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.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Please explain how temperatures are rising at unprecedented levels then, oh genius
It's the fault of stupid, short-sighted hippies like Greenpeace that we are stuck on fossil fuels instead of atomic energy.
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...
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!
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.
Funny how all the governments in the world want the same thing, supported by all their scientists.
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 ?
Blah blah blah yet another post where you ignore reality in order to jerk off nuclear power. All anyone has to know to understand that nuclear is a boondoggle is that it is absolutely slaughtered by basically everything else at cost per watt. Even if there were not lots of other good reasons why nuclear is crap, that would be sufficient.
P.S. We have a solution for long haul freight using electricity, it's called rail.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.
Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say.
* This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.
It has benefits for CO2 but we sail thru the 2 degree celcius increase about 2024. Nuclear plants wouldn't be done for 20 years. The public hate them.
I could see using Nuclear only in extreme lattitudes where alternative energy is less practical.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
It's safe...
https://ourworldindata.org/wha...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
It's inexpensive...
https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
https://insideclimatenews.org/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
That's just a lie. The Forbes article above explicitly point out that decommissioning costs are included in the price. They also point out that past cost overruns in nuclear power were often the result of poor money management, not any flaws in the technology or construction.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.
Prove it.
Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say.
* This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.
The risks are large. That's what happens with any large project. A multi-billion dollar anything will be more than any private insurance company is willing or able to cover. This is a financial risk, which again is often a problem of poor money management and not any flaw with nuclear power itself.
It has benefits for CO2 but we sail thru the 2 degree celcius increase about 2024. Nuclear plants wouldn't be done for 20 years.
Mean construction time for a nuclear power plant is about 7.5 years, though many have been completed in 3 years. Just because the TVA took 42 years to complete a reactor at Watts Barr does not mean all reactor projects are doomed to take as long.
The public hate them.
That's changing.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.thedailystar.net/o...
I've seen people flip on their stance on nuclear power right before my eyes when I point out that Fukushima was older than Chernobyl. We don't build nuclear reactors like Fukushima and Chernobyl any more. People understand this. You can complain about nuclear being unsafe, too expensive, and so on, but that's technology from 1980 if you are lucky. I can make wind and solar look bad too if I'm taking state of the art from 1978 and compare that to modern nuclear. Should I base my car purchases from what I learned by reading Unsafe At Any Speed?
I could see using Nuclear only in extreme lattitudes where alternative energy is less practical.
Then you need your vision checked.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I noticed a lack of citations on your claims. Here's mine:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
Nuclear power is in fact the safest source of energy we have today.
The claim on nuclear power being a prime target in war is cute. Have you seen a modern nuclear power plant? Did you notice something? A big concrete dome perhaps? I'm sure if someone dropped a big enough bomb on the dome it would break open but if that's your standard then consider this, how well protected are windmills from an attack in a time of war? What of solar panels? You want to put windmills off shore too? I wonder how well protected those would be from an attack, or a drunken container ship captain.
If you want to talk about making land unusable then consider how much land would have to be plastered over with solar collectors. We can't grow crops in the shade. Oh, we put the solar panels on the roof you say? That doubles or triples the cost. When prodded on price solar power advocates talk of the price on utility scale solar, which by some estimates is as cheap as coal. When prodded on the enormous amounts of land use it suddenly and magically becomes far more expensive rooftop solar. Well, make up your mind. Do we get cheap solar and make that land unavailable for crops or housing, or do we get expensive solar and put it on our rooftops? You get one or the other to make your case, you can't have both.
Oh, another argument I hear often is that solar will get cheaper in the future. Well, nuclear will get cheaper in the future. We've been subsidizing solar for decades now with the promise that someday, with enough research and development, it will be cheaper than coal. Well, why not subsidize nuclear too to make it cheaper than coal, safer than wind, and lower CO2 output than solar? Oh, wait, we don't have to do that because nuclear is already there. You think that's "bollox"? Show me your numbers.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Yep, the nuclear power industry got about one billion dollars year after year for 50 years in government subsidy. Nuclear power also provides 20% of the electricity generated in the USA. Compare this to what wind and solar get in subsidies. I did some searching on this and I've been getting some conflicting numbers, they vary from 7 billion dollars to 15 billion dollars based on who is providing the number and which year is being discussed. That alone is disproportionate subsidies. Consider that wind and solar combined provide less than 10% of our electricity that is very disproportionate. That's something like a 20 times difference in subsidies, based on money spent and energy produced.
How many have actually been built on time/cost, I couldn't find any, all i can find is massive cost and time overruns.
Probably because being on time and on budget isn't newsworthy.
I'll hear people complain about the money spent on Yucca Mountain. A nuclear waste site that's been a money pit for years and still has not been declared fit for disposing of waste. Well, that's what you get with a government run project that's so politically charged. We had US senators approve funds for the building of the site, because that's federal money spent in states where senators can buy a lot of votes. When it comes to funding the inspections and licensing for declaring it suitable for nuclear waste these same senators deny the funds. Now they can play the hero to their voters because dangerous nuclear waste won't be traveling on the roads through the neighborhoods where their kids play. There is no technical reason we can't put waste in this site, it's been held up only by politics. I imagine this money pit is included in the "nuclear industry subsidy" column when it contains no nuclear material, and may never contain nuclear material if it's not maintained. Maintaining it costs money, even if it's just a security detail to keep homeless and pot smoking teens out of it.
You are living in the land of unicorns
Yep, and it seems you are as well.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
Funny how all the dictatorships in the world want to take America's wealth, supported by all their government employed scientists.
Most climate scientists are in the US and Europe. When is the last time you counted dictatorships in those places ?
Well, Several countries have a King or Queen at the top and that is almost like a dictator, but it stays in the family. Like North-Korea. Then there is France that has an emperor and they smell and Germany has Hitler. So all of them.
BTW I really like going to school in Kansas. I e-learned a lot about God and Evalutian.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.