1-5GT on the continental shelf. Noone knows how much is on the continental margins but a landslide or series of them could easily release 2-3GT in one go - and then there's the Tsunamis to contend with - Storegga sent enormous waves across Doggerland (now the north sea) and left scars across large chunks of Northern Europe. It looks like the impacts were around 1000 feet high in the northern parts of the British isles and Scandanavia.

Re: Ayup

[stoatwblr]

"So when will the poles stop warming"

They won't. The mechanisms will simply change a little.

The atlantic conveyor may slow, or descend below the surface before reaching Europe but it won't stop bringing warm water northwards even if it stops bringing warm weather. It's that water which matters as its where all the energy is. Weather is just what you see as a side effect.

Incidentally if it did stop or slow down dramatically, apart from the other effects noted one of the more obvious details would be a fairly dramatic rise in local mean sea level along the USA east coast, peaking at around 3 feet in Chesapeake Bay area. Oceanic currents "pull" water towards them kind of like a like a valley in the ocean surface.

Re:Ayup

[RockDoctor]

Could be a blip (in geological time) of a few decades or hundreds of years,

From the records of the most recent comparable atmospheric CO2 excursion, the time scale is going to be more like 100 thousand years. 120 thousand quite plausibly, it depends how far we turn the heat up.

That's still a "blip" geologically. Hell, it's barely a "bump" in terms of archaeology - Homo Sapiens as a species is between two and three times that old. Going back 100 thousand years would take us back through Neolithic and Mesolithic into the Paleolithic, but anatomically, they're still Sapiens.

It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'm getting about a foot of global warming deposited onto my driveway. Yup, this science is definitely settled.

Re:It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'm getting about a foot of global warming deposited onto my driveway. Yup, this science is definitely settled.

Well, as long as it's only a foot of global warming then there's nothing to worry your little head about.

But if you were getting a foot of climate change that's a whole other thing. We all (well those of us with more than about two neurons to rub together and who have been paying attention) know that climate change means more extreme swings in intensity. What once would have been some late season flurries can now be <gasp> a foot of snow with an increase in intensity.

So yeah, IMO, your foot of snow in mid-April definitely fits the Climate Change science.

And do let us know what your particular qualifications are. I'm sure your AA from Hicks and Rubes in Flyover State Community College puts you in a unique position to play armchair meteorologist with the big boys and girls who have PhDs and publish peer reviewed research.

Because, you know, it's Science, bitches.

(Yeah, go ahead, mod me down; and prove I'm right.

Re:It's the middle of April

[farrellj]

Another Trumpie who can't tell the differnece between climate and weather...

On the other hand, if you want to read some good science fiction based upon this, check out Kim Stanely Robinson's "Science in the Capital" books. Highly recommended!

http://kimstanleyrobinson.info...

Re:It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you chocked to death on your ignorance yet?

How does one "chock" to death?

Re:It's the middle of April

[Space cowboy]

One is sufficiently exasperated by another's fucking idiocy and ignorance, that one goes to the nearest aircraft hanger, grabs the chocks that prevent planes from just rolling away, and forcibly places them into the fucking ignorant idiot's stomach, by way of the mouth.

One's blood pressure immediately drops, along with the fucking idiot; dead, that is.

Re: It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical violent threats from the left wingers here

Re:It's the middle of April

[fredrated]

lol!

Re: It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

I am amazed at how well you speak with Trump's cock stuffed down your throat.

Re:It's the middle of April

[Plus1Entropy]

If you have a DC power supply and you increase the voltage at some gradual rate, what happens is you introduce high frequency "ringing" into the signal. In fact, there will be points in time where not only is the voltage decreasing, but it will actually drop below the original value. You can confirm this easily by connecting an oscilloscope and capturing the signal. Will you then begin to doubt that you ever turned the voltage up at all?

This property is common to all non-linear dynamical systems, that is to say, everything in the Universe. In every field of physics, you see the same pattern.

The science is settled.

Re:It's the middle of April

[grep -v '.*' *]

. Yup, this science is definitely settled.

I'm sorry: the science is NEVER settled. If it is, it's dogma. You might as well stay with religion, because random($Holy_Book) is singularly, literally correct and everything else is absolutely wrong, and they'll TELL you that upfront. If you fight it, then either somehow you've misunderstood the words and need a re-education OR the $Evil_Deity has you under control. (The Earth, Gods Creation, is still the Center of the Universe, right? RIGHT?? If not, back in you go and we'll try it again later.)

All science can do is tell you what's WRONG, hopefully in a way so that you can find something next time that's NOT-QUITE-SO-wrong. Then: "Iterate." See: Iterate.

Seriously -- I applaud the flat-Earth nutcase (I think he's one too) that launched himself in a rocket the other month. But he thinks something, and he's out actively trying to prove it. I don't understand why lunar eclipses don't help -- I think it's because they believe the Earth has to be sitting on something: the "Down" thing. They "get" gravity as down, but can't figure out that for something floating in space, down is always near the center. (But way down there isn't down, it's UP.) But he's at least trying. I don't see why he can't fly an unmanned rocket with a GoCam on it and collect it himself, or radio down the pics. What, are the Illuminati going to intercept and change the SD Card / Radio Signals / have Elvis's UFO fly by it and hang pictures in front of the camera to deceive him? He wants to see it with his own eyes, except how does that change the UFO picture problem? (Unless of course he finds an edge. THEN it's a different story.)

HE'S taking action. When's the last time you (or *I*) did something like that? Here's a weird thing you could try. (Or just finish watching the video.) But the the MiB could be sponsoring the video -- that's why science wants everything out in the open and repeatable.

And that's why Sci and Rel don't mix -- Miracles are by definition NOT repeatable but science wants them to be, to find the edges and exceptions. And that's just fine, pick you poison. I'm an atheist but believe they're independent -- you can believe both at the same time. But some people want you to pick one EXCLUSIVELY over the other.

I'm a bad example since I've done just that -- except I'm actually an agnostic, and I really just don't care about the religion side. If so, then God and I will eventually be having a quick little chat. (I imagine it'll be a QUICK one before being smited: "Oh, hi there God -- well, shit." If not, then I imagine we won't, it'll be more: " " I'm anxious to find out, but not enough so to hurry along the process. BTW: Watch Youjo Senki / The Saga of Tanya the Evil

So what science experiments have YOU tried to re-validate lately? AGW? Dropping and timing light and heavy objects? Birds fly by ONLY flapping their wings? Fridge light always on or goes out? ANYTHING?

Science isn't special -- DO some. Explain things. Or explain why you CAN'T explain them. I was looking for the Feynman quote about a freshman lecture, but insead, this one fits better: 12th one down. -- "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." It's NEVER settled, but the longer it goes the more " 'PLAININ' you got to do."

But I'm going to finish with the highest authority available, a quote from ANIME: "It's your fault for being unable to differentiate between religion and science." Trying to remember where that came from. Something about two little girls and a ?slug?, one is much more religious than the other -- hence the comment.

Re:It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

Very ill-conceived rant. Science is a (highly sceptical and methodical) process, not a product, and that's what the GP was talking about. Another issues is that in rational policy making you base your decisions on the current state of art in the respective field, not on wishful thinking or political agendas, and apparently that's a big surprise to you.

Re:It's the middle of April

[phantomfive]

It must be said that anyone who believes every science study that comes out without question is a member of the church of scientism, without understanding.

Re: It's the middle of April

[argStyopa]

Climate is changing? Interesting.
Please, let me know when it didn't?

Personally, I'd rather we spent the $trillions on known, well-understood issues where we can see sizable concrete benefits that help billions of people, than waste it chasing ephemeral results in a situation where the error-bars overshadow the conclusions.

But I'm sure I'm just a shill for Exxon, right?

Re: It's the middle of April

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me phrase the answer in a way you might be able to comprehend.

Re: It's the middle of April

[Ogive17]

You mean like lobbing million dollar missiles at some Muslims on the other side of the globe?

Climate change or not, the RIGHT thing to do regardless is find better ways to meet our electrical needs. Oil/Coal can and should be mostly replaced as soon as possible.

Progress and advancement as a species. Just think about the conflicts that could be reduced if no one on the globe had to worry about energy production.

Re: It's the middle of April

[religionofpeas]

Personally, I'd rather we spent the $trillions on known, well-understood issues where we can see sizable concrete benefits that help billions of people

I suggest we spend the money on finding an alternative to fossil fuels before they run out. Dependable energy is more important than the climate.

Re: It's the middle of April

[Uberbah]

Climate is changing? Interesting.
Please, let me know when it didn't?

Willfully obtuse.

But I'm sure I'm just a shill for Exxon, right?

Lots of people are tools of their own free will, but you could try sending Exxon an invoice for your efforts.

Re:It's the middle of April

[Uberbah]

Then its a good thing that church has as many followers that the War on Christmas does.

Re: It's the middle of April

[acrimonious howard]

Every time - I forget how alarming that xkcd is. And funny. HAHA! haha. ha.... Jeez.

Re: It's the middle of April

[jd]

Not change? On average, for virtually all of the last 250 million years.

The last century has seen more change than in any given ten million year period. I assume you've done calculus. Ok, maybe not.

Nobody is spending trillions on climate change. If they had done so, it wouldn't be a problem. It's because they're too busy spending it on known things like warships, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads and pay raises for bankers and the uber-wealthy that there's a problem.

No, I have absolutely bugger all sympathy for your argument.

Oh, and Get Off My Lawn!

Re: It's the middle of April

[phantomfive]

Or in your case, you only believe the study if you already agree with it. If a study comes out saying that climate models are wrong, you will try to explain it away. Or in the example of this article, where they say "we don't know what is causing this, but we should try to stop global warming anyway."

Re:It's the middle of April

[CaffeinatedBacon]

'global warming' changed to 'climate change' precisely because of idiots like you who would point to 1 place it got a little colder and denied there was even a change.
You didn't understand that global meant the global average, and not literally every little piece of the globe was getting warmer.

Re: It's the middle of April

[stoatwblr]

"I suggest we spend the money on finding an alternative to fossil fuels before they run out. "

Effectively, they'll never run out, they'll just become more and more expensive to obtain - to the point where you need to expend almost as much energy to obtain the energy as you get.

The bigger problem at the moment is that we already developed a workable solution (Molten salt nuclear power) in the 1960s and then threw it away for political reasons.

All the handwaving about renewables ignores the simple fact that renewables can almost replace existing electrical generation capacity but cannot expand generation capacity the 8-fold over that required to account for replacing other carbon emission sources such as heating, transport and industrial processes.

Alvin Weinberg's water-moderated nuclear pile was a good starting point/proof of concept but far too dangerous to scale up to the sizes we have now. They're a giant steam bomb waiting to explode and Alvin Weinberg knew it, which is why he spent the rest of his life working on a safer alternative to the original system he developed - only to see the military hate it due to inability to extract weapons materials from the process and Nixon kill it because it didn't grease the right palms in the right locations.

Even with all their downsides, water-based nuclear systems are safer than the fossil fuel alternatives but MSRs are an opportunity to make that a few hundred(thousand? million?) times safer and remove the worst case scenarios that we've already seen play out several times - no hydrogen explosions, radioactive steam leaks, radioactive fires, meltdowns, prompt criticality steam events (or radiation events of workers), radioactive water leaks, etc - and a 90-99% reduction in input waste (that depends on the enrichment of the fuel but most uranium mined is thrown away before seeing the inside of a reactor) coupled with a 99% reduction in output waste, with what little waste is left mostly having a 10-30 year cooldown period before being valuable saleable materials such as helium and xenon. (Imagine the effects of widely available cheap bulk helium, for starters...)

Re: It's the middle of April

[argStyopa]

I think Randall Munroe is hilarious, but his graph proves nothing except one needs to finesse the data to try to make that point.

For example he picked "22000 years ago" as a starting point....why? it's not a particularly round number, like 50k or 25k or even 10k.

But you're posting AC, you're not interested in discussion, are you? Post as something other than AC and I'll waste my time refuting you both.

Re: It's the middle of April

[argStyopa]

"The last century has seen more change than in any given ten million year period. "
In this you're entirely wrong. Do you realize that? Entirely, completely, thoroughly, colossally wrong. From where did you get such hyperbole (and think it was right)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Specifically, https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Look, the current spike has been replicated barely 100k years ago (note in particular the decptively changing scale of that graph...the rightmost 20% of the graph covers 20k years, the next section 1.98 MILLION and the next about 7.5 million, etc.). If our current temperature changes were compressed to the same degree as the 20k-1mill section, you'd see almost precisely the same spike in climate change happening periodically around every 120-140k years....and then stretch back and see that SAME cycle happening for what, about 3 MILLION years?

So please, while I may agree with you that trillions have been wasted that could have been better spent, let's start the discussion with actual facts perhaps?

Re: It's the middle of April

[dave420]

Read the top of the image. It explains it.

Re: It's the middle of April

[argStyopa]

Oh I get that, but to start ones' "warming graph" at the last ice age is a bit obviously tendentious, isn't it?

Re: It's the middle of April

[joh]

You're missing the point here: What's alarming is the current rate of change. It's nothing less than catastrophic.

Re: It's the middle of April

[argStyopa]

No, it isn't. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

1) Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - note in particular the deceptive changing of scales. The rightmost 1/5 of the graph covers the last 20k years; the next graph covers 980k years. Compress the right most graph into the same scale as the 980k year graph, and the current temp spike looks....almost identical to repeated, near "instant" (in that timescale) spikes in temp and CO2. And these happen periodically, about every 120k years. For the last 3 MILLION years.
If you're asserting that this current spike is *entirely* different than all those other nearly-identical periodic spikes, you have to explain how those STOPPED in order to be replaced with this event. The fact that this is likewise on the exact same time cycle is perhaps coincidence then?

2) rate of change is a canard. Krakatoa and Pinatubo exerted about 1.2 degree C global temp shift more or less instantly - that's nearly a CENTURY'S worth of IPCC-threatened warming. It doesn't get faster than that....and their impacts vanish into the data pretty quickly.
Further, there have been repeated historical massive meteorite impacts of massive scope in the geologic record that have significantly changed global climate for decades and centuries, yet in the long term arc of planetary temperature these prove to be spikes that are normalized out.

For some reason - some might draw connections to the rise of the histrionic ecological movements of the 1970s - modern scientists seem to have reversed themselves. Formerly, the earth was seen as a largely stable system in which perturbations from vulcanism or yes, human activity, would eventually be overwhelmed by natural cycles and inertia back to the 'norm'. Now, there's this idea that the earth's systems are somehow chaotic, precariously balanced at this delicate tipping point in which the slightest influence will cause it all to spin wildly into what, sky-falling chaos?
It seems to me that at least for a while, crying wolf gathers a lot more attention, funding, and grant proposals.

Re: It's the middle of April

[Uberbah]

There are fewer Big Deal's in science than proving established theories wrong. See the recent meta-study on how a couple glasses of wine may not be so healthy for you after all.

Climate change "skeptics" are free to come up with their own superior studies to prove their case. This is the kind of thing nobel prizes are awarded for, not to mention all the cash Exxon would be happy to give them. Until that happens, though, they're as grounded in science as anti-vaxxers are.

Re: It's the middle of April

[phantomfive]

Kind of hard to square your first sentence with all the articles talking about how difficult it is to get funding to reproduce an experiment, eh?

Re: It's the middle of April

[Uberbah]

Not when grants are awarded primarily for producing results as opposed to verifying them.

Re: It's the middle of April

[phantomfive]

Indeed, you are correct.

Don't understand

[schklerg]

Please measure in libraries of congress. Tx

Re:Don't understand

[GuB-42]

Amazon sells about 30-40 million books, the Library of Congress has about that many.
So an Amazon is roughly equal to a Library of Congress.

Re:Don't understand

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A step closer to the grand unified theory of useful units...

Re:Don't understand

[painandgreed]

Amazon sells about 30-40 million books, the Library of Congress has about that many. So an Amazon is roughly equal to a Library of Congress.

This is as bad as expressing electrical power in watts. A Library of Congress is a unit. An Amazon is that unit over time.

Because of Climate Change?

[darthsilun]

Don't get me wrong, I personally think that ACC is real, and a problem. But––

The story I heard on NPR [1] today said:

...scientists disagree about what's behind the sluggish ocean current...

but did go on to say:

The only thing we really can do is obviously try and prevent global warming because that's the root cause of why we think it's weakening now...

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13...

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[elrous0]

Global warming caused me to cheat on my wife. She understands now that I'm the real victim here.

Re: Because of Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, telethon-funded NPR is real well-known for their organized propaganda campaigns. Next they'll be inserting communist doctrine into the weekly puzzle and a airing Wait Wait Don't Resist Me.

I heard theories about how a deluge of lower-debsity fresh water from the melting ice caps could make this ocean current go haywire at least a decade ago. Now that it might be happening and we might know the cause, associating that cause with the observed occurrence isn't propaganda, it's reasonable conjecture.

If people were this stupid a couple decades ago, there'd be deniers of cigarettes causing cancer.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're conservative so I can 100% believe you cheated on your wife.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[elrous0]

Would you prefer I cheat on my husband?

Re: Because of Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, actually, they are. They routinely promote other ideological bullshit like the 'wage gap' and nonsense about muslims being oppressed in the west.

Like I said, they admit they don't know if there's a link, but the language suggests the reader should make the assumption anyway. That's what makes it propaganda instead of news.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[Citizen of Earth]

Sounds like the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation is right on schedule. Let's hope the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and 400-year solar minimum don't cause another mini ice-age like they did last time. That would be a real black eye for the climate alarmists big plans for the money borrowed on your back.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation is right on schedule. .

No, it should be a few decades away still...

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[pots]

I've only read the article you linked, but: it talks about two papers examining two different phenomena, both linked to climate change and both of which could effect oceanic currents. Also, the first quote you have there comes from the author of the article and the second quote comes from one of the authors of one of the papers. Those are quotes from different people.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[drinkypoo]

Would you prefer I cheat on my husband?

Feminization is caused by plastics, not global warming. Some of those plastics are shaped just like sex hormones...

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[radarskiy]

Global warming to own the libs.

Re: Because of Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, I was listening to a Planet Money segment just the other day that reported that the wage gap could be largly, buy not entirely, accounted for by factors like career choice, maternity leave, failure to negotiate, etc. Turns out without those factors, the wage gap is still around 8%, but you see "it's not the full 20%" and immediately jump to the conclusion that the whole thing is a Blue Pill hoax.

Re:Because of Climate Change?

[SuperKendall]

Well, you're conservative so I can 100% believe you cheated on your wife.

Right, because there is no other assumption you could make about a cheater other that they are a Republican - like that famous Republican, Bill Clinton.

Oh wait.

Don't worry, Republicans have a lie for this too

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans lie like people who enjoy lying.

old news

[john of sparta]

/. already solved this in February.

Re: old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks John, I thought nobody was going to point that out.

Bring it on!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans deserve Global warming, and every consequence of it. I say "Bring it on!"

And people said my Fish Coats business was nuts

[elrous0]

I was just a little ahead of my time. But the business plan was sound.

Re:Don't worry, Republicans have a lie for this to

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess it's a lie for a lie since Democrats also lie like people who enjoy lying.

Re:Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Versus who's paying you to be a troll here. Should I call you Ivan? Or Sasha? Or Dmitri?

Re:This will hold for the first ten years of cooli

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There's not going to be global cooling. In 6 years, Galactic Overlord Zenu is going to come back and rapture up all the level 7 or higher Scientologists and then blow up the planet.

Who cares what slashdotters think?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still some good conversation here on technical subjects, but on climage change it's a bunch of people who know very little about the subject being jerks.

Re:This will hold for the first ten years of cooli

[ColaMan]

There is no "cooling trend". The current as it is today provides anomalously warm temperatures to northwestern Europe. If this current is fully disrupted, the UK and friends will end up having the same general climate as northern Canada. Along with northen Canada, it then will slowly warm in accordance with the generally accepted global rates.

Xenu

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are making that up, the correct spelling is Xenu, or you haven't reached level OT III yet.

Xenu information if you want to be better informed. If you have NO IDEA who Xenu is, please read it. I was on the floor crying because I was laughing so hard the first time I saw it.

Re:Xenu

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have NO IDEA who Xenu is, please read it. I was on the floor crying because I was laughing so hard the first time I saw it.

I think I heard somewheres about a religion that believes a guy was swaller'd by a big fish for three days and lived to tell about it...ain't that sumpthin?

Re:Xenu

[SuperKendall]

If you have NO IDEA who Xenu is, please read it.

Pretty sure it was that place Kubla Khan did a bunch of stuff way back when.

Or, come to think of it, isn't it an Olive Newton John song? So Xenu must have been an old boyfriend, pretty sure that's why Xenu is referred to as "An Old One".

Re:Xenu

[Rakarra]

Or, come to think of it, isn't it an Olive Newton John song?

And an Olivia Newton John movie. And it was totally awesome in a bad way. In an enjoyable way.

Re:This will hold for the first ten years of cooli

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot!

Here, global warming is a conspiracy thought up by an alliance of greedy scientists and secret globalists in their war against the honest, hard-working executives of the petrochemical and other carbon industries.

Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

Ocean Warming & Acidification - Dr. Alex Cannara

Gradually rising temperatures and seas are but a mere inconvenience next to the impending mass extinctions in the oceans and disruption of ocean currents. It is happening now, and there are already large dead zones that are now incapable of supporting life. To prevent global catastrophe will require enormous amounts of clean energy, not the symbolic non-solutions that are in vogue today.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

Lmao, yeah we should make windmills and put solar on your baseball cap.

Idiot.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

A jest, but insightful about wishful green thinking. Wind/solar/battery technology will progress until it solves all our problems; all we need is faith, a bit of time, and mountains of money. Maybe. That physical reality and math impose limitations is not something that most people are equipped to understand.

Here's a thought: at least try to follow the math of people who have taken the time to lay it out simply. Sure it is easier to remain an ignorant tool, comfortably ensconced within the green herd, but if you aren't headed in the right direction, you will never reach your destination. Reality has the final say, and you will pay the price for your foolishness.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[DASH-8HYPHEN-8]

Wind/solar/battery technology will progress until it solves all our problems; all we need is faith, a bit of time, and mountains of money. Maybe. That physical reality and math impose limitations is not something that most people are equipped to understand.

Wind is so much cheaper than coal that a bunch of conservative republicans in texas have converted to wind. They're doing it because of the math. Solar progresses rapidly, and battery, with it's slow progress, is being proven already today, so it's not going anywhere.

Here's a thought: at least try to follow the math of people who have taken the time to lay it out simply. Sure it is easier to remain an ignorant tool, comfortably ensconced within the green herd, but if you aren't headed in the right direction, you will never reach your destination. Reality has the final say, and you will pay the price for your foolishness.

Doh, you're right. I hereby give up my good wind turbine job, and will immediately look for the first coal mine to dive into. Follow the money!

Ok, seriously, nobody is saying tech will solve all the problems. But greens are saying you can make money with green tech, and doing so helps with the problem. Why not do that a lot more? Sell our tech to the rest of the world. Germany did it in the 90's, and made tons of money, sparked a run on their stock market, boom in real estate, and generally worked great until China started undercutting them. What happened to the US? We invented solar. Why in the world didn't we make some money on it? I'm not talking about manufacturing, I'm talking about innovation. What's the next thing? Let's not give up the money after we invent it just because of coal and oil lobyists.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind. However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it. The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.

Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.

Re:Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of nonsense. The planet has gone through plenty of hot and cold phases. For all that we know we are on the long tail of exiting an ice age. Every glaciation has killed plenty of species.

Human civilization based on the climate patterns in the last hundred years being affected is not a global catastrophe, neither is your beach house being swept away because you're too dumb to carry out a long term risk assessment that's not based on denial and blind hope.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind. However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.

Howdy from Texas!

Pardner, you might wanna take a look at this here. It ain't just "a bit" [snort]....we git almost a fifth of our 'lectricity from those big 'ol whirly-gigs and the solars!

YEEE HAW! [gunshots]

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[DASH-8HYPHEN-8]

Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind.

I applaud the good link, that's an interesting map. Tiny opposition to your point is it does mention TX is #1 in wind.

However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.

True. This is probably just a difference on emphasis - I'd emphasize that it can be minimized. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, but that's a different convo.

The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.

I do agree, we should be realistic. I bring up Germany, and the real results of them leading the solar industry in the 90's, and it rocking their stock market. Solar was profitable for them, not because it saved costs of electricity generation, but because they developed technology and sold it. A lot of your solar power converters are still German. I say real estate boom because all of a sudden, the roof Germans already owned made their house more valuable, almost instantly. There are so many secondary effects of green policy that actually make it profitable in the long run. Sustainable practices cost less than non-sustainable ones, is that not a realistic statement? How much money would we save if there was less air pollution and asthma occurrence dropped? Lung cancer. I often wonder what pollution has to do with my stupid allergies. It's hard to imagine the costs of the worst possible effects of this ocean current stuff.

Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.

Again, that link is an impressive map. I have to admit it's taking me a while to absorb all the info in it. But why can't there be 2 goals? Make money and save the planet? If the goal is decarbonization, it's much easier to accomplish the goal if we make it profitable. Germany proved it can be done. They did it with solar, and this is a country that gets as little sun as Portland. Yes they invested some money and worked hard, but they ended up with a smarter grid than us, and some days they have to pay everyone on the gird to use electricity. The horror.

Re: Ocean Warming & Acidification

[DASH-8HYPHEN-8]

Lololol. Yosimite Sam, is that you? I'm driving from Houston to Austin today, and I'm the wind is really kickin in the city even. I wonder how much those turbines did with the storms we had last night.

Re:Ocean Warming & Acidification

[acrimonious howard]

I can attest to this. Almost every time I go diving, the tourist pamphlets and nearby sea museums and info pictures show beautiful vibrant colors. And then I go diving and I see so much less color than the images I'd been set up with. This is not anecdotal. This is already seriously alarming, people. Hopefully, there's a lot of wrong scientists out there. Probably, they're not.

Vote. Or, if you're flippant about math, statistics, and science, don't.

Re:Ocean Warming & Acidification

[Bengie]

Correct, the Earth has done quite a few warm and cold cycles. What worries most is why this warming cycle is happening about 10,000x faster than any of the prior.

Re:Intelligence Design?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the poster you quoted there is a Global Warming denier, right?

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

We know Soros pays trolls and funds riots and fake voters and a bunch of other evil shit. All public fact.

Russian trolls? All 13 of them post to slashdot every day?

No. A lot of people just think you're full of shit like the rest of your dnc sheep brethren. No one has to be a Russian troll to oppose your idiocy.

Re: This will hold for the first ten years of cool

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It is a conspiracy of ultra leftist socialist scumbags who have created this as just the latest in a long line of scams to raise taxes for their pet projects, kill the West, eliminate feeedom, and reduce all the non-elite (this means YOU reading this now) to virtual slaves working until you die to keep the 1% socialist elites living in luxury.

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how you spend the day off you got from sucking Putin's dick?
Loser

Jetstream

[Anonymous Coward]

What would really suck if Euro Jetstream disappeared whole content would be under miles of ice in a few years.

Re: Jetstream

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe will NEVER be under miles of ice, only kilometres of ice.

Re: This will hold for the first ten years of cool

[mab]

you need help

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

"You disagree with me so you're a fucking fag!!"
--Extremely Tolerant LGBT-Supporting Leftist

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this balone

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, some Leftists hate gays or blacks or women too you know. We just understand that cutting our own nose (rights) off to spite our face is counter productive.

Sure, if we hate gays, black AND women, or are just closet pedos we become Trumpers, but Leftists can just hate a few things, instead of ALL things.

#MichaelCohenMysteriousDeath place your bets, even money by May1, 4:1 by 2pm Monday. 1:3 between 1-3pm Monday.

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that, not all that long ago, these idiots were soviet apologists.

MAY be weakening

[Anonymous Coward]

Skimmed through the article. Did not find any facts but found a lot of "may" and "think(s)".

Based on this I "think" the author who set the subject "may" be an idiot.

Ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate changes

Re: MAY be weakening because of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be an idiot as well, as I left out the important part: we know it's weakening, but is it all due to human made climate change?

not a problem

[WindBourne]

Paris accord will solve all the issues with Climate Change. I am sure that if we do not focus on stopping growth in emissions, and instead all focus on per capita emissions while allowing CHina, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc to grow, that it will solve all of these issues.
I mean what could possible go wrong with stopping 1 small group of ppl while allowing others to grow far bigger in their emissions.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You smug bastard. What gives you the right to emit so much CO2 and then deny other countries that same right? Halve your emissions to mach a Chinese person or drop by 80% to match an Indian if you think it's a problem.

Re:not a problem

[Ichijo]

You're asking what could go wrong with showing a little leadership?

Re:not a problem

[foxalopex]

The Paris accord might not be enough but at least it's an attempt. After all the first step to identify an addiction is to realize we might have a problem. And when it comes to China and most other countries you have to ask yourself are you being fair? Per person we use more energy, generate more waste and suck up more resources than most of these "poor" countries. I remember one show which showed a cocoa farmer who spent his entire life farming the stuff to make chocolate but had never tasted a single piece in his entire lifetime because a bar of chocolate was an entire month's salary and the "rich" reporter just ended up giving them a bar for free. China's rapidly advancing to a modern society to match ours so their CO2 production is high because ours is high too but at the rate they're advancing they may end up with a more advanced society that's more efficient than ours. They already have more EV cars than we do. Unless your idea of being fair is along the lines of "I'm rich, the poor should just die..."

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the focus on the growth part and not the amount of emissions?

Is it because America and Australia are already just about as dirty as can be that they don't need to grow any more?

The focus should be on those countries that emit so much more than the average to reduce wile allowing the cleaner countries a chance to claw their way out of poverty.

But your kind of people only want to kick away the ladder of development so no one else can catch up and compete with you, and enjoy the high carbon lifestyle that you are already accustomed to.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the focus on the growth part and not the amount of emissions?

Is it because America and Australia are already just about as dirty as can be that they don't need to grow any more?

The focus should be on those countries that emit so much more than the average to reduce wile allowing the cleaner countries a chance to claw their way out of poverty.

But your kind of people only want to kick away the ladder of development so no one else can catch up and compete with you, and enjoy the high carbon lifestyle that you are already accustomed to.

Re:not a problem

[thegarbz]

I mean what could possible go wrong with stopping 1 small group of ppl while allowing others to grow far bigger in their emissions.

Those *other* people you quoted are currently the largest investors in solar, nuclear, and green technologies. They have curbed emission increases an order of magnitude faster than most of the west.

I think you best get your own house in order before you start looking out the window and realise the grass is greener next door. But I get it, coal won't jobs itself.

Re:not a problem

[AmiMoJo]

China hit peak coal a few years ago. They are doing far, far more than the US to clean up. The US has no excuse.

Re:not a problem

[Uberbah]

and instead all focus on per capita emissions while allowing CHina, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc to grow, that it will solve all of these issues.

Ah yes, the "countries with 3-4 times the population of the United States should pollute less than the USA" line of entitled dipshittery.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'd be perfectly okay with a small country, say a hundred thousand people, poisoning the environment for their own comforts so long as they pollute less than the USA does, which you think deserves a free pass?

This hypothetical country, with less than 1% of the US population, could pollute 100x the US pollution per capita and since they're not contributing as much global pollution as China or India (or indeed, less than the USA) then no one should worry about them right? It's entirely fair that they can pollute as much as they like, enjoying their technological innovation and exploiting the environment, so long as they're not polluting more than countries a hundred times larger than them?

Or have I got it wrong? Should this hypothetical country be held to account for its excesses, far in excess of any other country in the world per capita?

Think carefully on this. Your reasoning is basically that you should be allowed to shit on the street because it's not as much shit as what's produced by a farm a few miles away.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You smug bastard. What gives you the right to emit so much CO2 and then deny other countries that same right? Halve your emissions to mach a Chinese person or drop by 80% to match an Indian if you think it's a problem.

This. Plus, if we lead the world in green tech, we'd probably make some money. There's actually little down side to doing the right thing.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Where has Windy actually said that US is fine in how much CO2 and pollution they emit?
I have looked over his posts and I do not see anything in which he is defending US's levels.
But Dude, I do see you trolling and lying about what he says.

You seem to want to troll him with lies, and defend China's emissions.

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

Hmm. Ok. Why did china's coal production, consumption, and CO2 increase over 5% in 2017, while America's coal consumption and CO2 decrease for 2017? What excuses should America make for dropping our emissions for over 9 years in a row? We have gone from 24.6 down to 14.9. what excuses should we make for that? Not only do we no longer build new coal plants, but have been shutting then down the fastest of any group?

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

Yeah. I have 2 trolls from china here. Best to leave them alone.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you went from 5 times as dirty as China to only 2 and a bit times as dirty. Keep it up, eventually you will be as clean as they are.

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have very selective reasoning/reading if you didn't spot all the times he singled out China and claimed America was not to blame even with their higher levels, because they are 'doing better'.

The opposite is the case if you cared to look. You, him and people like you actually expect a country over 4 times as big who are still developing to pollute less than a rich country like the US who have already developed.
It's absurd.

Re: not a problem

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Just more muddying the waters from you WindBourne, https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...

Updated September 28, 2017, 8:40 a.m. Coal-fired electricity generation in China, the world’s largest coal consumer, is expected to remain flat through 2040, according to EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017). Other fuels, such as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power, are expected to make up increasing shares of China’s electricity generation. Despite declines in coal’s generation share, IEO2017 projects that coal will remain an important component of China’s energy mix, peaking at nearly 4,400 billion kilowatthours (bkWh) by 2030. However, as China continues to replace older, less efficient generators with more efficient units, China’s power sector coal consumption is expected to peak as soon as 2018, at 4,800 million metric tons.

Strange you didn't mention America's increasing production and export of coal in 2017 isn't it.

It's clear to anyone who cares to look that China is still developing and growing and America has passed that level already. It's much easier for a country that is one of the most polluting at 16t per person to decrease a tiny bit (and still be one of the most polluting, EU average is 6.9) than it is to move over a billion people out of subsistence farming and into an industrialised economy (using half the US amount). Do you expect them to stay farmers forever?

Re:not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

He's constantly patting himself on the back from dropping from 20 to 16. While every other major industrialised country is less than half that already.
The US is literally twice the level of similar countries but you never hear him talking about halving America's CO2. It's always cracking open the champagne and celebrating the latest .01% drop.

Re: not a problem

[crimson tsunami]

Those 2 trolls from China combined would use less CO2 than you do as an American.

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

Let's see. I live in Colorado on the front range. Our home is super insulated with south facing back loaded with double paine windows, while the north side has aerogel based windows. We have a 10 KW solar system on our house. We pay 10/month for electricity. We drive a 2013 Tesla model S that is more 1/2 charged by the solar. We will be installing power wall as soon as it's available in our area. Our footprint was calculated at less than 3 / year. So no, I seriously doubt that you or them emit less.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They live on a farm and grow all their own food, have no car, use no electricity except an old mobile phone just to troll you on Slashdot. Their footprint combined was less than 0.1 so no you will have to try harder.

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

'They' and you are far more likely working for the chinese gov, live in a flat with coal-fired electricity.
The fact is, that I told the truth, while you continue to troll.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're also a vegan who goes around planting trees in your spare time. You never travel or consume all the crap average Americans do either.
Good thing that all your fellow Americans are just like you and that America's average is less than Europe, less than China and less than the world average.
But we both know it's not....

PS: It will take them a lot of time to save up for all those expensive things you have with their 50c posts wont it.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are not able to give a link in which windy claims USA is above China and that it is okay for them to pollute, while China can not. You are a liar.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are lying like you did in your previous post. You do not have links from windy backing USA's emissions.

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you completely blind? You are telling me you couldn't find any post where he praises the US and denigrates China? https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re: not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re: not a problem

[CaffeinatedBacon]

A wise man once said.

The reason for going with emissions/$, is that neither you nor I decide the co2. Gov and businesses do.

You must hate it how the government forced you to live in Colorado. Hate how Trump forced you to buy expensive insulation and fancy windows. And how Obama instigated that minimum 10KW solar mandate.
But what I don't understand is how is Tesla losing money when they can force people like you to buy expensive cars and powerwalls?

Why are you trying to claim credit for choosing to use less CO2? Is that *'other person' wrong and people really do decide?

* That 'other person' was actually you only a few days ago...

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

Without Tesla, there would be NO EVs. NONE. China would not even have 2-3 car companies making EVs.
Without the massive investment that America gov made into NASA R&D on PV and Li-ion batteries, we would have very little today.
Yes, my family bought these, BUT, it took gov and businesses to make them available. MOre importantly, we are but a FAMILY. If EVERY American family (which they can not esp since those aerogel windows will not pay off for nearly 30 years ) did what we did, the dent in CO2 from transportation and residential buildings would be about 25% of America's CO2. While I am not fully certain of China's output, it is very likely that if 100% of Chinese residents were on the same set-up that I am( again ZERO chance) , that they would likely be around 15-25% TOTAL of CHina's CO2 output.
That is how little you and I make in this. In America, residential usage, is about 1/3 of electricity. In terms of TOTAL ENERGY used, residential is about 20%. Our passenger vehicles are about another 10%. So, all in all, if we want to make ANY REAL CHANGE, it can only be hitting businesses and gov., not the small amount of CO2. China needs to stop growing theirs emissions and the ONLY way to stop that, is to stop adding new coal plants. Have them add wind and solar.
America needs to cut ours faster. Thankfully, because of the model 3 combined with coal plants closing down, we are going to see a couple of % a year drop. Starting next year, the new tesla trucks will actually drop our CO2 by 2-5% EACH YEAR. That is how much of an impact that truck will make. Yes, 5000 new Tesla trucks EACH YEAR will reduce CO2 FURTHER than 500,000 new model 3s EACH YEAR. That is how big of an impact BUSINESSES have.

Re: not a problem

[WindBourne]

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.
Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China. But, it does not. It continues to grow. It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal. But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.
China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future?
Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America
Here is China
Here is EU
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster? Nope. The world can not afford this. We need ALL NATIONS to lower their emissions, and that includes China, India, etc. We need to get down to Sweden's level. THAT is how you stop AGW.
And CHina IS a developed nation.

Re: not a problem

[crimson tsunami]

First off, you are right that I did NOT speak about Americas increase in Coal exports TO CHINA. It is something that I am opposed to. In addition, it is CHINA'S consumption, not ours.

So If China exports coal, it's China's fault. But if America exports coal, it's also China's fault. Typical WindBourne logic.
China isn't even in the top 5 export destinations for American coal in 2017. It was actually less than 3.5% of your coal exports. So more bullshit from you.

Secondly. pretty funny that you picked an article from EIA about China, which was based on 2015 numbers. The prediction was that coal usage would fall in China.

The article was from September 2017 and the prediction was accurate. If you can find a more recent one show us.

But, it does not. It continues to grow.

Your own link shows China increased only 0.4% in coal use and

However, as a portion of total energy consumption, coal usage fell 1.6 percentage points to 60.4 percent last year, while clean energy, including natural gas and renewables, rose 1.3 percentage points to 20.8 percent from 2016, the communique showed. That indicates the country remains on track to fulfil its promise to decarbonise its economy and reduce air pollution, as it vowed to cut the coal portion to below 58 percent of total energy consumption by 2020.

So it rose 0.4% in one year and is expected to stay flat or drop according to both articles. The opposite of your unsubstantiated claim. And why did you lie earlier and say that China's coal use increased over 5% in 2017?

It slowed down a bit relative to their GDP, but once their GDP growth rate picked up, so did the coal.

Again more lies from you, your own link says

Carbon intensity, the level of carbon emissions per unit of economic growth, dropped by 5.1 percent in 2017 compared to a year ago.

Carbon intensity got 5% better ! In one year !!
Why do you lie and say it was worse?

But the real use of that coal increase, are the EVs that are flowing in. Because China will not quit build new coal plants and instead focus solely on building wind/solar/hydro until they have their nuclear power plants going, then it will be more coal they will use.

You are just making this up, all projectionsshow coal stabilising and/or dropping. You haven't shown any credible evidence that this isn't the case. You still fail to admit that China is replacing less efficient coal plants with newer more efficient ones as has been shown to you repeatedly.

China is building 700 new coal plants in China and around the globe, of the 1600 new ones going up. They are pushing it even in places like Kenya China is builing it with Chinese workers, steel, etc, and 'loaning' money, BUT, in return, Kenya must not only pay for the power plant, but must also buy the coal from China.

Again America exports coal to China = China's fault. China exports coal to Kenya = China's fault. Are you starting to realise how stupid you look?

You really think that this will cut down the CO2 in the future? Nope. This is how you make things WORSE.

Did you even read your link?

Experts say one annual increase

Re: not a problem

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Without Tesla no electric vehicles, just like without Apple there would be no mobiles phones. Clearly the same level of bullshit. China was investing in electric vehicles the same time as Tesla and others.

You will have to admit with your track record, and supplying no links to back up all your claims it's all looking quite hollow.

Energy isn't even the biggest sector, thats transportation. So coal is less and less relevant. Increases in gas and petroleum almost cancel them out. And coal is predicted to be flat in the US for the next few decades, not continually decreasing like you claim with no evidence.

And then there is the fact transportation has increased for the last 5 years that have numbers 2012-2016 1,665.8 1,681.6 1,721.2 1,739.2 1,786.1
And are predicted to keep on rising even with electric vehicles.

The largest sources of transportation CO2 emissions in 2016 were passenger cars (42.0 percent), medium- and heavyduty trucks (23.4 percent), light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (17.3 percent), commercial aircraft (6.7 percent), other aircraft (2.6 percent), rail (2.3 percent), pipelines (2.2 percent), and ships and boats (2.2 percent).

So passenger cars, SUV's pickup trucks etc, produced more than twice medium and heavy trucks, and nearly 60% of the total...
Makes your claim 'questionable'. Let's check back of a napkin, Transport is 28% of the total, medium and heavy trucks are 23.4% of that , for about 7% of the total CO2. Using your lowest estimate, there are no trucks left to change after 4 years as the CO2 for trucking is already zero... Is it even remotely plausible that the US only has 20,000 Trucks...

You are clearly just pulling numbers out of your arse.

This is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims and other swarms of less desirable humans are less likely to stay or migrate to cold climates. Even now they are exiting Iceland and Finland due to the hostile environment.

Keep it up and perhaps they will all stuff off back to where they came from.

Re:This is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is bullshit.

Somalis, for example, have no problems weathering Minnesota - aside from not comprehending that physics plays a role when driving on ice.

If Muslims are leaving Iceland and Finland, it's for other reasons than the weather.

Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[foxalopex]

The sad truth is most folks don't realize how fragile our planet is, it's a finely balanced chaotic system where a slight change in something as small as the CO2 concentration in the air is enough to cause a massive shift in climate. Nature normally takes thousands of years but we're essentially speeding it up into centuries or even decades. It's been known for years that the ocean sea currents could change with climate change and unfortunately it looks like it's coming true. If the oceans current shutdown it won't just cause Europe to get cooler. It could disrupt the monsoon rains which allow India to farm and provides water. If you have a billion people starving to death, I wouldn't want to explain to them how this wasn't my fault and I'm not sharing.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[religionofpeas]

I wouldn't want to explain to them how this wasn't my fault and I'm not sharing.

No worries, you'll be dead before that happens.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[davide marney]

This is mental. The earth is billions of years old, and it has had a climate able to support life for hundreds of millions of those years. How could you possibly describe such a system as "fragile"? Are you aware that the sea levels have risen and fallen by hundreds of meters over that time? That vast sheets of miles-thick ice used to cover areas that once teemed with tropical plants? That the enormous Sahara was covered in vegetation and water a scant 15,000 years ago -- a cyclic pattern that has been repeated at least 7 times according to the geologic record?

The models you are relying on to make you believe that the planet is in some kind of "tipping point" are simply wrong. They assign all the feedback from temperature accumulated since the beginning of the model to the present, over-stating its effects by 2 or 3 times. Are we currently in a warming phase? Yes, we are, and have been since the end of the last ice age. Is it speeding up? Is mankind adding to it? Marginally, and maybe not even at all -- the differences are in the margin of error.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[Uberbah]

The earth is billions of years old, and it has had a climate able to support life for hundreds of millions of those years. How could you possibly describe such a system as "fragile"?

Uh, every recorded mass extinction event in history? All of which came from the environment changing to fast for life to evolve or migrate.

This is mental.

Yes, climate change denialism is mental indeed. It's already costing you hundreds of billions every year - dealing with record storms and forest fires isn't free.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[DCFusor]

I'd point out - and the XKCD below also shows indirectly, that "supporting life" is hugely different than "supporting billions of humans in comfort equivalent to today where a significant fraction are super poor and oppressed". To say things aren't fragile in that sense is indeed mental. For what it's worth, I'm considered a conservative. Because a few neocons deny GW - and neocons now pollute both false-dichotomy political parties - doesn't mean we've all lost the ability to think and analyze. What are now called liberals are anything but. These "progressives" are trying to force me to think just like them, as any good totalitarian would. The so-called conservatives are nothing like the dictionary - they seem to want war, to supress a different set of rights than the "liberals" but are statist none the less, have forgotten conservative values like "look before you leap", "spend less than you make", "don't fix things that ain't broke" and "don't start wars" (well, both fake sides forgot that one - Obama, for example had more war-days * number of places we fought than anyone else in history. So much for a peace prize. I'm sure Libya is better off now, or...). I want my language back. These liars who do so to keep power over us ruin it so we can't discuss intelligently. That sucks. https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[Anonymous Coward]

> The earth is billions of years old, and it has had various climate settings able to support very different lifeforms over various periods for hundreds of millions of those years.

When somebody say "fragile", there is a context. Fragile in the context of AGW is about sustaining billions of human life.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[Uberbah]

These "progressives" are trying to force me to think just like them, as any good totalitarian would.

Such as.....? Climate change is real, universal health care provides better care for less money, a high minimum wage creates jobs, and vaccines don't cause autism. If some cultist is completely immune to reason on issues that affect the rest of the human race, blunt force application of facts is the only option left, along with public mockery. Like when Jon Stewart asked the lunar conspiracy theorist that got knocked on his ass by Buzz Aldrin, 'you know on the video that punch looks fake'.

If on the other hand you're using the scare quotes to refer to fauxgressives who try to shape every conversation around 'white privilege', those conservative assholes are the left hand of COINTELPRO, to the right hand of whipping up suburban fear of mexicans and muslims. Engaging in political theater to keep people divided where they should be united.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[acrimonious howard]

I agree with the frustration. I've used the Taiwanese health care system, and their $(1/6) health care was equivalent anecdotally (realistically, we could move in that direction, not copy). Lol, vaccines facepalm. Fox is creating a nation of 45% idiocracy pushers, and calmly repeating scientific findings has got us absolutely nowhere. What are we supposed to do?

I do relate to DCFusor. In Europe, I'm a conservative. In America, I'm acrimonious because I think the risk of stopping or changing the freaking ocean currents might be dangerous.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[DCFusor]

Universal health care better? Obviously you need to get out more. Sure climate change is real, and all the suggestions about what to do about it are pointless and not being adopted anyway. How about we work on how to deal with it - and live - and fix the problems instead of the blame, as liberals (note lack of quotes, which weren't for scare, you ad hominem jerk, but because as I said, the word's meanings have been lost) always do. It was more important to Congress that Barry Bonds lied about steroids than the causes of the financial crash...
.

Sorry about that color/gender issue, but as far as that goes, no one has a choice of genetics, and we (almost all) have an innie or an outie. What you do with it is your own business, but don't fine me or get triggered if I call you what is obviously what you are.
.

And it goes on and on. I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right - never stated but always assumed by people trying to force partisan bullshit down my throat. Statism is a disease and one size doesn't fit all. I actually understand why people in cities need more strict laws about swinging their arms - as they are more likely to contact an innocent nose than say, myself out in the boonies, who subsidise the non-sustainable jerks in the cities - who spend a lot of time telling me their way is better, want the tyranny of the majority and will you please get back to work (for us) you rural slave.
.

I'd even like to ask a girl out for a date and not be accused of some evil social ill as well.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[DCFusor]

I get very good and inexpensive health care - which has been utterly wrongly associated with health insurance, which, along with tort, and pharma...makes it expensive.
When I go to a doctor not owned by a big conglomerate (Carilion in this area) - who knows I don't have insurance, they charge me cost + fixed fee - and it's 1/6th or 1/10th what the "official rates" are (more info in link below from a pro pointing out how to get this deal...).
I paid ~$300 -total- for office visits, a few single spaced pages of blood tests and now, $4 a month for the right meds for hypertension.
I paid $800 to have melanoma cut off me.
I paid ~$1000 (still ongoing) for surgery to repair an index finger caught in a machine and broken in 8 places + 24 stitches.
I note that if I had insurance, just the co-pay, not to mention the deductible, would have been more than this sum. As linked below, they jack up the prices to make what's left look like a good deal. And on top, I'd have paid premiums in order to have to pay more at the doctor! Why not read it next time to find out what's in it before pushing it down my throat? What kind of representative republic does what they did? The liberals just want us to all pay more to subsidize the losers who eat too much (or eat tide pods or snort condoms or pass STDs around). big pharma...never find a cure, just find something they can sell you forever...tort lawyers...and of course, since that's stupid, get the authorities (guys with a pass to use force who even they like having guns) to force it on me like any totalitarian would. Hedgeless (I know the guy) is expert on the issues of medical billing and how to get it right....
https://www.zerohedge.com/news...

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[acrimonious howard]

all the suggestions about what to do about it are pointless and not being adopted anyway...liberals bad .......I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right - never stated but always assumed by people trying to force partisan bullshit down my throat.

Liberals want to make laws protecting people that you don't care about, so what? Conservatives (read oil industry lobbyists) want you to ignore climate change. Believe or not believe, they really don't care, they spout FUD trying to get everyone to ignore the issue for their short-term profits. Do nothing. Don't vote. You're already picking a side.

Re:Not new, Known unfortunate effect

[Uberbah]

and fix the problems instead of the blame, as liberals (note lack of quotes, which weren't for scare, you ad hominem jerk

What ad hom. The only sort of person who could claim to be insulted would be sex and/or race baiters like this piece of shit who finds the most pathetic excuse to call Bernie Sanders a racist, while himself being a big supporter of Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton.

And it goes on and on. I'm sick of it and sick of the utterly false idea that if one politician is wrong, the other one must be right

Who's saying they are?

Universal health care better? Obviously you need to get out more.

It's a simple, empirical fact that single payer provides better care for less money. Otherwise, opponents would be hailing the for-profit American system for its superior results instead of stupid BS like "lines" in socialisticy countries. As if you don't have to wait in line in an American emergency room or wait for an appointment to see a specialist. With socialized medicine, you don't have an insurance industry employing tens of thousands of people looking for new ways to deny or limit what care they will cover, you don't have insurance companies making billions per quarter, and (thanks to free-to-use universities) you don't have doctors demanding high six figure salaries because they don't have $200,000+ in student loans to pay off.

Clarity and Order

[franzrogar]

Let's sort things out "easily" (you know in science that's an euphemism for "mostly but there are also other things you don't talk about") for many people who doesn't understand how this "Climate Change" works.

0) Our Climate lies in equilibrium of freshwater-saltwater. A difference in salt concentration is what makes the ocean water currents move; just like pressures differences make air move.

1) Higher temperatures mean ice (freshwater) reserves melt faster. This implies a "shift" in equilibrium towards less salted water, implying the current doesn't have enough "salt concentration" differences and, hence, stop moving.

2) When the currents move, the water is cold (near the poles) and warm (near ecuator) and that cold/warm is taken by the moving air to landmasses. If the current stops, it means top will always be cold and bottom always warm.

3) And the final consequence of Global Warming is an Ice Age...

On (1) you can debate "why" the temperatures rises. You must take in account that the temperatures "changes" normally (maybe a solar eruption, hotspots, forest fires, etc. or, on the other hand, a ice mases sliding, more raining, etc.)

The problem is not that "they have changed" (that's what the ignorants keep talking about). The problem is that "they have changed TOO FAST", meaning, there's "other" thing apart the "normal temperature changes ratio". Here is where humans come in. Maybe it's fossil burning, plastics on ocean that reflect light, etc. whatever meaning "contamination".

The second problem is that we have passes years ago the "No Return Point", meaning, even if we stop contaminating, the Climate Shift won't stop at all. Then, why stop contaminating?

Well, there are two reasons I think, personally, on my own, YOU SHOULD BE WORRY ABOUT TOO:

A) Your descendants need a clean environment to live or will suffer (greatly). I, personally, will fight to protect my family from your (the ignorants' and criminals') crimes against Nature.

B) The most contamination, the shift will happen sooner. What's the problem then? Well, for example, if in your region you suffer 2 tornadoes each year, you'll "enjoy" 5 next year, 8 the following one, etc.

The only "hope" is that if humankind survives the Ice Age (and stops [or at list reduces considerably] contaminating), after that Ice Age, the Earth will try to recover the previous equilibrium state.

Meanwhile, millions would have died due to the Climate Shift/Change -- Global Warming, whatever you choose to call it.

Re:Clarity and Order

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions WILL die. Climate Shift/Change/Whatever is natural and will happen, as has happened over millions of years.
This is how we'll fuck us up anyway:

- "We must do something!"
- "First. Do no harm."
- "BUT WE MUST DO SOMETHING! THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! ... oh how did that happen"

Re:Clarity and Order

[Bengie]

Death is also a natural thing, but no need to make it happen several orders of magnitude faster.

The last time the climate changed a fraction as fast as it is now, a world wide extinction event occurred, nearly killed all life.This is faster. Even that time it was caused by a cataclysmic event, like a huge meteor or something. There is nothing normal about what is happening. Maybe it was bound to happen. Probably not. Hard to tell. No second Earth with no humans to compare against.

Re: This will hold for the first ten years of cool

[Anonymous Coward]

you need help

I agree, although I'm not sure he just needs an explanation about sarcasm tags, or mental health care.

America has the best excuse, ignorance !

[Anonymous Coward]

America has the best excuse, ignorance !
If windtroll is any indication, they don't even realise how dirty they are.

Re: Who is paying Slashdot to promote this baloney

[Anonymous Coward]

We know Soros pays trolls and funds riots and fake voters and a bunch of other evil shit. All public fact.

Russian trolls? All 13 of them post to slashdot every day?

No. A lot of people just think you're full of shit like the rest of your dnc sheep brethren. No one has to be a Russian troll to oppose your idiocy.

Thanks Evgeny. Somehow Soros telling people to riot doesn't ever make the news.

But Putin's cock holster telling his thugs to "beat the crap out of 'em" made the nightly news.

We see who you are. Pretty sure you won't be able to retire on what Twitler pays you for your trolling.

The climate is changing because it is?

[Anonymous Coward]

These headlines is getting stupid...

Waa glowball cooling oppressing me in the night

[Anonymous Coward]

Waa global cooling oppressing me in the night.

Every night, temperature drops by an average of 1 degree per hour and stays that way at least 10 degrees below day time for hours on end.
Waaaa... glow ball cooling is me oppressing me in the night.
non-deniers to blame

Mass extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing new, it has happened before, it may be happening now, it will happen in the future. It is inevitable (but we should of course not stop fighting it).

We are racing against the clock, always has been and always will until we make technological advancements that allow us to either colonize other worlds, or to artificially provide the hospitable environment we need to survive even when majority of Earth becomes inhospitable.

So if uneducated morons and media could stop spreading misinformation about GMO, AI, nuclear and other taboo concepts and embrace the opportunities the technologies give us, we would be one step closer to the survival of the human race.

Glow Ball Warming horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

I once came up from my subterranean cave under my mom's house. Went into the big room with the blue ceiling and the green carpet. Experienced Warming from that Glow Ball up high first hand. Never again!

Wasn't this predicted as natural 20+ years ago?

[urbanriot]

I recall reading about this topic roughly 20 years ago in an issue of National Geographic except then it was reported as a natural occurrence rather than man made climate change. They were noting temperature changes as far back as the 70's and speculated that the warm air that produced what felt like unnatural weather would shift to a different area of Europe at some point.

Re:Wasn't this predicted as natural 20+ years ago?

[ebvwfbw]

That's right. All of this is weather and not man made.

Cracks me up when Algore says - there is a consensus. Science isn't consensus, it's either true with reproducible research or it's not. We're still firmly in the "it's not" category because CO2 is a symptom and not the cause.

I remember Einstein and his theory. He was told there were a few hundred scientists that were working on disproving his theory. He said that he was surprised, it only takes one scientist to show it's wrong. Then it's wrong.

Re: MAY be weakening because of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

but is it all due to human made climate change?

No, just most of it. The remainder is due to a flock of chocolate chickens holding a house party in Hawaii, and some guy in a Mickey Mouse suit in Moscow.

--
I heard it on Faux news.

oblig XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

... Which is also a nice graph for climate deniers: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Feel free to repost. I'm posting as AC because I don't have an account...

So global warming will lead to lower temperatures?

[Anonymous Coward]

So global warming will lead to lower temperatures? Ironic.

good current cook

[Anonymous Coward]

A cold Europa ? OOOH the po' Froggie/Limey fucks. Freeze the Trotsky bastards I say ... and let West-marching Slavs eat them like iced sushi !

Re: This will hold for the first ten years of cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your help in this matter. Unfortunately you'll be getting lead poisoning at some point. Not now but when your useful idioting is no longer useful, it will come when you don't expect it.

Sure, this is absolutely true...

[Anonymous Coward]

..and I'm the Pope.

So many entitled assholes modding you up

[Anonymous Coward]

You must feel good knowing how stupid your fellow Americans are, they will back your absurdity, as they are as ignorant as you are.

... Because of Climate Change

[NikeHerc]

I no longer believe any assertion that contains the phrase "because of climate change." The planet's environment is too complex to model; any attempt to do so is doomed to failure, with one of the results being that people make all kinds of goofy predictions based on unreliable results.

Re:... Because of Climate Change

[ebvwfbw]

Once you take out the fake warming gas - co2, it all works and works well. CO2 is a symptom, not the cause. However they can't get rich on the real causes because man has nothing to do with those. Just look up John Coleman, a certified scientist that founded the weather channel.He also happens to have a journalism degree, which the left focuses on because they don't like what he has to say. He has since passed on.

CO2 and global warming will go down as THE biggest scam mankind has ever known.

Re:... Because of Climate Change

[acrimonious howard]

I no longer believe any assertion that contains the phrase "because of climate change."

"You made a coherent, rational point about this article, which was written because of climate change, and it makes you sound intelligent."

2 things spring to mind

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things immediately spring to mind.

1. They sound much more like an average Chinese person than you sound like an Average American.

2. The story of the little boy who cried wolf.
You lied about where coal comes from. here
You lied about China's coal production, consumption, and CO2 here, As well as America's emissions in the same post.
You also lied about how easy it is to mine 5km under water here.
And that's just the last page in your history...

more windylies

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to back up any of those lies with links?