Slashdot Mirror


118 All-Time Heat Records Set Around the Globe (miamiherald.com)

"It's so hot, even parts of the Arctic are on fire," reports Vox, citing wildfires in Sweden, while Greece "has declared a state of emergency as raging forest fires have killed at least 81 people and injured more than 190."

But heat-related disasters are happening around the world. In Japan 86 people have been killed by heatstroke, while another 23,000 people have been hospitalized -- about half of them over the age of 65 -- in a heat wave forecast to continue for another two weeks. "Japan hit 106 degrees on Monday, its hottest temperature ever," reports the Associated Press, adding that "So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe." An anonymous reader quotes their report. "We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall," Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh said. "We find that global warming has increased the odds of record-setting hot events over more than 80 percent of the planet, and has increased the odds of record-setting wet events at around half of the planet..."

"The world is becoming warmer and so heat waves like this are becoming more common," said Friederike Otto, deputy director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.

"Death Valley, California, has set three consecutive daily record-high temperatures of 127 degrees," reports the Washington Post, adding that "Sometimes, like right now in the Western U.S., it's too hot for airplanes to fly" because of heat-related changes in air density at high-altitude airports. In Europe, nuclear power plants in Finland, Sweden, and German were forced to cut electricity production because high temperatures heated the seawater needed to cool reactors.

In northern California 38,000 people fled their homes as an 80,900-acre wildfire spread through the Shasta-Trinity area. Reuters reports the wildfire was caused "by hot, dry weather and high winds" -- and that it's one of 89 large wildfires currently burning in 14 U.S. states.

503 comments

  1. And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are so fucking stupid it is infuriating.

    1. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by greenwow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.

    2. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    3. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by snapsnap · · Score: 2

      So if, like here in Seattle, there's been two record breaking highs the past decade after over a hundred years of measurements that that doesn't mean it proves global warming? But shouldn't two record highs in a hundred years prove we're in run-away/hockey stick global warming?

    4. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live, this week it was the hottest it has been in 75 years, and we've had accurate local measurements for just over 80 years. Too many idiots claim that is proof of global warming when the fact that in almost 94% of the measurements, it's been colder since it was a little over 80 years ago. That demonstrates cooling. I don't believe that's true, but that's what the math shows.

    5. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two out of ten out of a total of a hundred isn't proof. That's evidence, but not proof.

    6. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Luckily, we have that data, and it shows that not only is this year setting records for high temperatures, so did the previous three years in a row. And the longer term data shows a clear trend.

    7. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not, that'd demonstrate extreme temperature swings. Wise the fuck up.

    8. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the system was static, with constant average temperatures, then random events would produce an ever-decreasing number of new records each year, both high and low. The regular smashing of numerous high records (with the occasional low as well) is characteristic of a system with increased variability on top of a rising trend.

      But we already know that, not through statistics but because the science has been hammering it home since the 80s, with analysis of not only new measurements but 200 years of temperature records from all over the globe, and proxy records for the last few millennia.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    9. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but that doesnâ(TM)t help us. We need to put people ahead of math.

    10. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Not a hoax, it's just not good science. We need about 200k years of detailed
      temperature data to really see how we're trending. We have less than 200 years,
      and it's only recently that we have data from many collection points around the world,
      so in reality, maybe 40 years of detailed data. Not even a drop in the bucket. I say
      this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times
      preached by the science of the times.

      CAP === 'hissed'

    11. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If so, then where are the equivalent low-temperature records?

    12. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Excellent job showing that you mastered the language of statistics while simultaneously understanding neither the subject matter nor how statistics might or might not be able to shed some light on the subject.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that's taken a statistics class understands that, but the general public obviously doesn't understand that.

    14. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. New measurements should be less than previous ones by the law of maths. The law of maths.

    15. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Weather is not climate. There's plenty of proof of global warming, but this isn't part of it. "Global Warming" is a poor name, it's "Global Climate Change" and some places will actually get cooler, while others get hotter. Some places might stay the same temperature, just get more/less precipitation. The only thing known for sure is that it will suck for everyone, more if nothing is done, maybe less if we do something.

    16. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but most people don't seem to understand that. They seem to think a record high is meaningful. One piece of data doesn't prove a trend.

    17. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if next year the world experienced record lows. Some genius will berate us not for global warming but for global climate change, as if it's all humanity's fault.

      Look, there are many benefits to burning natural fuels, like not dying from heat (ironically), lack of water, healthcare machinery, dying from ignorance due to difficulty in educating a population without many books or the internet, etc.

    18. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. If it wasn't warming then the temperature wouldn't break records. As we know, there's a 10% chance of warming and a 1% chance of cooling so we all know warming is the problem.

    19. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the average is constant, you will record fewer new extremes as time goes on. We are recording more extremes suggesting that we have a real problem here.

      In other words, you should expect regression to the mean, not divergence.

    20. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, most of those predictions "use by" date are still in the future. You can't really complain that they haven't yet come to pass when they weren't expected to yet.

    21. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1, Informative

      But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.

      You know jack shit about "how the math works". The easiest way to tell is that you obviously don't also expect new lows - funny, because the only new lows come from the likes of you, not from temperature.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    22. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by fortfive · · Score: 1

      How old are you? Because at least sine the 70's the consensus has been warming.

    23. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by fortfive · · Score: 1

      What's the agenda?

    24. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The record high on this date here in Seattle is 92 set in 1971. It hasn't been as hot since. If you go just by that, it looks like we're experiencing cooling. You can't go by single pieces of data.

    25. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This greenwow faggot is a patent anti-environmentalist since forever so take whatever the bitch says with a gallon of oil orally or anally, your choice. Trump hangs either way.

    26. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be true, since Faux News says it is...

    27. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global warming is real but global warming isn't what causes forest fires in Sweden.
      Immigrants do.

    28. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by aliquis · · Score: 2

      But we know CO2 and other things are green-houses gases and we know that more of those should heat the world up and we know we let a lot more of them into the atmosphere and we know temperatures has been rising.

      So as far as science go we've got the theory, we've got the variables and we've got the result and so far it's performing in line with the theory.

    29. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I missed when we decided that CO2 was a poison. When I was in college studying environmental science, it wasn't but suddenly the media started spewing that lie. Why? It's not poisonous. Why do they lie when even just a basic bit of research can prove that wrong?

    30. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on. Even without measurements proving it, we all know it's getting hotter.

    31. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read again. A prediction talking about by 2050 (for example) cannot be said to have proven wrong today since we have years to go.

    32. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also plant food and most of us like plants.

    33. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that means, he must be at least in his 50's. Since you couldn't figure out the math, I did it for you.

    34. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 1

      My graduate level physics of the weather professor has proven temperatures are dropping

      This sentence doesn't even make sense. You put the who in the what, now?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    35. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You are wrong, there are new lows, here's from earlier this year:

      Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records.

      Are you going to adjust your worldview now, or just pretend that didn't happen?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 1

      I missed when we decided that CO2 was a poison.

      That's a nice straw-man you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    37. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 1

      We need about 200k years of detailed temperature data to really see how we're trending.

      So you want to wait around for another 200,000 years before we do anything? That's... well, that's just stupid. Honestly.

      I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.

      So, what you're saying is that because someone was wrong once a long time ago, you're going to continue to believe what they said back then?

      Or are you saying that because someone was wrong once, you're never going to believe anything that anyone since then has said?

      I can't quite get what you're trying to imply here. Can you spell it out for us who don't speak luddite curmudgeon?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    38. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      We've been measuring temperatures since at least the 1800's. And you expect the records to actually fall off fairly quickly. For instance, you would expect a d20 to max out after 14 rolls.

      I could go on, but these numbers indicate rising temperatures.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    39. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh you know, the total mass of insects has fallen by nearly 80% in 40 years. Doesn't that figure ring a bell about something exceptional happening? Bet most people didn't even know that.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    40. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You put the lime in the coconut.

    41. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.

      Actually, the peer reviewed science in the 1960's and 1970's said the earth was warming. News media may have said differently, but even that is being exaggerated - for instance that Times magazine cover from 1977 is a fake.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    42. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 0

      Sorry

      This is insincere. You're not actually sorry.

      More than enough of those predictions have failed quite spectacularly to make all of the other yet to be reach future predictions highly suspect.

      I suppose you're going to cite the brief flirtation with the coming ice age that someone a long time ago got wrong. It's pretty silly to still be dwelling on that so many years later.

      In Science we need past performance to be accurate to be "reasonably certain" of those future predictions... why? Because if we are correct about the "known's" then we are also going to be correct or at least pretty close about the "predictions". And since the predictions that have past, have not only be wrong, but VERY wrong..

      What you're describing isn't science, or anything to do with science. What you seem to be rambling on about is some bullshit about what it would take to convince you personally. But you know what? Nobody cares what you think. You're just a crotchety old fool who thinks they know better than everyone else. It's clear that you don't know the first thing about science or climate or even how to write a concise fucking argument.

      as long as those solutions are tied to shady political wealth redistribution plans.

      As if we needed any more proof that you're just a crackpot with an internet connection, you start in with the nonsense about "wealth redistribution plans".

      It will only make the rich, richer in ways we [...lots of rambling nonsense...] We are carbon based life forms after all.

      While you're busy wasting bandwidth, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do about it. We don't really care if you believe it or not. We're going to move on without you.

      FFS, you're a waste of carbon, too

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    43. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is called climate change. It changes both ways. You are a fucking moron

    44. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking retarded like most republican faggots.

    45. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > While you're busy wasting bandwidth, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do about it. We don't really care if you believe it or not. We're going to move on without you.

      I don't know who you think "we" are, but you're incredibly naive if you believe that 90% of humanity actually gives a shit about this. Instead you are being led by politicians who will do quite well out of whatever it is they think they can make you give a fuck about to support some change that allows them to jam in agendas and the ability to tax capital in flight or accept graft to affect a general or specific outcome.

    46. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The longer you measure you would expect a reducing frequency of records, both low and high, in equal measure. However, the frequency of high temperature records is much higher and not falling away in the same way as low temperature ones. So on the analysis you suggest, it is getting warmer.

    47. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's clear that you don't know the first thing about science or climate or even how to write a concise fucking argument."

      I guess it takes one to know one.

    48. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that is not the real problem. The real problem is that extremists on both sides are total idiots.
      Far right screams that AGW is not happening,
      while the far left, wants to give passes for all nations except for the west, esp. America. For some odd reason, they believe that by stopping ~1/4 of the emissions, while allowing other nations, esp China, to add to their emissions by more than what the west was doing, is OK. Add to that, most of the far left, continue to fight Nuke power. Yet, the ONLY nations that have low CO2 emissions are those with large hydro, geo-thermal, or Nukes. What they do not have, is large Wind/Solar.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    49. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You studied environmental science in the 40s?

    50. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      that data does no good when the far right simply ignores it, while the far left ignores making all nations drop their emissions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    51. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Better pesticides? Most insects live directly or indirectly off of crops from farm land.

    52. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Long term data seems to show an increase, it is true, and logically we would expect some kind of increase after adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, but this particular story is pure propaganda, and no attempt is made to calculate the likelihood of these temperatures being a result of AGW. No attempt is made to compare them with the thousands of cold temperature records made earlier this year. The purpose of this story is to hit people on an emotional level.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      Additionally, back in the 70's it was Global Cooling too

      Not in the peer reviewed journals. But in pop-sci media.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    54. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Denmark doesnâ(TM)t have large hydro, geo-thermal, or Nukes.

      But the reason why most low CO2 countries have those techs is only historical. Wind and solar have only recently become competitive.

      But they are actually cheaper now in many/most cases, so.... letâ(TM)s go.

    55. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the dumb fucks that listen to trump claiming that this climate change thing is a hoax and invented by the Chinese need to turn off Fox News and off themselves..... maybe after that we can focus on the solutions without the incessant lies and misdirection.

    56. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ice cores provide huge data into the past

    57. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      The only pass being handed out is by you to America.
      Despite the fact America produces way more CO2 per person, you want to give them a free pass because they have less people than bigger countries.
      Even in coal, Americans use more coal for electricity than Chinese people do. You just have less people so you give them a free pass.

    58. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

      When you can drop your levels to the world average, maybe then other people will take you seriously. Until then you are just an entitled asshole who thinks polluting the most is your God given right just for being American.

    59. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Around the globe", or as is is known in USA, "around the disk".

    60. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't take the stupid out of stupid

    61. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, there are new lows, here's from earlier this year:

      Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records.

      Are you going to adjust your worldview now, or just pretend that didn't happen?

      Are you going to compare the same time of records (all time versus daily) or are you going to stoop to new lows? Thanks for proving my point.

      And yes there are still new all time time lows - it's just there are several orders of magnitude more new all time highs.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    62. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd assume the course is titled "Physics of the Weather", it's a graduate level course, and he has a Professor that believes in Cooling.

    63. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the Right doesn't believe in the measured values, and the Left doesn't believe in using the measured values.

    64. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what you'd expect. You pump more energy into a chaotic system, you will see more variation at both extremes. Imagine you have a slightly off-axis spinning top, travelling along a roughly straight path. Now you spin it faster, do you expect it to veer off to the left? No, you'd expect it to oscillate wildly until it eventually falls over and reaches a stable equilibrium.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    65. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by lurcher · · Score: 1

      No, but a trend does prove a trend.

    66. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      What a load of crap.
      There never was anything even close to a consensus among scientists about global cooling. I\m sick and tired hearing that argument being brought up time after time.

      https://skepticalscience.com/7...

    67. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other words, you should expect regression to the mean, not divergence.

      You're talking to someone who just suggested using statistics to show the world isn't warming, I suggest you don't use such big complicated words.

    68. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was similar weather patterns un past...

    69. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Are you going to compare the same time of records (all time versus daily)

      Ooops - "type" of record, not time.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    70. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Now you're making things up, or you're parroting propaganda you heard somewhere. The fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up is accepted by 99.99 percent of scientists, maybe more. What you just said is not. At best it's a hypothesis, although your exposition of it is ignorant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    71. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If I'm going to do it right, I'm going to do a solid statistical analysis, something this current story does not do. The only question is whether you can recognize that, or whether you are in the grips of a horrid confirmation bias. So far your comments make it seem like the latter.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    72. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If global warming is real or not why are there so many people who argue against the theory? What is wrong with driving more fuel efficient cars or electric cars? What is wrong with switching to solar and wind power? Fossil fuels are a limited resource and fracking has shown that other more dangerous green house gases are emitted than CO2.

    73. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.

      If there were no long term temperature trend you would expect to get as many new record lows as new record highs. Instead what we see is record highs outnumbering record lows by close to 2 to 1 since the year 2000.

      And even more dramatic is the number of record high daily lows. That is the overnight low temperatures are going up even more comparatively than the daily high temperatures. It's difficult to find data for that but in the first half of 2015 record high daily lows outnumbered record low daily lows by 6 to 1.

    74. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average temperature of this year and last is absolutely normal. How does one year make a climate change when last year was colder than normal?

    75. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      ... And since the predictions that have past, have not only be wrong, but VERY wrong...

      If that's the case it should be no problem for you to cite several specific examples of these wrong predictions. I'm having trouble coming up with any examples so I'd appreciate you showing me the way.

    76. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of this story is to hit people on an emotional level.

      I actually hope it does, I hate the extremists on either side of this argument as much as anyone else... but it turns out people are very numb to real demonstrable changes caused by global warming, because they are usually not tangible and immediate enough, combined with the fact that there are no immediate practical alternatives to their activities that contribute to AGW, and often no way of directly affecting the footprint of things they consume.

      In spite of lack of hard analysis yet, with this unusual set of heatwaves, all in sync, is pretty hard to be highly suspicious of the cause being AGW - perhaps enough that people start caring enough push for change, i.e intervention in industry, because as an individual citizen not part of any responsible corporation, that is pretty much the only significant thing you can do.

    77. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, back in the 70's it was Global Cooling too

      Not in the peer reviewed journals. But in pop-sci media.

      just as peer reviewed as global warming is today.

    78. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per capita, the USA is lower than or equal to Australia and Canada.

      In terms of localized air health, UK and other areas of Europe, have done themselves no favors pushing diesel in crowded urban areas, they're scrambling to correct that error.

      That said, the USA should triple its current over-road fuel taxes and dedicate all of that money to public transport expansion and electric vehicle charging station expansion.

    79. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile Al continues to use 10-20X more energy vs the average American.

    80. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/scientist-who-predicted-ny-city-would-be-underwater-says-hes-not-an-alarmist/

    81. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 0

      It's also plant food and most of us like plants.

      So is water - but that is missing in a drought. Despite all this CO2 "food" plants are looking damn miserable right now in many places all over the world.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    82. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You really do not understand statistics of measurements in physical, regulated systems.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    83. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing as proof, one can only disprove

    84. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Even better analogy with a motorcycle. As you say it starts oscillating with increasing oscillation until it falls over and teaches an equilibrium. Agree to all that.
      The problem is that the rider is dead at this point.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    85. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Not a hoax, it's just not good science. We need about 200k years of detailed temperature data to really see how we're trending.

      WTF? That's almost two complete ice ages ago. Not to mention we want to see the change humanity has or hasn't brought since the industrial revolution.

      I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.

      So you are 115,000 year old.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    86. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Better pesticides? Most insects live directly or indirectly off of crops from farm land.

      I call bullshit.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    87. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an xkcd for that:
      https://xkcd.com/1732/

    88. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      They're being hidden on a little-known search engine called google:

      https://www.google.com/search?...

    89. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Giving developing nations more leeway is a centrist policy. Rather than demand everyone stops emitting CO2 a more realistic plan is to get developing nations on board with targets and low carbon tech.

      China is demonstrating that it's possible. Exceeding its ambitious targets, passed peak coal years ago...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    90. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by west · · Score: 1

      Ahem,

      And gather together the dispersed of Judah
      From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

      (Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)

      The world is obviously a square, not a disk.

    91. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And you continue to lie.
      SHow us where I give America a pass on our CO2? Not a place. OTOH, you continue to lie and make up stuff. as both crimson tsunami and caffinated bacon.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    92. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      totally agree.
      In fact, I would like to see us drop the EV subsidies, and then have the feds increase gas/diesel tax by .01 / gal / month for the next 100 months. Yeah, bring it up by $1.00 / gal, but over 100 months. The gas portion needs to go to the state collected, while diesel goes to the feds. Then all of it must go to infrastructure.

      There is one issue that will popup. In particular, as we head towards EVs, we have the grid/utility capacity. The problem is that ALL of AE, nuke, and even nat gas are at near 100% capacity. Turns out that the slack in our system, is the coal. I thought it was around 90%, but turns out that coal is the ONLY electricity that has major slack. As such, we MUST build out new nukes and geo-thermal. Wind/solar can not replace on-demand well enough.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    93. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while the far left, wants to give passes for all nations except for the west, esp. America.

      Because that's where the money is to redistribute.

    94. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ People are so fucking stupid it is infuriating.

      [Sarcasm] We are lucky we have the deniers; now we can rest assured nothing bad will happen, because either:
      a) there was no warming;
      b) there was, but it was natural, it's a cycle and it's actually cooling or
      c) natural factors at play vastly surpass our ability to do something about it.
      [end Sarcasm]

      That's why you got to pay for education, because when a crisis appears, uneducated fools can prevent society from taking appropriate countermeasures in due time.

      From top of mind I that as a recurring theme:

      a) warning the Greek about the Phillip (II, I believe) threat;
      b) understanding and fighting the Spanish conquistadors (or escaping them) and, more recently,
      c) the dangers of totalitarian regimes.

      I cannot help but wonder when I hear such phrases like "this is nothing", "nothing to see here", "just relax, that's no big problem" about where does that come from.

    95. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

      How about here from a few hours ago. Where you singled out China and Europe for not being at Indian levels. When you know America is 10 times higher but didn't mention it. Just conveniently slipped your mind did it?

      How many times have you said America is doing good because it's decreasing. Far too many to count. Yet you know for a fact they are among the highest of the high.

      Did you find a single lie yet WindBourne?

    96. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by YASlashdotAccount · · Score: 2

      No, the problem is bullshit arguments that someone's giving other countries a pass providing yet another excuse for inaction. China's a sovereign nation last I checked and Americans have little influence over there. Americans can do something about their own policies. I'm reminded of my kids arguing about cleaning their shared bedroom. Neither one wants to lift a finger for fear he might do slightly more than his brother. The end result is they both live in filth. This argument about what other countries are or are not doing shows the same level of maturity. By the way, China's emissions have peaked, and they are expected to get lowered. What's is going to take for America to feel like they've done enough so they can get with it? Does China need to bring their emissions below America's? You do realize they would have to cut it in half. That would conveniently give us another decade before we get off our ass.

    97. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that from looking at accumulated cyclone energy and number of tornadoes, the energy in the system seems to be stabilizing. Falling energy, falling tornado count..

    98. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just start with the highest emission countries. When the highest drops down to the 2nd highest they can both drop down to the 3rd etc. Very high emission countries like America have the furthest to fall so they should start first and drop the most. All nations aren't the problem, high emission countries are.

    99. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's hot because Mars is a star just like the Sun and it's very close to Earth right now!.

    100. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by maxbuzz · · Score: 1

      The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.

    101. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much stupid all together in one place government admits spraying chemicals for the last 40 years they admit they make the weather these so-called wildfires which actually tornadoes of flame are not produced naturally as usual your stinking government is to blame for everything and it was long before daddy Trump idiots live here

    102. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the f****** idiot offering up tax money to pay for political problems thinking is going to fix the climate you f****** idiot

    103. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used my air conditioner 1 day so far in Calgary normally i would be running it for 10 - 15 days by now. The death cult will say anything Keep up the good work, the more extreme your claims the more the masses see how desperate you are.

    104. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explanation, you're a moron. Pull your head out of your locale, and ass, and find the fisheye view. Global climate CHANGE is proven and requires serious investigation and hopefully, remediation.

    105. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any time I see the phrase 'the left', 'the far left', I know the bullshit train from bullshit mountain is on time.

    106. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was molten at several points in its history. We have instrumental records for a bit more than a century and proxies for perhaps a couple millennia. Now--please define "all time record" for me.

    107. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 1

      I say this because when I was a kid, the big thing was the coming ice age in our life times preached by the science of the times.

      That's largely false. The press may have made a big deal out of it, but there was no scientific consensus for global cooling or a coming ice age.

      See: https://skepticalscience.com/7...

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    108. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Megol · · Score: 1

      People presents unusual cold/snow events as proof that global warming is a hoax. They are wrong.
      As are you.

      Exceptionally hot and cold years have been noted since we have documented history.

    109. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chris go away. Grown folks are talking.

    110. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Ferretman · · Score: 0

      Well said.

      There no convincing evidence of global warming as of yet that I'm aware of. There's some minor compelling evidence but it's contradictory.

      Of course some might be more easily convinced that others.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    111. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lrn2read

    112. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      By 2020? Well, that's testable at least.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    113. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      No one denied global warming...it is easy to prove and makes sense. I haven't met anyone who has been quilted into believing it is their fault because they ate cow meat or drove a car though.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    114. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      What are we supposed to do...move? You fucking dumb shit.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    115. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      So long as it's reasonably accurate, I have no problem with emotional-level pieces like this. A great many people make decisions emotionally, and this is a good way to convey scientific results to them. But if you're not one of those, this isn't aimed at you; the lack of science in this article is probably deliberate - it's not even trying to justify its claims.

      If you prefer actual facts and figures to back up an analysis, the IPCC reports are a great starting point. While the summaries provide only broad overviews, the chapters they reference go into much more detail and are very well-sourced with citations of the peer-reviewed papers that form the backbone of the real science here. Go directly to the source if you want to minimise emotional bias. And if you're genuinely curious about a specific point, many authors will cheerfully respond to a respectful inquiry.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    116. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Ferretman · · Score: 0

      > You're fucking retarded like most republican faggots.

      Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did your mama teach you to talk like that? I bet not.

      You're not likely to convince anybody of how morally intelligent you are if you're going to insult somebody, even more so behind the cowardice of an AC account. And since when does Slashdot think calling homosexuals is somehow inappropriate?

      My observation is that a.) you would get more worthwhile engagement with reason rather than with hatred and b.) you're something of a bigot, seems like. Go away now and be quiet; adults are talking.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    117. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by sjames · · Score: 1

      WRT the reason article. All were predicated on "if we don't do something now". Then we formed the EPA, implemented emissions controls on automobiles, banned CFCs, set emissions limits on various industrial processes, etc.

    118. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When man fucks up the Coral reef and changes the tide, then yeah.

    119. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they discover condoms and the pill?

    120. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Vancouver and have had my AC running 24/7 since start of heatwave like 10 days ago. I don't recall even taking out the portable AC last year. What was your point?

    121. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving developing nations more leeway is a centrist policy. Rather than demand everyone stops emitting CO2 a more realistic plan is to get developing nations on board with targets and low carbon tech.

      China is demonstrating that it's possible. Exceeding its ambitious targets, passed peak coal years ago...

      Another way to look at it is leading requires one to lead by example. Obama believed that long term solutions that were carbon neutral were a net plus to America, and I think he was right there, since if we can make those solutions feasible and get them adopted we might head off the worst of the looming disaster.

      The best way to get those solutions adopted is to somehow make them cost effective enough that they are the only logical choice.

    122. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So if, like here in Seattle, there's been two record breaking highs the past decade after over a hundred years of measurements that that doesn't mean it proves global warming?

      Correct.

    123. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by davesag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Climate change and global warming are not the same thing. Human industrial activity is causing a rapid buildup of greenhouse gasses. This is causing the planet to warm. That's global warming. The global rapid increase in mean temperature is causing climates to change as more and more energy is shoved into the system, historical temperature regulators like the gulf-stream slow, move, or just change, reflective snow melts, permafrost melts releasing more GHGs, suboceanic clathrates collapse due to increased water temperature (also releasing more GHGs), and so on. These changes lead to things like "arctic vortexes" and regional drops in temperatures as well as other weather extremes. But the overall global trend is increased temperatures.

      So to sum up:

      1. Humans are causing global warming.
      2. Global warming is causing climate change.

      Global warming and climate change are related but they are not the same.

      Increased levels GHGs are also causing the oceans to change PH, becoming more acidic. That's almost as serious an issue as climate change IMHO.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    124. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Yet they keep happening. I can promise within five years time there will be a summer worse than this extreme one, and this is a huge record setter. If you really get out and travel it's obvious things are changing and getting more extreme.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    125. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some odd reason, they believe that by stopping ~1/4 of the emissions, while allowing other nations, esp China, to add to their emissions by more than what the west was doing, is OK.

      Uhm what?
      The difference is that China takes climate change seriously and have taken an active stance to reduce emissions.
      They may have further to go but they don't need someone to punch them in the face until they head off in the right direction.

      Also, if you looks a emission per capita the China is on level with Poland and New Zealand with less than half the emissions than the US.
      If you look at emission in absolute value then China isn't looking so hot, but then the US is looking really really bad compared to all other western countries too.

      The US gets a lot of flack because they have the combination of a fairly large population and a high emission output per capita.
      If the average US citizen reduced their output to that if those in Finland that would halve US output and that can obviously be done without any significant reduction in quality of life.
      They'd still have more emission than the average Chinese person.

    126. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      But equally, you expect new lows. With a roughly even number of both. Which there aren't.

    127. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they didn't. I was there. You lie.

    128. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      None of the things you bring up were actual scientific predictions in the context of peer reviewed science so I don't take them as examples of wrong predictions by scientists.

      As far as the Reason.com article, yes there are some alarmists around who say unwarranted things but I tend to take them with a grain of salt. Some of the things mentioned in the Reason.com article didn't happen because we actually took action to prevent them from happening. Some of the things may still come to pass as it takes time for the effects to fully manifest themselves.

      Regarding the second one, the reporter asked James Hansen what would happen in 40 years assuming that CO2 levels doubled.

      Bob Reiss: “When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.”

      Hansen speculated that the highway outside of his office would be underwater. Of course CO2 has not doubled but if/when it does I expect that highway will be underwater sooner or later as the polar ice continues to melt.

      So, I tend to pay more attention to the actual scientific predictions that are made and so far they seem to getting it mostly right.

    129. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Why bother mentioning America in there? We all know that America is too high. Should I also mention that Australia, Canada , in fact more than 10 other nations emit even more? The issue was not about America. It was about nations being too high and that we all have to work on bringing it down. America has been going in the right direction ( remains to be seen if we will continue with trump in place ). Western Europe, except recently Germany, is headed in the right direction. China is not. India is not. New coal plants are disasters in the making.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    130. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I think I just realized why they changed it to "climate change" from global warming. You gave data he asked for, he refuted data by saying "Yes, this is called climate change. It changes both ways. You are a fucking moron" I think that translates to "It means what I want it to mean when I need it to mean something for a reason, but you cant use it to your liking whenever you want". I often wondered why I grew up to everyone calling it "Global Warming" and now its all of a sudden "Climate change!!!11!" They turned it into an even more vague political weapon.

    131. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Im not even a vegan and I like plants. I can only imagine how hard the vegans heads will pop when their preferred food dies off from lack of "poison"

    132. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are, aren't you...

      www.wattsupwiththat.com
      www.climatedepot.com

      And LOL at "record-setting" - how long have there been 'records'? 150 years? 200 years? What about the previous 100 MILLION years, when the Earth has been much hotter during various periods? Was that caused by magic? Or by the sun, perchance?

    133. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      If I'm going to do it right, I'm going to do a solid statistical analysis, something this current story does not do.

      Yeah, do that. And don't come back posting until you have a valid analysis. Bye forever.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    134. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better pesticides? Most insects live directly or indirectly off of crops from farm land.

      Most land isn't farm land. The pesticides appear to be one of a number of causes, climate change and habitat loss being others. But the thing about pesticides is that that they appear to be affecting insects that are not the targets; they are killing lots of insects that are not agricultural pests. That makes them much worse, not better, at least in terms of their ecological effect. See: https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters

    135. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Bye!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    136. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Here you go. Over the past year, for every 1 cold record there have been 1.97 record high temperatures.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    137. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they did. I was there. You lie.

    138. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Why isn't it? If you don't expel the CO2 from your lungs, you die.

      While that may be true, that's not the reason excess CO2 is an environmental hazard.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    139. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What are the odds of that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    140. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insect populations have absolutely plunged in coastal Virginia. Practically no butterflies (even the Buckeye that was very common back 2-3 years ago is rarely seen), greatly reduced dragonflies (and more migrant species from hotter climates), practically no large beetles, very few mantids. The new trend the last year or two has been a huge reduction in wasps: yellow jackets, mason wasps, potter wasps, and paper wasps are at 1/10th or less of last years counts. We still have mosquitoes (despite attempts to poison them) and deerflies though. Also the hotter summers the last 2 years or so have been withering and killing our summer wildflowers in July and August, which is crushing the fall generation of a lot of pollinators.

      Populations are a lot healthier in the Appalachians, but still not what they've been.

    141. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Approximately 1 in 300,000 according to this article (Nature article).

      Assuming temperatures were random (and thus the climate isn't affecting the results) and independent, I think you'd be looking at much worse odds. Let's say there were actually 1,000 record cold events as previously claimed, that means there were about 1,970 record warm events (using the 1 to 1.97 ratio). I tried to calculate the probability using those numbers, but the best answer I could get was less than a 0.0001% chance of it being random. Most of my attempts failed because the calculator couldn't handle size of the numbers involved. So, you should probably go with the actually published research in the Nature article, but I thought I'd try to ballpark the "it's a coincidence" odds. The odds are, I think, quite a bit smaller than a 0.0001% chance, but I can't figure out how much smaller right now.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    142. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to agree with GP, but: what?

      If the average is constant, THEN THAT IS ALL IT MEANS: i(min) + i(max) = 2 * i(avg)

      If the highs are getting higher, the lows must be getting lower at the same rate. That keeps the average constant.

      The quality of a system regressing to the mean is a completely orthogonal concept to a static average.

      Or did I miss something?

    143. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you don't have any data, the first recording is necessarily a record high. The longer you record, the less likely it becomes that the next measurement will be a new high record. UNLESS there is global warming.

      The more energy you dump into a system, the fatter the curve becomes.

    144. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      But, he bought carbon credits to make up for it. I mean, it was from the company that he owned....but...still.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    145. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Assuming temperatures were random (and thus the climate isn't affecting the results) and independent,

      They definitely aren't though, even in the event of no AGW.
      Nice research.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    146. Re:And we still hear how global warming is a hoax by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well your body actively try to remove it from itself so ... I assume CO2 actually is poison for you.

      Anyway the claim was that it is a green-house gas.

  2. As we watch the world burn by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.

    1. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.

      The Lone Ranger says to Tonto : "Tonto, we're surrounded by bloodthirsty Indians !"

      Tonto replies : "What do you mean "we", white man ?"

      The point is, some of us ARE taking action on a personal level. But we're not whining on Slashdot like you are, boy.

    2. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take personal action:
      Eat less meat
      Drive an electric car
      Install a solar roof
      Have a sustainable number of kids (2)
      Purchase things that are environmentally friendly (less packaging, easy to fix or recycle, energy efficient)

    3. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >taking the action we know is necessary.

      What action is necessary?

    4. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Put less CO2 and methane in the air. And as a side effect you don't hear the oceans and fuck with their pH balance.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lives are finite, so it's the next generation's problem until it isn't.

    6. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

      Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change? How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? What impact will it have on our society? What impact will it have on developing countries? Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place? What if it doesn't work?

    7. Re:As we watch the world burn by blindseer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What action is necessary?

      More nuclear power.

      I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"

      If the problem is carbon emissions from electricity then the solution is more electricity from energy sources with the lowest carbon emissions. That would be nuclear power. The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.

      Also, any power plant that uses a heat differential between the sea water and the heat source will see reduced output as temperatures rise. That would be true of nuclear, coal, natural gas, wood, cattle dung, or solar thermal. Reduced output from nuclear power because of the heat is for some reason a headline worth printing. Reduced output of solar and wind from the heat is not something any dinosaur news source is willing to write. Or rather not a headline Slashdot moderators would be wiling to bring up.

      It's not too hard to find sources giving the reduced output from PV panels and solar thermal systems in high heat, but that's not headline material for some reason. Maybe it's because we get so little of our energy from solar. But then why do we get so little of our energy from solar? Maybe because when we need it most the power isn't there?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:As we watch the world burn by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?

      They are a cause, and whether they are the primary cause or not, physics says they are a significant cause.

      How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?

      Duh. If you cared you'd already know. Ask google if you want to pretend to care, there's no shortage of material.

      What impact will it have on our society?

      It gets to continue to exist.

      What impact will it have on developing countries?

      They get to continue to exist.

      Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place?

      The masses will benefit the most, and the wealthy who are profiting from raping the biosphere will lose the most.

      What if it doesn't work?

      We rewrite physics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can take some responsibility and try to minimize your personal contribution to the damage but by this point without a serious natural disaster nothing is going to get better any time soon. do we keep investing in offspring, EVs, solar, in the hope such investment pays off with real solutions eventually? and how likely is that if it all continues to consume resources. Wouldn't it be better to do obvious things, like flying planes?

      also, as someone that watches their watts closely, buying environmentally friendly labeled stuff has ended up in a whole lot more plastic waste from either being inadequate in the first place or used by people that don't even realise the sun is in the south in the northern hemisphere.

    11. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly I am counting on being dead long before things get really bad. Global warming is the direct result of over population. More people require more resources. We have a planet of +6 billion people who can't agree or cooperate on anything of importance. This non-cooperation exists at the individual, local, state, federal, and international levels. Politicians and global warming academics are not going to fix anything because the politicians are imbeciles and the ivory tower crowd don't take the real world into consideration as they publish their solutions.

    12. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Can you answer my questions? I thought they were fairly straightforward. and given the certainty of the statements from the climate realists on this topic, they would be easy to answer.

    13. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Duh. If you cared you'd already know. Ask google if you want to pretend to care, there's no shortage of material.

      Hmm. See, that response and the rest of your reply is really not conducive to convincing someone who is skeptical of climate change.

    14. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, it's the direct result of CO2 emissions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I did. The cost in a hundred years will be much higher than today, in several categories; property loss, social costs, food security, geopolitical stability. And really, you're already paying the costs, as the insurance industry is already costing it in for several types of insurance. But it isn't going to get any better, and even if the targets were met, it would stall out the warming, but we'd still have to deal with the damage done. I get where you're coming from, if you can somehow wiggle out a "well it will cost lots of money, so fuck the future" that's better. And maybe you're right. Maybe we should just fuck the future. After all, nothing matters but the price of a commute.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:As we watch the world burn by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hmm. See, that response and the rest of your reply is really not conducive to convincing someone who is skeptical of climate change.

      The person who posted that comment didn't want to be convinced. They either wanted to troll, or wanted to make the other side of the argument look dumb. Instead, they wound up looking dumb. Mission accomplished.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:As we watch the world burn by blindseer · · Score: 1

      What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?

      The major industrial powers will not "suddenly" have food insecurity problems. The USA imports a lot of food. The USA also exports a lot of food. What is exported are things like beef, wheat, and corn. What's imported are things like coffee, bananas, and avocados. This might mean Americans have a shortage of caffeine and guacamole but they will be able to get enough calories and nutrients.

      Other industrial nations have similar capacity to feed themselves. Maybe not to the extent of the USA but if they maintain peaceful relations with their neighbors, the ability to transport commodities is maintained to a reasonable level, and general order of society is maintained, then the shifting of climate patterns will not be a cause of societal collapse.

      Could shifting rain patterns cause "climate change refugees", resource wars, and other societal problems? I guess that it might, but this is a problem of places with existing problems of poor infrastructure, corrupt government, and civil unrest, spilling over into stable nations. This sucks but this is not a problem in the industrial nations, it's a problem of industrial nations having to deal with external problems migrating in to become internal problems. They can address this by a number of means, which could fix itself with a collapse of transportation. If these industrialized nations are so handicapped by climate change that they cannot continue trade with nations that produce the coffee and avocados they consume then the ability for the importation of refugees will also be handicapped.

      The problems in this potential future is no different than it is now. These nations will have to clean up their own house or live in the shit hole they made for themselves.

      I remember a conversation with a Persian man (he refused to call himself Iranian). He said that he'd eat Wonder Bread, Corn Flakes, and other foods imported from the USA. He recognized everything on the grocery stores in the USA as things he had in "Persia". If the industrialized nations stopped burning oil then nations that sell oil for food will be hit first and hit hardest. Those nations that sell oil for food are also among the least industrialized.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    18. Re:As we watch the world burn by Kohath · · Score: 1

      We bicker about every stupid issue under the sun instead of taking the action we know is necessary.

      Enacting Net Neutrality?

    19. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The questions are simple enough. Can't you answer them without the ad hominem? Even I were a troll, would not an informative post answering the questions I posed be of some educational value for other genuine skeptics?

      You're coming off as this guy

    20. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, thanks for answering, although I was looking for answers that were little more specific with less conjecture about the future. Of course the defensiveness at the end of your post wasn't all that helpful, either.

      > I get where you're coming from

      No, I afraid you missed it.

    21. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see the problem is right there, the questions are easy but the answers are long and complicated.

    22. Re:As we watch the world burn by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You can't reason with people. They have decided that climate change is bad, yet they have no solution for solving it. "Produce less greenhouse gas". OK, how? If it were so simple, why are the global CO2 emissions rising, particularly in the EU where they always say "produce less greenhouse gas".

    23. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What action is necessary?

      More nuclear power.

      Relentless rhetoric from blindseer the rhetorician of Nuclear Ideology.

      I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"

      No, I would call you a Nuclear Idealist that transposes that idealism onto reality. A nuclear idealist that can't see people have woken up to the rhetoric from the nuclear industry as nothing more than a false reality. People aren't as naive as you need them to be to be receptive your Nuclear Ideology and events like these are just another nail in the coffin of your nuclear ideology.

      The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.

      As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down with the Availability Factor Nuclear Idealists never speak of. So much for the metric invented to make nuclear power look good.

      Also, any power plant that uses a heat differential between the sea water ...., or solar thermal.

      Except that Solar thermal for power doesn't use sea water. They're in deserts where no one wants to live and use molten salt as opposed to Nuclear power plants that like to be with the community on precious water front properties pumping waste heat into the environment because that's how nuclear works.

      Solar thermal near the sea is mainly used for producing drinking water, not power.

      Solar and wind are perfect solutions for reducing the heat load on the planet. Any portion of heat we can *remove* from the atmosphere and convert to electricity is a big step forward so that would call for larger deployments of solar and wind to remove larger portions of heat from the environment and convert that to electricity we can use because that's how solar and wind work.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    24. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will never come to consensus on this. The smart thing to do is for groups to diversify into a niche and survive independently, the same way species survived.

    25. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      >Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

      Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?

      Yes, there is plenty of unbiased science that doesn't come from the oil and coal industries. Historically Carbon, methane and CFCs have been the most potent chemical mechanisms that trap heat in the atmosphere.

      Additionally geological sciences showed us that the Earth itself stopped giving up heat to radiate into space around 2003 in exchange for absorbing it which tells us the atmosphere reached heat saturation over a decade ago.

      Our only saving grace for the moment is the oceans which will also reach heat saturation and become chemically acidic which will also have an effect on Phytoplanktons that are mainly responsible for producing the oxygen we breathe in the atmosphere.

      It would seem we have been poor stewards of the earth.

      How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?

      Massive investments in solar, wind and geothermal technology for the next 100 years to reduce the heat and chemical load on the environment. Once free of the oil and coal industry we *may* be able to devise a nuclear infrastructure that addresses the radio-isotope legacy we are leaving for future generations, the same way we were left with a carbon legacy.

      What impact will it have on our society?

      Depends on how quickly we implement it. The sooner we act the less impact it will have. However we have to take responsibility for the lack of vision of previous generations and that entails that there will be some impact to the way we do things.

      We could change right now by investing heavily in high speed internet infrastructure and start taking tens of thousands of commuters off the road and provide tax incentives to companies that provide telecommuting infrastructure.

      What impact will it have on developing countries?

      They will suffer more, their land will become more arid. However they are closer to subsistence than we are and we have the most to loose.

      Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place?

      Local infrastructures win by reducing commuting as dollars stay in communities.

      If we don't act, all of us loose, our entire society will suffer due to our dithering ambling indecision. We just loose in different ways. Right now we still have a choice *what* we loose. Maybe some things like sitting in our car with the AC on in the sun is something we can all give up. Maybe we can toughen up a bit and deal with 30 seconds of discomfort so that our society doesn't become completely energy constrained. Maybe we don't need some of the luxuries we have and the survival of our race is actually something important that we consider.

      What if it doesn't work?

      We die, the earth goes on. I mean you don't want it sugar coated do you? People go for a comfortable illusion over and uncomfortable truth because if you look to history it's only human error that the human race has adapted to. They call realism FUD.

      But we don't die immediately, we suffer as we die as our world heats up and our options decrease. We can afford less and less petro chemical farming, food stocks dwindle, transport infrastructure becomes too expensive. The human race faces mass die offs.

      Decreases in birth rate means our infrastructure can't be maintained and starts to decay, our society shrinks, radio-nuclide contamination becomes more prevalent, decreasing brainweight of the births that are successful. Our society decreases in size rapidly and the dystopian future many movies speak of becomes real. The people left look back on our generation that had everything and did nothing and hate us as they try to deal with all of the disasters created by our crumbling infrastructure.

      If humanity survives we ente

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    26. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have some new physics to offer the question is not whether CO2 is causing warming, but how could it not be. From a selfish perspective I'd love to hear global warming isn't happening, but physics doesn't care what I would like to be the case.

    27. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether it is good if not, and whether there is an effective way to counter it are two separate things, and it is odd to link them. The former is a consequence of the physics and the status quo, the latter technology and politics.

    28. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the significant short term issues with nuclear power is concerns about uranium ore quality. I used to be pretty enthusiastic about nuclear power, but it is now not clear if there is enough good quality ore to sustain an expanded generation base long term and worldwide.

      The other issue is investment, as nuclear power plants are large pieces of infrastructure that take a long time to build, and projects like those are hard to attract funding for, and that includes large bridges, dams, tunnels, etc, not just nuclear power. It is relatively rare for any of those to be built on a purely private basis.

    29. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a goal is simple to state that doesn't automatically make it simple to accomplish. If you can't understand that I think I know why you can't reason with people.

    30. Re:As we watch the world burn by DanDD · · Score: 1

      A long term pessimistic approach:

      Practice terraforming Mars and Venus. It's a good way to gain experience that might help in fixing the mess we have here on Earth.

      Direct manipulation of Earth's atmosphere to counter rising CO2 and global warming may seem absurdly expensive, but the migration of approximately 40% of humans who live in coastal areas might be far more expensive.

      The current European Migrant Crisis may be just the tip of the iceberg.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    31. Re: As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You bring up a good point Mr AC. Ore quality is a major factor in the viability of nuclear power.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    32. Re: As we watch the world burn by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      all of which does so little.
      The fact is, that until businesses/gov change, such as:
      Utility companies all over the world drop fossil fuels for electricity;
      all car makers are producing general purpose EVs and dropping ICE except for special case;
      Carbon tax on all goods consumes, esp. those imported;
      Once nations put carbon taxes on goods based on where parts come from, it is measured by sats, and not by nations simply giving numbers, and intelligent normalization is used, then we will see changes.

      Otherwise Nothing will change.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    33. Re:As we watch the world burn by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      and how do you accomplish that?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    34. Re:As we watch the world burn by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power. Those with wind/solar, esp. when they stopped their nuke powers, end up INCREASING their CO2. Germany and Japan are but 2 that actually increased their CO2, not lower it, since shutting down their nukes.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    35. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time the situation is "critical" it will be far, far too late. We'll have had the pedal to the floor for over a century, there's no way we're going to brake in time to stop anything at that point.

    36. Re:As we watch the world burn by DanDD · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward who simply hopes to to die before problems get personal: get busy living, or get busy dying. It's already personal.

      And you are right, academics and politicians are good for only one thing: when times get tough, they are a good source of fresh meat, even if only for the buzzards.

      Sorry, I've watched a few too many westerns lately.

      Honestly, I'd prefer you chose to live a long, healthy and happy life in a cooperative fashion with the rest of humanity. By cooperative, I mean that you try living in a sustainable way. This doesn't mean giving in to carbon credit trading shysters, or giving up little luxuries and a reasonable standard of living. It might mean trading in a gas guzzler for an electric when affordably available, or perhaps a more efficient vehicle burning carbon neutral (ish) biofuels. Or, installing solar, or buying solar options from your energy company. Or the best option, just bike to work a day or two per week, if possible.

      The point is, by simply caring and choosing products and little lifestyle tweaks that support sustainability, you help create a sustainable economy. You don't have to be superman. Just educate yourself and care enough to try what you can afford to try, to be more sustainable than the Baby Boomer and Traditionalist bastards who consumed like there was no tomorrow.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    37. Re:As we watch the world burn by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You have exactly zero credible economic models that can make any reliable predictions, much less hindcast, on a 100 year time span.

      Nobody in 1918 had any idea what the world economy was going to look like in 2018 - and you have exactly zero percent chance of having a model that will accurately predict what the world economy is going to look like in 2118.

      It surprises me how much zealous certainty some people have, be it deeply religious christians, or deeply devout liberals.

    38. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 0

      oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power. Those with wind/solar, esp. when they stopped their nuke powers, end up INCREASING their CO2. Germany and Japan are but 2 that actually increased their CO2, not lower it, since shutting down their nukes.

      oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power.

      Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.

      You are probably referring to the latest IPCC numbers, which draw up work done by Vattenfal, a nuclear energy producer whose work was not peer reviewed and is now no longer available having been certified just long enough for the last IPCC report to be released. If you are able to produce the source report from the IPCC I'd be grateful as I only got to tear it to pieces once.

      That report notoriously underestimates carbon output from mining, and the potency of CFC114, doesn't include energetic expenditure of reactor decommissioning, spent fuel containment and so on.

      Essentially the greenhouse gas argument from nuclear is an inversion of the natural radio-isotopes in fly ash of coal mining argument. Two industrial activities that both should be controlled and not a good argument *for* nuclear power against a bunch of great arguments *against* nuclear power, or coal for that matter.

      Both are really good arguments *for* solar, wind and geothermal which don't have either of those problems.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    39. Re:As we watch the world burn by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Electricity generation has steadily reduced CO2 emissions in Germany. This has been offset by an increase in other sectors (transportation mostly). Making an argument against wind/solar is completely misleading.

      This is power generation from coal and lignite from 1990-2018 in TWh.
      coal 140,8 147,1 143,1 138,4 134,6 146,5 140,8 134,1 137,9 142,0 124,6 107,9 117,0 112,4 116,4 127,3 118,6 117,7 112,2 92,6
      lignite 170,9 142,6 148,3 154,8 158,0 158,2 158,0 154,1 151,1 155,1 150,6 145,6 145,9 150,1 160,7 160,9 155,8 154,5 149,5 147,5

      Source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen...

    40. Re:As we watch the world burn by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Correction: 1990-2017

    41. Re:As we watch the world burn by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      First step is getting Americans like you to realize you are the biggest cause.

    42. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical leftie, it's not me personally, we just need the government to force us all to waste less and live cleaner.
      People like you need to take some personal responsibility for being the dirtiest polluters on the planet. Don't try to con us and blame governments or businesses. You are making all the decisions yourselves. Why does every other country do better than yours? Why are your governments and businesses so much worse than everyone elses?

    43. Re:As we watch the world burn by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We can't afford nuclear power, it's too expensive. We need cheap, clean energy and that means wind, hydro, solar, pumped storage, battery.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.

      You've been given multiple citations that the arguments against nuclear power are at best based on outdated data, or at worst simply lies. Show some citations for your claims or STFU.

    45. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, how much does nuclear power cost? I mean on the average, don't just bring up some worst case scenario as anyone can do that to make someone look bad. I'm also curious on how much the competing "clean" energy costs. Again, on the average, don't pick best case scenarios to make yourself look good.

      Then with pumped storage, what makes that so special in solving the CO2 problem? Storage doesn't make any energy, it just time shifts it with losses. If storage allows for an intermittent energy source like wind to follow the demand over time then would it not also allow nuclear power to load follow? Isn't that what France and other nations do to allow nuclear to follow load?

      We saw a big battery installation in Australia keep the electrical grid stable when a coal power plant went off line suddenly, that seems like a very good test case if a nuclear power plant had to scram suddenly due to an accident, earthquake, or other emergency. No need for "dirty" diesel generators for backup, just have a battery pack to keep the nuclear power plant safe.

    46. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving farther from the sun?

    47. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.

      You've been given multiple citations that the arguments against nuclear power are at best based on outdated data, or at worst simply lies. Show some citations for your claims or STFU.

      I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    48. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing about that joke has always been that, thanks to the historical animosity between native tribes, Tonto may have had even more reason to worry than the White Ranger would have.

      Which kinda applies to environmentalists, also ...

    49. Re:As we watch the world burn by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      dropping less than 15% of total emissions solves nothing.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    50. Re:As we watch the world burn by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      hmmm.
      Neither I, nor the data, make an argument AGAINST wind/solar.
      Both data and myself argue that depending 100% on wind/solar is foolish and will not work. In particular, both require the sun

      OTOH, depending on things like hydro (sun-based), geo-thermal (nuke based), and nuclear power (intense nuke based), along with wind/solar, we can then have decent grid set-up.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    51. Re:As we watch the world burn by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Both those are far lower than USA levels even with any increase.

    52. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      Please explain to me why "us" (by that I mean the working class) has to made to feel guilty for carbon emissions, and also foot the bill for fixing it? The working class often doesn't get a choice - we can't afford new electric cars, we have the option of public transit if we're lucky, we can't afford to build new homes out of carbon neutral materials and processes, there is simply no option to buy food who's production, processing, and shipment doesn't contribute carbon emissions.

      The wealthy have grown rich(er) on the back of carbon emissions, the working class don't exactly get a choice, we get told what to buy and what to like, and we certainly are conditioned to consume and buy shit we don't even need or want.

    53. Re:As we watch the world burn by PPH · · Score: 1

      By the time the situation is "critical" it will be far, far too late.

      But that's the definition of critical. You've got to start the long lead time tasks now.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    54. Re:As we watch the world burn by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      Demonizing individuals doesn't help - most individuals in the US are not "the biggest cause" because they choose to be - they just happened to be born into an area with a huge industrial base which is mostly early-industrialization, not rebuilt after wars, so has a high CO2 output.

      Asking people to reduce their standard of living is never a popular proposition - you have to give them a way to maintain or increase their standard of living simultaneously with reducing emissions.

      The cries to "go vegetarian" or "stop driving" or "just turn off your AC" cause people to stonewall; it's a psychological reality that needs to be considered instead of just berating everyone.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    55. Re:As we watch the world burn by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Well, you stated that CO2 emissions increased in Germany since shutting down nuclear power plants. Technically this may be true, but this is highly misleading as CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Germany actually *decreased* and the overall increase (it it indeed exists for this time frame, I haven't checked) from CO2 comes from elsewhere (likely transportation). The CO2 emission from electricity production are 315 Mio t CO2 emission in 2010 (before shutting down a couple of nukes in response to Fukishima) to 285 Mio t CO2 in 2017. At the same time power production increased from 564 TWh to 583 TWh. So Germany decreased CO2 emissions from electricity production even after shutting down several nukes and increasing output. Whatever argument you tried to make, it based on a wrong premise.

    56. Re:As we watch the world burn by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      There's nothing we can do. Earth is returning to where it was before the last mini-ice age. Just remember, when the Romans invaded England 2000 years ago, the sea was 30' higher than it is today. They grew grapes for wine in England. It was much warmer, not due to CO2.

      In fact it's clear CO2 is a symptom, not the cause. It's just certain people want to make a pile of money and that's how they want to do it. Kill any opposition that exposes the truth, etc. That's why things are *MUCH* warmer according to the 1980s era predictions. It's not due to CO2.

    57. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because no one is actually making serious efforts yet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    58. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Translation: We can just happily increase emissions, confident that we can contain the crisis outside our borders. Except if a great power like the US loses food security, suddenly what happens outside its borders becomes orders of a magnitude more important. What if the bulk of the US's food ends up being grown in Canada? At that point, a foreign nation is in control of a significant aspect of US stability. Traditionally, when nations have found themselves beholden to external markets for their wellbeing, they have done something about it. Britain built an empire, in no small part because its economic wellbeing, including feeding its populace, became a pre-eminent problem.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    59. Re: As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, complicated in the respect that to make a reasonable jab at reducing emissions globally is going to take a lot of investment in technology and diplomacy. It's going to mean taking solutions that are more often than not either still largely on the drawing board, and haven't even made it that far. It's going to mean marshaling national and international resources, and yup, it's going to cost a lot of money. But you pay now or you pay later. That's the saddest part, conservatives are always the ones railing against borrowing our children's money, and yet the climate denalism which is such a feature of modern conservatism is doing just that, raking in the profits now, and forcing our children to pay for it later.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    60. Re:As we watch the world burn by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's fair enough, but it is going to mean lifestyle changes. Cities will have to be redesigned; both for public transportation and for smart grids. People are going to have to accept wind turbines, solar power, tidal power and a whole host of other types of installations and technologies. If people want to maintain their standard of living, which I know I do, then we're going to have to accept the costs that come attached to that. And really, in some respects we are. Go buy house or property insurance now, and you're paying for AGW because actuaries have been working in the various risk factors attached to climate change, and in some cases won't cover it at all. While I can buy a policy right now that covers me for fire damage or destruction, if the house catches on fire from a wildfire, I've got no insurance protection at all, since where I live is deemed at a moderate risk for forest fires. If my house burns down because of a forest fire, I will have no coverage, and I will have to apply for disaster assistance from the government (in other words, the taxpayer becomes the insurer of last resort). Same for flooding (though thankfully I'm up hill from the nearest body of water).

      By and large the economy is absorbing the mounting costs, which is good, but costs are rising, and will continue to rise. So it seems logical that rather than paying the money over the span of decades in various other hidden costs, why not invest the money now?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    61. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical righttard, puts government and businesses on a pedestal. They do nothing wrong. Besides if global warming was real, the free market would have sorted it out already.

    62. Re:As we watch the world burn by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Translation: We can just happily increase emissions, confident that we can contain the crisis outside our borders.

      I'm not sure I agree with you but let's run with this and see where it takes us.

      So, we have a series of heat waves around the world and so the developed nations are supposed to reduce their carbon footprint. How? Well, reduce the use of electrical devices in the home. Like air conditioning.... During a heat wave.... That's not going to be convincing. People in these developed nations make up perhaps 1/4 of the world's population. They look around and they have it pretty nice. They have iPhones, air conditioning, plenty of food and clean water, and general social order.

      Let's take some people in these developed nations that took a few history courses in college. They know that wars are the norm. At any given time some group is trying to kill another group. They fight over all kinds of things, including things like oil, water, land, and who's god is better. There's no reason to believe peace can ever be achieved. So long as it happens somewhere else to someone else then they'll maybe read about it in newspapers and history books. Also in these history books these people learn that climate has changed in the past, both colder and warmer than it is now. These changes were very gradual. People adjusted to the climate, developing new traditions, growing different crops, and so on. Things were hard at time but things are always hard at times.

      Maybe some of these people in the developed countries simply like to read. They'll read about Sherlock Holmes, and his flatmate Dr. Watson. They'll learn that Dr. Watson was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, because there's always a war in Afghanistan. Global warming won't change this, and neither will turning off their air conditioning to prevent it.

      Except if a great power like the US loses food security, suddenly what happens outside its borders becomes orders of a magnitude more important.

      Why would anyone believe that the USA, or any other developed nation, "suddenly" have a food security problem? Global warming might shift rain patterns and such but this doesn't happen overnight. The developed world produces plenty of food, and exports plenty to the underdeveloped world. Underdeveloped nations like Afghanistan, where if they stopped fighting each other then maybe they could plant some crops (besides opium poppies) and learn to feed themselves. There's not likely to be many people upset in the developed world if they have to stop exporting food due to shortages at home, or another resource war making shipments difficult. Maybe that's not "nice" or "fair" but it is human nature.

      What if the bulk of the US's food ends up being grown in Canada?

      Well, again, that's not going to happen overnight. The USA and Canada have been on friendly terms for a very long time, and there's really no reason to suspect this will change any time soon.

      At that point, a foreign nation is in control of a significant aspect of US stability.

      The USA and Canada have always been in control of the other's stability. Both nations rely on the other for things like natural gas, oil, uranium, coal, lumber, milk/cheese/dairy, maple syrup, corn syrup, fruits, vegetables, pork, beef, corn, wheat, soybeans, steel, aluminum, copper, and so on. This trade often goes both ways because it's easier to go up and down coasts than across the continental divide. Global warming or not this will not change.

      Traditionally, when nations have found themselves beholden to external markets for their wellbeing, they have done something about it. Britain built an empire, in no small part because its economic wellbeing, including feeding its populace, became a pre-eminent problem.

      I can imagine a lot of island nations will feel beholden to foreign markets. Again, this will not cha

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    63. Re:As we watch the world burn by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      We have 2 10kw solar installations, the entire family drives either electric or hybrids, house is full electric heat (kept at 15C), no A/C, and my wife and I opted not to have kids.

      We're doing our part but that doesn't mean jack all in the grand scheme. With 7+ billion people we need industrial scale solutions and people need to demand them.

    64. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?

      Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.

      All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.

      As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.

      You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims. And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.

    65. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down with the Availability Factor Nuclear Idealists never speak of. So much for the metric invented to make nuclear power look good.

      Can you compare and contrast "capacity factor" with "availability factor"? You use those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

      Seems to me that "availability factor" was created to make solar look good. Availability factor subtracts out the night and twilight hours when the sun isn't shining so that instead of comparing capacity over 24 hours they compare "availability" over 10 hours. That turns a 25% capacity factor into 80% availability factor. Compared to nuclear which has a capacity factor of 90%+, and when the annual downtime for refuel and inspection is factored out, the availability factor comes to 95%+.

      How is either metric "invented" to make nuclear power look good?

    66. Re:As we watch the world burn by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      This. Tie AGW to wealth transfer, and solving AGW goes nowhere. Show Exxon and its shareholders how to profit hugely from reducing carbon emissions, and next thing you know there will be massive reductions in carbon emissions.

    67. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The entire family", so just you and your wife? I'm glad leftists like you willingly put themselves out of the gene pool. Soon you'll all die childless, and won't pollute our planet with your inane ideas anymore.

    68. Re:As we watch the world burn by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      You do know you're talking complete nonsense right? Roman sea walls are not 30' above the current sea level - a simple google image search can prove that, wine grapes have been grown in the UK for centuries - even during what you call the "mini-ice age". During the time of Henry VIII (1509) there were 139 vineyards on record.

      A simple grade school experiment can prove you wrong about CO2 - try looking on youtube, I'm sure you'll learn a lot from the grade school science videos.

    69. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?

      Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.

      Poor baby. When I have more time, right now I'm just zoning from some really hard stuff I'm doing. BTW, this is not your best work Mr AC.

      All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.

      I don't care what you think and I'm not going to be subscribing to the false reality of the accusations you're trying to impose in your inverted ad hom attack, especially after just telling me to STFU. Suddenly any respect I may have afforded you just disappeared.

      As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.

      First get your head around this and when you are finished get your head around this. You'll find it's reviewed by (IIRC) ten major universities with nuclear energy systems specialization.

      You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims.

      I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I hope your narcissistic rage calms before you sink into a deep depression for the next few weeks.

      And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.

      I won't be play trite words games with your disingenuity. Every sincere person who suffers from this ism and genuinely educates themselves about the nuclear industry comes to the same conclusion - because there is no other conclusion to come to once you do. However now it would seem you are something new, perhaps I am looking at a true Nuclear Narcissist suffering Nuclear Narcissism, this must be what happens to ideologues who have their social proof shattered by truth.

      You have your citations now, go read them and educate yourself as I can't see you contributing anything more of value to this conversation.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    70. Re:As we watch the world burn by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down with the Availability Factor Nuclear Idealists never speak of. So much for the metric invented to make nuclear power look good.

      Can you compare and contrast "capacity factor" with "availability factor"? You use those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

      I'll see your "capacity factor" with "availability factor" and raise you this B.D.I with a L.E.R.

      Seems to me that "availability factor" was created to make solar look good. Availability factor subtracts out the night and twilight hours when the sun isn't shining so that instead of comparing capacity over 24 hours they compare "availability" over 10 hours. That turns a 25% capacity factor into 80% availability factor. Compared to nuclear which has a capacity factor of 90%+, and when the annual downtime for refuel and inspection is factored out, the availability factor comes to 95%+.

      Oh, is it really a thing? I just made it up cause I thought it sounded cool.

      How is either metric "invented" to make nuclear power look good?

      It could be something to do with "Utilization" or maybe fairy floss, I can't remember which one. Look thanks for the wamsr information, I will say it does look interesting. I thought you may have actually known what you were talking about and why when you presented it but now I think it looks like dumb luck on your part.

      I think your best contributions are behind you now as you have decided to insult me in the other thread, maybe it's you or some other atomicasshole, I'm not sure and I don't care. You are a scream the way you hammer more nails into the nuclear industries coffin so keep it up. I've given you enough hints in this post for you to work it out if you have a brain which should give you some closure when you

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    71. Re:As we watch the world burn by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, let's consider some things that are tough to dismiss.

      Look at this - https://www.businessinsider.co...

      Are you going to tell me that those settlements weren't there even though they've carbon dated it? We've been warmer before. A lot warmer, recently geologically speaking. That's a real wake up call that you really should have a problem with.

      If you were at the spot where the Romans landed the first time, you'd be 30' higher than the sea is today. They've found it. It was published though the page with the pictures and such don't seem to be online any more. Wonder if they'll wipe out those Greenland settlements too since they don't fit with their story either.

      As for the so called grade school experiments, sure that's a good experiment to mislead people. Sun light isn't like an incandescent. Being a real scientist I know that, you don't seem to however. With your grade school science you should realize that if CO2 really were what is causing GW it would be a lot hotter now based on the concentrations. Models have fallen apart. Basic science says if your theory has even one counter example, it's wrong. Same with Einstein and relativity, same with MMGW. We've had plenty of counter examples over the past 20 years.

      I think I was the very first one to point out that Hansen was wrong when he said the 1990s was the warmest decade on record for the 20th Century. It was actually the 1930s. He (in my opinion) lied and tried to say it was a y2k glitch. y2K glitch my foot. The glitch was he was caught, by me and a bunch of other real scientists. No time to change the data, he was caught. Just think about that a minute. So just on that data how can it be CO2? You should be having some REAL problems by now.

      Maybe you'll listen to a real scientist? They try to say he isn't, yet he was a recognized scientists by the American Meteorological assoc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... He has since passed on.

      I don't expect I'll change your mind. The brain washing is strong out there.

    72. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without new ore resources of sufficient quality, then the EROEI for nuclear may head towards 1. In that circumstance nuclear may become a form of energy storage for when renewables are not delivering, and produce a base level of power. Such a base level would be a good thing to have, but whether nuclear, consuming low quality fuel, is cost effective I don't know. Alternative nuclear fuels are possible, but not commercially developed, and it will take quite a while to develop those, prove them in pilot plants, design for mass production, attract funding, train people to build and operate them, and deliver power from them. I suspect that's about a thirty year lead time.

    73. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is emissions in excess of sinks. If the emissions are 10% above the sinks, then a 15% reduction would solve the issue. But I think it is incumbent on the world as a whole to address it, not one nation alone, but also nations not opting out. Taking personal responsibility is really hard, though, and I fail at it.

    74. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A useful data point for how much nuclear costs, is the strike price for wholesale kWh payments that had to be agreed to get started on Hinckley C. That was (from memory) twice the current cost of electricity. This doesn't mean it costs that much to produce, but does indicate the level of inducement required to bring forward investment on a commercial basis, and is the cost retailers will pay and pass on to consumers.

      It's not clear what the cost of electricity will be in twenty years, of course, and twice the current price might be competitive by then, adjusted for inflation.

      The other argument for paying more is that an always - on resource has an additional value for potentially keeping critical infrastructure running if there is a shortfall elsewhere. Nuclear works best if it is always running, unlike peaking gas. The concern is that really you'd want more than a single modern reactor, and ideally of different designs, to cover potential maintenance, and any systematic design flaws, geographically separated. Three might be even better, but then it's getting expensive.

    75. Re: As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much profit hugely as profit hugely in a particular period of time, and given many externals are free (tragedy of the commons). There's not much profit to be made in the next five to ten years in preventing Manhattan being underwater on 2100. Few companies even have that sort of longevity. Lloyds of London is one that has been around for a while but might be nervous about the insurance costs related to climate change, but the market pricing signal of future events whose future prevalence is hard to determine is weak. Pricing wheat futures for next year is child's play in comparison.

    76. Re:As we watch the world burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be a pessimist, but it really doesn't matter anyhow. Earth has maybe ~600 million years before life is not able to live on this planet regardless. We may just be speeding that up a little. The sun's gradual expansion will start, and even a 5% increase in luminosity will make this planet uninhabitable. Plants will stop photosynthesis (ironically) due to a massive CO2 decline following the sun's slow increase.

      There is nothing we can do that would have any meaningful impact.

    77. Re:As we watch the world burn by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Greenland is home to roughly 56,000 people right and that the South and Western edge would have always been livable right? As to why they left, it will likely always be up for debate.

      As to the Roman claim, here's a port, just North of Rome that's been around since pre-100 BC https://www.telegraph.co.uk/co... If sea levels were 30' higher back then, not only would this have been under water, most of the area around it where Roman ruins can be found, would have been flooded as well.

      The grade school experiment I was referring to is to take two glass jars, put a thermometer in each, and put CO2 in one then seal them. Place the jars outside in the sun and watch the difference in temperatures. No incandescent bulbs, just two different concentrations of gasses exposed to sunlight. A rigorous scientist like yourself should be able to figure that one out and replicate it.

    78. Re:As we watch the world burn by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it solve almost 15% of the problem? If we do that 6 times, the problem would be 90% solved.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    79. Re:As we watch the world burn by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, how much does nuclear power cost? I mean on the average, don't just bring up some worst case scenario as anyone can do that to make someone look bad. I'm also curious on how much the competing "clean" energy costs. Again, on the average, don't pick best case scenarios to make yourself look good.

      Wikipedia has a chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that lists the expected cost per MW/h of produced power:

      • $96.2 - Advanced Nuclear
      • $83.7 - Solar PV
      • $63.9 - Hydro
      • $55.8 - Wind Onshore

      I used the weighted average column, so I left offshore and solar thermal off the list since apparently none are currently being built, so there's no way to reliably weight the average between the minimum and maximum cost estimates. In any case, the estimated minimums for both exceed nuclear so they would likely be more expensive if they were being built. However, you should be able to see that all three of the competitors, that are actually in use, are lower cost than nuclear.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    80. Re:As we watch the world burn by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Don't want to listen to Mr. Coleman? Need text? Need to be shown how they're changing facts? Check this out:
      https://realclimatescience.com...
      if you dare.

      The Roman thing I have no idea if it's right or not. They are archaeologists and that was their claim. That's out of my field. Maybe that's why it was taken down. Who knows. What I can tell you is that sea levels have been rising, for a very long time. I found journals where they were trying to keep the Adriatic out of Venice in the 14th century. Of course they failed.

      As for your experiment, that's funny. You don't even know what you don't know with that one. Just put air in them and it'll warm up. Usually warmer than with the CO2. What's going on is about two lectures in college. I bet you think green houses are warm because of CO2, as if they pump CO2 in or something. Let me know, I've never seen a CO2 tank near one nor any other source of co2 for a green house. It's not warm because of co2.

      If by now especially with the references I've given you, you don't get it you probably never will. Especially where that site shows how they've changed data to support MMGW. Whenever they change data, they lose. It's fake science.

  3. Meanwhile, in America by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully the American public will start to realize that the GOP and their current president are not representing ordinary citizens, but influential corporations, especially the ethically flexible ones, such as those highly invested in military and oil.

    This is why the GOP and their friends at FOX have been climate change deniers, and the current president is calling it a hoax. It's all about protecting profits right up until the point the entire world goes to shit.
    The US is the only country in the world where a large percentage of the population still does not believe in climate change even though 99% of scientists support it. This sick situation thanks to GOP politicians, lobbyists and the media that supports them, especially FOX News.
    Can you please tell them to fuck off before it is too late?

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go look up 'Dominionism' and 'Dominionists', but don't yell at me when you get sick to your stomach. That's what, in part, is driving this bullshit.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, sure, it is only the fault of Republicans.

      The above is ( of course ) something only a simple-minded fool would either claim or believe.

      Plenty of Democrats have more than two children per family. Plenty of Democrats drive gas-hog vehicles. Plenty of Democrats live in houses which are much bigger than they need. Plenty of Democrats use air conditioning when a fan would suffice.

      The overly consumptive habits of western society would be a more realistic place to lay the blame. Of course if you were not a simple-minded idiotic knee-jerk leftist you'd already know that.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, in America by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that these Christian supremacist types and the libertarians were for a long time Conservatives' useful idiots. And then the useful idiots took over the party, and every dog whistle slogan Republicans had been using for a couple of generations to get that base to the polls suddenly is political reality. Now they're stuck between the reality they know is happening and a base that took what was a load of bullshit seriously.

      Not that governments that take the reality of AGW seriously are doing that much either, but even acknowledgment is something. But we'll do what we've done before, basically hand it off to our children and grandchildren, make them pay the economic and social price.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news! Climate change will resolve all this. #MAGA

    5. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well, as long as the Democrats are doing some bad things too, I guess we can just ignore it!

    6. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, the American public will start to realize that the Democrats and the current ex-president did not represent ordinary citizens either. The hyper-partisans out there want everyone to believe that if we just 'vote the current party out of power and vote the other party in' that all our problems will fade away. Unfortunately, it is like the Who song: 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss'! Who says we 'Won't get fooled again'? History repeats itself over and over again.

    7. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well, as long as the Democrats are doing some bad things too, I guess we can just ignore it!

      No, it means we all need to give a damn and take action on a personal level, just as people did during WWII when families gave up their pots and pans for metal production.

    8. Re: Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't climate. It's *weather*. Why can't liberal morons like you understand the difference? Oh wait, you do, but you want to shove your agenda down everyone's throats.

    9. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scrap metal drives were propaganda, pure and simple, to make citizens think they were doing something. https://mashable.com/2016/02/0...

      So yeah, about the same as your 'personal level' - it might make a few people feel good, but ultimately it would be better to take large scale action.

    10. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except CO2 emissions by individuals are tiny compared to industrial usage. If every single person on Earth followed your implied recommendations, we'd still have a crisis. What you're asking for is virtue signaling, not effective action, which requires policy changes.

    11. Re: Meanwhile, in America by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      You might be able to call a week or two weather, but this is widespread across the northern hemisphere, and is part of a general trend of seasonal highs. And do you think the universe cares about Liberals and conservatives? CO2 has the properties it has, and doesn't change based on political affiliation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? This isn't the public's doing, the average person has little to no choice over how much carbon is emitted, we can't just stop living.

      Send the bill to fix the climate to the top 1%, they grew rich on the back of carbon emotions.

      Stop making this climate shit the common mans fault, because it simply is not.

    13. Re:Meanwhile, in America by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Wonder whose modding me down. Dominionists or libertarians.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder whose modding me down. Dominionists or libertarians.

      It could be anyone that doesn't like communists.

    15. Re:Meanwhile, in America by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wonder whose modding me down. Dominionists or libertarians.

      Libertarians are dominionists. They just think that they personally are the most worthy, and thus will end up with the most wealth and the most slaves, instead of winding up slaves themselves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If you really wanted to solve anything, you'd leave the politics out of it. Making it political is the surest way to tell half the US public not to listen.

    17. Re:Meanwhile, in America by sjames · · Score: 1

      Believe me, we're trying. It's a bit hard since some of these idiots are so regressive they'd still be claiming it's cold and fake shivering even if you left them in death valley and set their asses on fire.

    18. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better dead than (Martian) red!

    19. Re:Meanwhile, in America by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's too late.

      I'm still in favour of doing what's sensible, but that ship sailed 30 years ago.

      Humans will survive. That's not the issue.

      The issue is that those in warmer or flooded areas will have to migrate.

      Plants will not migrate with them because it's all moving too quickly and they can't take the bus.

      Worms and soil bacteria and chemicals that aid in nutrition for plants don't have bus passes, either.

      Animals other than human will be migrating also, but their food supply will not be there to meet them.

      And, speaking of avoiding high temperatures, Americans will be moving North.

      Well, trying to.

      Recall that they want to be nationalistic assholes because they don't like immigrants or refugees.

      It's a small world, after all.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. If everyone consumed like an American the planet is destroyed. Like a Chinaman, were in trouble, like an Indian and we are all ok.
      But who really wants to go back to shitting in the streets, even if it saves the planet?

    21. Re: Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarianism is a live and let live political philosophy, whose tenents include the idea that you should make up your own mind based on available facts, logic and sound judgement.

      It sounds like youâ(TM)ve confused libertarianism for Zionism.

    22. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hopefully the American public will start to realize that the GOP and their current president are not representing ordinary citizens, but influential corporations, especially the ethically flexible ones, such as those highly invested in military and oil."

      Dude. Just Stop.

      A fraction of the American Public has realized that Team Red and Team Blue are just like Coke and Pepsi.
      Slightly different flavors, both of them equally bad for you. The problem is, they control the market so any competition
      is ground into the dirt.

      Neither of them are champions of the people any longer and both are equally fucking evil when pushing their agendas.
      ( In fact, the only difference between them ARE the agendas they push )

    23. Re:Meanwhile, in America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, the majority of America believe in AGW. We can see it with our eyes and most of the R&D has been done here.
      Secondly, while probably 75% of the GOP fight against dealing with this issue, the GOP is less than 30% of the VOTING population, which means that around 20% of voting population is against dealing with AGW. So, 80% want us to deal with it.
      Thirdly, of the 75% of the GOP that are fighting against dealing with this issues, most simply are opposed to the solutions that are being pushed. That is a whole other issue.

      To see which nations are REALLY fighting it, look at Eastern Europe. Poland and Chzech are but 2 that are fighting against lowering their CO2 emissions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    24. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No, it means we all need to give a damn and take action on a personal level

      Sounds like campaigns to save water in California focusing on personal use....except the people of the state use less than 15% of the state's water, the rest is industry. Meaning half the population could move out tomorrow, and the other half could stop bathing entirely, and you'd barely notice the difference.

    25. Re: Meanwhile, in America by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The campaigns to reduce personal use (especially lawn watering) are because the state has more effective means to limit industrial use. For example, in the most recent drought, water to farmers was cut by over 50 percent, and in some places farmers got as little as 12 percent of their normal water allotment. They don't need a campaign, they just cut the water supply.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re: Meanwhile, in America by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sure you don't have that backwards:

      Gov. Jerry Brown defended the agriculture industry's heavy water use in an interview aired Sunday, but he said historic water rights are "probably going to be examined" if the drought persists.

      "Some people have a right to more water than others," Brown said of senior water rights holders on ABC's "This Week." "That's historic. That's built into the legal framework of California. And yes, if things continue at this level, that's probably going to be examined."

      Brown has faced criticism about agricultural water consumption since issuing California's first-ever statewide order to reduce water use last week. A mandatory 25 percent reduction in water use in cities and towns does not apply to agriculture.

    27. Re: Meanwhile, in America by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      See for example: http://www.capitalpress.com/Ca... Note especially the part where some farmers got 5 percent of normal. Farmers always take the first hit because they can handle it more easily than others although the few with senior water rights do get it easier than the rest.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Meanwhile, in America by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      And to see which people are the least interested in fighting it

    29. Re:Meanwhile, in America by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      It is political if you have a president that is calling climate change a hoax and intends to withdraw the US of a globally mediated agreement to control and fight it. Republican politicians and lobbyists have a history of climate change denial, so how can this not be political?

    30. Re: Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, libertarians want to allow slaves. ANARCHY is live and let live: you have no power over people. Libertarians allow person ownership. The GPP was 100% spot on: libertarians just presume that they being worthy of the blessings of capital and freedom will attain all the capital and freedom they are not getting now. In reality you'll be fucked over hard.

    31. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP is the most dangerous organisation on Earth.

    32. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the GOP isn't pushing climate change denial. Maybe they as elected officials are representing the large portion of US citizens.

    33. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, everyone, we found the Old Guy!

      That was a popular Democrat claim amongst the young people back in the late 60s and early 70s, but it has never been true. There's a small group that believe it - there's a small group that believes anything - but it not, and has never been, a major movement.

    34. Re: Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And do you think the universe cares about Liberals and conservatives? CO2 has the properties it has, and doesn't change based on political affiliation.

      Well I'm sure if you challenge a Progressive enough, they will come up with some nuanced half-baked opinion that it does. Maybe we'll be blessed and get some pope poopings here soon. Ratzo's around here somewhere.

    35. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Buddy, I'm amazed that I'm at +5 when I brought the subject up, I usually get crucified as a tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob for bringing it up. Makes me think people are starting to wise up finally.

    36. Re:Meanwhile, in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's all about protecting profits right up until the point the entire world goes to shit."

      But, it goes to shit for who? The world is already overpopulated and off track. The true conspiracy is that GW is the fix. Deny it exists while you keep pushing it along. Clear the human chattel, keep the good parts for yourself and leave your kids with a fresh new, wild, open landscape, ripe and ready for a whole new era. The Earth will be fine. Humanity (excepting the elite few) will suffer the most.

      This is the secret agenda of Dominionism. Don't ask me how I know it.

  4. Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have two or three or more wildfires in my state every summer, and we always have, some of it is par for the course. I don't doubt that some of it is unusual, either, but that total number is probably not what it seems.

    1. Re:Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have lived in Northern California for the past 20+ years and I can say that this year has been pretty mild year for fires. This one just happen to occur outside of Redding which has a population of 100,000+ people so it makes the news. Most happen out in the mountains where it burns several hundred thousand acres before being put out. Usually by late June we see 3 or 4 big fires, but this year it we had some nice cool weather and quite a bit of rain. So it is only now that we are seeing fires pop up.

    2. Re:Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have two or three or more wildfires in my state every summer, and we always have, some of it is par for the course. I don't doubt that some of it is unusual, either, but that total number is probably not what it seems.

      Many wildfires are started BY firefighters, who get paid a small amount to sit and wait for fires, and get paid a lot more when they are fighting a fire.
      This is common knowledge in areas where wildfires are common and poor people are desperate to make a living. Some times these arsonists are caught, but many times they are not caught. If they are never caught and there are no witnesses, fires are usually attributed to lightning strikes or careless campers. But make no mistake, many wildfires are NOT accidental.

    3. Re:Some of it is normal by PPH · · Score: 1

      Hobo cooking fires in Seattle. Fortunately, most have been small.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give a bum fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a bum on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

    5. Re:Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing nazis is much more efficient, the bitches just fall onto the shank.

    6. Re: Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of crap. Citation please, showing that a significant percentage of wildfires are caused by firefighters looking to get paid more.

    7. Re: Some of it is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many fires are started by firefighters because of CONTROLLED BURNS.

  5. The direct result of overpopulation by Quakeulf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With exponential growth in third world country populations as well as rapid industrialisation of China etc. this is only the beginning. What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.

    Please prove me wrong.

    1. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by DavenH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You aren't using 'direct' correctly. More people are not heating the planet up directly, and hence your call to action about population is unsubstantiated. If you double population but quadruple resource efficiency, you do less environmental damage.

    2. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In either case, halving the population (lets say by having fewer offspring for a few generations, to avoid the ugly alternatives) would also do less environmental damage... Quadrupling resource efficiency, that is most likely the harder option.

    3. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      With exponential growth in third world country populations as well as rapid industrialisation of China etc. this is only the beginning. What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us. Please prove me wrong.

      "Is that you, Thanos?" Perhaps, using your infinite power to multiply resources is preferable to the extinction of a significant portion of the population.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      We've had these "population outstripping the resources" projection arguments for decades; since the world population was 3 billion... guess what, we keep outperforming the grading curve with technological advances.

      Sure, conservation efforts are necessary, but if humans are able to overcome our own innate shortsightedness, it will be our innovation that wins the day, rather than our ability to sacrifice now for a better future.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.

      How about we provide aid which is sustainable? Help people and nations build sustainable solutions? That seems like a third option to me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      > More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.

      We can have both. Just do nothing and wait awhile and most of the humans will die off, leaving a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.

    7. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Innovation has to be funded. Trying to make coal profitable again is not innovation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re: The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "keep outperforming the grading curve with technological advances"
      Don't worry, jump off the cliff, we'll build some wings before we hit the ground.
      If we listened 50 years ago we wouldn't be scrambling yet again to build some wings.

    9. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      While I think reducing the population is the easiest and quickest way to mitigate the problem, if we are successful there is a risk of a behavioral sink so we should be *really* careful we don't successfully convince everyone to not have children at the same time.

      That said, I think we are about 3-4 billion over the "carrying" capacity of the planet and we are rapidly running thru our less common metals like Chromium. And when it's gone- no more stainless steel.

      We'll probably figure out many ways to extend it (like mostly non steel tools with a thin steel edge.) the problem is hitting too many problems in a short period of time.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What needs to be done is to make a choice: More humans helped into this world through aid and relief efforts for irreversible damage to the environment, or a sustainable future for those that will be left of us.

      How about we provide aid which is sustainable? Help people and nations build sustainable solutions? That seems like a third option to me.

      No, that's not our problem.

    11. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, that's not our problem.

      Not only is it our problem, it's everyone's problem. If we don't share our wealth with them, they will share their poverty with us... as well as their pollution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will share their poverty anyway, and then there will be more of us etc.

      We are not in a race to support as many people as possible. It's hard to deal with it.

    13. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not our problem.

      Not only is it our problem, it's everyone's problem. If we don't share our wealth with them, they will share their poverty with us... as well as their pollution.

      Then it may be best to eliminate them.

    14. Re: The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the old "we're driving towards a cliff and haven't gone over it yet, so it'll never happen, let's stomp on the gas pedal" argument.

      A friend was ill recently and could have died, but went to hospital and is now fine. This must mean they are now immortal.

    15. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by swilver · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure technology will be able to keep up with exponential growth forever.

      Just maybe, we are starting to see the limits of this thinking, but I guess for people like you it must be glaringly, undeniable, planet-burning obvious before we can be justified to put the environment before the economy.

    16. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Then it may be best to eliminate them.

      The ultimate followup to stealing from them, raping them, etc. What a great person you are!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from third world here, we just need USA, corporations and government to fuck off. Also UK and Spain. Really

    18. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did we ship our chromium off-planet?

    19. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is incredibly difficult to reverse de-population trends once they begin. Ask Japan, Russia, Europe and China. If it wasn't for immigration the U.S. population would be decreasing. With the exceptions of the Indian subcontinent and some countries in Africa most of the world has already begun to de-populate. Hint--it doesn't happen overnight.

    20. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol imagine if all the species of the past refused to let the atmosphere/environment change like the "environmental" folks propose. I'm by no means saying that climate change (global warming, whatever) isn't real. It is. It happens to every apex species sooner or later. The world keeps turning. You guys are all so fucking selfish thinking that humans deserve to be the end-all species that rules the planets. Humans (and a whole lot of other species) will eventually die off, just like the dinosaurs, and every other organism that once ruled the planet. This is the way life always has been and always will be.

    21. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're definitely outstripping the resources, namely our atmosphere. Tech advancement doesn't require twice as many people, it requires pressure to fix a problem or an opportunity to profit. We're only keeping up in some areas because we need to. But technology has not significantly slowed the creation per capita of many pollutants, including the ones we're unaware of at the moment.

      Humans only do things when it's easy or you force them. We need to make it easy to cease breeding (the methods are well documented, increase contraceptive availability and provide education. Intelligent people with condoms breed far less), and force technological improvement. Doing both comprehensively is far, far more effective than doing just one, or merely paying both lip service.

    22. Re:The direct result of overpopulation by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Do some googling on chromium consumption vs the total chromium available in the crust and mantle. Educate yourself.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  6. 127 degrees? by Mojo66 · · Score: 1

    How can any organism survive with temperatures that high?

    1. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1913, the temperature in Death Valley, California reached 134. Life is pretty persistent. See the aquatic life that live next to volcanic vents in ocean.

    2. Re:127 degrees? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that summer temperatures like this are quite common in Death Valley. The reason most people aren't aware of this is that the National Weather Service ignores Death Valley because otherwise, they'd have the highest temperature almost every day in summer, and most people want a little more variety in their news.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:127 degrees? by Mojo66 · · Score: 1

      In 1913, the temperature in Death Valley, California reached 134. Life is pretty persistent. See the aquatic life that live next to volcanic vents in ocean.

      Yeah but water is boiling at 100 degrees!?!?!

    4. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello? It's called DEATH valley?

    5. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127 degrees Fahrenheit.

    6. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level.

    7. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Mars maybe, but here on Earth water boils at 212F.

    8. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water boils on Mars at 32F (0C).

    9. Re:127 degrees? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Because they talk game-of-thronian, that's fahrenheit.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    10. Re:127 degrees? by Mojo66 · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows that on Earth at sea level water boils at 100 degrees, that's 1st grade physics.

    11. Re: 127 degrees? by Mojo66 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why would anyone talking about an important topic like global climate change use an ancient temperature scale that is only used by a minority of retarded people?

    12. Re:127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, celsius. Are you retarded, or just pretending to be?

    13. Re: 127 degrees? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Specifically to irritate people like you.

    14. Re: 127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 325.928 Kelvin.

    15. Re:127 degrees? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I notice you didn't say 100 degrees of what, very funny. :-)

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    16. Re: 127 degrees? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      A proper temperature scale is Kelvin, not C.

    17. Re: 127 degrees? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Anyway a subtraction K-273 is easier to perform than (F-32)*5/9

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    18. Re:127 degrees? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some people learned how to do math in elementary school.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:127 degrees? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      lots do.
      Basically, you have to adopt to it. There are organisms living on water that is at 98C.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re: 127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that in Rankine?

    21. Re: 127 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically to irritate people like you.

      Just like Trump voters are sticking it to those dirty commies, right? It still leaves us laughing at those stupid americans, but it is very dark humour.

    22. Re:127 degrees? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually 100 degrees is pretty damn cold.

      Oh wait, you're using some silly temperature scale that doesn't set the bottom of the scale to be 0?

  7. The rich don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will watch in amusement from air conditioned comfort while the poor die. It is what they want, we are powerless to stop them.

  8. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by DavenH · · Score: 1

    It's not, nobody said it was, and you don't even believe your strawman so why post it? The article is about the wide-spread pattern of heat records, individually which are weather events, in aggregate and over the course of years form a pattern of climate change.

  9. On the flip side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The retirement problem will fix itself

  10. This is one of the reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are still people who think global warming is a hoax. 2018 was the coolest and wettest summer in Greece that I remember of, and I am 40 years old. The fires, as proven by satellite photos showing 14 simultaneous focii lying on two perfectly straight lines, where an act of arsonism. To be clear, I do not believe that global warming is a hoax. I am just saying that using half truths or straight out lies to support it justifies people claiming it is a lie.
    By the way 2018 was the hottest and driest summer of the last 50 years for Sweden. That and the Japan heatstroke case would have been enough. No need to lie about Greece.

    1. Re:This is one of the reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody claimed global warming started the fires in Greece.

    2. Re:This is one of the reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's SO HOT, even parts of the Arctic are on fire," reports Vox, citing wildfires in Sweden, while Greece "has declared a state of emergency as raging forest fires have killed at least 81 people and injured more than 190."

  11. Don't be hasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conservatives just aren't convinced yet. When they believe if it, they will lead the world into action! Till then you are an uncivilized, dangerous, deranged, snowflake, who should be jailed for spreading fake news! #MAGA

  12. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the temperature records set in the Arctic over the last few seasons. One of the reason for harsher winters in North America has been massive outflows of cold air out of the Arctic as it warms. We are literally watching the world warm, and you still have people vomiting out that idiotic "weather" meme. And yes, unless is a complete idiot, you have to know you're spouting nonsense when you go "it's summer so it's warm, so no global warming!"

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. 80% of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I support this article 100%. However I have a nano-nit to pick with climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford University in California, USA. To quote Noah: "record-setting hot events over more than 80 percent of the planet". Did he mean "planet" or did he really mean over 80% of the land on Planet Earth? If he meant "planet", then the percentage of land based events is much higher than 80%.

  14. Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you probably though that was smart and all.

  15. Re:More PC Bullcrap by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    I have to ask. Are you functionally retarded?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Never mind the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because when you come to Tommy's the holiday's foreverrrrrr.

    Newbies, don't confuse weather with climate so I swear I will spit out like a sewer hole!

  17. Re: Yeah, it's summertime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Trump voter. Don't waste your time. Dumb or deluded, it doesn't really matter.

  18. So? by Snotnose · · Score: 0

    I'm sitting in my La-Z-boy, cat in lap, in the comfort of my apartment. You say it's hot outside? Why would I go outside, I got air and a fluffy cat.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to lower my AC to 64 everytime one of these articles are posted to Slashdot. It doesn't cost me anything because I annually raise the rent on the two rental properties I have.

  19. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by DogDude · · Score: 1

    If cold in winter is "just weather", why is heat in summer "climate"?

    May I ask, what the fuck are you talking about?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  20. Re:Global warming will fix itself by DogDude · · Score: 2

    Vote for Hillary next time and it will all be better.

    Hillary isn't running again, shit heel. But yes, vote Democratic, and the people in office will work to improve things. Nobody ever claimed "suddenly global climate change will go away", you fuckwad.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  21. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by Kohath · · Score: 1

    It's not, nobody said it was...

    This guy said it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/en...

  22. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhh old school xenophobia, where everything's to blame on immigrants *chef kiss*.

  23. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is this sort of thing:

    "Here are a few maps that illustrate this. Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation from CoolWx.com"

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  24. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    You're wrong, cold in winter isn't "just weather," it's a sign the climate is warming.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  25. Re:Global warming will fix itself by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Jesus, dude, that's sad. Do you spend all day looking for conspiracy web sites? How do you know about so many? Is there a conspiracy search engine somewhere, or something?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  26. Re:More PC Bullcrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another troll, paid to sow doubt and dissent.

    Best to ignore all crap from ACs, even me.

  27. Re:Global warming will fix itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.axios.com/global-h...

    Hope we make it to 2020.

  28. It's begun by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The methane is releasing in Siberia now.

    It's on, I believe the runaway effect is going on. It's still going to be slow for us as humans, since the world moves at a slower pace.

    Shit is hitting the fan, now. Little tiny flecks have already hit the blade, but huge lumps coming soon.

    Don't breed, we're going to see some serious shit in the next 20 years. Not 200, the next 20 will be shocking.

    1. Re:It's begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the 40k year old worms that just thawed out and returned to life, wait till some of the crazy frozen pathogens of the past thaw out and join the modern world.

    2. Re: It's begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is I've heard that every year since 1989.

    3. Re:It's begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably already too late 30 or 40 years ago.

      Like most things, when it gets to the point that it can't be ignored, its too late. We're still able to mostly ignore global warming, supermarkets have food, gas stations have gas, and we have jobs to go-to, and some of us have the luxury of air-conditioning, all is well in the world. If we're lucky the end will be a quick cascade of devastating events, some of the rich will have the fortune of trying to survive in what ever is left over, please be enjoying your creation.

    4. Re:It's begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im 46 and this is one of the contributing reasons I do not have kids. Both my wife and I did not like the look of the world they would be living in. Granted there are other reasons too but yeah I can see the writing.

  29. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are gay.

    1. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all gay people are whacked. Not all gay people buy into this global warming propaganda. Some gay people actually think for themselves.

  30. The good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that most of the Republican voters are old and live in states with high humidity and temperatures. So the Climate Change issue is going to solve itself one day by killing enough of the Republican voters to weaken the Republican Party enough for us to be able to do something about Climate Change.

  31. Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was pretty funny.

  32. Meanwhile, America met CO2 goals. by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    America is on track to meet CO2 reduction goals.

    If you truly want to save the planet, protest to China, India, or even Russia...

    Now you might not live through the experience, unlike protesting in the U.S. But if you don't try you never cared about the planet anyway.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Meanwhile, America met CO2 goals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't care about fixing the issue. The issue is a way for them to use the government to harm people they don't like. Hitting CO2 goals is unacceptable because it prevents them from using government to attack people.

      Has the left proposed a SINGLE platform issue that helps middle class workers during your entire lifetime? I doubt they have because the middle class is their enemy.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, America met CO2 goals. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      You silly troll. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... Americans are far worse.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, America met CO2 goals. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      ... Because America doesn't have any CO2 reduction goals? There, that was easy!

  33. We need bioweapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't use nukes as we'd need too many. We need a way to eliminate everyone who isn't white. Cleanse the nations of the world, then colonise with whites.
    We need to ensure decent education so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Imagine, a single world of whites, not being dragged down by the others.

    There would be NOTHING that could not be achieved. Now we need that genetically modified virus that kills all the non whites.

  34. Dress appropriate by spinitch · · Score: 1

    When it is extremely hot, dress appropriately. Folks wearing suits and ties in 30 - 40 degrees require extra cooling for what benefit? Foolish attire habits from outdated aristocracy. Cut the AC and wear short sleeves at least and set better examples if you are a supposed leader. Underlings have little choice but to follow your stupid conventions. Some may dislike MZ FB but he at least made some effort to buck the suits.

  35. Re:Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 0

    Ahhh old school xenophobia, where everything's to blame on immigrants *chef kiss*.

    Well, you're part of the idiots who for decades has been shouting "racism!", "xenophobia!", "Islamophobia", "antisemitism!", "bigotry!", "hate-speech!" and so on like if that mattered a single fuck.

    It doesn't.

    The truth is lots of places are set on fire whatever forests, cars, immigrants centers, people are shot, people are raped, people are molested, and so on. And it's all because of the massive invasion of shit-immigrants.

    Call it whatever you want but it doesn't change anything. They are doing it. Now if you could show how they are behaving better than Swedes then you may actually have an argument but that isn't something you'll never be able to do so ... keep on showing "xenophobia!" I guess.

    Ad hominem isn't a valid counter argument though.

  36. Re:Is weather climate now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean we'll have record highs in summer and record lows in winter?

    Congratulations. You've just described global warming to a tee.

  37. The day they outlaw fossil fuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the day I'll believe anthropogenic CO2 is a true problem.

  38. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, all those cars set on fire in Sweden were probably the result of global warming also.

  39. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop, you're killing me!

  40. Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Reduced output of solar and wind from the heat is not something any dinosaur news source is willing to write. Or rather not a headline Slashdot moderators would be wiling to bring up.

    Because that is your Nuclear Ideology, it is your ism, your belief system that wants to make us believe the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing when it is hot. Only people who subscribe to your Nuclear Ideology would allow themselves to become stupider the way you want them to.

    Solar Thermal is an immediate, viable, long term, economical and technologically underdeveloped base-load replacement for nuclear power. Domestic Solar is the perfect peaking solution to replace nuclear power. Wind is a new type of power generation mechanism with a vastly more dynamic upgrade cycle than anything we've see so far, it has massive promise to replace nuclear power.

    It's not too hard to find sources giving the reduced output from PV panels and solar thermal systems in high heat, but that's not headline material for some reason. Maybe it's because we get so little of our energy from solar. But then why do we get so little of our energy from solar? Maybe because when we need it most the power isn't there?

    Maybe it's more of your rhetoric. As you said of nuclear "they still produce power" the only difference is solar and wind don't explode and cause mass evacuations like a nuclear plant does when they overheat, they just make less power.

    Unlike Nuclear power, wind and solar plants are upgradeable. Combined with IOT wind and solar variations are the most exciting developments that require new types of software systems to manage. Solar and wind are going to be a new source of huge employment sectors for Information Technology folk. I see a lot of new and interesting things.

    Unlike Nuclear, coal and everything else developed in the 19th and 20th century that produce heat, solar and wind is a 21st century solution that reduces the heat load of the planet by *extracting* heat from the environment and converting it to electricity.

    That's why Solar and Wind should be deployed in much larger ways, the more wind and solar deployed the less grid variation and more heat load removed. The more solar thermal and PV technology development the less we have to rely on yesterday's solutions invented and promoted by self interested people with less knowledge of the Earth's thermal systems.

    The challenge of our generation is how we can retire these wasteful throwbacks to the cold war without further disasters and upgrade our energy infrastructure to solar, wind and geothermal solutions. That starts with doing away with obsolete nuclear rhetoric such as yours blindseer, which is kind of like looking at a 60 year old cheerleaders with too much makeup trying to convince everyone they still have the same promise they did when they were teenagers.

    That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by blindseer · · Score: 0

      Because that is your Nuclear Ideology, it is your ism, your belief system that wants to make us believe the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing when it is hot.

      That's not what I claimed and you know it. I stated that wind and solar have reduced output in a heatwave, just as nuclear power has reduced output in a heat wave. I suspect you know this otherwise you would have provided a citation on that. I did some searching and found that PV panels can see a 10% to 35% reduction in output in high heat. If you don't believe me then I'd like to see what you believe a more accurate number would be.

      Solar Thermal is an immediate, viable, long term, economical and technologically underdeveloped base-load replacement for nuclear power.

      Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt, used to heat air in open or closed cycle gas turbines, do so without the use of water as a heat sink, and therefore perfect for use in hot arid climates. This allows for long term storage of energy (long term = hours or days, not months), load follow capability, as well as waste heat suitable for desalination and other industrial processes. I do not dispute this. Want to know why I don't dispute this? Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors. You think energy storage only helps wind and solar? It helps nuclear power just as much, if not more. Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power. It might take the area of a medium sized airport, but that's mostly to provide an ample security buffer around a vital civil asset, no different than that around a water reservoir, hydroelectric dam, or... well, an airport.

      Domestic Solar is the perfect peaking solution to replace nuclear power. Wind is a new type of power generation mechanism with a vastly more dynamic upgrade cycle than anything we've see so far, it has massive promise to replace nuclear power.

      I'll believe it when I see it. Since nuclear power provides 20% of the electricity consumed in the USA, and you claim that wind and solar are going to replace it, do I really need to provide a citation for you on the current viability of nuclear power? It seems you've admitted to that already.

      Maybe it's more of your rhetoric. As you said of nuclear "they still produce power" the only difference is solar and wind don't explode and cause mass evacuations like a nuclear plant does when they overheat, they just make less power.

      Wind and solar kill more people than nuclear. Citation:
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
      https://ourworldindata.org/wha...

      If you want to reduce nuclear accident deaths further then stop evacuating people needlessly. Citation:
      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w...

      Unlike Nuclear power, wind and solar plants are upgradeable.

      Then explain this list of articles on nuclear power plants getting upgrades:
      https://www.power-eng.com/nucl...

      Unlike Nuclear, coal and everything else developed in the 19th and 20th century that produce heat, solar and wind is a 21st century solution that reduces the heat load

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.

      Citation needed.

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I just handed you your head on a platter and that's the best you got?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,

      No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.

      Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.

      I think lead cooled reactors would be better.

      Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.

      Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.

      Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.

      So what. They don't take up multiple exclusion zones when they blow up (3600sqKm for Chernobyl) and they can be put in places where people aren't.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I just handed you your head on a platter and that's the best you got?

      Wrong again. You never really have anything useful to contribute to these conversations blindseer, just a tired old nuclear ideology. Boring.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a pretty good reply. Hint: we're picturing you in those uniforms.

    7. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,

      No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.

      That would be great if this solar technology existed today. Where are these solar thermal power plants that are cheap, reliable, and provide power 24/7?

      While we wait for this technology to develop what should we do? If we can wait ten years for this cheap and reliable solar power then there doesn't seem to be much real threat from global warming. If it is a threat then it seems wise to start building nuclear reactors now, just in case this solar technology gets delayed.

      Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.

      I think lead cooled reactors would be better.

      Why?

      Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.

      Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.

      We have the internet and can read. Next generation reactors would consume the waste from old previous generation reactors.
      http://egeneration.org/solution/wamsr/

      If you are permitted to bring up next generation solar to make your case then I can bring up next generation nuclear to make my case.

      Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.

      So what. They don't take up multiple exclusion zones when they blow up (3600sqKm for Chernobyl) and they can be put in places where people aren't.

      Right, let's compare current reactors to one that is 50 years old, designed based on incomplete plans stolen from the USA, where important details were lost in translation, when built did not even meet the specifications from these flawed plans, was run by drunk Russians hired for their political connections rather than their technical abilities, and even then to get it to fail it required multiple safety systems to be overridden manually, and pushed beyond designed output levels.

      Then there is Fukushima. These were reactors built before Chernobyl, so the lessons learned from that accident were not incorporated into this design. There were multiple safety violations during construction and operation, which when discovered by the government they did nothing to force TEPCO to shutdown the reactors. Warnings of problems in the design were brought to TEPCO and the Japanese government multiple times, including even before the reactors were complete in 1971, and the warnings pointed out that the backup generators in the basement of the turbine hall would have a risk of flooding and leave the reactor without proper cooling necessary should the reactor be struck by an earthquake and tsunami. Further putting the reactors at risk was a seawall meant to protect the site from a tsunami wave was discovered to have been built too low. When the reactors came up for renewal of their license in early 2011 the Japanese government granted the renewal even though TEPCO did nothing to address the multiple complaints of the risk of a meltdown in the case of a tsunami. Even then there were no deaths attributed to the meltdown itself. All deaths in the area were attributed to the quake, tsunami, or accidents and stress from the unnecessary evacuations.

      So we have two major fuck-ups on 50 year old reactor designs, among the 400+ nuclear reactors that have operated safely in the world, in which few people died, and you want to use that as a reason to not build NEW reactors? If that's the metric then I'll pull up some price and performance statistics from the 1980s to argue against wind and solar.

    8. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by blindseer · · Score: 1

      No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.

      Yes, I can read and I do have access to the internet. That does not exempt you from citing a source to back up your claims. I'm not going to try to chase down your claims for you, tell you I can't find it, and then you simply get smug and tell me I'm not looking hard enough. Cut the unsubstantiated claims and provide a link once in a while.

      I think lead cooled reactors would be better.

      Why? And cite a source.

      Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.

      Bullshit. Citation needed.

      So what. They don't take up multiple exclusion zones when they blow up (3600sqKm for Chernobyl) and they can be put in places where people aren't.

      Nuclear power is still safer than any other energy source we have access to.
      https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

      No one has any plans to duplicate the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl, so bringing that up as a case against a future design does not follow. You can bring up solar power and I can point to Boy Scouts getting food poisoning from a "solar oven". You can bring up wind power and I can bring up Grandpa's windmill on the farm used to pump water. Ford's Pinto was not a safe vehicle but that has nothing to do with the decision on the purchase of a 2018 model year F-150.

      If you want to criticize nuclear power then do so on designs that people are actually proposing to build. I can agree that these old nuclear reactors, built about the same time as those at Chernobyl, should be replaced. They cannot be replaced by wind and solar any time soon at current rates of development. That can only be done with new nuclear. Citation:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,

      No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.

      That would be great if this solar technology existed today. Where are these solar thermal power plants that are cheap, reliable, and provide power 24/7?

      Here ya go.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Right, let's compare current reactors to one that is 50 years old, designed based on incomplete plans stolen from the USA, where important details were lost in translation, when built did not even meet the specifications from these flawed plans, was run by drunk Russians hired for their political connections rather than their technical abilities, and even then to get it to fail it required multiple safety systems to be overridden manually, and pushed beyond designed output levels.

      Take responsibility for what you are advocating and you will be a lot more convincing. Humans will still run the reactor at an organization level which is where Fukushima and Chernobyl both failed.

      Then there is Fukushima. These were reactors built before Chernobyl, so the lessons learned from that accident were not incorporated into this design.

      And not to the AP100 and only some in EPR, the only two approved nuclear power plant designs approved for deployment.

      There were multiple safety violations during construction and operation,

      And that's meant to reassure me that human nature won't be present for the construction of these reactors?

      So we have two major fuck-ups on 50 year old reactor designs, among the 400+ nuclear reactors that have operated safely in the world, in which few people died, and you want to use that as a reason to not build NEW reactors? If that's the metric then I'll pull up some price and performance statistics from the 1980s to argue against wind and solar.

      No, we've been very lucky there haven't been more and as they age and continue to operate they will do so. Show me the attention to detail a new nuclear industry warrants. Then argue the for case better than I can and that most of these nuclear ideaologists can't.

      Be a Responsible Nuclear Advocate not a Nuclear Ideologist with an agenda to push.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.

      I think lead cooled reactors would be better.

      Why?

      Better burn up rate of the fuel as it becomes fissile ash. Longer cycle time inside the reactor between refueling.

      Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.

      Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.

      We have the internet and can read. Next generation reactors would consume the waste from old previous generation reactors.
      http://egeneration.org/solutio...

      If you are permitted to bring up next generation solar to make your case then I can bring up next generation nuclear to make my case.

      Looks like a fast burner without an integrated fuel reprocessing facility like IFR. Upgrade on IFR due to salt instead of sodium as a coolant. I am definitely interested in the anti-proliferation aspect. Looks promising once you get around the oil coal industry lobbying against it and enough reactor experience to have it NRC approved so I'll watch with interest.

      Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.

      It doesn't matter, solar is as closed cycle as it gets and produces no waste. There simply isn't a nuclear plant that does that. Solar scales really quickly.

      It's going to take a few versions of this technology to get to 1Gw if you are claiming to have learned the lessons of safety from the previous nuclear industry. So as long as you don't try to scale the reactor to quickly and iron out the quirks, then you might learn something from the previous failure of an nuclear industry. This design will especially have to be underground and disposed of in situ so the length of the service life is going to tie into the materials technology used to build it. It will take 10-20 years to scale this technology to build enough reactor experience to get to 1Gw. Do you suggest we simply ignore those lessons from this nuclear industry and not build solar in the meantime as I have suggested?

      I have no problem with the development of nuclear technology especially to deal with the spent fuel and weapons grade pu we have lying around. It would be good if it eats up DU however that is not clear. I'll check out the technology, thanks for the information.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Oh well SAID sir!

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    13. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      > Seriously? You citation is a scandal rag like the Huffington Post?!?!?!?!?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    14. Re:Nuclear power is an obsolete heatload by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you even look at the article?

      Because you look like quite the fool. You shouldn't dismiss an argument based on your perception of the people delivering it. That's an ad hominem, and when you do that, you can miss some arguments that are truly golden...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  41. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So.. the issue isn't so much climate change as it's the invasion by non-Swedes too here and politicians prioritizing the genocide of the Swedish people and the Muslim and African invasion"

    "Ad-hominem"? Jesus fucking Christ dude, you're a walking definition of xenophobia. The fact that you hate being called on it doesn't make any difference.

  42. Re:More PC Bullcrap by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    > Just another troll, paid to sow doubt and dissent.

    Nobody pays trolls on slashdot. Trolls have plenty of motives on their own. Don't be idiotic, it makes you look like part of the problem.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  43. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by phantomfive · · Score: 1
    Here's the kind of thing we're looking at though:

    "Over 1,100 daily record low temperatures have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along with over 1,100 snow records. The last week of records broken, tied, or approached is shown in this animation"

    "Weather is not climate," indeed.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  44. Re: Is weather climate now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Record lows worldwide, of just record lows in some small part of the globe (USA)? Record lows are getting increasingly rare worldwide, and the ones in the USA are actually an expected consequence of a (relatively) warm winter Arctic reducing the barriers to the cold air moving south. (I don't understand the physics in detail).

    In any case, record warmth in winter rarely gets reported across the globe as it is not an ABSOLUTE record.

  45. Re:Global warming will fix itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just out of curiosity. . . .

    What improvements have you seen over the past say . . . . thirty years or so that you can attribute to Team Blue ?

    Non-stop wars
    Wages haven't moved
    Income Inequality is at an all time high
    Financial Crisis / Crash

  46. and yet.... by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Germany, Japan, China, India, and a number of 3rd world nations keep adding new coal plants, instead of focusing on AE.
    Worse, so many will act like this is OK for all these nations.
    We have trump in America, but in spite of him/GOP, our coal consumption and CO2 continues downward (though not as much).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:and yet.... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's America that has to pay for all the other nations of the world. It's the only one with the wealth to do it. Countries like Germany, Japan, China, India need their wealth for their own people. America is the one everyone agrees whose job it is to get these things done.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:and yet.... by Uecker · · Score: 3, Informative

      That Germany is adding coal plants is a myth.

      This is power generation from coal and lignite in Germany from 1990-2017 in TWh.
      coal 140,8 147,1 143,1 138,4 134,6 146,5 140,8 134,1 137,9 142,0 124,6 107,9 117,0 112,4 116,4 127,3 118,6 117,7 112,2 92,6
      lignite 170,9 142,6 148,3 154,8 158,0 158,2 158,0 154,1 151,1 155,1 150,6 145,6 145,9 150,1 160,7 160,9 155,8 154,5 149,5 147,5

      Source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen...

    3. Re:and yet.... by Uecker · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the countries with the highest per capita CO2 emissions per year substantially higher than Germany, Japan, China (and a lot higher than India.) This while having a trade deficit. No, we do not expect to pay for all other nations, we expect that you bring down *your* emissions.

    4. Re:and yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you continue to lie? American CO2 is increasing as Trump is pushing coal.
      Americans CO2 levels are already twice as high as comparable countries, and about 8x India 3x Japan and Germany.

    5. Re:and yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China and India and Germany are also adding lots of AE provision. China has been cancelling planned coal plants.

    6. Re:and yet.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Germany, Japan, China, India, and a number of 3rd world nations keep adding new coal plants, instead of focusing on AE.

      Sorry but horseshit. They aren't adding new Coal plants, they are replacing existing coal plants with new ones that are more efficient and somewhat cleaner. On top of that aside from Japan the three other countries you list have among the most aggressive AE strategy in the world absolutely dwarfing the efforts of most countries in terms of both spend and capacity.

      India has one of the largest percentages of renewable energy in the world in its energy mix many thanks to hydro power.
      China accounted for some 50% of the $250bn spent last year on renewable projects.
      Germany is number 2 in the world for solar consumption in their mix and number 1 in production per capita. Number 4 in the world for wind capacity, and number 1 in production per capita.
      Japan, I didn't know much about Japan but while double checking a figure from Germany I found they are number 2 behind Germany for all the above.

      And in actual production and consumption China is number 1 on all renewable fronts.

      Speaking of coal in Germany you should check out some of those awesome projects. Datteln 4 a new 1.1GW coal plant will cause the closure of Datteln 1, 2 and 3, while producing more power than all of them combined by a factor of 2, with a significant reduction of the emissions thanks to it's best in class efficiency compared to the 60s era units it will replace. That's before you take into account this plant will produce a small fraction of the NOx, SOx, and particulate emissions and will use waste heat to provide central heating to houses allowing them to shut down an old central heating system as well. Yay coal!

      Worse, so many will act like this is OK for all these nations.

      We have trump in America, but in spite of him/GOP, our coal consumption and CO2 continues downward (though not as much).

      Of course we do, because it IS okay for those nations. What's not okay is Americans thinking they are in any way at the forefront of fighting emissions when in fact you are among the worse polluters per capita and among the most wasteful in terms of energy consumption per household in the world.

      Shame on you. Be more like China. Be more like India. Be more like Germany and Japan!

    7. Re:and yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan? I'd very surprised if Japan is really building any new coal plants. Citation definitely needed.

    8. Re:and yet.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Bull Shit.
      Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
      But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
      One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis?
      Solar per capita in 2012; Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person.
      Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
      Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia. Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.

      Lets do wind now. Here is wind in 2012 We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
      You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person.
      Here is wind in 2014 America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.

      All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
      And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:and yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it isn't OK. Every new coal fired power station is a huge missed opportunity, and we should be vocal in our criticism of it.

      That criticism would be a lot less hypocritical if the USA was really trying hard to cut it's own carbon output, which is so higher worse per capita than any other large country despite being the most able to afford to pay more for clean energy. You try telling the Indians that they can't build a cheap coal plant to enable reliable power for their schools and hospitals whilst the US builds new ones to make sure that Mandy in accounts can keep her sweater on indoors in a Phoenix summer with a straight face.

      The Germans and Japanese got themselves into their current mess by deciding to eliminate nuclear power without a viable backup plan in place. Using renewables for base load takes a lot of infrastructure, and that takes far more time than just throwing up a coal plant or two. They thought that it would be politically better for them to build cheap coal replacements and shut down nuclear plants ASAP, and then worry about transitioning from coal to clean energy later, even though it's an environmental and diplomatic step in the wrong direction.

    10. Re:and yet.... by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      LOL WindBourne, pick and choose a few years to try and make America look favorable.

      And since you want to talk about per capita Americans use about 3 times the electricity as Chinese people, and twice EU levels.

      Not much point claiming you have more solar and wind, when you use so much more electricity, you still have to burn more coal per person than China does to keep the lights on anyway.

      This shows China was at 25% renewables in 2015 while the US was only 14%. I doubt you have caught up, but feel free to show more current numbers if you have them. (not just from your ass this time though).

      If America was more like China and you dropped from 16 t per person down to 7.5 like China. It would drop total world CO2 levels by about 7%. Abit more than 7 UKs, or 3 Germanys, or an India. A big noticable change for the better. Do you really think you can cut in half....

    11. Re: and yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America has not built new coal plants in a long time.

  47. 127 degrees-in the shade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lot's actually. Now it's our turn. Maybe more cities will be buried underground? Maybe more efficient water distribution and reuse will be in place? Either way something will have to change, and it will not just be the weather if we want to survive.

  48. Itâ(TM)s Just a Coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.satirewire.com/content1/?p=855

  49. Re:Global warming will fix itself by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    vote Democratic, and the people in office will work to improve things

    What, like Ken Salazar (as eager to rape the land as James Watt did under Reagan), Hillary Clinton (exported fracking to the world) or Barack Obama (opened up seaboards to drilling, bragged about the US producing oil faster than it could be processed)?

  50. Deniers are running out of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I drank the Global Warming coolaid 10-15 years ago because it's what was taught in school. Since then, no climate change denier has even come close to convincing me otherwise. If you're still a denier you'll be a minority soon enough since it's what the children are being taught now. Then we'll be able to finally fully admit there's a problem.

  51. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Hrm. Wouldn't we have a wide spread pattern of heat records if the globe was warming naturally? How does this compare to say, the period from the Little Ice Age to 1940? Obviously, we had a much less robust temperature network before then to observe temperatures, but oh, I don't know, pick 1850-1932, what was the pattern of "record high" temperatures each year during that warming period?

    I mean, how can you *not* have more record highs if you're naturally warming?

    The problem here is that it seems like the alarmists are taking something that is *necessary* for their hypothesis, and asserting it is *sufficient* in and of itself to prove them right. It's obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside that "118 all time heat records" is not nearly sufficient to make all of the complex and grand claims that humans are causing all global climate change, and that it is going to doom us all to the nether levels of hell at some indeterminate time in the future.

    Why not just make the whole argument, rather than making a very, very poor one? Is this just a victory lap, like Trump crowing about 4.1% 2Q growth? Yes, it's *consistent* with his narrative that his tax bill and deregulation is helping the economy, but isn't it true that we would observe the same thing if the underlying economics had nothing to do with his actions?

  52. Oh, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not "all time" heat records. People on Slashdot usually at least pretend to be smarter than that.

    Most temperature records only go back a couple hundred years out of the [approx] 6 billion year history of the planet.

    No pre-mercury-thermometer record (like tree rings, ice cores, mud, etc) is a calibrated instrument with even 1 degree of accuracy.

    One reason it's so hard for the global warming crowd to make any headway in their arguments with people who doubt them is that they so often use dishonest claims and over-the-top apocalyptic rhetoric, and then after insisting climate change is destroying the planet, they excuse themselves as they continue doing the things they claim are killing mother Earth.

    If the headline had said "188 locations broke heat records for the past 200 years" or some such thing they would have been more honest and had some credibility. If the people who claim CO2 is a killer would themselves stop drinking carbonated beverages [a totally unnecessary CO2 usage] and traveling in fossil fuel powered vehicles [telephones, e-mails and faxes are fine for communication in a truly threatened planet] and stop using internet and cell phone services that are other than life-saving [services that demand huge power-sucking server farms that are active 24 hours a day 7 days a week just so people can watch a cat video or "like" a moron on Facebook] then perhaps they might have some credibility.

  53. Re: Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, casually blaming climate change on Africans and Muslims is totally not what a xenophobe would ever do.

  54. and yet....typical western arrogance/entitlement by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    China, India

    Considering that those two countries have around 7 times the population of the United States - yeah, they get to pollute more. Call us when their per capita pollution exceeds the United States - and when much of their pollution is to produce crap for American consumers.

  55. No more Mr. Nice Guy. by Whibla · · Score: 1

    We literally have no reason ...

    Well, some of us clearly don't...

    ...to believe that any amount of global warming will be a *bad* thing overall, by any economic metric.

    (1) Rising sea levels, flooding coastal areas, including most of the world's major cities.
    (2) Increased temperatures rendering parts of the world uninhabitable.
              (2.1) Newly warmed / Ice free land not immediately suitable for 'easy' intensive agriculture / habitation to replace what's been lost
    (3) Increased costs due to extreme weather events.
    (4) Increased loss of life (and concomitant costs) due to extreme weather.

    Ah wait, the points above are not purely economic. So we needn't worry about them, right?

    Anyone who pretends otherwise is extending their confidence into a realm that doesn't deserve it.

    Wrong!

    Anyone who suggests otherwise is, literally, a sociopath, using false uncertainty to justify the moral vacuum they inhabit.

    1. Re:No more Mr. Nice Guy. by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      From 1918 to 2018, how much economic damage can you attribute to the items on your list? Hell, just even go from 1945-2018, to cover the post-war expansion of industry, and find any reason for us to believe that we are worse off on any of the items you mentioned in 2018 than 1945. (Do me the favor and use constant dollars when making comparisons, of course - "increased costs" without factoring in inflation are a special flavor of tasty cherry picking :) )

      You are extrapolating from an uncontested fact (global average temperatures will increase at a rate of 1C/century), to wild, unfounded predictions of economic doom.

      Your false certainty suggests perhaps you're the sociopath without morals :)

    2. Re:No more Mr. Nice Guy. by Whibla · · Score: 1

      The cost of, for example, flood barriers are easy to find. The usage statistics for said flood barriers are also easy to find. This is just one very simple, not hard to think of, example that refutes your original statement. You could also look at what insurance companies, those with a specific financial interest in future risks, are doing. Those figures also suggests you're talking out of your arse. Or you could continue to ascribe Scott Adam's rather Republican views to his comic creation, and pretend everything is all right. After all, since he nailed the frustrations of office life, co-workers and pointy haired bosses he's bound to be right about this... (/s)

      All of which is beside the point: Money is not the only thing that matters, it's not even the primary concern, not when it comes to climate change any more than when it comes to making sure that everyone is fed, housed, or treated with dignity. That you apparently cannot see this suggests that it is you, not I, who is the sociopath.

      Either way, I suspect that further conversation with you on this subject is pointless. I've got better things to do than waste my time debating someone so unwilling to even acknowledge the problems we're facing, let alone do anything about it.

      Oh, and btw, that you can even write "You are extrapolating from an uncontested fact (global average temperatures will increase at a rate of 1C/century)" shows your intellectual honesty is approximately zero. I'm not sure if you're lying to yourself or just to me, but you might want to look into that.

    3. Re:No more Mr. Nice Guy. by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The cost of, for example, flood barriers are easy to find. The usage statistics for said flood barriers are also easy to find. This is just one very simple, not hard to think of, example that refutes your original statement.

      Okay, so, give me the data from 1918 and 2018. Prove your point with data that you claim is easy to find.

      I'll argue that you have neither of these:

      1) a model that can correlate global average temperature to cost or usage of flood barriers by hindcasting the past

      2) a model that can correlate global average temperature to cost or usage of flood barriers in the future

      All of which is beside the point: Money is not the only thing that matters

      Well, I'll take that a step further - money spent on flood barriers is not the only thing that matters. The use of natural petroleum and the Haber process to increase the carrying capacity of humans on the earth through improved agriculture also matters. The benefit of additional humans on the planet matters. Average quality of life of these humans matter. All of which has dramatically improved during a century of global average temperature increase.

      Or are you a sociopath who believes we should be restricting human procreation, and need to return to the status of 1918?

  56. So it's true but still propaganda???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does that work? The government tells you something true but because it is from the government it is propaganda and therefore you, what? Don't accept it as true?

    1. Re: So it's true but still propaganda???? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The best kind of propaganda is true. "Bill Clinton was seen with a young female." Totally true, undeniable, but your imagination must fill in what happened to her.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: So it's true but still propaganda???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You are a sad little man. Getting too old. Might be time to hang it up champ. You had a good run.

  57. So it could get vastly better then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we should go for it. We KNOW one route fucks up (business as usual) so we do and look to see what happens if we avoid the fuck up. You doommongers have no economic model either yet you scream how it will be the end of the civilised western world. Like everything that chances. Pop music, rap, computers, cars...

  58. You demanded a cite and got one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is making up a win that never happened the best you got?

  59. 'cept for the fact he didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead, find the line and word count there that points you to Mann saying "cold in winter is "just weather"". We'll wait.

  60. Re:Don't only blame climate change by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Well, you're part of the idiots who for decades has been shouting "racism!", "xenophobia!", "Islamophobia", "antisemitism!", "bigotry!", "hate-speech!" and so on like if that mattered a single fuck.

    Yep, people should just shut up and not get uppity. The solution is to either seeth quietly or just let your soul be crushed rather than shout at people being arseholes.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  61. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    It's not, nobody said it was...

    This guy said it:

    https://www.theguardian.com/en...

    I fail to find the quote you claim is in there - or was that another straw man you just set on fire?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  62. Re:Conservatards won't believe it anyway by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    They won't believe that climate change is happening, because their God says it isn't.

    Or worse, they believe it helps bring in the Apocalypse - yeah, Jesus time!

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  63. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Where we have the largest fire in Sweden three fires started at ~the same time.

    In Arboga they think 15 fires was started by someone within two days.

    Which he couldn't have done if the forrest weren't so dry.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  64. Statistics is against the denier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With N years of data and an unchanging mean, the probability of a single new record is 1/N.
    Sure there is some correlation between records, but this many records indicates a change in the mean.
    Beyond the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt.

    Statistics can provide the probability of such a change -- it's essentially one at this point.

  65. Chinglish overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    adapt to it, it takes millions of years though so start early.
    living in water

  66. If it's global warming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why did we get snow here this week? First time ever in Sunny Queensland.

  67. Re: and yet....typical western arrogance/entitleme by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Ok, here we have a far left that does not get it. India is likely at the level we all need to be at. China is already way over. Heck, most of Europe is still above where the globe needs to be. Look, the single worst source of Co2 are coal plants. Even China's best coal plants is an absolute disaster in terms of pollution. These need to be stopped all over the world and replaced with AE or nuke power. The reason is that once built, we will certainly allow them to run for 40 years minimum. The second worst source are vehicles, esp general purpose transportation. Thankfully, these are replaced relatively quickly, so as vehicle makers get onboard, and produce these, ppl, and more importantly, companies, will buy these. This will drop co2 in most nations.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  68. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whinge has ALWAYS been that AGW is never happening, is ending, is inevitable and is a complete lie we're cooling because you nutjobs don't know or care what's going on you HAVE to push there being nothing to do.

    And show me the denier predictions that came true. So you MUST be against the hoax BEHIND the AGW denial, yes?

    Of course fucking not.

  69. It's always someone else ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always someone else who bears responsibility and needs to change.

    I know many people who accept the human role in climate change but they still drive big SUVs, live in big houses, and travel by air.

    For most of my life I have tried to be conservative in lifestyle and keep my use of electricity, heat, water, and natural resources to a minimum. I have been into recycling since the first Earth Day. If all the people who claim to be concerned about climate did the same, it would be a huge effect.

  70. Is a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate is a fucking hoax, lets continue to burn fossil fuels until will drive ourselves to extinction.

  71. the usual Windy lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China's worst plants still have more environmental safeguards than US plants. and have for years.
    Yet you still post the same lies over and over.
    American people still use far more coal for their electricity than Chinese or Indians, despite years of decreases and you telling us over and over how many plants are closing.
    Depends on the country, in America, even though you use about 6x the electricity of similar countries, electricity is still behind transport for your CO2 because your cars and trucks are even more inefficient than your electricity and households..

  72. Re: and yet....typical western arrogance/entitleme by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 2

    Ok, here we have a far left that does not get it. India is likely at the level we all need to be at. China is already way over. Heck, most of Europe is still above where the globe needs to be.

    Why do you try so hard to avoid the elephant in the room?

    Graph of CO2 polluters
    India is at the level you think we need to be at... ok....seems a bit extreme to most people but lets go with it.
    China is 'way over'..... ok if you say so....seems to be about the average...
    Most of Europe is above, ok it's similar to China so no real reason to single China out other than your hatred of them.

    And America?
    Did you forget to mention that America is 2-4 times as bad as the countries you are complaining about?
    Twice the level of the 'way over' China even.
    Close to ten times Indian levels, that you claim is your target.
    Why are you not taking America to task?

    It's clear you are just anti-China and try to hide as much as possible, the fact your entitled country is a far worse CO2 polluter.

  73. Re:Zero reliable economic models by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    I think that Dilbert got it right -

    That denialists are a bunch of PHBs?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  74. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by DavenH · · Score: 1

    It wasn't relevant or necessary to dump the whole argument for climate change in that response - just to establish that it's more than isolated weather events.

  75. The real story is drought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden is undergoing its worst continuing drought in almost a century. Whenever you see record high temperatures, look for drought. Because thatâ(TM)s how you get to record high temperatures.

  76. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Should have called bullshit on the original claim instead. The "40%" figure is based on a 2013 study looking at insect collections at a relatively small number of sites in Europe, most of which were either near or actually ON active farms. Trying to pretend that this is somehow indicative aof a global decline ... that's just retarded.

  77. Re:the usual porky/red china lies by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Hey, idiot.
    Efficient plants REALLY produce that level of pollution. Only a true idiot thinks that .
    Your link for 'far more coal' shows that CHina shows the number of plants, with a title of CO2 generation. IOW, they do not match up.
    More importantly, your data is actually about the number of plants. it shows that China has 4271 plants, with another 815 coming. OTOH, America has 1344 plants, and America has not built a new one in 0ver a decade.
    And no, we use about the same amount of electricity as SIMILAR nations. We use less than Canada, Australia, and similar to most of europe, except for UK-germany region. The reason is that they have a very tempered weather. Of course, Western Europe is throwing in AC like no other nation.
    Yeah, out of all your lies here and elsewhere, you actually have a decent point on our transportation. The good thing is, that Tesla is pushing America hard to switch to EVs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  78. Re: and yet....typical western arrogance/entitleme by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The elephant in the room is NOT America. It is all the nations building out Coal plants. Coal plant will remain for another 40-60 years.
    Secondly, Your hatred for America means that you continue to ignore the real issues. Even here, you lie by claiming that America is 2-4x what China is. China's CO2 is MUCH HIGHER than what is reported. Look at OCO2. Once OCO3 hits, real numbers will be posted. Heck, china was caught lying about their amount of coal consumed over the last 50 years and was forced to admit it because of OCO2. But even using these lies hitting your graph, America is slightly above 2x what China has per capita. And if we go look at the right normalization, which is emissions / $ GDP, China is in the bottom 5.
    Third, no hatred of CHina. You accuse me of something that is NOT true. I simply point out the issues.
    Fourth, America is at a high emissions / person. I have agreed many a times. BUT, America continues to go down. Your nation continues to rise.Worse yet, you are adding massive number of coal plants that will NOT be closed for another 40-60 years. In fact, China will add more coal plants capacity than America currently has, over the next 12 years.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  79. Mod Parent up please. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    lol. Never heard that one before. Sadly, It is pretty much spot on.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  80. Re: and yet....typical western arrogance/entitleme by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1
    You anti-China bias is legendary. You basically just admitted America is far worse, but there was no mention of it in your post until I 'reminded' you. You specifically singled out China when it's about the same as European levels.
    You know for a fact that American levels are higher but you never seem to complain about that. Even now you hand wave a bit and claim it's OK because it's 'getting better'.

    I don't hate America. I dislike entitled assholes. There is a bit of an overlap between the two ;)

  81. Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Units please.

  82. Judging from posts here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AGW is no longer a theory, it's now a religion and as such cannot be questioned.

  83. Re:Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 1

    You can set grass and trees on fire any summer I'd say.

    Sure if the rain is falling right then it will be harder but ... we haven't had such summers.

    The problem is people are starting fires regardless. That's what make up the largest of the difference.

    As for the size of it the number of fires, that Sweden only had two military helicopters available for it and no coast rescue helicopters with hooks and no planes for it and too few hoses and that it's dry combined make it worse. Of course.

  84. PER CAPITA is where we need to be at by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I see you're working real hard at disproving the assertion of arrogance/entitlement by continuing to compare emissions by nations, just so you can go on polluting as much as half a dozen Chinese people put together.

    It just doesn't work that way. Otherwise....the Vatican gets to pollute just as much as the United States does...but that would clearly be nonsense. And again, how much of that coal power you're complaining about in China is producing consumer products for export to your man cave of entitlement.

  85. Re:Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Truth-tellers = arseholes?

    Even if you choose the word arsehole rather than xenophobic that still doesn't change a single thing.

    The only fair counter would be to tell me that I'm wrong and do that based on evidence not just a wish and feelings and values you're holding.

    Young children was forced into the water by bad behaving upper teens youths at a bath, a police car had its windows smashed after the police had talked to some people grilling and a police was attacked when telling some youths to pick up their things.
    In none of those cases the police and the main-stream media outlet mentioned the ethnicity of the people doing those things but that doesn't mean they didn't had an immigrant background and anyone who knows anything about reality and Sweden can simply assume with great accuracy that they had an immigrant background. It's not typical Swedish behavior and when it happen it's immigrant behavior. Just because you don't give all the true details about something doesn't make it another thing / not happening. Sure with the truth hidden you can't say for sure but .. that's only because the truth is hidden and not because it's not immigrants.
    Also when it finally is a white murderer for instance suddenly posting images is just alright because finally you've got a counter-store against the "racist" ideas that only immigrants cause trouble so when there is no image and nothing mentioned it's pretty safe to assume the rest.

    Sweden is a dishonest non-democracy ran by traitors and with an ungoing genocide carried out by the ruling elite. That make us a bit less informed and media and politicians and people dishonest/wrong/the truth hidden but .. Yeah. One gotta do the best out of it.

  86. Re: Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Yeah, casually blaming climate change on Africans and Muslims is totally not what a xenophobe would ever do.

    That I haven't done either.

    Only straw-men and ad hominem.

    Feel free to at any time have an actual valid point.

    They aren't welcome here and that may be xenophobic of me and that I have no problem with. I've never claimed they are the leading cause of climate change or worse than us in that regard though. They rape more. They cost more. They commit more heavy crimes. They murder more. They likely set our forests on fire and so on. But unlikely the sub-saharan Africans cause more climate change than Swedes. The Muslims of the middle-east maybe due to better access to oil but maybe not them either. Regardless it's never a claim I've made.

    They are unwanted and people cause fires in Sweden and the leading cause of more fires aren't climate change but human behavior.

  87. Re: Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I'm not arguing I'm xenophobic.

    I am.

    That is irrelevant for any point I make though.
    I don't say Africans are the leading cause of climate change and that white people don't cause any part of it. To claim so would be a false claim and it would be trying to point out some flaw in what I've said even though I've never said it.

    You're free to attack what I say but if you do do it with actual valid points rather than just using lies and ad hominem.
    Tell were I'm wrong. Which of course would be hard since I'm right and that's kinda all that matter.

  88. That's generally the problem. There's a pattern: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is generally the biggest problem, in the US as well as in Europe:
    * For any group, however harmless, there is bound to be a bunch of extreme morons/assholes (and a bunch of extremely fine people), simply because of the Gaussian distribution curve.
    * The media simply reports the most extreme cases, because they are by definition the most interesting. Even if they were not interested in profit or amount of viewers, there would be no point in preferring the "meh" cases.
    * These two simple things result in us seeing mainly the extremists of a group. Which naturally enrages us the most.
    * But our brains are bias machines. Finding patterns, and going with the most likely one, is half their point. We do not check if that person we just met for the first time really exist until we have six sigma certainty. Nor do we check that study we just read ourselves to that certainty. We live our lives based on anecdotal evidence, and have little choice to do it in another way too. ... This results in us basing our views of a group on what we have heard and seen. Which will be the above media filter bubble.
    * So in the end, we see a group as extreme because of a small fraction being extreme; become more extreme as a result; and others see our group(s) as extreme; and becomes also more extreme as a result. Ending us up in a vicious extremization cycle, fueled only by how we humans naturally act when society gets so big that you need media instead of getting to know groups personally.

    My solution would be to have less children, to prevent overpopulation, and the vast amounts of problems that come with it. And to return to city states, with friendly terms between each other, but nobody forcing anybody into any general (national) rules.
    Which, luckily, is also exactly what is happening now. The most civilized and well-off states have the fewest children. And the EU is breaking apart, and its successor in spirit, namely TTIP/CETA (like TPP/NAFTA/etc) only went through after a large amount of deserved crippling.

    So I'm pretty relaxed. I'll just eat my popcorn, and watch it unfold, giving it a nudge here and there, for the next decades, or centuries.

  89. Re:the usual porky/red china lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to read idiot that was CO2 not number of plants. You have seen it many times before and no doubt will again.

    You use more than twice the EU electricity consumption.

    Asia is installing far more AC, so bzzzt wrong again.

    Your repeated lies and failures are clear for all to see.

    Not as hard as China is pushing to EV's

  90. You haven't proven anything that I could disprove. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I agree that too many goddamn humans is the core problem... ... you have not made a valid chain of reasoning, and don't even seem to know what "proof" actually means, and that it is not attainable for real-world situations outside of math. (The best you can get is statistically solid peer-reviewed evidence.)
    You would at least start out with things that we all agree with. (Paradigms / axioms.)
    Then you would have to make a logically flawless chain of reasoning, based on *only* those, and ending up with your conclusion.

    Since you did not of that, there is nothing to "disprove" in the first place. Your comment was essentially equivalent to a completely empty comment.

    But nice try. I usually only see religious nutjobs attempt to turn around the burden of proof, in the hope that some morons will fall for it.
    Like this, you're more like a false flag agent. You make "your" and my side look bad. So please stop it.

  91. Shasta Area Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In northern California 38,000 people fled their homes as an 80,900-acre wildfire spread through the Shasta-Trinity area. Reuters reports the wildfire was caused "by hot, dry weather and high winds"

    Actually, the fire was caused by an automobile that experience an undefined malfunction. The fire is exacerbated by the hot weather and high winds. So much for accuracy in journalism these days.

  92. i'M A STICKLER FOR ACCURACY by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 1

    They mention having to power down the nuke plants in Europe including German(y). The last time I checked, Germany shut down all of its nuclear power plants by decree after Fukushima, so Germany didn't have to shut down a thing. Besides that, since they shut down their nuke plants, they have been buying power from other countries that use nat gas fired plants. Not that I doubt climate change, but when the sky is falling group throws in fake facts, it is understandable why people are sceptical. Ooops, someone cried wolf again.

    --
    Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
  93. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? He's a hypocrite. As are we all.

  94. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CO2, atmosphere...

    How about CO2 , oceans?

    Ocean acidification, I pity our nonruler crustaceans...

  95. HA HA HA HA HA by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You warming alarmists are so stupid, you can't even construct a URL properly!

    No need to fix it, as I have no need to read any other your blather further when you can't even realize how efficient Americans are compared to the rest of the world, woefully behind us in technology.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  96. Re: Don't only blame climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's more of an immigration problem than a climate problem."

    Shrug emoji to you, you racist piece of shit.

  97. Re:Don't only blame climate change by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    The only fair counter would be to tell me that I'm wrong and do that based on evidence not just a wish and feelings and values you're holding.

    Bullshit. You haven't made any concrete claims. All you've done is whine about people who call out racism etc.

    The rest of your post is just rambling.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  98. Re:Yeah, it's summertime by Layzej · · Score: 1

    In the United States, the most recent decade (2000-2010) was the nation’s warmest on record. Record-breaking high temperatures are now outnumbering record lows by an average decadal ratio of 2:1. Record highs are occurring more often than record lows due to climate change.

    In a stable climate, the ratio of new record highs to new record lows is approximately even. However in our warming climate, record highs have begun to outpace record lows, with the imbalance growing for the past three decades. This trend is one of the clearest signals of climate change that we experience directly.

  99. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wishful thinking.

  100. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, Al scored 4 touchdowns in 1 game for Polk High. He was the greatest high school football player to never go pro.

  101. Re: Yeah, it's summertime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not any kind of statistical analysis.

  102. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called an analogy, maybe you need a car one.

  103. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???????. Those are the best two sources you could find?

  104. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Yes, I've read the IPCC report. And I have no respect for people who only get their knowledge from emotion pieces.like this one. Less respect for people who don't recognize it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  105. Re: Zero reliable economic models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit, that was stupid. Check the headlines, there's tons of heat related deaths during these heatwaves. Not to speak of forest fires. Seriously, that's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. I hope you don't have a decision making job.

  106. How is weather/climate a subject for slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My computer tech curiosity doesn't give you any more chances. Why don't you change your name to weather dot, or socialist dot or millennial dot or something that doesn't imply you have a primary focus on computer technology. Let a real tech column have the slashdot.org domain. sheesh. No more wasting time here.

  107. Imagine if climate change actually DID exist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's SUCH a relief that global warming doesn't exist. It's a hoax invented by the Chinese. Oh, and also by Obama, who went back in time and forged his own birth certificate. ;)

  108. Solar power is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do these Solar Reserve plants exist? That's a website giving a proposal, as far as I can tell these solar thermal storage sites do not exist, none have been built.

    On the other hand we've seen hundreds of nuclear power plants built. We've seen high temperature reactors built as prototypes, which would be well suited for molten salt thermal energy storage if we'd only dust off the old plans and update them a bit. If that solar thermal storage technology checks out then that leaves a wide door open for a nuclear reactor to step in and take over that space.

    In the end you are comparing future solar technology to nuclear technology of 50 years ago. How about you compare modern existing solar power to modern existing nuclear power? Why bring up the RBMK at Chernobyl? Or BWR at Fukushima? Those were out dated second generation reactors. No one builds those any more. How about comparing existing solar power to third generation reactors that have been recently constructed?

    If you want to bring up future solar power technology then compare that to fourth generation nuclear, like molten salt reactors. If you need to point to nonexistent solar power plants to make your case for solar power then you have a very weak case. If you need to bring up 30 year old nuclear power accidents to argue against future nuclear power reactors then that is also a weak case.

    1. Re:Solar power is shit by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Where do these Solar Reserve plants exist? That's a website giving a proposal, as far as I can tell these solar thermal storage sites do not exist, none have been built.

      Just like your wamsr salt reactor.

      On the other hand we've seen hundreds of nuclear power plants built.

      You mean nuclear technology of 50 years ago?

      We've seen high temperature reactors built as prototypes, which would be well suited for molten salt thermal energy storage if we'd only dust off the old plans and update them a bit.

      So naive, so adorable. I'm sure oil and coal will be all for that, let's see if they lobby to have nuclear take their market share.

      If that solar thermal storage technology checks out then that leaves a wide door open for a nuclear reactor to step in and take over that space.

      Sure and in the decade or so that it takes to run nuclear construction over budget and investors aren't getting the promised return the ones that invested in solar will have their money back two or three times. But you keep believing.

      In the end you are comparing future solar technology to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.

      You mean the hundreds of nuclear power plants built?

      How about you compare modern existing solar power to modern existing nuclear power? Why bring up the RBMK at Chernobyl? Or BWR at Fukushima? Those were out dated second generation reactors. No one builds those any more.

      Because they are the ones operating.

      How about comparing existing solar power to third generation reactors that have been recently constructed?

      You mean that cheap piece of shit the AP1000 based on the SNUPPS design with the lower thermal containment ratio of all the nuclear technology of 50 years ago with new untested failure modes that uses the containment building as a heat exchanger that has never been tested - that Turd generation reactor approved by the NRC?

      If you want to bring up future solar power technology then compare that to fourth generation nuclear, like molten salt reactors. If you need to point to nonexistent solar power plants to make your case for solar power then you have a very weak case. If you need to bring up 30 year old nuclear power accidents to argue against future nuclear power reactors then that is also a weak case.

      Solar and wind have ZERO waste and even your salt reactor has unknown failure modes. The future of nuclear is crap AP1000 or EPR which is better but is still a water cooled reactor, they are the only ones approved. Solar has ZERO chance of melting down, no radio-nuclides, is massively scalable. None of your turd generation reactors provide any of the thirty plus upgrades recommended by the industry itself. Not one of them are *underground* for example. At least EPR has some of the improvements, AP-1000 is a backward step compared to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  109. Global cooling is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually pretty well known that we're in the middle of an ice age. And the Earth is actually at distance that, if it didn't have an atmosphere, we'd all be freezing to death, (besides suffocating from the lack of oxygen). The problem isn't with the Earth, which can survive all our puny attempts at climate change. But us, we can't survive a difference of a mere few degrees. So this isn't about saving life on the planet. But saving ourselves from our own stupidity.

  110. And the Climate Deniers continue... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    And the Climate Deniers continue to deny!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  111. Oh no! by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    Run away! Run away! Give the democrats more money, their hot air is changing the climate of the whole planet!

  112. Re:Don't only blame climate change by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    You can set grass and trees on fire any summer I'd say.

    Sure if the rain is falling right then it will be harder but ... we haven't had such summers.

    The problem is people are starting fires regardless. That's what make up the largest of the difference.

    Ah, so you confirm that the problem isn't immigrants setting fire to the woods, it's that people start fires despite the drought cause by Global Warming. Thank you.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  113. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Should have called bullshit on the original claim instead. The "40%" figure is based on a 2013 study looking at insect collections at a relatively small number of sites in Europe, most of which were either near or actually ON active farms. Trying to pretend that this is somehow indicative aof a global decline ... that's just retarded.

    Hey idiot. just look outside if there are less insects outside than 20 years ago. I call you are the bull.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  114. This makes me sad and angry.. by gosand · · Score: 1

    I am an American, and I do believe that we are one of the greatest nations on the planet. We were seen as leaders of the world in the past. We have done a lot of great things for our country, other countries, and the world. We could be leading the charge to reverse climate change (don't call it global warming, because the mouth-breathers invariably spout "it's not warm out, it's snowing!" or other mindless drivel). But instead, we are denying it, and we are making our population more stupid and reviled globally than ever before. As a country we've lost the respect of the world, and deservedly so. It's quite embarrassing, and I can only hope that we will realize the truth sooner rather than later so we can work with the rest of the world to lengthen our species' stay on the planet.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  115. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    Why bother mentioning America in there?

    It was about nations being too high and that we all have to work on bringing it down.

    So it's about nations being too high. And yet you focus on the nations like China and EU that are at half the levels of America.
    Then you claim you left them out on purpose because 'everyone knows they are high'.
    What a joker you are.

    America has been going in the right direction

    And then your classic hand wave free pass to America. Just as you always do.
    Yet 30 years of 'decreases' and you are still twice as high as everyone you are complaining about.

  116. Republicans' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are Republicans and climate change deniers sitting on their butts? Even people with me are some what stupid. America is about 20 years behind. When will the politicians that is supposed to represent the citizens going to take action?

  117. But what will we do? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I read these articles, and the ones in the '90s as well. I'm not convinced yet this isn't a cyclical thing. Keep in mind the Permian extinction from 250 million years ago. No people were involved.

    However, there was a great article yesterday I read in New York Times, which was updated from a 2017 version. It was discussing how the "wet bulb" temperature will cause humans and other mammals to die off faster than ever before, especially in the tropics.

    The question I always come back to is - what do we do? Do we suddenly turn off every greenhouse gas emitting vehicle and machine? Do we plow over our roads and cities with grassland to absorb CO2 and make more O2? Do we kill off 3b to 4b people to make room for those left?

    Not an easy answer.

  118. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn.. more dribble from the Church of Runaway Global Warming...

  119. Re: Zero reliable economic models by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Are you really suggesting that you can eliminate heatwaves and forest fires?

    Heatwaves and forest fires have literally existed since heat and forests existed. To imagine that you can use the number of forest fires this year, or any year in the future, as a proxy for the overall state of the economy, is ludicrous - and that's assuming you can identify any sort of trend in the number of global forest fires :)

    Again, there's no forest fire economic model that can hindcast back to 1918, nor forecast into 2118 with any sort of accuracy - even if you stipulate that forest fires will increase because of increased average global temperature.

  120. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Thank you Dr Science for that helpful correction.

  121. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Translation: "Lalala, I can*t hear you." Sing on, dumbird.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  122. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a ho by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    30 years of decreases? By who? Why do you lie so often.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  123. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Oh, I heard you. I just couldn't believe someone on Slashdot would be stupid enough to use "hurr durr look outside!" as evidence of an 80% global decline in insect species. That's more the kind of thing one would expect to read on a mommy blog.

    I'll just assume you're pregnant and being hormonal.

  124. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By you moron. You like to claim America decreased the same % as Europe since the 80's while China and India have increased since the 80's.
    Did you forget? Or just lying as usual?

  125. Re: And we still hear how global warming is a hoa by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Well, I didn't want to tax you with having to look at the scientific evidence because you are obviously too stupid to understand it. Proven by saying "you can't trust your own eyes - or anybody else's, nor their fly traps" approach to science.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  126. Re:Global warming will fix itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's called SlashDot.org

  127. Re:Don't only blame climate change by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Ah, so you confirm that the problem isn't immigrants setting fire to the woods, it's that people start fires despite the drought cause by Global Warming. Thank you.

    No I'm not.

    I'm saying plenty of fires has been voluntarily made by people. As long as those people aren't caught we don't know whom each individual is. But as we know we import our enemies by the tens of thousands and that they are fine stealing our stuff, robbing our elders, raping the women, murdering people, setting cars, schools on fire, attacking our emergency services, setting immigration homes on fire and so on it's safe to assume it's our enemy which had found yet another way of attacking us.
    I know you prefer ignorance and denial over common sense and acceptance of the world as it is. But that doesn't change the fact that they have shown a lot of times how they are totally fine attacking both us and our property.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/...
    It's close to risk free to set Sweden on fire.
    Here were I live the closest public grill had at first one sign warning about not using it in Arabic but someone removed that one so it got another one and then a second one of which one has been destroyed again. I haven't seen anyone use that grill since they popped up then again I haven't been watching. But just ~20 meters from there there's a black zone in the forest along the walking past where part of it has burned and 1-2 months ago there was another black spot around the same walking past in the same forest but at another place maybe 300 meters or so from here.
    Cars has burned at my closest parking lot multiple time, 1-2 weeks ago one person was driving a car violently into a beam holding up the car parking roof multiple times and threatened a woman with a knife to her throat, the centrum building was set on fire and the store damaged a lot, the community youth center they tried to lit on fire, the care center has burning stuff thrown inside too, I've walked past the school as a moped was burning there, the sort-your-trash-building on the parking lot has been set on fire, my bike was stolen, before that it had the front wheel stolen, my cellar storage has been broken into at-least 6 times in a bit over 1 year, at a party near by a person had his hand chopped off by a sword, supposedly my neighbor drugged and had sex with young girls, I know of just one murder here for the time I've lived here but that doesn't mean there has only been one. That one I wouldn't know about unless it happened just outside the court my friend lived at and he heard the shot.

    Maybe ignorance feel like bliss for you but it's stupid and dangerous.