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.
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.
Nuclear power doesn't solve climate change, it offsets the carbon problem into a radio-isotope problem, which is worse that a carbon problem. Nuclear Energy doesn't work because it doesn't provide an energy return on the energy invested. This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel.
There are other reasons, heat load on the environment is another. Nuclear looks great until you begin to understand and analyze it, then it looks like a really bad idea.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I briefly examined the references and as best I can tell, the term "marine heat wave" is a term invented in while cloth in 2016.
This isn't something researchers have been investigating for decades, and given the youth of the proposed idea, there is very little empirical data (their model results are not data) at all.
Maybe in the future will will learn that this is valuable science. At present, it is nothing more than problematic speculation, contradicting some real science.
If this wasn't posted by MrKaos, one might mistake it for satire, as every last statement within is exactly backwards. Well, except the "My ism, it's full of beliefs.", which is spot on.
Nuclear "waste" is the best kind of waste; it is small in volume, easily managed, and disappears naturally. Once the fuel is consumed completely--and this can be done in advanced reactors--almost all of the remaining fission products decay to stability after a few centuries. Even in a world powered 100% by nuclear, the amount of "waste" will reach a steady state, where the fission products are decaying at the same rate that fuel is being loaded. The amount will never increase beyond that, and it will still be small and manageable. It will also contain many useful elements that have substantial economic value after they stabilize. (and some are even more valuable before they stabilize, for medical and other applications)