Slashdot Mirror
TV Coverage of Cycling Races Can Help Document the Effects of Climate Change (phys.org)
Researchers from Ghent University were able to detect climate change impacts on trees in Belgium by analyzing nearly four decades of archive footage from the Tour of Flanders. The findings were published in the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Phys.Org reports: Focusing on trees and shrubs growing around recognizable climbs and other 'landmarks' along the route of this major annual road cycling race in Belgium, the team looked at video footage from 1981 to 2016 obtained by Flemish broadcaster VRT. They visually estimated how many leaves and flowers were present on the day of the course (usually in early April) and linked their scores to climate data. The ecologists found that the trees had advanced the timing of leafing and flowering in response to recent temperature changes. Before 1990, almost no trees had grown leaves at the time of the spring race. After that year, more and more trees visible in the television footage -- in particular magnolia, hawthorn, hornbeam and birch trees -- were already in full leaf. These shifts were most strongly related to warmer average temperatures in the area, which have increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since 1980.
And the fools are buying it! hahahahah!
The climate is changing!?!? Take action now!
SSIA
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Please explain how temperatures are rising at unprecedented levels then, oh genius
Just because Bob Roll calls it "Gent-Bubblegum"
Its Belgium man!!
-Geekpoet
It changes four times a year. They're called seasons you libtards.
The planet has been warming since the end of the ice age which was about 12,500 years ago. If Yellowstone goes up we'll have another ice age. Those are scientific facts like 9-11 being a controlled demolition. ae911truth org
Of course its the Republicans, because in the history of mankind no one has ever made anything up but Republicans.
#walkaway movement
-geekpoet
libtards
"Please explain how temperatures are rising at unprecedented levels then, oh genius" In your treasonous obese republican mangina? Probably just fear of prison... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump.html
It's the fault of stupid, short-sighted hippies like Greenpeace that we are stuck on fossil fuels instead of atomic energy.
According to satellite data, the earth isnt warming at crazy levels, depends on who you believe.
As a follow up, do yourself a favor and read chapter 9 of the ipcc report and learn about all the issues about uncertainty and errors concerning the models they use. There are issues with the math and are real and honest which most ignore. Also read chapter 14.2.2 about predictably in a chaotic system. I found it interesting as to how much we still dont know and the areas where we lack data to perform real calculations.
#walkaway movement
-geekpoet
Let's test your "it's been warming since the end of the last ice age" hypothesis. The global land-ocean index has risen by about 1 C in the past 50 years, and it's forecast to warm another 2 C in the 21st Century. At that rate, the planet will be uninhabitable in only several centuries. So I think we can safely conclude that normal climate cycles aren't responsible.
Oh, fuck it. Let's put it a different way. Imagine that the planet is a fishbowl and the fish have a nasty habit of chain smoking. They've noticed that the water is getting cloudy and their gills are having to work harder to breathe, but they're convinced it must be due to silt from the bottom, not from their dim-witted behaviour in a closed system.
Why this has to be a political issue is beyond me. It's only a matter of time before the raging masses start challenging the existence of gravity and the laws of physics. Faith based engineering is just around the corner...
Try harder traitor Drumftards
Maybe they could spray those trees with something to prevent this problem.
The problem is that the data doesn't match the models, and it's those models that say it is supposed to be 2 deg C warmer. The data doesn't support the models' claims. Science says that when data and theory/model conflict, the theory/model is wrong.
Additionally, the theory is that a warming world should have more and stronger hurricanes, yet the trendline since 1992 is down and this year is forecast to be lower still. More data and theory conflicting...
Furthermore, look at the GISS temperature record from 1988 and from 2018. You'll see that it's been adjusted to eliminate the peak in 1940, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present. But it's not quite honest now, is it?
Lastly, look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005. They are essentially the same - yet the former (1895 to 1943) is supposed to be not affected by the sudden rise in CO2. If we had the same type of climate change with and without the impact of CO2, then what does that say about the impact of CO2?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Greenpeace is working against CO2 and pro solar and pro wind since they are founded, moron.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Cherry picking links?
What the funk is wrong with you?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So the data presented is bad?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yet another story about how the world is getting warmer. I'll get excited when I see the federal government start building nuclear reactors to replace the coal power we have now.
Nothing is safer than nuclear. Nothing has a lower CO2 footprint than nuclear. If it wasn't for the government bureaucracy holding up the issuance of licenses then we'd be seeing new nuclear reactors going online at a rate of about one per month.
Here's my conspiracy theory. I am admitting up front that this is approaching tin foil hat territory. The government doesn't want to actually solve the problem of global warming, they just want to be able to use the threat of global warming as an excuse for what they want to do.
I look at the EPA estimates on where the CO2 the USA produces comes from. 34% is electricity. Okay then, go hand out some nuclear reactor licenses and get those coal plants replaced. I find it impossible to believe that the government has not been able to find anyone capable of producing a nuclear power plant for 40 years. We get 20% of our electricity from nuclear power now so it's not like we don't know how to do it. Add in some wind, hydro, maybe even some solar and we can be on the path to taking CO2 production from electricity down to the level of a rounding error. I'm guessing if we really put our minds to it we could get a new nuclear reactor online at a rate of one per month very quickly. I say this because there was a time when the USA had half the population it has now and was able to build them at a rate of one every two months. Keep the paperwork to a sane level and we can keep the cost of electricity the same as it is now.
The next largest chunk of CO2 production in the USA is transportation, also about 34%. This is a more difficult problem because people can't merely be told to buy a new energy efficient vehicle. What happens though with the shift of electricity from coal and natural gas to nuclear then natural gas gets real cheap. While natural gas as a fuel isn't perfect it still gives half the CO2 output than gasoline per mile. I'm not sure the government needs to really do much on getting people to buy a natural gas car but merely set the rules on how to make them safe to drive. This has been done for a large number of vehicles used in commercial fleets so just make it clear to the auto makers that offering these same cars to the public will not meet resistance by regulators. This might mean road funding not being from gasoline taxes any more, so have people pay for the roads through sales taxes or something.
Here's another tin foil hat theory. No one is more addicted to gasoline vehicles than the federal government. The government makes more money through road taxes than the oil companies do in selling the fuel. The only way to break that addiction is to wean off the taxes.
Of course electric cars will play a part but passenger cars are not near as much a tax income for the government as over the road trucks, same goes for CO2. We haven't figured out long haul trucking on electricity yet, but we know how to make natural gas burn. No need for subsidies to make this work, just shift the electricity market from natural gas with nuclear power, make it clear that natural gas for transportation won't have any regulatory barriers beyond what already exists, and the market will move naturally.
There, a plan to more than halve the CO2 output from the USA. Making that happen could take less than a decade once it gets started and with proper motivation.
Don't give me more about the problems. I want solutions. Telling me the trees look different on a bicycle race is nice and all but let's get this done already.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So what, do we need to stop what we're doing and spend the next 3 years learning the subject matters to refute your little conspiracy theory about the GISS picture?
Film at 11.
Well, problem solved then. Great we donâ(TM)t have to think about that one any more!
When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present.
So that's how the trees in the TV recordings extended their growing season ? Because NASA adjusted the thermometers ?
Either know wtf you are talking about or stfu. He posted links and reasonable points. You posted trash. Intelligent people will go with him.
We were forced to hoard and conserve every little thing to survive in your Nazi concentration camps. The survivors were the ones who were best at getting and holding on to stuff. So greedy Jews are directly the fault of Nazi cock suckers like you.
He posted a link comparing 1988 data with 2018 data and showed a difference. However, no evidence was supplied to indicate that the 1988 data was actually superior.
but we DO with 100% certainty know that 1/humans dump a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere and 2/CO2 traps heat. (there are experiments that show you that, please repeat them)
A lot is not very scientific... compared to what? Volcanoes, oceans, just saying a lot doesn't make the correlation the causation dickhead. #poundmetoo #inthepussy
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models.
And a variable never accounted for by armchair climate scientists: plants don't live forever, and when they die and decay the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Net result: nothing.
Everyone knows you're a denialist faggot, that's plenty.
Don't be stupid, we're talking NASA. They adjusted the seasons. Think about it, they have space craft up there, they use them to adjust the orbital tilt of the Earth and get thousands of extra dollars in funding, some even say the funding dollars are even higher, and they all come out of your taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Renewable energiy isnât a toy, but a reality:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=26
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Here in Germany weâ(TM)re close to producing 50% of all electricity from renewable sources. And thereâ(TM)s a lot of free roof space to add more solar panels. What these production charts donâ(TM)t show is that we are currently producing much more energy than we consume because the coal and nuclear plants canâ(TM)t easily shut down when their power isnâ(TM)t needed. So, in terms of total power consumption, once the storage problem is addressed, the solar and wind peaks, together with the bio gas and water plants that can be shut down in times of over-production, can be used to deliver energy all day and night.
Are you telling me that it is 2018 and this site is still not getting character encoding right? :-(
no text
I'd lay the blame on companies like Exxon for funding those hippies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
When you cut and paste, Slashdot fails.
When you make a mistake or your phone autocorrects badly, Slashdot fails because you can't fix it.
I've been using slashdot less over the last year and can see a time when I'll just drop it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
But even if we covered the earth with plants, it's under 1/20th of the problem. It would consume about 3 gigatons of carbon per year assuming we perfectly sequestered all of it.
Last I saw was we release 37 gigatons of carbon per year. That's down from 50gigatons a couple decades ago but we only have about 115 gigatons before we pass 2 degrees celsius. And the easy carbon reductions are mostly all gone now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
enough to about double the CO2 concentration in just the last few centuries.
Except, of course, it is accounted for in the models. If only those climate modellers didn't have a better idea of climate modelling than the general public. Then you might have been right.
More interestingly, in the late 80's and early 90's there was a 'missing sink' in that atmospheric CO2 wasn't increasing as much as the emissions models suggested it would. It turned out that the estimates of increased plant C sequestration were higher than originally thought and the oceans were absorbing more than originally thought (thereby acidifying and damaging corals and molluscs etc.). Of course that was more than 20 years ago now.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models.
This is called "making shit up to support your beliefs".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I like the way you think.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models. Not only do plants grow faster with elevated levels of CO2, they also grow for time each year when the average temperature increases.
You can also add that changing the color (brown to green in this case) will change the albedo of the earth, which is another factor estimated by the climate modelers.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Based on theories and models that serve the globalist agenda. Those CO2 numbers are not written down in plain site, they are inferred from ice core samples or some made up BS.
Greenpeace's latest stunt was to crash a drone into a nuclear power plant containment structure. They did this to prove that a terrorist could crash a drone into a nuclear power plant containment structure. In other words they proved themselves to be terrorists.
I was going to say that no damage was done but that's not quite true. Go do a search for Greenpeace and find a news site that allows for people to comment. The drone didn't even leave a mark on the concrete wall but Greenpeace is just looking like idiots right now. The commenters are tearing Greenpeace apart and there seems to be a lot of support for nuclear power.
Here's a video of the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, talking about why he left and how Greenpeace has lost any basis in facts and science to their arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
shit... you'd better get onto the climate scientists and tell them what they've missed out as they are so stupid.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere can be calculated from the sold amount of coal, petrol, ...
yeah but the historic data is made up from bull crap ice samples
And the satellite data is known to be less reliable. And, since it includes upper atmosphre the trend will always be lower. But the trend is about 1.2C compared to the land surface of 1.4C. So it's well within the expected margin.
You also claim "not crazy" however you do not quantify its value. Nor where you get that value from. Nor even if that exists anywhere.
And since climate is an average, the problem with chaos disappears since it is a boundary problem not a trajectory one. So before you bleat out the latest denier talking mathy-point, please check their claims yourself. It just makes you ignorant when you try.
And please prove that the "missing" stuff you "vague" about here with no definitions (interesting...) is relevant to the climate change and changes the result to "no problem".
Nope, the preindustrial level was measured the same way it is measured now, moron.
No, just your analysis of it. Also posting the data out of context is intentional dishonesty. 30 seconds on Google will tell you exactly why and how GISS data was adjusted. Now go on and refute the actual adjustment itself. We're all waiting to hear your big conspiracy on an adjustment that was completely independent of time itself or temperature measured at the the time, and everything to do with the source of the measurement itself.
Greenpeace favour 100% renewable energy: https://www.greenpeace.org/arc...
Nuclear is too expensive, has too many problems and doesn't even cut CO2 emissions that much. The economics are steadily getting worse and the timescales involved in building it make any investment extremely risky and uncertain.
Climate change is the fault of stupid, short-sighted fanboys like you who are stuck on nuclear instead of renewables.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or maybe a chemical reaction occurs transforming CO2 with H20 (water) into O2 (oxygen) and C6H12O6 ( glucose)?
Even your own carefully cherry-picked GISS temperature record shows a "cooling" of 0.1 degrees compared to a warming of 1.5 degrees since 1880.
Here's a better graph based on Nasa data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As you can see there is a very clear trend, excepting the spike for WW2 and subsequent reduction in emissions as industry recovered.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They can probably find even earlier photographic evidence with a bit of effort and extend out the range to get a more better picture of the gradual greening uptick. It would be interesting to see such data from a regional perspective and see how it matches.
Very clever idea.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
There's no evidence that the first AC is of any particular political party.
Yours is pretty obvious though.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Didn't Europe just have two weeks where wind power produced 0 energy? Yes, pretty sure it did. Didn't Ontario have the same thing happen? Yes it did. Didn't multiple US states have the same thing happen? Why yes it did. All during a heat wave no less. Ah yes, total capacity of 4300MW and producing 30MW...so great. Guess it's a good thing we can buy from Quebec and Michigan, otherwise there'd have been rolling blackouts.
Greenpeace is very happy with expensive electricity, which makes people poorer. Nuclear power is among the cheapest solutions, unless you're living in a country that has a strong anti-nuclear stance like over in Europe, or the US. Because of 40 years of nuclear fear mongering by groups like Greenpeace.
Om, nomnomnom...
The weather has never been predictable, life on this planet is capable of dealing with changes in climate. Watching trees adjust their growing cycles in reaction to changes in the entire climate isn't scary, it isn't bad, it's proof that they can handle a little change even if it scares the crap out of us hairless monkeys Plants have more CO2 which makes them healthier, they have longer growing seasons, which makes them bigger. The "Green" movement is literally fighting against something called "Global Greening" right now, and if that doesn't make you laugh, then you just need to chill.
yeah it's all bullshit.
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Greenpeace is very happy with expensive electricity, which makes people poorer.
Disagree. It keeps poor people poor and none the wiser. Makes it easier to keep them in line despite the ill effects of Progressive policies.
Except it does not work like that at all:
1) Is the CO2 the growing a limiting factor, if not increasing CO2 have got zero effect (The longer leave period is addressed next point). Trees also need water, Nitrogen, Sun, and other species (bees, ...)... Any of these can be limiting and the global warming affect all of those. Growth of trees is a non-linear dynamical system.
2) It is well know among modeler longer period with leaves do not mean better forest grow. Too early for the bees? New pathogens because higher temperature? Earlier wood eating insect attack? More parasites? More fungus? Growth of trees is a non-linear dynamical system.
I call bullshit on whoever say more blah blah increase then more growth. This is multi-factorial thing. Growth of trees is a non-linear dynamical system.
Water vapor is the #1 cause of rising temp. CO2 is far down the list, and its not even an effective cause.
Domestication of cattle was is a bigger issue as they went from grass to grain and emit methane.
And not everything xkcd writes it correct.
Modern CO2 levels are not measured with ice cores, retard.
The science behind the ice cores is pretty thin, But held up as an a scientific law because it feeds their narrative of ZOMFG CO2!!!
Er... Nope.
Zero days this year of no wind power in the UK: http://www.ref.org.uk/fuel/ind...
Zero days of no wind power last month and last year in the UK: http://gridwatch.co.uk/Renewab...
That's just the UK, the wider EU is even larger. Where do you read this nonsense?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The U.K. is not Europe retard.
The funny thing is, crashing a full size plane at speed into a containment structure isn't gonna do shit to the containment structure. My father, who ran a nuclear reactor safety division at a national lab tested for this back in 1988.
12 foot thick concrete and rear wall, f4 phantom on a rocket sled at 480 mph. Result? Deepest dent was 2.5 inches.
Google f4 phantom wall to see the test
With the UK producing energy from wind power every day that means that in order for Europe to produce "0 energy" for "two weeks" that wind turbines elsewhere would have to not just provide no power but actively consume power. Did the Germans decide to use theirs as giant fans on hot days to get Europe to zero? Or did you not know the UK is in Europe?
captcha: posers. How fitting for all the AGW denial on what used to be a major science and engineering site.
So what's it like to wake up from a 40 year coma?
Based on theories and models that serve the globalist agenda. Those CO2 numbers are not written down in plain site, they are inferred from ice core samples or some made up BS.
Even a complete moron like you could measure CO2 levels - but you are afraid of the truth.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Oh thanks gawd I can read these links without goddamn javascript! Great link but I might say there are a few days at around 5% or less the wind production of the day with the most wind power output.
#walkaway is a great example of Republicans making stuff up. I don't think I've seen a more obvious astroturf campaign.
What's the carbon footprint of all the TVs tuned in to watch that coverage I wonder? And the computers being used to read this right now.
According to satellite data,
First of all: You do know that this doesn't actually measure temperature, but determines a temperature value for some atmosphere layer above a point on Earth by calculating together different microwave emission bands measurements from different angles and taken at different times.
If "satellite data" didn't (supposedly) show what you want, you'd deride it as unscientific without thinking about it (which you don't do anyway).
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I can't tell if this is satire or not.
Well poe'd
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Nothing accurately measures global temperatures. The concept is ridiculous. Adding up the numbers from thermometers placed randomly around the world does not provide you with a global average temp. At best, it provides an average for just those locations, many of which have well known and well understood micro climate changes over time which have absolutely nothing to do with co2.
Please tell us two things:
1) how can we accurately measure global average temperature?
And
2) what is the right global average temperature?
Maybe stuff is greener because we fixed acid rain..
Yes! I drew you into posting your unreadable cut n paste hateful nonsense!
I won the Internet today!!
Didn't Europe just have two weeks where wind power produced 0 energy? Yes, pretty sure it did.
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Nuclear power is among the cheapest solutions
That is just nonsense, regardless of your "unless" points.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But you had 7 ZERO COAL days ;D hurray!
Where do you read this nonsense? ...
There was a bloomber article a few days ago, proclaiming that we had a heat wave in Europe (especially UK) and no wind at the same tim, oh shudder, I'm so scared now
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Water vapour is the number one cause of heat retention, not of rising temperatures. Also, cattle don't dig up buried carbon.
Ah right, I've noticed that Bloomberg prints a lot of bullshit about renewable energy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
So the article which provided stats was made up. Gotcha.
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Europe is tiny. I can drive across it in a day, it takes me 7-9 days to drive across Canada, if I drive 14hrs/day. Ontario is roughly the size of UK, Spain, France, Germany, NL, and Italy, and we've just had 11 days with pretty much zero wind.
That is just nonsense, regardless of your "unless" points.
It is the cheapest, unless you live in some backwards country that thinks nuclear is dangerous because of 40 years of environmentalist bullshit. Which you seem to be doing.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sure you have. I will help:
Hillary is going to win, everyone knows it, polls say so
Trump will be impeached, everyone hates him, polls say so
Democrat blue wave, everyone knows this, polls say so
According to satellite data...
-geekpoet
Satellite data is consistent with land measurements
Trend for the NASA GISTEMP surface station record: 0.1732 per decade.
Trend for RSS remote sensing satellite record: 0.1948 per decade
Satellite shows a higher rate of warming, but roughly consistent with surface station record.
That's just the UK, the wider EU is even larger. Where do you read this nonsense?
In actual publications that have a good reputation? What have you been looking at, the BBC telling you that NG Plant emissions are the source of wind power? Looking at the site you've listed, I can see multiple days with 1% generation across just the UK. Yeah that's sure paying for itself.
Om, nomnomnom...
Of course that was more than 20 years ago now.
That is why the armchair scientists have forgotten it already.
And after you pointed it out to them, they will forget it again next week.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Europe is tiny.
It is bigger than a dozen "no wind cells", so it is to big to have no wind at all, that was the point.
I can drive across it in a day ... Europe is bigger than that in every direction. And If I pick you a worst case route you drive 4 days, good luck.
No you can't. If you drive 100mph for 24h you manage 2400miles, obviously
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The U.K. is not Europe retard.
But it is in Europe. What exactly was your point?
Google maps says that it's 64 hours of driving to get from Lisbon to Perm. Meanwhile Sydyney, NS to Vancouver is 59 hours.
The problem is that the data doesn't match the models
IPCC projected warming of about 0.2C/decade. The trend on the satellite record is 0.19C/decade. Pretty damn good.
Look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005.
The trend from 1895-1943 was somewhere between 0.045 C/decade and 0.109 C/decade (2).
The trend since 1957 was somewhere between 0.112 C/decade and 0.154 C/decade.
They're not really close - there's not even overlap in the uncertainty - and possibly the current trend is over three times greater than that of the early 1900s.
Nonetheless, if you want to understand this period you shoudl read the literature rather than conspiracy blogs: "Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p >.8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution..."
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Europe is tiny. I can drive across it in a day, it takes me 7-9 days to drive across Canada, if I drive 14hrs/day. Ontario is roughly the size of UK, Spain, France, Germany, NL, and Italy, and we've just had 11 days with pretty much zero wind.
Europe is bigger than Canada, by slightly less than 2%.
BTW, I checked your claim about Ontario. It's about half the size you said.
Another way in which clean, non-polluting, energy efficient, forms of transportation like cycling helps the environment.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1. Hillary was consistently ahead in national polls until the last month or so when there was considerable tightening detected by pretty much all of the pollsters. HRC won the popular vote by a 3 million yet lost the electoral college due to narrow Trump wins in three battleground states. Those are facts, not an example of astroturf.
2. Polling has at no time indicated majority support for Trump's impeachment. Trump's approval rating has been remarkably consistent, holding steady at 35-43% in his first 500 days. He's unusually unpopular for a president so early in the presidency, particularly with solid same party control over the government. Those are also facts, and also not an example of astroturf.
3. The Democratic party has been racking up an unusually large record of wins in 2017 electoral contests that would seem to support the "blue wave" notion, as does Trump's low approval rating, plus long standing historical trends for the President's party to lose seats in the House and Senate during the midterms. Those are even more facts, and still not an example of astroturf.
You don't have a clue what "astroturf" is, do you.
Also, growth of trees is a non-linear dynamical system.
Guess it's a good thing we can buy from Quebec...
Yeah, thank goodness for Quebec: Quebec generated 99.8% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2016, and had the highest percentage of renewable generation in Canada.
If you're serious about climate change then you need to support nuclear power. James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, and others outline why nuclear is the only viable path forward on climate change. Nuclear power will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
The U.K. is not Europe retard.
Are you pretending the Brexit has already been completed? Or are you just what you call others?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
So the article which provided stats was made up. Gotcha.
If the stats are clearly wrong, chances are that article was made up. There is of course always the possibility it was written by a complete moron, or a faulty AI. Are you the author?.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How about you take a minute on Wikipedia and read before calling others morons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Origins
Greenpeace started as an anti-nuclear weapon group. They've always been anti-nuclear. Since they are idiots and conflate nuclear power with nuclear weapons they protest at every nuclear power plant they can get to.
Greenpeace started protesting nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Since that stopped they moved to protesting whaling in the 1970s, and toxic waste dumping in the 1980s. Greenpeace didn't even start talking about CO2 and solar power until the 1990s.
Europe is tiny.
It is bigger than a dozen "no wind cells", so it is to big to have no wind at all, that was the point.
So then for wind to provide the energy Europe needs they'll have to have (pulling a number out of my ass) four times as much windmill capacity than they consume since they can only count on sufficient wind over 1/4 of Europe. When the wind is blowing well then they might be able to tank up some of that energy in things like batteries and pumped hydro dams. Add in some solar panels to pick up the peak demand at noon.
So you have solar panels along the south to get the best sun. You have storage dams in the north, because that's where the water and mountains are. Scattered about are windmills. Then you need a lot of wires and a complex "smart grid" to move all that energy around.
That sounds very complicated, very fragile, and very expensive. It also sounds like it works only so long as every nation gets along with each other.
We saw what happens when European nations get too dependent on their neighbors for energy. Russia has been known to play games with their natural gas supply to get leverage. They usually play these games in winter when NG use is highest. What if a nation starts playing similar games when the wind isn't blowing where energy usage is high?
Europe might be big enough but no one nation is. Making a vital resource like energy dependent on the good behavior of your neighbors is not a good idea for national security.
And no data has been presented to show the 2018 data is superior, either. The point is that if the underlying data is so fragmented and malleable, then how firm of conviction can you reasonably be about conclusions from that dataset?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Want to try that again without the Engrish?
Crack out the popcorn, it's yet another climate change article. People from both sides of the fence will throw various more or less sensible arguments at each other, not even remotely interested in listening.
Personally, I don't care anymore. I have no kids. I'll be dead in 50 years. Yes, I know the planet is going to hell, but why bother trying to educate the stupid? You want your kids to live in a hellhole, so who am I to keep you from being eventually cursed and wished to hell or worse by your descendants?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you have a faint idea how much carbon we pull out of the ground in form of oil and coal every year? To sequester this in plants, we'd need to grow another amazon forest. And those plants better never die and release that carbon again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
Only if you do it a couple hundred feet down, and never ever throw away those chairs.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You can build in your country as much nuclear power as you want.
I don't support nuclear power in Germany or the EU, it is to dangerous. And to expensive.
And we don't need it.
Why do you care how we make our power as long as it is without producing CO2?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why don't you just download the data that you are interested in and check yourself?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.