Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Has Doubled the Frequency of Ocean Heatwaves (nature.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Nature: Scientists analyzed satellite-based measurements of sea surface temperature from 1982 to 2016 and found that the frequency of marine heatwaves had doubled. These extreme heat events in the ocean's surface waters can last from days to months and can occur across thousands of kilometers. If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project, the frequency of ocean heatwaves could increase by a factor of 41. In other words, a one-in-one-hundred-day event at pre-industrial levels of warming could become a one-in-three-day event. The study has been published in the journal Nature.
yeah, this is definitely the place to argue global warming or socialism or w/e, where is the RFC?
Even the IPCC says that likley heating will be around 2C, not 3.5C as the summary claims.
And as always, worth pointing out that pretty much no estimates take into account the rapid uptake of solar energy / electric cars that is inevitable at this point.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Correlation is not causation.
doom really cared about it we'd have gone balls to the wall nuclear power decades ago and have safe hi tech nukepower oozing out of every orifice. But nope, instead they thought a better idea would be to use it as a chance to keep pushing to consolidate power and control in a few hands and tactics that have failed before and will continue to fail again like guilt people into living like monks to save a drop of carbon here and there.
Prove it.
Slashdot, home of the Eloi. Suck it up, cupcakes. Throw away the latte, and stick your avacodo toast where the sun don't shine.
There ain't no such thing as climate change., just made up crap by Soros and the globlists to dull the minds of the Eloi.
So, they're using 32 years data to model the climate of a 3 billion year old planet. That's like saying, "in the last second I sneezed so this must mean that I'm going to sneeze continuously for the rest of my life."
Correlation is not causation.
That's the great thing about any science related to global warming - just like in the quantum world something can be a wave *and* a particle, in Global Warming "Science" you can have both correlation and causation at the same time!
Also localized heat can be climate and cold can be weather, again a very quantum effect! That's how you know it's real "Science"(tm), because it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make you feel something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is what this douche devotes his life to, denying evidence of climate change. Observe the garbage at work.
Could somebody with an access to the article clarify the relationship between these long lasting heat waves and frequency of storms?
Climate change is just Prop 65, but for the whole world.
I'll be long dead! Good luck! #MAGA
This is just one small part of why your faggot ass needs to go underground literally.
I went out to *BSD's grave on Decoration Day. The old forgotten cemetery is to be found adjacent to the dark woods beyond the edge of town. There within olfactory distance of the municipal treatment plant you will find *BSD's final resting place.
*BSD's tombstone was shrouded by thick mosses and knots of noxious ivy. A mournful funerary crow sounded the requiem, as I gently pulled aside the tangled twists of thorns, and cleaned the decaying marker the best I could. A suffocating melancholia filled my heart, while I pondered that this indeed was *BSD's figurative charnel house of which so many have plaintively spoken.
Nothing is so pitiful as an untended grave, a loved one now forgotten. The short sad life of this doomed and fated OS makes us realize that there but for the grace of God go all of us.
I planted some wilting marigolds, found discarded in the waste heap behind the caretaker's shack, wishing that by some miracle these fleurs de mort might take root and bring a modicum of cheer to *BSD's God forsaken plot. My fervent hope is that the torpid colored boy, who so carelessly mows the grounds, doesn't slice them down, inadvertently mirroring *BSD's own doomed encounter with death's irresistible scythe.
Funny how things work out. Linux, that brilliant novam stellam, now runs the Internet and the world's fastest computers, while *BSD lies moldering within its forgotten crypt. Let the barren silence of *BSD's tomb be a mute reminder that hubris and braggadocio were no defense on that woeful day when the Angel of Death's bleak umbra was cast upon *BSD.
I say we ignore all these things and directly heat ocean currents by sinking massive data centers underwater! Don't look at me like that! We at Microsoft feel we are protectors of the planet earth! We totally virtue signal with the best of them!
Well, as Superkendall above quotes as authoritive:
"Even the IPCC says that likley heating will be around 2C"
So visiting the IPCC site and seeing the IPCC models that Superkendall quotes as authoritive, that says A2 model is 3.4 degrees by the end of the century, and they're calculating that model increase turns 100 day heat events into 3 day events.
IMHO, you can deny it, but when you quote IPCC models as evidence, you've pretty much accepted the science here Superkendall.
Let's face it, we know this but Lynnwood Rooster is branded a lying faggot just now officially.
And in the entire history of the earth such a relatively large swing has never happened so quickly without there being a massive geological event to match it such as a super volcano, or asteroid hitting.
None of those things have happened, so stop spreading denialist bullshit. This is a science/tech site, go away if you want to be anti-science, there's plenty of sites for dumb people too without you polluting this one.
So to paraphrase..... there's no collusion between CO2 increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
SuperKendall is correct ....
Where 'correct' is newspeak for lying trough his suicidal teeth!
Instead of going dig back and digging up 2007 4th Assessment Report (the 5th AR was published in 2013, the 6th AR is due out next month), let's look at what the the IPCC Synthesis Report from 2014 has to say:
The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3C to 1.7C under RCP2.6, 1.1C to 2.6C under RCP4.5, 1.4C to 3.1C under RCP6.0 and 2.6C to 4.8C under RCP8.5 9 . The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean.
So anywhere form 0.3C under the most optimistic to 4.8C in the worst case scenario. In point of fact the target of (no more than) 2C is what humanity is currently in the process of missing.
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims
If you want to split hairs like that, let's split them even finer!
SuperKendall didn't write that the summary claims that current projections of up to 3.5C exist. SuperKendall wrote that "the summary claims ... likley heating will be ... 3.5C" Which is something very, very different from what the words "If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project ..." means. [And I've highlighted the IF "about that write-up's claims" (yes, it's not an IF about the existence of said projections, duh) for your benefit.]
So sorry Mi, no banana.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The key is the ability to adapt, and overcome.
Yes, we should probably adapt and move into bunkers deep underground. Anything except stopping the burning of fossil fuels, anything ...
I think we make a much bigger deal about it than it warrants.
Where do you live and can I move there?
No seriously, to be so naive you must be in some place that isn't already feeling the pinch. Here in NSW we are supposed to be in the middle of winter and we already have 39 out of control bushfires burning. Apparently there has been the occasional fire in California recently? It's even burning in cold old Europe ... So where in the world are you, where the sand is still cool enough not to burn your head?
Can we do it? Honestly, I don't much care. I'll be long gone before it matters.
Oh, I see, the infamously self-indulgent baby boomer ... you don't plan to be around for more than a decade or two then.
The article says that new wind and solar is cheaper than old coal and nuclear. But how does it compare to new coal and nuclear? I have a guess. My guess is that new nuclear beats them all. If new nuclear was more expensive than new wind and solar then I'm guessing they would have included that in their report. They speak quite loudly but what they don't say.
If you actually read the report upon which this articles is based then you'd see that the report points out that the price differential does not include any storage. Wind and solar need backup power or the grid becomes unreliable. Just ask UK and Germany how their wind and solar plans are working out for them.
Oh, and another thing is that this is a comparison with utility scale wind and solar. Your rooftop solar and backyard windmill will cost double what it does for utility scale, which puts the price well over the top of nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Always around to help lead humanity towards greater misery and suffering Jane. You do this without remuneration? You're just so generous with your time.
Trump:
Its totally a chinese conspiracy to remove jobs from the american people!
I have been informed by a dozen anonymous cowards in this thread, or maybe the same one posting multiple times, that wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and nuclear. Therefore we have solved the problem of global warming. Even greedy bastards that can't be bothered to "think of the children" will be investing in windmills and buying electric cars, because they are now cheaper than everything else.
Nothing to see, move along.
Here's something that bothers me though. China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap. It would be quite embarrassing for a first world nation to abandon nuclear power only to see the price of energy spike because the supply of new wind and solar, and the spare parts to keep current systems running, saw a shortage over a tariff war.
Nuclear power is domestic power. That is unless these first world nations have domestic sources of rare earth metals for wind turbines, and PV fabrication plants for solar collectors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Better hope climate change isn't real
Do you even exist, or is it all a dream, huh? What else do you want to hope, that you can fly? Turn invisible at will? Live forever?
Meanwhile back in physical reality ...
Given that right-wing ideologue capitalists, east European authoritarian dictators, and deluded tin-foilers in the world spend so much effort to defame him, Soros must be doing something right. As the AC above said "one of the few wealthy people with the testicular fortitude to fight against authoritarianism and corporatism", and boy do the authoritarians and corporatists, along with their useful idiots, hate him for it.
The article opens with a pic of a manatee that has expired during the recent Florida red/green tide debacle. Much of the death ini the ocean should be attributed to mankind's activities. Climate has been changing for more than 3 billion years and live seems to adapt quite nicely to climate's ebb and flow. Its the ignorant intervention by humans that pushing ecospheres to extinction.
It's currently 0.1 %. We're still far away from 1 %, let alone 8%.
less than 0.1%
You're just teasing. :)
Solar isn't limited to PV. What is wrong with people like you that cannot see beyond solar=PV?
Large parts of the world can heat domestic water on their roofs, some countries mandate it for new builds.
Solar can be reflected to boil oil in pipe arrays, this heats water to generate steam power to turn dynamos. Again, half the planet can do this right now, especially the shit-hole countries.
You do not need to feed the grid, you do not need to store power in batteries. Stop associating solar with PV! Pumping water into reservoirs during the day and using gravity to feed turbines is proven tech and has been in operation since the late 1800s. Again, why is it not being implemented?
PV is a dead-end. Always has been, always will be.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That statement is bullshit. No one has or at this point can collate all the events or even map the temperature changes down to decades for the "entire history of the earth". Not even for the entire history of life on earth, which is the relevant part, as we don't give a shit what the temperatures were during the bombardment periods.
Thought you were a tech geek. You know, someone who can do simple math.
8% = 80000pm
20% = 200000ppm
407ppm CO2 in 2018 looks a lot less scary concerning choking to death now, doesn't it?
Ocean acidity was not the cause of the PT event. You're pulling that out of your ass.
Why are you extrapolating behavior of a mechanism you clearly don't understand then?
Rare earth metals are not rare. China undercut prices for these metals in the 90s, but if prices rise, closed mines around the world will reopen.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap.
This is actually false. There are lots of sources for most of those materials. We just can't use our local sources because environmentalists won't allow any kind of mining anywhere.
I didn't know Africa is part of the US now. Where do you think Uranium is mined?
For the current stance of environmentalists to make sense, there needs to be just the right amount of climate change. Enough that we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP. But not so much that we need to switch over completely to nuclear power ASAP. By their reasoning, the rate of climate change falls within a narrow band in between, where we must stop using fossil fuels, but we still have plenty of time to develop renewable power technologies so they become economically feasible.
That's the kind of messed up reasoning you come up with when you start with a conclusion ("we must develop renewables"), and then create a rationale to justify your conclusion. It's gradually becoming clear that we're far outside that narrow band, and need to go all-out nuclear to save life on Earth. That is, the fate of life on Earth is more important than your renewable power agenda.
Remember, nuclear power doesn't have to be the end game. All we need is to switch to it quickly enough to break our fossil fuel addiction and arrest non-cyclical CO2 emissions. Once we've done that and the global climate is no longer in danger, then we can develop renewable power at our leisure. And when it (and battery technology) becomes capable of taking over base load, we can use it to phase out nuclear power. This "the only acceptable solution is renewables" mentality is dangerous.
Actually, it's a lot less than that before you start getting symptoms, though still an order of magnitude or two above where we are now.
5,000 ppm (0.5%) is the OSHA standard maximum TWA for an 8 hour work day and at 50,000 ppm (5%) you start getting sick in a short time. 10% is enough to easily kill you, though the issue is not choking to death: It's the feedback mechanisms in your body that use the amount of carbon dioxide in your system to regulate respiration that get screwed up.
There's more to it than that. They have undercut prices enough to cause other sources to close down. So they currently have an economic monopoly or duopoly on many of the minerals, but it would be possible to get these from other sources if need be.
By your logic, there's:
* The cooling stratosphere, worldwide,
* Nights are warming faster than days,
* Polar regions are warming much faster than the rest of the globe.
So, case in point. It's not a natural oscillation in solar input. It's due to heat trapping by greenhouse gasses.
I'm not sure why he has a problem with the coining of a term. Does he prefer they use another phrase, or rather that they not study the phenomenon at all? See no evil hear no evil I suppose? Regardless of what we call it, (and "marine heat wave" seems like a practical enough name) the evidence for the phenomenon is clear in the satellite data as well as in the economic impacts.
In 2007 IPCC FAR projected 0.2C/decade over the next two decades. So far we've seen 0.3C/decade since 2007, but it's early yet.
Here's a view in the southernmost town in Greenland
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Alluitsoq.JPG
Anyway it is known there was a local climate optimum in Northern Hemisphere but no global temperature increase.
There are also other ways to do foreign investments in our current world. About nobody will be interested in creating a cattle farming colony in Greenland when there are more profitable places to do so and with better accessibility (airports, ports, Internet and roads or trains). You can even buy or lease the land you need.
From 850 CE to 1250 CE Vikings raised wheat, barley and cattle along the Greenland coast. In 80 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the Romans in Scotland. In 1250 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the English in Scotland.
Heatwave or not, it's still TOO cold for any of this to occur today.
Chateau Largo would beg to differ. The fact that the Romans are no longer taxing them has more to do with politics than temperature.
Personally I believe systemic warming IS happening. ("Climate change" is a vapid, meaningless mealy-mouthed phrase.)
It happens with a startling spike in temps and CO2 about every 120-140k years. The last one was about ... 120k years ago. This is right on track with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What I dispute is the almost-Aristotlean humanicentrism insisting "well humans MUST be at fault because...we're here, OBVIOUSLY! Duh!".
To assert that today's spike in warming is largely or wholly anthropogenic would mean that either ...which while not impossible seems pretty damned unlikely.
a) all the other previous spikes (about every 120k years for the last 3+ million years) were also human-caused (which is not likely), or
b) those spikes had some OTHER cause which has both
i) spontaneously STOPPED functioning, and
ii) been replaced at precisely a synchronous time and magnitude by this wholly-new mechanism caused by people.
Finally, this further disregards that something - apparently nobody's really looking much at it - natural kicked in to mitigate those startling spikes back down to the anthropocene norm. (My amateur money's on increased warming driving more clouds, causing both more general precip across the landmasses and greening great swathes of today-desert while pushing up earth's general albedo, both causing more cooling...)
How are we assuming that mechanism is no longer functioning?
-Styopa
There's only one nuclear power plant going up and it's here in Georgia. It cost more than three times projected and it's running late. That's the norm for nuclear power. So it doesn't look like there's much will to go to the enormous expense and effort to build these plants.
The US was on the verge of being the leader in Solar Panels before China helped their companies via subsidies or buying out ours. So if we want to, we can easily support a US company to take the lead again on solar panels.
For the cost of over $16 Billion, there could be more kilowatt hours of energy in Georgia and they'd already be on homes before the power plant is built. Also; homeowners could pay money back by supporting the grid.
So people can talk about nuclear power, but the facts are all the growth is in solar and the numbers will only get better. We can either be part of that or let the China own it.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Bah. We know that the sun isn't to blame, the volcanoes are not to blame, and that we just caused atmospheric CO2 to go +50%!
All you have to show is a graph where one pixel == several millennia and your theory is the one that demands amazing coincidence.
I didn't know Africa is part of the US now. Where do you think Uranium is mined?
My guess is Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia, for the most part.
https://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-the-10-biggest-uranium-mines-in-the-world/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx
The USA gets about 15% of it's uranium from Africa.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=12731
Let me ask you something, where do you think solar collectors come from?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34952
At least the USA has existing uranium mining capacity, and the ability to turn that uranium into fuel pellets on it's own. Much of what the USA imports in uranium comes from friendly nations like Canada and Australia. There is very little PV production in the USA and what it does import comes largely from less friendly China.
SHOOT THIS LYING FAGGOT KENDALL IN HIS PUNK ASS BITCH FACE
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
ERROR: Your argument is circular. Please try again.
President Donald Trump 2020.
Yeah, baby!
Excellent and professional investigative services. I hired Mr ENRIQUE for a very private and difficult matter of hacking my husband's phone and he far exceeded my expectations. He helped me get some info such as whatsapp, facebook, text messages, call logs and even phone conversations that I needed for proof of his secretive affair. The first time we spoke, we had a very long phone consultation in which he gave me all my options that he could think of to resolve my case, and he even recommended I try other options before hiring him, which shows that he is honest. I decided to hire him and I am glad I did. He is a fantastic investigator and a great person; to all loyal partners out there if you have a dishonest partner don't hesitate to send him a mail Contact: Email: ENRIQUEHACKDEMON11@GMAIL.COM. Whatsapp: +1(638)203-5722 Call/Text: 1(409)999-3477
Climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2 with an likely range of about 30% on either side (not 100%). So probably between 2 and 4C. However, it is a "right-skewed distribution" suggesting that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. So to the extent that there is uncertainty, it is not our friend.
Ultimately though, how much warming will depend on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and minimize warming. Or not. It's up to us.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
https://www.worldatlas.com/art...
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
No, solar panels are made of silicon and the USA produces very little of it. The kind the USA does produce is predominately low grade used in producing steel and aluminum.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/mine...
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
And with rare earth magnets on top of those steel masts.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...
Mining rare earth metals means also digging up a lot of other nasty minerals, like thorium and uranium, that unless there is a market for them they can contaminate the environment. What on earth could we possibly do with all this uranium and thorium? I'm just tossing out an idea here, nuclear power?
The USA does not have the capacity to produce solar panels, and has limited capacity to produce windmills, without imported materials. On the other hand the USA already produces several nuclear power plants every year to supply it's nuclear powered navy. Increasing the capacity to produce nuclear power in the USA is near trivial, we need only remove the political barriers to larger production. To produce more wind and solar in the USA would take years and billions of dollars to build the plants that can turn sand into PV panels and ore into rare earth magnets.
The monopoly that China has on silicon and rare earth metals is not in the raw material in the ground, it's in the factories that turn that raw material into something valuable. Overturning that monopoly will take lots of money and time in making factories.
The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power. By destroying their ability to produce domestic nuclear power these nations place a very vital resource, energy, at the whimsy of China. Much of Europe is now reliant on Chinese solar and Russian natural gas for energy. If there is ever a trade dispute then I can expect to see Europe get real dark and cold.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So people can talk about nuclear power, but the facts are all the growth is in solar and the numbers will only get better.
Here's some facts...
Its overall share of global power generation remains low (1.7%), but that share has more doubled in just three years.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/c...
All growth is not in solar.
In IEO-2017, renewable energy and natural gas are forecast to be the worldâ(TM)s fastest growing energy sources over 2015-2040. Renewables increase at 2.8%/year, and by 2040 will provide 31% of electricity generation, equal to coal; natural gas increases by 2.1%/year. Generation from nuclear is forecast to increase by 1.6% each year. The net nuclear capacity increase is all in non-OECD countries (growth in South Korea is offset by decreases in both Canada and Europe), and China accounts for 67% of the capacity growth. By 2032, the outlook sees China surprass the United States as the country with the most nuclear generating capacity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Is it likely that solar will play an important part in the global energy production? Yes, quite likely. What it will not do is replace nuclear power. We will need both.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Solar output has been declining since 1950 yet the globe as a whole has been warming considerably.
To illustrate, here's a plot of sun spots vs temps vs atmospheric CO2: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b...
Solar isn't limited to PV. What is wrong with people like you that cannot see beyond solar=PV?
Maybe it's because concentrated solar power is difficult to do, requires a large land area to build, and produces more CO2 per energy produced than nuclear, wind, or solar PV. Look at the chart about halfway down this page:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/so...
You do not need to feed the grid, you do not need to store power in batteries. Stop associating solar with PV! Pumping water into reservoirs during the day and using gravity to feed turbines is proven tech and has been in operation since the late 1800s. Again, why is it not being implemented?
Here's my guess, this is not popular because to implement it takes a place with a lot of sun, a lot of water, and a river suitable for a dam. Places with a lot of sun tend to not have a lot of water. Places with water and a river worth a dam may not have a lot of sun. Even if they have all three this water is likely to contain a lot of salt, which eats away at turbines. To resolve the issue of salt water on turbines means desalinating the water, but that water is far too valuable as water for drinking to run through a turbine and dump in the sea.
PV is a dead-end. Always has been, always will be.
I won't go that far. PV is great for communication satellites and pocket calculators.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nearly every country can mine rare earth minerals.
And: they are not needed to make magnet. Iron is enough-
So: no, China has no monopoly.
Wow, you know that solar panels are made from silicon, but you don't know that the silicon is refined from sand?
Lucky you have fanbois who mod you up anyway.
The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power. ...
Nope, most wind power plants are build in USA, Denmark and Germany. China is not even making a dent.
Most Silicon as a source for chips and solar panels is made by "Wacker Chemie", a German company, from sand
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nearly every country can mine rare earth minerals.
Of course, but only China and Australia able to do so at a profit. They can do this because the laws there allow for the mining of uranium and thorium that are common in rare earth rich ores. In the USA the rare earth mines are limited to less profitable ores that have less uranium and thorium. So, either these nations need to be serious about competing with China on rare earth metals and change the laws, or continue to be at the whim of China for rare earth elements. It's not like these mines can just start digging up ore tomorrow, there will be lead time on starting production even if there is a price hike or law change that makes mining profitable.
And: they are not needed to make magnet. Iron is enough-
Citation needed.
So: no, China has no monopoly.
I already gave a citation that proves otherwise. Try again.
Wow, you know that solar panels are made from silicon, but you don't know that the silicon is refined from sand?
Again, turning sand into the high purity silicon needed for making PV cells is not a simple process. The factories to do this are very expensive, take years to build, and little to none exist in the USA, or pretty much anywhere outside of Asia.
Lucky you have fanbois who mod you up anyway.
I noticed that happens when one provides links to backup their claims.
Nope, most wind power plants are build in USA, Denmark and Germany. China is not even making a dent.
That's not what I said. I said wind turbine production is reliant on rare earth magnets imported from China. I know lots of windmills are made in the USA, I see them getting moved down the highway everyday. That just means they assemble the parts here, the magnets are largely still imported. According to these people China produces a majority of all magnets and the magnets made in the USA are mostly low quality kinds used in toys and novelties.
https://www.allianceorg.com/pd...
Most Silicon as a source for chips and solar panels is made by "Wacker Chemie", a German company, from sand ...
Right, didn't their polysilicon plant blow up last year? I'm pretty sure that happened. I'll let you Google that one yourself.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It's not denialism BS. It's science. Your problem is you're looking at too small an increment of time. The variations in temperatures over time are very real. Sometimes they happen quickly and sometimes slowly. Quicker events tend to be more devastating. The change in this case is a correction off a previous deflection and not a particularly large change at that.
For the current stance of environmentalists to make sense,
[Citation required] i.e whose particular "stance" are you discussing?
Hi, I'm an environmentalist.
Well no, ideally, (not so much from a deep green as from a human perspective, given extant patterns of settlement etc), as close to no change at all would be preferable.
Enough that we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP.
Cart before the horse. We need to stop using fossil fuels because of the climate change it is causing. We don't need climate change to force us to stop using fossil fuels. You really are building up a laughable strawman to knock down.
But not so much that we need to switch over completely to nuclear power ASAP
Again, more of your muddled thinking. I'm among the many environmentalist (prominently including George Monbiot and of course Jim Hanson), who believe we should seriously consider building more nuclear power generation capacity. At the very least, the idea of switching off running nuclear power station and taking up the slack by burning more lignite (as has been done in Germany) is pure madness. Many other environmentalists are still too afraid of nuclear power, and too sanguine about the prospects of renewables, to accept this yet. But somehow desiring or tailoring an particular level of environmental degradation in order to dictate appropriate energy generation technologies ... that's not something any environmentalist does.
By their reasoning, the rate of climate change falls within a narrow band in between ...
Citation? Nobody reasons like that except you.
That's the kind of messed up reasoning you come up with when you start with a conclusion ("we must develop renewables"), and then create a rationale to justify your conclusion.
Except that never happened of course. As well as it's cleaness relative to combustion, much of the original attraction of renewables (and still to some people) is that it could make you independent of the Man(tm). There was no need to create any rationale, it came with the tech and was there before global warming was considered and issue.
What happened, was that humanity was introduced to nuclear power via Hiroshima. What happened was that people saw the waste problem attendant to nuclear power generation and somewhat overestimated the risk it posed. It is not just environmentalists who find the idea of invisible radiation killing them particularly frightening. Look at the reaction to Fukushima in unaffected places such as Tokyo. What happened was that opposition to nuclear power grew in its own right, and to be fair, largely in response to the very real risks that are attendant to that technology. Most tellingly what happened was the some people devoted their lives to fighting nuclear power. Once an anti-nuclear stance (or any particular stance) becomes part of your personal, or even worse, group identification, it becomes very difficult to step back.
I remember a meeting in our office [of large international environmental organisation) back in the late 1980s, when the topic of global warming was raised and one of our board members (a science professor at the local university) suggested that this could be so serious that "we may need to reverse our position on nuclear energy." No one said a word in objection, they didn't need to ... just silence and looks that could kill! So he shut up.
That's what happened. People attained a level of commitment, and when the greater threat came along they could not move. Such inertia is even worse in large organisations. It's just all too human. Thus the pious hope that renewables alone and in the short term might provide the solution.
While I agree with you about the need to deploy nuclear power, all this talk of "just the right amount of climate change" has nothing to do with what any environmentalist have ever thought. That's just your personal brain chemistry not working as well as it should.
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Your link was to a blog at wordpress
It's a quote from Holden et al. 2018. . The wordpress link is to spare you from having to buy the paper.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced.
That all makes no sense.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2,
Yes it does. Atmospheric CO2 will begin to drop when we stop burning fossil fuels. Read Holden et al. 2018 and it will become clear why. Read the paper.
The USA simply is content with importing. That is all. You could mine rare earth or what ever you want in Arizona, Texas, Nevada etc. without any concerns about the environment.
Again, generators in wind turbines don't require rare earths. If you can not get them, you build them without. Plain and simple.
I noticed that happens when one provides links to backup their claims.
The modders don't read the links. Otherwise they had noticed: you did not read them either, or you had realized they don't back up your claims.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
When I point out your lies, like just last week here you just pretend not to notice and run away.
I deny them because they aren't lies and I show you.
You still have never shown a real one, dishonourable scum that you are, still likes to lie about that too.
"You know when it reaches 20% we can't even breath the air? Literally we'll choke to death because of the high CO2 content in the atmosphere?"
Math can be challenging but let me help you AnonyCow:
1 ppm = 1 part per million = 1 in 1,000,000 = 0.0001%
407 ppm = 0.0407% CO2
so to get to 20% CO2 in the atmosphere we need:
20% CO2 = 200,000 ppm or 491 TIMES GREATER THAN 2018.
We have a long ways to go to get to 20% CO2.
Don't stop breathing yet. You're an important part of the life cycle. Of course, if you do stop breathing you are going to soon start decomposing and that too is an important part of the life cycle as you'll feed other organisms in the great web of life.
I'm sure if I got that wrong someone will mention it.
There's not enough copper to go full wind and solar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLgdnZI0Zs
Assuming you are correct that the USA can simply mine the rare eaerths from within its borders there is still a global problem of finding enough copper.
I have two questions for you.
How can you chop down half of a world's forests and lose more than half of its topsoils, and dig under it and burn hundreds of millions of year's worth of sequestered hydrocarbons and expel its CO2 into the atmosphere, and *not* dramatically change it in an unnatural way? ...I say this without the supposition that nature is necessarily kind, or that this is without precedent in Earth's natural history. The fact that the closest analogue to the CO2 spike we've seen due to burning hydrocarbons was lava flowing through coal seams in Siberia - which triggered the biggest natural extinction of all, the Permian-Triassic. Over 95% of all living species died. That was over a much larger time-frame than anything we're talking about in the present, and the rate of acceleration and deceleration in matters like this is the difference between a ride and a deadly wreck.
Assuming that the increase in greenhouse gasses is not primarily anthropogenic in nature - which has all sorts of isotopic evidence against it, assuming that the climate is doing something natural, it's still a very sudden shift in ecological, especially geological terms. How do you expect the outcome to be okay, when every mass extinction before was a challenge to a yet-uninhibited, unpillaged globe of ecosystems, not the paltry wildlife preserves? Fact: we're set to see more plastic than fish in the ocean in our lifetimes. Fact: we're losing rainforests. Fact: we're releasing refrigerants, even banned ozone-depleting CFCs into the atmosphere that are many times more potent than CO2 still, and that impact should be obvious...
So second: if somehow, going from 190ppm to 400+ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere in less than 200 years is not a human doing, how is the natural world to cope with such a disruptive process simultaneous to all the pressures we are incontrovertibly responsible for?
I feel I must congratulate you on your most excellent PC-math. Unfortunately it's wrong as always. Try not drinking the KoolAid and actually thinking for yourself instead. I realize thinking is difficult and produces CO2 but it is well worth the exercise to keep your mind from going flabby AC.
If China is the biggest and cheating so blatantly, then why do the calculations of the co2 match the measurements of the co2? Who is lying the other way so the numbers still match?
You aren't credible troll.