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. 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.
It's sooo cute how you ignore words that might make a dent in your narrative.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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 — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
Remember to logout.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I like how climate change deniers always draw a new line in the sand as their lies are exposed and scientific predictions come true.
Climate change doesn't exist! In fact scientists 30 years ago said planet is cooling!
Climate change doesn't exist! Something something hockey stick graph! Mann!
Climate change doesn't exist! It hasn't heated up since 1998!
Climate change doesn't exist! It snowed yesterday in January up in Minnesota by me!
Well, climate change does exist, but it's only going to heat up a little!
Well, climate change does exist, but hey the moderate estimate is 2C! What's this 3.5C garbage!
SuperKendall, FUCK YOU YOU GREEDY BITCH OF A SON AND ALL OF YOUR ILK!
Climate change is just Prop 65, but for the whole world.
Soros is a hero - one of the few wealthy people with the testicular fortitude to fight against authoritarianism and corporatism. Raise a glass to him.
Well, that and a basic understanding of physics, in particular long-wave radiation absorption by certain molecular components of the atmosphere.
yeah, the IPCC has become a joke. They continue to back the idea that 3rd world nations can grow their coal, so CHina is simply trying to transfer their coal to 3rd world.
Hansen has it right that we all have to stop this by moving to nuclear. Even then he says if we move fast, we will still see 2C. Now, it is trying to stop 4C.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Yea, why should those poor third world nations be able to do what us rich first world nations already do.
If they really wanted to use coal they should just be rich. Per person Americans use the most coal for their electricity.
"in while cloth" = "in whole cloth"
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 term doesn't matter. As the summary states, the data has been around longer. So no, your claim that "new term = new study" is complete bullshit.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Uptake of solar and electric cars by themselves don't reduce carbon emissions.
As for the summary, it is taken from the Nature link, which provides a source for that 3.5C figure.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Care to explain your 'reasoning'.
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.
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 — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
Remember to logout.
Considering that we're already about 1 degree C above pre-industrial levels then 3.5 C is only another 2.5C on top of that which is well within the range of IPCC projections for some of the scenarios.
Trump:
Its totally a chinese conspiracy to remove jobs from the american people!
When did the IPCC ever get its predictions right?
I'd be more concerned about global cooling, as in solar cycles.
Every maunder and other minimum is associated with a low sun spot activity, and the next one is on its way, if it hasn't started already.
Agriculture thrives and is less water consuming with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It suffers, and with it human populations, when it's cold.
A bunch of CO2 molecules floating in the air is not exactly the same as Boltzman's perfectly black body.
It's currently 0.1 %. We're still far away from 1 %, let alone 8%.
less than 0.1%
You're just teasing. :)
In case you haven't noticed, the people putting up solar and electric cars are not the same people mining/drilling and running power plants and shipping. There isn't some magical quota enforcement that forces one down when the other goes up.
It's you who should be explaining your "reasoning" that the two are somehow linked in such a way.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
No, as we came out of the last glaciation temperatures hit a peak about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum as you would expect from an examination of Milankovitch cycles. Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum. They stopped cooling when human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) increased to the point of overriding the current cooling effects of Milankovitch cycles. The increase in ocean acidification shows that the oceans are still absorbing more CO2 than they release.
No, ALL nations should be adding AE and nukes. For developed nations, we need to replace our fossil fuels with none fossil fuel. What is fair is getting all nations to the same page.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
It was a term coined in 2016 in a peer reviewed paper to describe a phenomenon that had been observed. You admit you have not examined this study in any detail, but dismiss it as not real science anyway... Apparently because it's a relatively new thing.
They say science advances one funeral at a time, and this seems like a perfect example.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nice try.
- Sent from my NetBSD desktop via my NetBSD router
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Isn't increase already 2C(compared to pre-industrial!!!) and 3,5C is just new threshold?
The current increase is already 1C. In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C. Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C. From that point on self-enforcing feedback mechanisms like melting permafrost and disappearing icesheets are going to have a domino-like effect and push it to 5C or beyond, which is nothing short of catastrophic.
I'd be more concerned about global cooling, as in solar cycles.
Every maunder and other minimum is associated with a low sun spot activity, and the next one is on its way, if it hasn't started already.
Agriculture thrives and is less water consuming with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It suffers, and with it human populations, when it's cold.
Solar output has been declining since 1950 yet the globe as a whole has been warming considerably.
I think it was James Hansen who said that solar insolation at Maunder Minimum levels would erase less than a decade of CO2 emissions.
One big uncertainty are large volcanic eruptions of which there would quite a few in the 18th and 19th centuries such as Mayon 1814 and Tambora 1815 which caused the "Year without a Summer" of 1816
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
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 — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
SuperKendall's own reference shows scenario A2 which projects ~3.5C by the end of the century. See table SPM.3: A2 scenario best estimate = 3.4, likely range = 2.0 – 5.4. The A1FI scenario has a best estimate of 4C by end of century.
How much we warm depends on how much we emit. Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C. We've warmed about 1.2C since the 1850s. Two thirds of that has happened in the last 50 years. At the current rate of warming since the 1980s - even assuming no further accelleration - we will hit 2.5C by the end of the century. Again, where we end up will depend on how much CO2 we emit.
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.
It's blips in the noise.
The rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That blip represents over 2.5 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, It's a lot of energy.
The wide range of projections arise because warming depends on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and reduce warming. Or not. It's up to us.
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.
Same page? Most nations are many chapters ahead of you in lowering CO2. Developing nations aren't even up to the same book you are using. Your country is the standout rich and large and produces massive amounts of CO2 relative to population.
You may have noticed a lot of developing countries don't exactly have idle nuclear scientists hanging about waiting for reactors to be built, even if they could afford them and afford to wait to use the electricity they want now.
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.
If someone puts up a solar panels and drives an electric car, of course it reduces carbon emissions. Not enough to reduce the level of CO2 or to compensate for someone like Windy in a high emission country, but still less than if they didn't do those things.
Strawman much? Where did I say they were linked?
Maybe your first step is to explain where you got that idea from.
in Global Warming "Science" you can have both correlation and causation at the same time!
Duh. Of course you can. That's true of any science. The correlation comes from the data, the causation comes from the physics. The fact that the physics predicted the correlation before it was observed make the case all that much stronger.
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.
In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors.
Let's look at the combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic and see how they line up with global temps. Pretty good match!
This may be a valid counter-argument. The word "if" is not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What manner of straw man is this?
A bunch of words strung together isn't exactly the same as a coherent thought either, I suppose.
Correlation is not causation.
But it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
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!!!"
Or, you can read the science, esp the chemistry and physics, see it demonstrated, pay attention to all the glaciers that are melting, notice that animals/birds/flauras, etc are moving towards poles, and then make an INTELLIGENT backing of science.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
LOL. More BS from Crimson Trunami/Caffinated Bacon.
The CO2 does NOT raise the temp. Not a SINGLE degree. What the Green House Gases do, is prevent heat from escaping the atmosphere. Normally, it is radiated outwards in the nighttime. BUT GHG traps it and prevents that radiation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
I guess you could claim you meant to say "emissions from the sun cease", which would be a true fact. Warming would definitely stop if the sun shut off. I assumed you meant "emissions of CO2", so that could be my mistake.
I haven't yet had time to read the article to see what dire result will come from more "ocean heatwaves".
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.
Can we do it? Honestly, I don't much care. I'll be long gone before it matters.
Yeah, let our loser children and grandchildren deal with the shit! YEEAHH!! Those fsckers!
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
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.
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
To clarify, I meant further warming. And yes, AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions because of terrestrial and marine syncs:
A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached.
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...
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so
Actually, no. The temperature is relatively constant with 2 or 3 minimums and 2 or 3 maximums over the course of the last 10,000 years. Exception: human introduced global warming since about 100 years.
What do you idiots actually learn in school?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your parent is/was wrong, but this: ... and will be like this the next few 100,000 years. Hint: you already got it half right, Milankovitch cycles.They are not: 400,000 years cold and 15,000 years warm.
Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum
Is wrong too.
The temperature is/was stable besides human introduced global warming
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yea, why should those poor third world nations be able to do what us rich first world nations already do.
Am I to take from this sarcasm that they should be able to do what "us rich first world nations do"? I thought climate science was telling us that what we were doing was a mistake. Perhaps not continuing with a life-ending, global-scale mistake is a good reason why current third world nations should not be able to do what "us rich first world nations" are being told we have to stop doing. What do we solve if the "first world" and "third world" just swap places? Then they'll be the source of CO2 causing AGW and we'll be the countries without the economic resources to mitigate the climate change they are causing. That's your solution?
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.
To clarify, I meant further warming.
No, that just muddies the water even more. By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"? Because even warming at the same rate would actually be "further warming" in English. When you say "warming" it means "getting warmer", which is "further warming" when you put it in a future context.
AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the opposite view.
In any case, the "end of the century" is not a wall which will block incoming thermal radiation and cause warming to stop. As long as there is more heat coming into the system than is leaving, the warming continues.
As for "when carbon emissions cease", well, they never will. Until this climate change accomplishes Gaia's goal of removing all life from Planet Earth, there will be animals emitting CO2. Well, no, that's not quite true. If a sulphur based lifeform takes over, then CO2 emission would cease but SO2 would increase. SO2 is a greenhouse gas, too, isn't it?
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.
In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C.
I'll do even better. I'll agree to limit it to 1.01C. Problem solved. Now we can move on to homelessness and solve that.
Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C.
It was a non-binding agreement to do something that cannot be directly accomplished in the first place. Anyone can say "we're going to limit warming to 2C" when they know they can't actually do that directly and there is no downside to making such a promise. You're right, nobody will give a shit if the projected increase is 2C or 3.5C. What happens is what happens, and your projections won't change that. All that you accomplish by changing the projected increase to 3.5C is give support to those who say that the numbers are all made up anyway. If they won't "give a shit" when you say the projected rise is 2C, then changing the projection to 3.5C to try to make them "give a shit" only proves you're using numbers to scare people.
Trump pulling the US out of a non-binding, undoable accord was a signal that it didn't mean anything, and being non-binding and unaccomplishable is why it doesn't mean anything. The entire accord was virtue signalling at it's finest, and someone finally said "the emperor has no clothes."
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.
By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"?
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the opposite view.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
In any case, the "end of the century" is not a wall which will block incoming thermal radiation and cause warming to stop.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease," but if emissions do cease we can expect that the warming will stop.
Gaia's goal of removing all life from Planet Earth, there will be animals emitting CO2.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one. That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2. AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
They didn't miss this data, dickhead. They've already collected it, you illiterate shit.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
Then you were clarifying something that said exactly what it meant. Since you felt a need to clarify, I assumed it must mean something other than the obvious. But now it refers to "stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
Your link was to a blog at wordpress. The "about me" for the blog author started by saying the author is not a climate scientist. Citing a blog from a non-climate scientist because he agrees with the near-consensus is at odds with the standard practice of insulting and dismissing non-client scientists as "they're not a climate scientist and thus can have no informed opinion about anything to do with climate science" when they have an opposing viewpoint. I didn't say you specifically do that, but that's the standard response when any non-climate scientist tries to point to flaws in the data or how it is interpreted.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease,"
"The end of the century" has nothing to do with it. There is no magic to Dec. 31, 2200. If "emissions cease" then either the warming will stop or it won't. It won't, because ceasing emissions will not change the input or output of the heat flow process. The greenhouse will still be a greenhouse.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce. You know, like "Gaia is getting Her revenge on those who ravage her." The point was that unless all animal life is gone, there's going to be CO2 emissions. It's like that song ... "every breath you take, every move you make ..."
That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
AGW is not caused by the heat released when we burn fossil fuels. 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. Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2, and it doesn't stop all CO2 emission. (And this is ignoring other greenhouse gasses like methane, which will come bubbling up from the frigid ocean bottoms once the methane hydrates warm up and release it. Have you ever seen "burning ice"? I have. A chunk of methane hydrate looks just like ice, but you can light it on fire. You don't need to burn it to have a greenhouse gas, even.)
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.
"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.
Pretty much all of the records of Holocene temperatures I've see show a slight cooling trend from about 8,000 years ago. It's not a lot, less than 1 degree C but it's definitely a cooling trend.
We have been told to stop, but that's quite different from actually stopping. .6 to .7. All these people are aparently killing the planet according to people like him. But they never like it when you mentoin Americans are already emitting 16 tons each and barely slowing down.
Entitled asshats like Windy like to complain that a Chinese person has increased his CO2 from 6 to 6.1 or an Indian from 2 to 3 or a third worlder from
You want to cut CO2, cut it from the people who make the most, not the people who make the least.
I get it though, we like to stay on top as long as we can, and stopping other countries from catching up is a good way to do it.
Why swap places? If you think there is a level that it's ok to emit at, pick it. I'm sure the less wasteful, less entitled countries, will get there first. America Canada Australia etc will be the last ones to get there.
That's not even considering those poor countries make a lot of our stuff. We outsource a lot of our CO2 to those countries and then blame then and not us for the waste.
Are you really going to tell a Chinese person he can't buy a car because it will increase China's CO2 and be bad for the environment, all while America drives the most inefficient fleet of cars. Are you going to tell the Indian he can't have air-conditioning because it will use too much electricity, while your electricity for just cooling is more than 10 Indian families use in total?
Why us and not them? If the things they are doing to be like us are bad, shouldn't we stop doing them as well?
Why are we surprised when they don't listen to us or take us seriously.
Fuck off Windy. What makes you think that pile of gibberish was me? Oh right, you're trying to discredit me because I keep pointing out your lies and how stupid you are.
It doesn't have to block all the heat retard, just block more than before to trap more heat than before, that trapped heat builds up. It's almost simple enough for Windy to understand.
Or, you can read the science, esp the chemistry and physics,
Yes. You should have just stopped here.
see it demonstrated, pay attention to all the glaciers that are melting, notice that animals/birds/flauras, etc are moving towards poles, and then make an INTELLIGENT backing of science.
No.
that is just observation and correlation, it doesn't prove CO2 is the cause.
Of course the first three things prove it is, so the rest isn't necessary.
Just pointing out you don't really understand how science works and just like to spout talking points and Windy feelings (lies mostly).
So sea level rising 125 meters is a good thing? Lets rise it another 125 meters and see if it gets even better.
Lets melt all the glaciers then and it will get even nicer...
You're pretty stupid, are you sure you aren't Windy?
Maybe just Windy pretending to be me again so he can correct it and pretend he's smart.
That pile of shit is pure you fucking liar.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's obvious you are the pure shit fucking liar Windy. I've pointed out many of yours, you are still to find a single one of mine.
You are just a ranting lunatic.
And yet, point out lies by you and you deny them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Of course I deny them and show they aren't lies? Are you retarded?
Hey dumb fuck. I'm the one concerned about AGW. You are just an idiot troll.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
At least read and understand the posts you are replying to. I used small words.
You aren't really concerned about AGW. You just like to blame China and developing countries, and pretend the US has clean hands. If you really cared you would be after the big polluters, not just the big countries.
Trump pulling the US out of a non-binding, undoable accord was a signal that it didn't mean anything, and being non-binding and unaccomplishable is why it doesn't mean anything. The entire accord was virtue signalling at it's finest, and someone finally said "the emperor has no clothes."
I wish you were right since that would mean that Trump pulling out was a thoughtful and morally weighted decision because he intelligently concluded that the Paris agreement didn't go far enough and was vapor due to being non-binding.
I wouldn't agree with that assessment either, since even a non-binding agreement is better than none at all, since it means that the world is at least acknowledging the problem. But at least his reasoning would be sound.
Unfortunately those were not his motivations. His reasons where that he claimed it would hurt US industry and he doesn't believe in climate change, famously labeling it a "hoax".
Sorry that makes no sence.
The last glacial period ended 16,000 - 12,000 years ago, depending how you count.
If there was a 'cooling trend' it certainly has nothing to do with the next glacial period, which is several hundret thousand years away in the future. With current CO2 levels it is unlikely we get another one anyway.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
You lie again. I have never once said that America is innocent in this. We have a long ways to go ( and it appears trump IS causing harm ). I have said that America was headed in the correct direction, but we all need to lower our emissions. I blast China, because I happen to know ppl on oco2 and other climate group. They are quietly telling ppl that China's emissions are still growing and it will take OCO-3 to show it to the world. China's COMMUNIST gov rarely allow outside scientist in to measure. I know 1 of the groups that was allowed in earlier and they quietly added CO2 measurements to what they were allowed. Their measurements showed great deal more than what the gov claimed for areas. That is why I speak out about all gov, not just 1 like you do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Pu lease, you are only kidding yourself. You are constantly patting yourself on the back for the great job America is doing and ranting about coal and China. Even 2 sentences after you claim "I have never once said that America is innocent in this." you pretend they are ok because they are heading in the right direction.
American people pollute just about the most, and most of it is transport, yet you always go on and on about coal, never oil, or soon to be bigger in the US Natural gas. not a peep. Just China and coal, you are like a broken record, and you lie constantly.
Where did all the extra emissions go? If China is putting out so much more like you claim, why isn't it backed up by the measurements of the CO2 directly?
This is a news article that encompasses the physical sciences (physics, oceanography, and climate science to name a few), mathematics, and scientific computing (statistics, computer modelling, data processing from observation platforms such as the satellites mentioned in TFA). Please review TFM of Slashdot: "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." This article clearly falls in the wheelhouse of both.
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.
I'm just reporting what scientists have found that there has been a slight cooling trend since about 8,000 years ago. Try to find a temperature record that says something different.
For about the last million years the cycle of glacial periods has been a little over 100,000 years long between interglacial periods. There is some evidence that this current interglacial period was going to be longer than the average of around 10,000-20,000 years but it's not known for sure that that is true. But you are correct, at current CO2 levels there is no chance of a new glacial period commencing. CO2 would have to get below 250 ppm for that to happen.
By Henry's law the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above the liquid. As the temperature of the liquid increases the amount of gas it can hold drops. But human emissions of CO2 have increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40% in the past 200 years which is enough to overcome the reduction in solubility from temperature increases. The increase in dissolved CO2 in the oceans has been measured so we know it's happening.
We have been told to stop, but that's quite different from actually stopping.
Of course that's true.
It is still hypocritical to argue that third world nations should be allowed to do something that you claim is a world-destroying, life-threatening mistake, and you are telling the first world nations to stop.
You want to cut CO2, cut it from the people who make the most, not the people who make the least.
Also of course. But telling third world nations they can continue on the upward path while demanding others slide backwards is hypocritical. Either everyone has to refrain from destroying the planet or nobody has to.
And, I'll point out, third world countries that are already low CO2 emitters have to cut much less, in absolute terms, than any first world country. "Revert to 1990 levels" is a lot of CO2 for large countries, but not much for the third world.
I get it though, we like to stay on top as long as we can, and stopping other countries from catching up is a good way to do it.
I get it. You hate the planet, so you'd rather that the third world "catch up" to the emissions of the first world ones.
Why swap places?
Because that's what draconian limits on first world economies and no limits on third world ones would result in. It's a result, not a specific goal.
Are you really going to tell a Chinese person he can't buy a car because it will increase China's CO2 and be bad for the environment, all while America drives the most inefficient fleet of cars.
Are you not going to tell a Chinese person that his action is going to cause harm to the planet just because someone someplace else hasn't listened to you? Spite much?
Why are we surprised when they don't listen to us or take us seriously.
We aren't, because we've had a series of leaders who do stupid things like sign on to useless, meaningless, virtue-signalling protocols that promised the moon but could achieve nothing but creating more hot air. The only people who are surprised are those who were deluded into thinking that such diplomatic solutions were going to accomplish technological goals.
There's an Internet meme for this. Anytime someone proposes laws or rules that they claim would stop spam, a common response is a stock form with checkbox items explaining why it won't work. One of those items is "you are proposing a sociological solution to a technical problem."
I wish you were right since that would mean that Trump pulling out was a thoughtful and morally weighted decision because he intelligently concluded that the Paris agreement didn't go far enough and was vapor due to being non-binding.
I am right, even if the reason he made the decision didn't include "didn't go far enough". "Didn't go far enough" is so vague as to be as useless as the accord itself. Would more draconian promises without any binding effects be any better, even though it would be "going further" than the existing accord?
since even a non-binding agreement is better than none at all, since it means that the world is at least acknowledging the problem.
There is that one small upside, but the larger downside is that it means "the world" also assumes that it has done something significant when it has done nothing. Well, lots of diplomats got a nice vacation in Paris and got to eat a lot of expensive French food and stay in nice hotels, and a lot of them got to brag about how much good they did for the health of the planet, but I don't consider that to be significant accomplishment.
Unfortunately those were not his motivations. His reasons where that he claimed it
I'm sorry, but you're confusing what he said about the accord with why he actually pulled us out. What he claimed it would do is not necessarily the reason he pulled us out. He's also right, in that DOING what the non-binding accord calls for would hurt US industry and the economy. But since there was no requirement to DO, the accord meant nothing, and pulling out was a sign that virtue signalling is not a reasonable approach to solving a technological problem.
"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.
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
I see how you tried to argue 'point by point' but failed to understand (intentionally) the 1 and only point. Rich people consume more and emit the most CO2. It's a fact. They act like they are entitled to do it.
Not too bad as trolls go 5/10. But all of your points are easily shown to be disingenuous. Why are we entitled to more than them? Answer that simple question and I may believe you are slightly serious.
You show your obvious entitlement mentality when you talk of reverting to 1990 levels. You want to go back to a time when we still emitted the most, and other countries were even poorer and even less developed than they are now. It's absurd on the face of it. You plan is to grandfather in our high levels of pollution and stop everyone else from developing. I'll ask you again, why are we entitled to more than them?
If you seriously think 1990 levels of CO2 emissions are the target. fine, total up the numbers and split that number evenly per person. Fair for all sized countries big and small. You will find developing countries will be able to emit much more CO2 than now as they catch up to the west, and countries like America will need to cut by 3/4 or so. Good luck. But we need to decrease from 1990, so maybe we should cut 4/5 instead. Will you do it? No you're entitled to the life you are used to, it's always other people who are the problem, can't let them be like you.
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?
Why are we entitled to more than them? Answer that simple question
I didn't say we were. I said it was hypocritical to tell one group that what they are doing is bad and evil while you tell another group that it ok for them to continue. Period.
You show your obvious entitlement mentality when you talk of reverting to 1990 levels.
I don't really give a damn what year you use for defining baseline. Being a hypocrite isn't in the year you choose, it's in having two different messages.
You plan is to grandfather in our high levels of pollution
The fact you think I have "a plan" proves you either didn't bother reading what I actually wrote, or your reading comprehension skills are seriously failing you.
Trolls gunna troll I guess.
You think telling people they cant be like you isn't hypocritical? You obviously aren't serious.