Slashdot Mirror


Summer Weather Is Getting 'Stuck' Due To Arctic Warming (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Summer weather patterns are increasingly likely to stall in Europe, North America and parts of Asia, according to a new climate study that explains why Arctic warming is making heatwaves elsewhere more persistent and dangerous. Rising temperatures in the Arctic have slowed the circulation of the jet stream and other giant planetary winds, says the paper, which means high and low pressure fronts are getting stuck and weather is less able to moderate itself. The authors of the research, published in Nature Communications on Monday, warn this could lead to "very extreme extremes," which occur when abnormally high temperatures linger for an unusually prolonged period, turning sunny days into heat waves, tinder-dry conditions into wildfires, and rains into floods.

One cause is a weakening of the temperature gradient between the Arctic and Equator as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The far north of the Earth is warming two to four times faster than the global average, says the paper, which means there is a declining temperature gap with the central belt of the planet. As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean.

387 comments

  1. CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    âoeThe Trump administration disbanded a 15-person advisory committee that helped communicate scientific climate change findings to businesses and government officials, making data from the National Climate Assessment "more accessible and useful to private sector/civic organizations and state/municipal governments for their use in planning and decisionmaking."â

    Iâ(TM)m guessing trump doesnâ(TM)t notice the weather because his head is up heâ(TM)s ass.

    1. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dismantling citizen protections, and national alliances wasn't enough, he wants to dismantle the world itself.

    2. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What better way to be immortalized in history than to be the one that destroyed the world like this? That is why Trump is doing what he is doing. Prepare for much much worse things.

    3. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As stupid and petty and humanity-facepalming as Trump is, he didn't "create" this problem or even contribute significantly, he's just another methane bubble. The people who own him and the oil profits, they are responsible.

    4. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Him and the rest of the cabal stand to profit off the rest of the worlds misery

    5. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound just like the religious rightwing neocons when Obama was elected.

      Seriously - you lefties are that fucked up.

      Then, when your bitch gets elected, you'll be all about how great things are.

      Fuck you.

    6. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be exhausting living in your sorry fantasy world.

    7. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The advisory committee was scheduled to come to an end. Each person had a five-digit salary and they only met a few times for meetings lasting a few hours during Obama's second term. Their funding was not explicitly renewed.

      Nothing of value was lost and Trump did not "disband" the committee. Trump was not involved at all.

      We have talked about this at length on slashdot more than once. Leave it.

      *as an aside, like many sated the last time this was discussed, I would looove to have a job paying me 30k to show up for an afternoon meeting once every six months, have no responsibilities and no expectations. Fantastic!

    8. Re: CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take your word for it, but perhaps instead of that happening a new Administration could have given it more funding instead of letting it die. Additionally do you like how well the EPA is functioning these days? (i.e. during the current administration)

    9. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ Seriously - you lefties are that fucked up.

      It will be interesting when you're dying of a heat stroke; let's see you keep talking about left or right or up or down.

      Brainless idiot.

      We reached a point where some countries which are big enough (like the USA and China) can decide whether the world ends or not -- at least for the millions that may die fleeing from drought or heat.

    10. Re: CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why continue something when there are no results?

    11. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parasites..good riddance

  2. Hadley cells will move next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Once the Hadley cells start to expand we'll see some additional fun. Enjoy the last year or two of normalcy.

    1. Re: Hadley cells will move next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's always been a money grab - but when half of the top ten companies get their $1.4 trillion a year from oil and gas, it's pretty obvious where the climate money trail really leads.

    2. Re: Hadley cells will move next by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. Re:I live in Norway. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    I live in New York. If it never exceeded 25C (about 77F) and stayed at under 60% humidity, I'd be happy as a porcine in excrement. Summer is much nicer when it's comfortable enough to be outside without being drenched in sweat.

  4. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really get used to the weather that has temperatures in the 70's and 80's with plenty of rainfall in the middle of August here on the plains.

    1. Re:good by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      70s are great. Once it exceeds 80, especially with high humidity, it's just gross outside.

    2. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't handle 90s then move to Canada or Alaska, you freak.

    3. Re:good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Enjoy the view while it lasts. In a couple of years your plains will be flooded with refugees trying to escape the southern parts that have temperatures above 100 in Winter and becomes uninhabitable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      On what? Considering our superior success with the "War on drugs", the "War on poverty" and the "War on terror", we should probably declare a "War on climate change".

      Or ... maybe not. All those wars got us was MORE of the thing we warred against...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really sure you wanna ring that bell? Because when Norway is 30C all year round, that means that a good portion of the planet is going to be uninhabitable. So there will be billions of people, many of them with guns, who will come for their piece of Norway. And you can't stop them all, especially if the famous winter slog that caused the Russians so much trouble before isn't there any more. Some people think Scandanavia has african migrant problems now, if what you wish for comes to pass there'll be several hundred million migrants coming your way...

  6. Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now, come back when you have an actual, scientific ENGINEERING PLAN to combat it in a way that doesn't involve

    • Destroying the planet's economy
    • Call for massive depopulation of the planet
    • Cause us to revert to shivering savages living in caves

    Until then, POLITELY FUCK THE HELL OFF!

    1. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be wrong with depopulating the planet? The planet cannot sustain 8 billion people no matter what engineering feats we are capable of. It just can't. We are depleting natural resources 10x faster than they are being created. That is a fact.

      The Earth can sustain, at most, 600 million people, in a sustainable and renewable way.

    2. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah. Heard the same doomsday arguments during the 60's and 70's when the world population was 3+ billion.

    3. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Why don't we burn all the straw men that keep getting thrown at us? They're carbon-neutral.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Chas · · Score: 1, Troll

      Bullshit. Using modern farming methods, hydroponics, aquaponics, etc, we can grow enough food to feed the entire planet, just in the borders of the US ALONE. So don't tell me that 8 billion people is unsustainable. That's horseshit.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Yeah but maybe massive depopulation and fucking the economy is *what's needed to ensure we fucking survive as a species* you clod.

      I've opted for the 'no children' route, personally. What have you done?

    6. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, we'll start with India, China and Africa and see where that takes us.

    7. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If you burn the straw men all you'll get is hippies in a desert somewhere.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      I've opted for the 'no children' route, personally. What have you done?

      Like many on Slashdot, I've also opted for the "no children" route. Then again, you need a female partner for that so it's not like we opted into anything to begin with.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re: Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. But modern farming methods are not sustainable by any means. They totally rely on petrochemicals and other non renewable mined resources (like the phosphate rock that the island of Nauru was composed of, stripped bare over decades after being deposited by birds over 4 million years) as chemical feedstocks for fertilizers. Meanwhile, water resources are dwindling. The water table is dropping at an accelerating and alarming rate in many areas that rely on groundwater. Meanwhile, the rivers are running dry. The idiot president is making moronic posts about how we shouldnâ(TM)t be âoedivertingâ water into the Pacific Ocean. Obviously, the water flows into the ocean naturally, and the diversion of the water to use in agriculture was causing the river mouths to close up. So, in order to save the local environment (and the commercial fisheries that rely on it) the state had to restrict use of the water for agriculture.
      So, considering that resources are obviously dwindling faster than they are being replenished, how exactly would the us expand its agriculture to sufficient capacity to feed the entire world.

    10. Re: Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Put it this way. We can grow citrus fruit ORGANICALLY in partially underground greenhouses...IN NEBRASKA with no pesticides and no petrochemical fertilizer.

      So please don't tell me that modern farming, hydroponics and aquaponics aren't sustainable.
      It merely exposes the depth of your ignorance.

      Maybe in CALIFORNIA, things are grim. But the world is much more than California.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    11. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yep. And them hippies and hippie wannabes are some pollution motherfuckers.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    12. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      In other words, fuck the planet if I can't have my SUV, I'm not going to drive a smaller car just 'cause it might let my kids live!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Now, come back when you have an actual, scientific ENGINEERING PLAN to combat it in a way that doesn't involve

      • Destroying the planet's economy
      • Call for massive depopulation of the planet
      • Cause us to revert to shivering savages living in caves

      Until then, POLITELY FUCK THE HELL OFF!

      That's quite a set of straw men you have there. Never mind that if the worst of the potential harms from anthropogenic global warming actually happen they may come to pass anyway when our complex modern civilization collapses.

    14. Re: Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by turp182 · · Score: 2

      Here's a great Nat Geo article about the Netherlands and the future (for everyone else) of farming.

      https://www.nationalgeographic...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    15. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off forever, science-denying conspiratard.

    16. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by barakn · · Score: 1

      Because one prediction was wrong, all future predictions are wrong. WWWWWRRRRROOOONNNNGGGG!!!!

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    17. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by geowash01 · · Score: 1

      How many kids you got? I've got four, and they're doing fine despite my RAM 2500 diesel. My youngest even built a 383 stroker recently--it really goes through the petroleum, too. The plants in his neighborhood love the extra food!

    18. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      None. So enjoy, it ain't on my bill. Add some gas for good measure.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.

    1. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.

      Exactly!

    2. Re: Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's clearly caused by climate change. We all know that summer weather is always on time and perfect, not too hot, not too warm.

    3. Re:Summer? What Summer? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Would you kindly take of some of ours? We have surplus over here in central Europe.

    4. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Libetards keep saying global warming is real but every wintery it snows.

    5. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I live in the intermountain west.
      All we have is summer.

      If you're hankerin for bright, sunny skies, no clouds and lots of heat, go west.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to elaborate?

    7. Re:Summer? What Summer? by antdude · · Score: 1

      What about NC?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:Summer? What Summer? by geowash01 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's out there, but I think it moved to Virginia. We seem to be getting Florida's weather this year. Speaking of which: where are all the hurricanes I was promised?

    9. Re:Summer? What Summer? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I live in the UK. It used to snow just about every winter. Not so much now. A few years ago I harvested by second crop of tomatoes in late November... If I still had a greenhouse I could be again. I probably wouldn't have got a summer crop this year, as the heat would probably have killed it if it was in a greenhouse. Maybe I should have got some grow bags and tried in the open, but my partner doesn't eat the evil fruit, so I'd be having tomatoes with milk for breakfast all winter just to use them up.

    10. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And here in Montana, after a winter with all-time record snowfall and a spring that didn't arrive til June, then an abnormally cool and rainy summer, we've just had a week of premature fall weather -- solid week of rain with temps down in the 48F range. (Haven't checked, but wouldn't be surprised if the high country got a bit of snow.) So if you've got some spare summer, send it on up, we got shorted. And we're probably gonna get clobbered but good come winter.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.

      You know how I know the world is fucked beyond repair? Even though it's been in the low 90's in Columbia, which is considered hot by most people, and it's obviously the season we call summer regardless of the weather I can't tell if you're joking or not. I want to believe the former but the latter seems just as likely.

  8. New name by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    One cause is a weakening of the temperature gradient between the Arctic and Equator...The far north of the Earth is warming two to four times faster than the global average...which means there is a declining temperature gap with the central belt of the planet. As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy...

    "Global Constipation"

    1. Re:New name by asackett · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Credit where due: Exxon Weather.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    2. Re:New name by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So ... the Earth has trouble passing wind?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you try turning the EPA off and on again? Please sir! Do the needful!!!

  10. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by KenAndCorey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I was just looking over all your assertions, and they are almost 100% wrong. "They" are most of the world's scientists, not some shady organization backed by Al Gore. https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://europeanclimate.org/

  11. And..? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "...As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean...."

    Which just means that the differences between continental and maritime wind patterns will be that much stronger which meaning the gradient will be less about N/S coriolis patterns and more driven by surface topology. It doesn't mean the winds are going to be weaker, there's still as much energy in the system - more, in fact, if you believe in general systemic warming - it's just going to shove the gradients around.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Hey now, we don't want any arguments against dogma here. The scientific priests have spoken, and it was peer reviewed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:And..? by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Troll

      Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved

      I'm glad to see you accept the dogma: there can be no incorrect interpretation of the data.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote this asshole, I don't think you understand how peer review works. You must have a low IQ.

    5. Re:And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To quote this asshole [slashdot.org],

      What a genius he is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means more energy goes to wind blowing round in one place, rather than a steady current of air across oceans and continents.

      In other words, welcome to Tornado Alley.

    7. Re:And..? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I'll have 2 dogma, please!

    8. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And a side of hash browns? I can ask the cook, they're freshly salted.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: And..? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      WTF is with you today?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Clarify for me, please.
      Am I to take this as you saying you don't think massive-scale alteration of the Earth's extant carbon cycle will cause this planet to warm?

    11. Re:And..? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Please do humanity a favor and kill yourself.

    12. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What an argument! I am astonishes at your devotion to dogma, to the point of death wishes! Your idols approve

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Massive scale? The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent. The overall change in composition has been very small, my dear Oregonian. What do you think, very very small changes in the composition of the atmosphere are going to destroy humanity?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Massive scale? The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.

      Yes, the composition of the atmosphere, which has a mass of 5.15*10^18 has only changed a small amount.
      Are you really too stupid to understand that it requires a "massive scale" to enact a measurable change to something that large?

      The overall change in composition has been very small, my dear Oregonian. What do you think, very very small changes in the composition of the atmosphere are going to destroy humanity?

      An interesting question!
      Let's imagine I placed you in a completely thermally insulated glass house with a light shining on it at about 320W/m^2 worth of power.
      Let's imagine you had a little hole at the top of it with a fan blowing air out, and a little hole allowing for air to come in.
      What very small change to that environment could I make to destroy you?

      I was beginning to think you were innocently ignorant. I can now see that you are willfully stupid.

    15. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed a difference? Thanks for caring 3. It just doesn't seem there is reason to take yet another AGW comment section seriously. Most people don't think, they just choose a side that matches their political ideology. So hey, why not join them?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      There's a hole on the top of the globe and CO2 is plugging the hole? Do you even know how to calculate the amount of warming we'll get with a doubling of CO2? Hint: it has to do with black body radiation not a hole in a jar. The amount of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is measure in parts per million, it's miniscule.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re: And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So hey, why not join them?

      Maybe because you personally understand the side in this particular debate that matches your political ideology is untenable?

    18. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      Oh I'm well aware the planet is not a greenhouse with a hole at the top. I was simply giving the easiest example of how a small change can affect quite a large space, and the people living within it.
      Now, do I even know how to calculate the amount of warming we'll get with a doubling of CO2?
      Fuck no- nobody does. That's the problem you assholes are pinning your entire argument on. The pure increase in temperature caused solely by the CO2? Yes, that's quite easy to calculate. All of the other feedbacks are not, because they're simply not all known or completely understood.
      And of course, it's further complicated because CO2s effect is greatly magnified since increase of temperature causes an increase of water retention in the atmosphere, which is of course, the most potent greenhouse gas.

      The amount of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is measure in parts per million,

      The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we started humanity's large-scale atmospheric engineering project were measured in PPM. What's your point?
      CO2 is responsible for 100% of this planet's temperature past -18C.
      Those few PPMs- 28C of warming past baseline.

      Back to our earlier example- if I shut down convection in that hypothetical glass house, you will die. You will overheat, and you will die. Because thermal radiation will no longer have any way to escape, because glass, my friend, is partially opaque to infrared radiation. Like CO2.

      You done?

    19. Re:And..? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Of course interpretation can be incorrect. That's a big reason we have peer review, and precisely why consensus is important.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    20. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I expected nothing less than you. You are a true defender of the dogma to the end. Who needs to understand? Anything that says AGW is bad must be true, anything that says it will be good is false. Such is the way of us true believers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My political ideology is anarchism. It's better than communism.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re: And..? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.

      Imagine we separate the atmosphere in different layers of pure gases. The pre-industrial amount of CO2 would then be equivalent to about 3 feet thick layer of pure CO2. The current layer of CO2 would be about 4 feet.

      The fact that this layer of CO2 is very thin compared to the much bigger amounts of nitrogen and oxygen is irrelevant. Nitrogen and oxygen don't block IR.

    23. Re: And..? by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Ha! Of course! Meaningless measurements are the sign of the true believer in dogma. There is no indication of how wide or long your layers are, just thickness. Well done.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re: And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >CO2 is responsible for 100% of this planet's temperature past -18C.

      There is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely true. CO2 is the weakest GHG, water vapor is way more potent. CO2 absorbs less than 11% of black body IR and it exists at concentrations of 1 CO2 molecule out of every 2500.

      Historic evidence shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. And temperature changes more closely correlate to solar activity than to any other single item.

      But if it is so easy to prove, then you do the math in keeping with the laws of thermal dynamics and you show us exactly how hot a single molecule of CO2 has to be or how much heat has to be reflected to increase the temperature of the other 2499 molecules by even a single degree.

    25. Re: And..? by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      That's the problem you assholes are pinning your entire argument on. The pure increase in temperature caused solely by the CO2? Yes, that's quite easy to calculate. All of the other feedbacks are not, because they're simply not all known or completely understood.

      Right that's out point - you don't know what will happen but you feel entitled to demand we change our entire lives and in some cases livelihoods to address your unproven fears.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    26. Re: And..? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The layers would be concentric spheres around the Earth, obviously.

      The point is that the relative concentration of CO2 with regards to nitrogen/oxygen is irrelevant. The crucial factor is the absolute amount of CO2 that the IR radiation has to travel between surface of the Earth and outer space.

      And that absolute amount of CO2 has been increased by about 35% in modern times.

      I don't expect you to understand this. This post is meant for other people.

    27. Re:And..? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, tell me where *your* interpretation of the data comes from.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    28. Re:And..? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Right now science is the best chance we've got to ameliorate the circumstances we are faced with.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    29. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      First off, no I don't.
      I don't know what to do about it. Your argument isn't with me.
      But if you think denying it's even happening and gaslighting the conversation is a valid way to conduct the argument because you're afraid of the potential fixative measures, you're a piece of shit. If you don't do those things, then this conversation wasn't really about you.

    30. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely true.

      What the hell are you talking about?

      CO2 is the weakest GHG, water vapor is way more potent.

      Without CO2, there is no water in the atmosphere. There isn't enough energy from the sun and the Earth to raise the Earth's temperature above freezing.

      CO2 absorbs less than 11% of black body IR and it exists at concentrations of 1 CO2 molecule out of every 2500.

      You either don't understand how it works, or you're gaslighting.
      The concentration is completely irrelevant in that context, and some very simple logic would lead you to conclusion. All that matters is how many molecules stand between any square millimeter of ground and its path to space.

      Historic evidence shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases,

      Historic evidence shows no such things.

      And temperature changes more closely correlate to solar activity than to any other single item.

      This is ridiculous on its face. The output of the sun is well known. It isn't nearly enough to even heat this planet above freezing.

      But if it is so easy to prove, then you do the math in keeping with the laws of thermal dynamics and you show us exactly how hot a single molecule of CO2 has to be or how much heat has to be reflected to increase the temperature of the other 2499 molecules by even a single degree.

      Are you serious? Because that math has been done over and over again, why do you think the debate is considered over?

    31. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      What the fuck do you think a layer is in the context of a sphere?
      Christ, why do we even debate with such ignorant fucking people?

    32. Re: And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubling CO2 and basic physics disagrees with you.

      Show the actual math that shows otherwise.

    33. Re: And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism IS Anarchism. Anyone knowledgable of history knows this.

    34. Re: And..? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Nothing cited in that blog post, which is full of so many errors as to be laughable, yet I will take at face value, disagreed with anything I wrote.
      His conclusions are rather bizarre, but that isn't entirely surprising given that it looks like it was written by someone with an 8th grade education stumbling through complex literature and trying to fake understanding of it.

    35. Re:And..? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No.

      Wind and other events (particularly extreme weather events) are caused by energy differentials, not the total amount of energy.

      Which is why it amuses me that these are likely some of the same people who say global warming will cause more extreme weather events.

      Very probably not.

    36. Re: And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you really are clueless aren't you? The implication would be "within this same atmosphere" since we're talking about one earth's atmosphere of gases, distributed into layers. Can you figure out the length and width now, or do you need to go back to 3rd grade geometry?

    37. Re: And..? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't get this attitude. Why do you believe consensus is "dogma"? Is it because you disagree with it?

      While I've spent many hours trying to educate myself on climate processes, to where I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the basics, I'm still firmly a layman on the subject, and as such I'm simply not qualified to second-guess actual practicing climatologists. Unlike myself, they've seen the raw data for themselves, and they have the training and experience to interpret it.

      And if (when) scientists disagree on interpretation, the people that are easily the most qualified to judge who's most correct are the other scientists in that field. This is the value of consensus. Individuals can have incorrect interpretations or outright bias, but biases tend to average out among a group, and interpretations are refined by debate. If each member judges for themselves not only the evidence but the interpretations of their peers, and if these judgements converge, then we have a consensus - the result most likely to be correct from available evidence.

      Of course it's still possible for scientists to be wrong - but if a dissenter can't convince the majority of scientists in the field, then that's virtually always because their arguments are simply outweighed by stronger evidence against them. Consensus can and has been overturned by new evidence, if it's strong enough, but in over 40 years of modern climate science with ever-better instruments, techniques and data, the consensus on AGW has only gotten stronger.

      You may call this "dogma", but I simply trust the collective scientific opinions of climatologists - more than I trust my own judgement, because their judgement is obviously more informed. To do otherwise would be textbook Dunning-Kruger effect. We have no problem trusting scientific consensus about everything else from quantum mechanics to material science to astrophysics - why should climate science be the sole exception? Simply because we don't like the implications of what they're saying?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    38. Re:And..? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      How on earth do you derive that nonsense statement from what the GP said?

    39. Re: And..? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      yu7ujIf you actually talked to a climate scientist (I have) then you'd find out that they think AGW is bad, and would love it not to be true. But wishing it is not true doesn't make it not true. It's like going to see the doctor and them telling you that you have to give up smoking or you'll end up with COPD. The doctor doesn't WANT you to have COPD, and it doesn't mean that they thing COPD is good, it's just a risk you are running. The stance you are taking, though, is anti-science and to me utterly baffling.

      I think AGW is happening and I also wish it wasn't happening.

    40. Re: And..? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      sorry, cat helped a bit.

    41. Re:And..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.

      Let me correct that for you: "distinguishes the scientific consensus from [corporate] opinion."

      I'm sure some religious people do disagree with the scientific facts and data, but I don't think it's religion that's the primary driver of the disagreement. In fact, I know a lot of religious people who very much believe in the scientific facts because it verifies their future apocalypse ideology. I think this is driven more by corporations who want you to keep consuming products and burning fossil fuels to keep profits high.

  12. Why putin or trump? by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china. In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames. Now china not grows their own, but also continues to grow co2 emissions in other nations. The only place for Putin to increase oil/nat gas is china, who will likely do to Russia, what they are doing to Venezuela.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why putin or trump? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Venezuela lacks rusty old nuclear weapons.

    2. Re:Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china.

      Which is actually pretty impressive, don't you think?
      They emit literally 1/3rd the CO2 per person as the United States, and have over 4 times the population.

      In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames.

      Well ya, they have the largest population on the planet shit-for-brains.

      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

      So do people capable of even rudimentary logic.

    3. Re:Why putin or trump? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      You entitled apologist. Despite America's tiny decreases and China's slight increases, China is still per capita (only sane measurement) less than half your levels. Do you not realize China has over a billion extra people?

      What China is doing to Venezuela? Are you insane?

    4. Re:Why putin or trump? by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Which is actually pretty impressive, don't you think? They emit literally 1/3rd the CO2 per person as the United States, and have over 4 times the population.

      Wrong. They emit more than 1/2 of what an American does. They are over 8 tonnes while Americans are under 15. More importantly, they continue to climb, while America comes down.
      The population size does not matter. What matters is that they continue to grow their emissions. You seem to not realize that this 'shit' is for real. China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions.
      Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Alright, 2.2 Chinese are responsible for the CO2 of each America. My numbers were from 2009, but that doesn't change the point in the slightest.

      while America comes down.

      So? What the hell is the point of that? We can criticize when we pass them.
      Until then you're bitching about someone using less than half the amount of CO2 per person than we are.

      The population size does not matter.

      It absolutely fucking matters. We are all in this together, and China puts out a relatively small amount of CO2 for the amount of people they have. We are the offender, not them. Now could that change some day? Sure. But I'm not going to point fingers at them as long as we're the person driving a Suburban, bitching about the Honda drivers wasting gas because there's so fucking many of them.

      China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions.

      So? What the fuck is your point here? Your argument is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
      You're literally making the argument that we should draw arbitrary lines around groups of emissions and judge them on the whole instead of the content. You are terminally stupid, dude.

      Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.

      Only a complete fucking moron would sit there from his castle and complain about the masses of poor people below him hoarding money.

    6. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals. If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.

      But we dont do that. Why? Because people like you focus on idiotic average per person nonsense when the bulk of it is made by the elite. In both countries.

      If you really want to live like the average Chinese peasant however, go right ahead. Their cities make US cities look like paradise on the cleanliness scales. Part of the year you cant breathe in Beijing without a mask and you probably shouldnt the rest of the year either. What American city is like that?

      Oh, yeah, you are an idiot know nothing.

      Have a niice day.

    7. Re:Why putin or trump? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc.
      That is wrong.

      America is the all time leader, probably 100 times as much as the rest of the world together, moron.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Why putin or trump? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Since the CO2 effect is cumulative, a fair comparison would take into account past emissions as well as current ones.

    9. Re: Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 0

      The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals. If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.

      That point is not wrong, however it doesn't apply to this argument in the slightest you ignorant fuckstick.

      If we are going to whine about individual pollution count then put al gore and the rest of his Hollywood pals in prison immediately.

      Yes, right along with all of the goddamn morons south of the Mason Dixon line who think it's all a hoax, because they're collectively doing a lot more fucking damage than Al Gore is, and since it's the total amount that matters, not the per-person, those guys are just as criminally fucking liable.
      But again, how does this matter? Oh right, it fucking doesn't. Because at the end of the day, we as a species emit so much CO2. The only logical way to measure the greatest offenders is by the amount of CO2 they emit per person that constitutes that country. Otherwise, we could just draw arbitrarily large lines. Fuck, you know who the largest offender is? Western Civilization. It dwarfs the Chinese. Wait, now you want to count the Indians too? Sorry asshole, we're drawing arbitrary lines here.

      If you really want to live like the average Chinese peasant however, go right ahead.

      I sure the fuck don't. What's that got to do with it? That's even *more* of an argument to quit fucking bitching about China's less-than-half-our emission per capita. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to realize when you make my point for me. You are fundamentally incapable of rational thought. You are, in a word, a moron.

      Their cities make US cities look like paradise on the cleanliness scales.

      Again, so?
      The scales are a bit different. You have to drop down to their #6 metropolitan area to find one with less people than the entire fucking state of New York. How they choose to concentrate their emissions doesn't fucking matter for the global accounting. You're grasping for straws, because realistically, you're likely just a racist redneck piece of shit.

      Part of the year you cant breathe in Beijing without a mask and you probably shouldnt the rest of the year either.

      Big fucking deal. If we replaced all of the Chinese in Beijing with 45% as many Americans, it would be just as dirty. Good point you made there, buddy.

      Oh, yeah, you are an idiot know nothing.

      You are killing our species you piece of shit. Go back to your shithole shanty in Arkansas, and let me get back to paying for your infrastructure.

    10. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking retard...Who is more 'elite' the average American , average chinaman, or average Indian. That's right idiot you shot yourself in the foot. Americans ARE the elite, and they are causing the problem! You just admitted it yourself :)

      Poor idiot, you government forces you to be the most wasteful on the planet. Forces you to use more electricity and oil and food. It's not because you are an entitled fuck, you government forces you to. If only you had a Communist government you wouldn't be forced to be twice as wasteful as everyone else.

    11. Re:Why putin or trump? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china.

      Yes. China is bad, right until you realise how many people live in China and that you entitled arseholes like to blame others while topping the list of emissions per capita.

    12. Re:Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much CO2 is coming from your burning pants?

    13. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron. Do you have any idea what the world population was 100 years ago?

    14. Re:Why putin or trump? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They emit more than 1/2 of what an American does. They are over 8 tonnes while Americans are under 15. More importantly, they continue to climb, while America comes down.

      Wrong. https://www.dw.com/en/dip-in-c...

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:Why putin or trump? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Do you get your lies from Tony Wazzup, or do you pull them out of your own ass?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. Good. You brought racism into this somehow. When you are the whitest state by far. Fuck the northwest.

      I'm from the northwest.

      You rail on *everyone* - and yet think driving 21 mpg 2006 subarus, and 28 mpg 2009+ subarus to the overcrowded mountains which are now trash pits is somehow better than *other people* driving 28 mpg "suvs" (which are the same size as outbacks now). The commute times in the northwest are some of the worst in the country. The bike paths are fucking *atrocious*. Homeless shelters are garbage.

      I rarely even meet vegetarians outside of vegan restaurants - but am told "well we don't eat as much meat as *they* do"

      Every other part of the country is extremely racist when two of the whitest cities in the country are right there.

      Ready to go save the world and the poor except when they are in our country - then for some reason you have to be complete fucking cunts to them.

      All judgemental pieces of shit with no rational thoughts outside of what you see on the daily show. Armchair liberals and you're just fucking bad at being good people. At least sort out the northwest before getting all high and mighty.

    17. Re:Why putin or trump? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      So? What the fuck is your point here? Your argument is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
      You're literally making the argument that we should draw arbitrary lines around groups of emissions and judge them on the whole instead of the content. You are terminally stupid, dude.

      I would argue the same for you. Dividing it per capita is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Your average Chinese person is a peasant living in poverty emitting no more CO2 than their fucking breath. How are they going to reduce their CO2 footprint? Stop breathing?

      Talking about Chinese emissions in relation to the country as a whole is fine since the Chinese government has all of the options to deal emissions. The Chinese government can pass laws that ALL industries and individuals within China are required to obey. The average Chinese individual can have no such effect.

      I just don't get you people who want to measure emissions per capita. It is industry that is doing the majority of emissions. It is industry that provides the various ways that individuals can emit CO2 in ways other than mere breathing. How does per capita help with anything other than spreading the majority of the blame onto individuals who have no fucking power to change how industry emits CO2?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    18. Re:Why putin or trump? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      You really are one ignorant fool aren't you.

      Explain to us why America is so much higher than Canada, Australia, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, wait the entire EU added together, et etc
      Actually tell us why America is the highest emitter of CO2 in the world apart from China? You think China is bad, because (reasons) yea whatever. But why are you next in line at second worst?

    19. Re: Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You somehow made this about vegetarianism.
      What's worse, is you literally started your post with an outright lie. You can't even be conversed with.

    20. Re: Why putin or trump? by rcharbon · · Score: 1

      BOTH population and pollution per person matter.

    21. Re:Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I would argue the same for you. Dividing it per capita is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.

      I'm unsurprised, as you are a moron.

      Your average Chinese person is a peasant living in poverty emitting no more CO2 than their fucking breath.

      Again, how that grouping of people decide to allocate their per capita expenditure is between them and their government.

      How are they going to reduce their CO2 footprint? Stop breathing?

      Who gives a shit? That is, again, a discussion between them and their government.

      Talking about Chinese emissions in relation to the country as a whole is fine since the Chinese government has all of the options to deal emissions

      You're splitting apart the Chinese government from its de facto role as the representative of China's citizens. That's all it is for any reasonable measure of global anything- a placeholder for the *people* of China. All you've done here is support per-capita measurements.

      The Chinese government can pass laws that ALL industries and individuals within China are required to obey.

      Yes, it can... That isn't even a relevant point. The Chinese people can definitely pass laws or choose how they use their per-capita * capita CO2 allotment.

      The average Chinese individual can have no such effect

      Yawn. You keep beating that poor dead horse.
      A government represents its people on the Global stage.

      I just don't get you people who want to measure emissions per capita

      I know you don't. I'm beginning to think it's because you're just not very intelligent.

      It is industry that is doing the majority of emissions.

      And the role of the people, through their government, to decide who emits. If the Chinese want to put 50% of their population into peasantry so that some other percentage can emit more, that's their business. At the end of the day, you haven't changed the fact that that pool of people emits less than us per person.

      How does per capita help with anything other than spreading the majority of the blame onto individuals who have no fucking power to change how industry emits CO2?

      The Chinese people are not powerless. Sure, they live under an authoritarian government, but ultimately, they put it in place.
      You're trying to join your hatred of the Chinese government with global emissions in a way that defies logic. You're doing this because you're either not very intelligent, or you're just manipulative and think you're really smart.

      So how does it help [some social problem within the borderes of China]? It doesn't. But that's not what this discussion is about.

    22. Re: Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      No.
      That is a logically stupid proposition.

    23. Re:Why putin or trump? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You really are one ignorant fool aren't you.

      That is a possibility. Many people have said it, some have proven it. You have not.

      Actually tell us why America is the highest emitter of CO2 in the world apart from China?

      Manufacturing. The same reason why China has so much CO2 output. America and China manufacture most of the shit that the rest of the world buys. When you buy an iPhone while living in Germany, the CO2 emitted to create that device was emitted in China and America.

      Am I missing something here? Do I not understand how CO2 is "created"? I am open to learning.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    24. Re:Why putin or trump? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You're splitting apart the Chinese government from its de facto role as the representative of China's citizens. That's all it is for any reasonable measure of global anything- a placeholder for the *people* of China. All you've done here is support per-capita measurements.

      I could see you arguing this point in relation to America, but even then you would be wrong. Attempting to argue it for China is beyond laughable. China is as close to a dictatorship as you can get without actually being a dictatorship. The average Chinese person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things. You are utterly insane if you think you can put the responsibility for the pollution that China emits on the erstwhile "citizens" of China.

      You're trying to join your hatred of the Chinese government with global emissions in a way that defies logic. You're doing this because you're either not very intelligent, or you're just manipulative and think you're really smart.

      What makes you think I hate China? I am attempting to identify the power structures that can affect emissions. In China, as in America, it is not the citizens that have that power. It is the Executive that does.

      You are welcome to question my intelligence, but I am not the one who started out all hostile and using poor metrics to shore up my argument. You are still failing to describe how the average Chinese or American citizen can make a difference. I specifically stated how a difference can be made: The fucking governments and the industries, none of which normal citizens have any control over.

      Your turn. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    25. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Why not? Or is understanding two factors too complex for your little brain?

    26. Re:Why putin or trump? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      And is this manufacturing just for fun? Or are people consuming all the things that are being manufactured? More people more consumption. (since America is a net importer, they are even worse than the CO2 numbers show)

      Just in case you were serious, here is the kids page from the EIA showing who uses all the energy in America.
      Manufacturing is just a part of that blue 32% industrial sector.
      All those other sectors, the majority, are obviously directly related to population size. More population, more of all those things.

      Hope you learned something.

    27. Re:Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I could see you arguing this point in relation to America, but even then you would be wrong.

      Now you're walking yourself further into idiocy and trying to wax philosophical.
      The fact that the de facto government of of a sovereign nation represents that countries constituents is not in dispute.
      You can argue whether or not that representation is willful all day long, and there are many shades of gray in that department- but that's *not* fucking relevant.
      Use your fucking head.

      The average Chinese person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things.

      That is not even *remotely* relevant. Stop being an idiot.
      The average person has absolutely no say in how the government decides to do things, period. That doesn't matter. Representation at the global level is via governments, and those governments represent their people, in the literal sense of that word, whether or not they represent the will of those people.

      What makes you think I hate China? I am attempting to identify the power structures that can affect emissions. In China, as in America, it is not the citizens that have that power. It is the Executive that does.

      That only matters within that power structure. Externally to it, it's not relevant.
      In China, there are ~1.3 billion people represented in international negotiations by a government. The United states has ~350 million or so (?) represented by a government.
      The internal power structure beyond those governments is quite simply not relevant. All that matters is what those governments represent, and in that case, it's 1.3 billion, and 350 million, and the carbon those people emit.

      You cannot argue that this is a 1:1 debate instead of a 13:3.5 debate handled by representatives of those constituencies, because that is literally what it is.

      My turn? It never stopped being my turn. You're flailing in the wind trying to make points to arguments no one ever made on philosophical points that aren't relevant.

      Also, I didn't say you hated China. I said you hated the Chinese Government.

    28. Re: Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Sure isn't. It's logically stupid, because one factor is not relevant. Asserting that it is does not make it so.
      Governments represent people. For simplicity's sake, let's say we're talking about food.
      The government of China has 1.3 billion hungry mouths. The government of the USA has 350 million hungry mouths.
      Americans, in their great opulence, consume around 5 billion tons of food a year for their 350 million hungry mouths. The Chinese consume about 9 billion tons of food a year for their 1.3 billion hungry mouths.

      You are arguing that the Americans should be complaining that the Chinese, who represent 3.7 times more hungry mouths, are using 80% more food than the Americans in total.

      That is a stupid fucking argument.
      It seems that understanding a single fucking factor is too complicated for your little brain, AC.

    29. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because America, fuhnk yeah.
      We just don't care. Because we are in fact that great (again).
      Thanks for reading now go make my imports bish.

    30. Re:Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking governments and the industries, none of which normal citizens have any control over.

      Then you need to explain why the government of China, which controls the industry as well. Is so much better for the environment than America's government? They manage to take their per capita share of CO2 (half America's level remember) run their country and still manage to manufacture and export tens of billions of dollars worth of stuff to America every month.

      What's wrong with American government and industry? And more importantly, why are Americans doing nothing to solve the problem?

    31. Re:Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The correct per capita measure would include the goods and services consumed by a nation, irrespective of where the carbon is emitted. About a decade ago I remember something about this being calculated for the UK and the vaunted reduction in CO2 footprint turning out to actually be a very slight rise. At the moment Denmark has the smallest CO2 per capita footprint on the planet, except that pretty much all the consumer goods used there come from outside Denmark, and I don't think Netflix or Amazon have any server farms there, so in reality it is much, much higher.

    32. Re: Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The point, my governmentally ignorant friend, is that countries make policies and pollution, not individuals.

      It's both. Individual decisions affect CO2 footprint (I don't make the best ones - I am lazy). Also governments can affect that. In democracies we get to vote in or out the government, so we bear some additional responsibility for that, although the range of choice isn't always huge. But we could vote for governments that massively expand renewables, although that comes with a price tag which might not be enjoyable. To square the circle of CO2, and various other issues, is going to be difficult.

    33. Re:Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I'd be incredibly surprised if it was 100 times. 250 years ago China was almost certainly the lead (in aggregate) in the world, but the rest of the world then industrialised. The UK, France, Germany, put out a lot of CO2 pollution compared to the USA up until around 1880, when the USA started to surpass them in industrial capacity. European countries, on average, have about half the footprint per capita of the USA, but constitute 1.5 times the population, roughly, so the overall footprint isn't so different, and this has been the case for most of the last 100 years. So on that basis there is absolutely no way that the USA could have put out 100 times the rest of the world.

    34. Re: Why putin or trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's serious, and it's for real alright. And it's also pretty much too late. We should have started all this ten years ago. Even if we shut it all down immediatly, the damage has been done. This damage is cumulative from years of damage. That means our response would need to be cumulative as well. And I just don't see humanity doing that, even to save itself...... sadly

    35. Re:Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You do realise that European nations were burning coal back into the high middle ages at least? The first bit of clean air legislation is from the 12th century York.

    36. Re:Why putin or trump? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      20 years ago the footprint of an american was about 10 times of that of an european.

      So on that basis there is absolutely no way that the USA could have put out 100 times the rest of the world. Then make it 10 or 15, does not matter to me. Fact is that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the accumulated waste of the US over the last 150 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      20 years ago the footprint of an american was about 10 times of that of an european.

      This is patently untrue. 20 years ago the output by an American, per capita, was about 20 tons of CO2 per annum, and for a European around 8.

    38. Re:Why putin or trump? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Then make it 10 or 15, does not matter to me

      Even half is an overestimate. 10 to 15 times is still absurd

  13. Re: I live in Norway. by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Troll

    Amazing how many ppl really do not look at reality. Good posting.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. considering by jmccue · · Score: 1, Troll

    Considering how many people in the US believes science is fake, how about setting up a lot of very large fans and tell people they will be used to circulate air and it will slowly help eliminate the heat waves.

    But remember keep the real use of the very large fans secret

    1. Re:considering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very large fans are popping up everywhere.

    2. Re:considering by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Why not just reverse the polarity of the wires going to the wind turbines?

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  15. Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Have all nations drop their emissions together. We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland . They have some of the lowest, and correct levels. The question is how to measure, which really needs to be sats. Only a few nations are well measured, and we have nations like china with a communist gov, that prohibits it. So, sats will at least be precise. And then normalisation should be emission /$GDP( real ). That will cause all give and businesses to drop emissions.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said an ENGINEERING SOLUTION.

      Not a vague "We should do INSERT ABSTRACT THING!"

    2. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then normalisation should be emission /$GDP( real ).

      The atmosphere does not care about GDP. The only thing that matters is total emissions. Those figures are already normalized to scientific, not economic, units.

      We play GDP politics and countries like China will have two ways to cheat. One on measuring emissions, a second measuring value of production. We'll end up playing games like Apple spending 5 billion USD on their headquarters and claiming it's only worth 200.

    3. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have all nations drop their emissions together.

      I agree, but that's not a "how". That's not an engineering plan.

      We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland .

      Okay, let's look at how Finland does it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      They get 25% of their electricity from nuclear, 20% from hydro, and... 22% imported? That doesn't sound like a plan. That's just exporting your emissions.

      Let's look at Denmark.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind. Not a bad plan in my opinion. Though I would like to see them adopt some nuclear power like Finland. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 output of coal, and wind a tiny fraction of the CO2 output of natural gas.

      To get an engineering plan start with the CO2 output of the different energy sources.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The best three on that list is hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Let's look at the energy sources with the best energy return on investment.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      If we toss out the carbon heavy sources we again get the same top three, hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Let's look at the safest energy sources.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
      Wow, look at that, the same three come out on top, hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Cheapest energy?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Well, the pattern is broken, geothermal comes out on top. What's the next three, again tossing out the carbon heavy sources? Hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      I believe we have a start on an engineering plan for lowering the worlds emissions. Let's start with hydro, nuclear, and wind. If you want to sprinkle in some geothermal and solar then that's fine by me. Just so long as we start with hydro, nuclear, and wind. You know, like Denmark and Finland did.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Trivial solution by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No amount of ENGINEERING is going to help someone who thinks "We should do like what Denmark and Finland are doing" is too "ABSTRACT".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Trivial solution by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And Québec and Ontario.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is trivial to cheat when you do not measure emissions (for most nations, it is calculated) and govs lie about consumption, populations, etc.
      However, what they can NOT lie or manipulate easily is real GDP. And while China is by far the largest cheaters, they are not the only ones. That is why we need to get EVERYBODY on-board. Otherwise, it is not fair.

      Basically, this is the same problem that we have with corporate taxes. All these gov are playing as many games as they possibly can.
      America pulled out of Kyoto and Paris. In spite of that, America dropped nearly the amount that we were required for Kyoto. And chances are high that we will continue dropping for next 10 years. But many nations will not.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Trivial solution by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your reading and other comprehension skills baffle me ...
      You show us a link about Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And then you claim, they generate their electricity They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind.
      Could you have the dignity to READ your links? And comprehend them?
      Denmark produced 2014 47% of its energy by wind, solar and hydro. 7% not 75%, by gas.

      There is a nice table at 25% of the page, just scroll there.

      I don't bother to debunk your other links ... no idea what your secret agenda is. So far everything you posted about nuclear energy, solar and anything related to power was basically wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Trivial solution by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland

      Actually, we need to get to zero emissions, otherwise the problem will continue to get worse.

    9. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1, Troll

      Per GDP is about the worst possible measure.

      You like to praise America for heading in the right direction, and blame China for the wrong direction. But if you did measure against GDP China would be getting better much faster than America is. China is going in the right direction faster than America is. Why aren't you arguing China is cleaner than America? OOPS.

      You keep telling us you care about the direction and not the level, which is stupid. Because China is growing at 6+% every year. According to your theories, they could increase their CO2 5% every year and you would praise them for heading in the 'right direction'.
      You wouldn't because you are an anti-China troll. But if you were consistent instead of entitled, you would be praising China.

    10. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 0

      America dropped nearly the amount that we were required for Kyoto

      It's easy to lose the most weight when you have the most fat.
      It's meaningless, when you are still 2-3 times the world average with no sign of ever getting there.

    11. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Your reading and other comprehension skills baffle me ...

      Your desire to follow me around and "correct" me is baffling.

      You show us a link about Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And then you claim, they generate their electricity They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind.
      Could you have the dignity to READ your links? And comprehend them?
      Denmark produced 2014 47% of its energy by wind, solar and hydro. 7% not 75%, by gas.

      Yep, I confused the installed capacity with production, so sue me. Here's another site I was able to find with more recent data.
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

      They show about half the electricity from "thermal" (fossil fuels in various forms), and about half from wind.

      I don't bother to debunk your other links ... no idea what your secret agenda is.

      I have no "secret agenda", I thought I was quite clear on my agenda. I want to see solutions rather than just complaints on the problem. Solar is not a solution, it can be part of the solution but it is not a solution on it's own. Hydro, nuclear, and wind are solutions. The main part is that hydro, nuclear, and wind must ALL be included in the solution. Without all three the solution falls apart.

      Oh, and natural gas. It's going to be difficult to go all hydro, nuclear, and wind at once. Until that happens we should use lots of natural gas to get off of coal and oil.

      So far everything you posted about nuclear energy, solar and anything related to power was basically wrong.

      Oh, really? Sure would be nice if you posted some links to sources once in a while. Or, just once. Anyone can claim someone is wrong. I can claim you are wrong. Without something to back that up it's just talk.

      Seems to me that if you picked up on my "oops" on Denmark that you took some time to look over what I linked. And when you found something wrong you jumped all over it. Since that was the only thing you commented on being wrong tells me you could find nothing else wrong.

      Wait, maybe I do have a "secret agenda". It's to get under the skin of people like yourself.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. An engineering solution is a plan that's a great deal more information-dense than "Cut emissions".

      It's real easy to spout off buzzwords and ACT like there's a plan.

      It's a great deal tougher to actually map something out properly. In a step-by-step manner, with technical justifications, ground-level views and high-level views.

      If you think "Cut emissions" is an engineering solution, you are probably one of those "software engineers" who thinks that code comments are solely for making jokes and saying "don't touch this, ask for *Random person who left 4 years ago*".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    13. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 0

      Cut him some slack.

      Producing real, usable data is HHHAAARRRDDD!!!

      It's simply easier for him to go "U RONG! NYAH NYAH!" and stop attempting to think about it.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    14. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 1

      China IS heading in the right direction.

      Not sure it's enough to make up for the decades it spent destroying the environment DELIBERATELY to corner various markets.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    15. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nice to see somebody sincere and not just a troll here.
      Ok, actually, it IS an engineering plan. The plan is how to determine all CO2 levels, normalize if, and then to get all nations to address their OWN CO2 sources.
      In particular, the solutions needed for America are NOT the same as what Denmark or Finland used. That is why I said that we needed to get down to THEIR LEVELS. I never said that we need to be like them. Denmark does not measure their levels. I suspect that they will turn out to have much higher levels, but in spite of that, we still need to get to what they advertise to IPCC (let OCO2/OCO3 show the facts on all this).

      Ok, I think that you looked at this all wrong. You simply looked at our electricity and nothing else. Instead, lets look at where CO2 comes from. Electricity USED to be our main source. Now, it and Transportation are tied.
      Transportation emissions is about about to take a huge drop over the next 2-4 years, as long as Tesla keeps going. They will very likely kill ICE sales. Even now, the Model 3 has gone up to #8 in sales in America, and this month, should be around #3-4. This is going to force all western carmakers to address lack of ICE sales. So, IOW, Transportation will take care of itself, assuming Tesla does not die.

      That brings us to electricity.
      You went through pointing out to the top 3, but ignored the other low ones. In addition, you made it solely about emissions, which I think is a HORRIBLE mistake.
      Instead, for national security reasons, we need to assume that China/Russia will attack or that Yellowstone will erupt. As such, we need at least a good chunk of our power to come from on-demand systems. IOW, Perry is correct when he speaks of needing these kinds of systems.
      As such, 2/3 of it should be from on-demand systems.
      That means that 1/3 could come from wind/solar, but the other 2/3 really needs to come from hydro, nukes, geo-thermal, since these are all on-demand.
      Geo-thermal is CHEAP to add, and we can add a lot of it.
      Hydro is not as cheap, but more importantly, it is limited. IIRC, America has enough potential in hydro to provide up to 15-20%, but, in particular, the 12-20% is EXPENSIVE and damaging. IOW, we can add more, but we can not even double it.
      SO, yeah, like you, I am a huge fan of nuke power. In fact, I think that we need to get a number of companies going that build gen 4 reactors. At least 1 should be capable of burning the 'waste'. In fact, I would like to see us use the money for 'waste' storage to build up reactors to burn the current waste. Likewise, we need to install some NuScale or similar SMRs in our territories. It is insane that we continue to send either oil or coal to islands. Just insane. SHould have a mix of wind/solar as well as nuke or geo-thermal if possible.

      I would like to suggest that we also need to lower our energy use. A major burner for America is building HVACs and lighting. One of the easiest ways to solve this is to modify CA's recent regulation. In particular, if we require that all new buildings have enough on-site unsubsidized AE to => HVAC energy, it will encourage builders to build with maximum insulation and best available HVAC (i.e. geo-thermal for much of America).
      In addition, for lighting, require > 70 lumens / watt and that residential buildings not have harmful elements in the bulb. This is to be applied to all homes that are sold (new /old), as well as upon tenant change. It will lower our energy 5-10%.
      The last saver that we should do, is require that all landlords pay the HVAC. Yes, they can include it in the rent. The smart landlord will insulate, possibly switch furnace/AC to geo-thermal and then take a lot of profit for themselves.

      This is obviously for America. For other nations, they need other approaches.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you can lead the way. Switch off your computer and never turn it on again... Nah, didn't think so.

    18. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Nice to see somebody sincere and not just a troll here.

      Thanks.

      Ok, I think that you looked at this all wrong. You simply looked at our electricity and nothing else. Instead, lets look at where CO2 comes from. Electricity USED to be our main source. Now, it and Transportation are tied.

      Well, if electric cars are the future, which seems to be a popular claim, then this will be a self correcting problem if we fix the CO2 from electricity. No?

      So, IOW, Transportation will take care of itself, assuming Tesla does not die.

      Seems you agree with me. I'm not so sure Tesla will be the solution, they are still a luxury car maker. We'll need to see electric cars on every price level. Out here in snowy suburbia we'll need light trucks, SUVs, or whatever else that handles snow well. Not everyone can wait for the snow plows, and some of use need to carry tools and gear to work regularly.

      You went through pointing out to the top 3, but ignored the other low ones. In addition, you made it solely about emissions, which I think is a HORRIBLE mistake.

      I did not make it solely about emissions. I did exclude the worst offenders on every step, only because the primary goal is reducing CO2. The reason I stopped at the top three is because that seemed like a nice dividing line taking into the other factors like cost, safety, energy return, and of course CO2 emitted.

      Also, if I include more than three then people will just focus on their "favorite" and ignore the rest. We need to first focus on where we get the most gain for the lowest costs, then once those are going then we can all pick a "favorite" and see how it stacks up.

      As such, we need at least a good chunk of our power to come from on-demand systems. IOW, Perry is correct when he speaks of needing these kinds of systems.
      As such, 2/3 of it should be from on-demand systems.
      That means that 1/3 could come from wind/solar, but the other 2/3 really needs to come from hydro, nukes, geo-thermal, since these are all on-demand.
      Geo-thermal is CHEAP to add, and we can add a lot of it.

      Yes, hydro and nuclear are on-demand power. Geothermal is just not that great on EROEI. I haven't seen any metrics on safety either. I could probably be convinced on geothermal. I had to draw a line somewhere and I found that on most every metric there is a consistent top three, beyond that geothermal gets mixed up with solar, ethanol, and maybe one or two more. Choosing a top five gets hard, and also dilutes the focus on far better solutions, like hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Hydro is not as cheap, but more importantly, it is limited.

      Hydro is limited. Hydro is very nice as it has such a low CO2 footprint, is safe, and therefore should be used as much as we can. It's a nice storage medium, even without pumped hydro, as it can ramp up and down quickly and it has an inherent storage capability with the water kept behind the dam. It mates well with the intermittent nature of wind, and the slow ramp capability of nuclear (at least third generation nuclear, fourth generation might not have this problem). I included it on my list as it cannot be ignored as part of the solution.

      SHould have a mix of wind/solar as well as nuke or geo-thermal if possible.

      Solar is near worthless. I'll go along with wind, and maybe geothermal, but solar needs to stay in the realm of orbiting satellites and pocket calculators. We have better options than solar and so solar should be left as a last resort.

      I would like to suggest that we also need to lower our energy use.

      After nearly 50 years since the oil crisis of the 1970s there's been a push for ever increasing efficiency. I just don't believe that there is much left to gain on this. Lowering it any more will start to impact quality of lif

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    19. Re:Trivial solution by bazorg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Solar is not a solution, it can be part of the solution but it is not a solution on it's own. Hydro, nuclear, and wind are solutions. The main part is that hydro, nuclear, and wind must ALL be included in the solution. Without all three the solution falls apart.

      Oh, and natural gas. It's going to be difficult to go all hydro, nuclear, and wind at once. Until that happens we should use lots of natural gas to get off of coal and oil.

      hi

      from all that what stands out for me is the criticism of solar electricity generation.
      Some of the stats you have there for ROI are US-based, while the "ideal" mix is based on experience from countries in the north of Europe. I think we probably will have different optimal solutions and varying ROI depending on the place. Logistics, availability of capital, sun hours per day and quality of the distribution grid will be important factors, and the availability of historical data for alternative energy is also skewed by early adoption in wealthier countries.

      In short: I wouldn't dismiss photovoltaic just because hydro/nuclear/wind have better historical better performance.

      Once different countries get serious about phasing out fossil fuel, some will have local advantages in using solar vs wind, or will not have the capital for nuclear, or will prefer not to convert to gas altogether. YMMV.

      (PS: I like solar)

    20. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In short: I wouldn't dismiss photovoltaic just because hydro/nuclear/wind have better historical better performance.

      On what basis should I dismiss any energy source? What are your parameters for choosing an energy source, and how does solar fit those parameters compared to the others? I was always reminded that past performance does not assure future results, but that's the best bet anyone has.

    21. Re:Trivial solution by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you can lead the way. Switch off your computer and never turn it on again

      You can't solve the Tragedy of the Commons by personal actions.

    22. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And chances are high that we will continue dropping for next 10 years.
      That isnt what the latest figures or predictions are showing. America is increasing maybe at best or staying flat. it was only slowing because the economy was doing so bad, but now that employment and consumption are up, so will everything else including Co2.

    23. Re:Trivial solution by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Problem with nuclear is that the prerequisites make it unsuitable for a lot of places. Would nuclear be okay in Iran? And who is going to pay for it?

      Hydro is good but there isn't enough of it. Wind and solar are both great and have enough capacity for our needs. Batteries sold separately.

      Renewables are a viable plan from an engineering stand point, and a political/economic one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Trivial solution by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Not like Ontario. Ontario is the highest priced electricity in North America.

    25. Re:Trivial solution by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Price not important. Only life important.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    26. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'm sure open dumping of thorium and other similar elements into the environment while going for rare earths is FAR better for the people of this planet than a few tons of CO2.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    27. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydro is likely the most disastrous of those three. Especially in terms of immediate natural consequences. You have to quite literally transform the environment to install it, and its effects are most immediate against aquatic environments.

      Hydro is also responsible for the largest electrical generation catastrophe we've had so far: Banqiao Dam.

    28. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though Ontario gave up on wind power recently. However, that was because the previous government broke the first rule of Economics: "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Forcing the electric company to pay 8x the going consumer rate to buy wind power just forced that expense back on consumers and entire pensions were being eaten up by just the electric bill.

      I'm sure wind will come back in Ontario once the bad actors that made this situation possible are out... ha... That will never happen.

    29. Re:Trivial solution by Thirtypackobud · · Score: 1

      Solar is near worthless. I'll go along with wind, and maybe geothermal, but solar needs to stay in the realm of orbiting satellites and pocket calculators. We have better options than solar and so solar should be left as a last resort.

      So i think part of the issue with solar is people misunderstand its usefulness. It is inefficient for storage or transport on a MACRO scale. However on a micro scale it is pretty useful and getting better economically at a pretty good pace. Huge solar farms to power towns are inefficient and make little economic or power production sense(it might be cloudy). However if the same number of "homes" had a basic suburban 10kW system installed and the flat roof systems of all of those shopping centers all had arrays on top i think the benefit might turn out to be cost neutral economically and environmentally beneficial. Even if only modestly. Solar is not an effective energy production replacement, but should be part of any solution discussion as a micro supplement to MACRO hydro, nuclear, wind and geo.

    30. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget British Columbia. Mostly hydro, some NG and the rest from wind. Solar, not so much...

    31. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Interesting definition of few.

    32. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar makes much more sense in places like California and Arizona, now that PV power is so cheap. Solar generates when we need it most but falls off before the peak demand.

      Nuclear is base-load and not typically available on demand. New systems can follow load but don't respond as quickly as a spinning NG turbine.

      Geothermal is probably the most difficult to build because all the cost is up front and the systems do not necessarily deliver as expected. Lower temperature geothermal also have difficulties with delivering during peak periods in the US and are geographically limited to the west coast due to the need for fault lines (to allow heat exchange).

    33. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded down because you glossed over PV solar.

    34. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded down because you clearly have a bias against solar.

    35. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a bias if it's not justified. Solar is only cheap until you need to store it.

      https://qz.com/1125355/solar-and-wind-are-now-the-cheapest-energy-around-unless-you-need-to-store-it/

      Nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuels have inherent storage capability. Fuel is storage. We can use the sun while it shines, and the wind while it blows, but when they aren't there we need something else. To keep the electrical grid working we'll need a store of energy for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. And...

      Fuel is storage.

      We are going to run out of cheap solar and wind real quick because of the storage requirements. What will that storage be? And where can we get low carbon storage? It will be in uranium. We'll have some storage in hydro but that's a limited resource. Uranium is so plentiful that it's effectively unlimited.

    36. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're looking for detailed engineering solutions in /. comments, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

    37. Re:Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You continue to lie. America has NEVER been the all time highest emitter.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    38. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Solar makes much more sense in places like California and Arizona, now that PV power is so cheap.

      Solar and wind are cheap until you need to store it.
      https://qz.com/1125355/solar-a...

      Solar and wind might be able to provide as high as 30% of the grid electricity but at that point the intermittent nature requires expensive storage and all cost benefits disappear.

      Solar generates when we need it most but falls off before the peak demand.

      Falls off before peak demand? Then it's not there when you need it most.

      Nuclear is base-load and not typically available on demand. New systems can follow load but don't respond as quickly as a spinning NG turbine.

      That's fine, we'll just use those cheap energy storage systems that the wind and solar people keep saying will come along any day now. You think cheap storage only helps with wind and solar? I believe if cheap storage does come then nuclear will look very nice. If it doesn't then we'll need those NG turbines either way, wind, solar, or nuclear. If solar fades just before the peak load then that means more NG burned in turbines than if we had simply used nuclear, no? That is CO2 burned that we would not have had to if we simply did not rely so heavily on solar.

      Solar is only cheap if it doesn't need storage. If natural gas turbines are used to back up solar then solar isn't a low carbon energy source any more.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    39. Re:Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yes, but better than the many lies that you continue to perpetuate.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    40. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 1

      Okay, a few kilotons of CO2 vs a few kilotons of RADIOACTIVE RARE EARTHS TAILINGS.
      Which would you choose as the most immediate threat to your health?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    41. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Orally or rectally?

    42. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High level:

      Tax the shit out of power plants that generate CO2 waste.
      Mandate a date beyond which all new consumer cars sold must be electric vehicles.
      Build new nuclear, wind, and solar power plants to handle demand for energy using eminent domain if needed.

      Not a complete solution but it uses existing frameworks to deal with the most egregious of the offenders (coal burning power-plants and personal cars), and having those dealt with makes other solutions like sequestering carbon in building materials, or using closed cycle production processes for the things that still need burnable hydrocarbons for some reason (aircraft?) more feasible.

      Of note, there's probably a point below which we don't want our emissions to drop as well. A snowball Earth would be worse than a Hothouse Earth, and we're probably just at the upper edge of what's ideal for human habitation now (much of why it's easy for denialist to do their thing). We won't want to pendulum too far the otehr way and suddenly have to start convincing everyone that Global Cooling is a real thing we need to fix now.

    43. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No to nukes, and not because I think's it's dangerous but because it promote centralization of energy production, you know, monopolies. So we'll just be changing one overlord, Big Oil for Big Fission. The best way to ensure our energy future is to power it in distributed or federated way, with multiple possible points of failure. A fault tolerant system, the way the Internet was supposed to be.

    44. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price not important. Only life important.

      Then let's rank the energy sources by least deaths per watt-hour and pick from the top of the list. Let's use the USA statistics, assuming we are looking for energy in the USA. I'm getting the numbers from the link in the post a few levels up.
      1. Nuclear
      2. Hydro
      3. Wind
      4. Solar
      5. Natural gas

      I could keep going down the list but once we get past natural gas the "deathprint" starts to get real high, as does the carbon footprint. The USA also has a lot of natural gas and if the Pickens Plan is right on this we can convert a lot of our vehicles to natural gas, if not convert them to electric.
      http://pickensplan.com/the-plan/

      I didn't see geothermal on the list, perhaps that fits in there somewhere. It just so happens that the safest energy has the lowest CO2 emitted, so that's convenient. The prices aren't that bad either, even though we shouldn't take that as important it is still convenient.

      I can see why we're not building any more dams, because we're running out of rivers to dam up. It's hard to conceive a problem with more nuclear and wind. I mean solar is good too but I've checked out the prices on those for my house. I guess they work in places like Texas and Florida but you get north of that and the math doesn't look so great. Natural gas is great too, cheap, reliable, domestic sourced, and only half as bad as oil!

    45. Re:Trivial solution by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      So Denmark has a large natural gas installed base (great for power when required) but rarely uses it (great for the environment). This means they don't need to go to the trouble of building nuclear, as they have it covered.

    46. Re:Trivial solution by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hydro is limited. Hydro is very nice as it has such a low CO2 footprint, is safe, and therefore should be used as much as we can.

      Hydroelectric power is a lot of things including the most dangerous of the non-fossil fuel power sources (except biofuel/biomass) due to just the immediate causalities from dam failures. That is 3 times more dangerous than solar, 9 times more dangerous than wind, and 16 times more dangerous than nuclear. Including casualties from long term effects like famine makes it several times more dangerous but that would apply to any dam whether power producing or not.

    47. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you are sure that it is better, because on a planetary scale it IS better. It sucks for those living nearby, though.

    48. Re:Trivial solution by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Kilotons of CO2? Try gigatons.

    49. Re:Trivial solution by Chas · · Score: 1

      I'm saying in comparison, ton-for-ton.

      But nice attempt at a diversion.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    50. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is now 1000 GW of electrical generation capacity.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#Electricity_generation

      A single nuclear power reactor generates typically 0.1% of the electrical demand in the USA. A nuclear power plant might have three or four reactors on one site but that's still far from a monopoly. There could be a monopoly from a company that owns all the nuclear power plants but that would be true of a company that owns all the solar or wind power.

      Oh, and "big oil" cannot be replaced by "big fission" because the two are in different markets. It's possible to produce liquid fuel from nuclear power but again this would not be a monopoly unless the nuclear power plants are owned by the same company. So, don't let a single company own all the nuclear power plants.

      It's nice to think we can just decentralize the power grid but we can't. There's economy of scale. Even if the windmills and solar panels are spread out they will be owned by large companies. Or, the windmills and solar panels will be produced by a small number of companies. We can get decentralized nuclear power, "decentralized" and "nuclear" are not opposed to each other.

      Then there is the possibility of SMRs, which has been defined as "small/medium reactors" or "small modular reactors". SMRs are intended to be mass produced, situated in groups for a large plant or singly or in pairs for small power plants. We can get companies to compete in this market to avoid a monopoly on production, and have ownership spread out as well to prevent monopolies.

      Power will be centralized, for various definitions of "power", but that does not inherently mean a monopoly. There's likely to be only a handful of nuclear reactor manufacturers and there is an inherent nature of monopolies developing in electrical utilities. That's not necessarily bad and we see this already in things like cars and airplanes.

      Wind and solar are not the way to get a fault tolerant grid. They need a large grid to find enough wind and sun. They need access to cheap hydro power to stabilize the grid. If there is a break in the grid then there needs to be ready backup, which now means natural gas. Not the efficient natural gas boilers but inefficient turbines and reciprocating engines. That means greater reliance on "big oil" (because the natural gas comes from the "oil" companies), and large amounts of CO2 emitted to keep a decentralized grid stable.

      In short, you are greatly mistaken that wind and solar will lead to decentralized power, and nuclear inevitably leads to centralized power.

    51. Re:Trivial solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's making a list, and checking it twice. Gunna find out who's naughty whose nice...

    52. Re:Trivial solution by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It wasn't an attempt at diversion, I simply didn't realise you meant ton-for-ton, as that seems an odd metric to use, as CO2 is produced in such massively larger amounts.

    53. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      But nice attempt at a diversion.

      You misspelt troll.

    54. Re:Trivial solution by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Why do you keep lying Windy?
      Are you addicted? Do you need help? Just say no, or try to find a support group.

  16. Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    And God says take care of his creations. You are destroying them.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  17. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by KenAndCorey · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure you are really Christian, or just a troll. I don't think a Christian would every say that humans are "a mere creature". God never said that man was a mere creature. Man is special -- made in the image of God.

  18. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be dead by the time I give a fuck.

    Selfish pricks like you can't die soon enough.

    Actually I was thinking it would be more fun if you died first.

  19. This summer was already catastrophic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the grass turned yellow. Never has anyone here ever seen such a thing.
    The trees looked like in fall. Yellow leaves everywhere.
    The animals that didn’t have access to rivers or lakes, just plain *died.*
    Entire rivers ran dry! Something we only knew from watching documentaries about extreme desert regions in Africa on TV.
    Ships were unable to use many rivers or had to reduce their load.
    Lakes were closed off for swimming due to algae bloom. With most fish in them dying.
    And even with all the water the farmers could afford to buy, many crops dried out.

    Have this only one or two more years, and you're going to see food prices go up like crazy, entire regions of land turning into literal desert, shitloads of wild animals just plain dying, and then, people dying from starvation or getting sick because they can’t afford food anymore.

    At least in central Europe, this summer, really /everyone/ got the memo. Shit got way too real. We realized how quickly we could just be done.

    Something will change. Finally.

    1. Re: This summer was already catastrophic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happened in 1976 and before. Meanwhile all the grass is green again. Farmers aren't complaining too much as a lot of crops are doing great while others are just a bit weak. This happens every year.

  20. Endless summer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yay, no more winter. Summer forever.

    1. Re:Endless summer by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You'll be happy 'til your pool is full of refugees from areas that already had year-round summer and now have year-round deserts.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. les able to moderate itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a complex system with feedback.
    It has no will for end goal.
    It has never 'moderated' itself in the way that statement implies.
    It may have more 'moderate' behavior at times.

  22. And who consumes the shit that China manufactures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    That's right! WE DO!

    I'm not a fan of China, but we can't outsource all our dirty shit to China, and then point to China and blame only them.

    Every piece of cheap crap we consume, is US killing ourselves by ruining our home (the planet).

    (And we buy cheap crap because we let the leeches take by far most of our money in-between sale price and salary. With salaries based on work time times skill alone, and making profit, as opposed to actually earned money, a crime, like theft and robbery, we could afford things that don't ruin the planet. ... Buut I bet most people are already too mentally disabled nowadays, to not buy the cheap crap anyway "BECAUSE MOAR".)

  23. Canadians die too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't do any good. It got 98F in Ontario this month and the pussies started dropping like flies. As in died. 98 is a LOW temp where I live. Come back when you enjoy a nice 121F in the shade, weaklings.

    1. Re:Canadians die too easily by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Won't do any good. It got 98F in Ontario this month and the pussies started dropping like flies. As in died. 98 is a LOW temp where I live. Come back when you enjoy a nice 121F in the shade, weaklings.

      The weaklings can't handle our weather is a common misconception, whether it's being told in January in the Upper Peninsula or in July in El Paso.

      Human bodies have a remarkable ability to acclimate to the weather where they find themselves. If it seems odd to folks living in West Texas that folks perish in northern cities during heat waves of 98F/37C, try to remember that shoveling the Newport, Vt snow in freezing winter conditions would doom many fresh off the plane from Southern Florida.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Canadians die too easily by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And temperatures alone does not mean anything. Add humidity to the mix, and a dry 30C will be nice in the shade while a humid 25C will feel like hell even in the shade.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Canadians die too easily by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      And we'll see more and more places with humid 30+ C.

    4. Re:Canadians die too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the human body may acclimate from season to season if you don't abuse heating and AC.

    5. Re:Canadians die too easily by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's not acclimitisation (I won't use the non-word acclimate) in terms of heat tolerance, so much as behavioural changes and air con.

  24. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit.”

  25. A thousand years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For 200 years either side of the year 1000 of the common era, Vikings raised cattle, wheat and barley in multiple locations on the Greenland Coast. For 400 years.

    It's too cold today regardless of what the Climate Profits (sic) predict.

    Good day

  26. fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need your "help", Conservatard. You're part of the goddamned problem.

  27. Re:I live in Norway. by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is it won't be 30C year round. It'll be 40C in the summer and -20C in the winter and the variations will be erratic and unpredictable. Summer will start in January one year and July the next, it'll rain all year long one year and then won't rain again for two more. The worst kind of situation imaginable for food production.

  28. You ignorant donkey fucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because China is 4 times bigger you ignorant fuck. Per person, the only sane measurement, America is over twice as bad.

    1. Re:You ignorant donkey fucker. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If China decided to break itself up into its provinces and form the CU (China Union) the CO2 issue for the world would be solved, yes, as each new nation in the CU would have less emissions as the USA as a whole.

  29. Re: I live in Norway. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 0

    Amazing how many ppl really do not look at reality.

    Said without even the slightest hint of irony...

    Good posting.

    Agreed.

  30. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Begone foul-mouth minion of Satan!

  31. Again, another statement of the problem. by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Instead of bringing up the problem again and again I'd like to see more discussions on solutions.

    I like hydro, nuclear, and wind as solutions. Those seem to come out on top on every selection parameter I could come up with.

    I'm also a fan of the Pickens Plan.
    http://pickensplan.com/the-pla...

    That plan is to use as much natural gas to replace imported oil as we can while we develop alternatives.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see more discussions on solutions.

      Stop all food aid. You'll have fewer mouths to feed reducing the total burden.

    2. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of bringing up the problem again and again I'd like to see more discussions on solutions.

      Solar shade in L1 spot around Earth. Probably the quickest and dirtiest solution. Chafe would be the easiest but litter the solar system with stuff. Large, controlable solar shades would be best and could even be "turned off" if needed. Probably about as costly as a manned mission to Mars but much less tech to develop.

      Posting as AC due to modding other stuff. I am not a Russian Trolls.

    3. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I like hydro, nuclear, and wind as solutions

      Then you've not spent all that much time looking at solutions.

      (Everything below is talking about the US)

      Hydro isn't going to expand significantly. We already built dams on all the good places for hydro.

      Nuclear is about 4 times to 8 times the kwh price of natural gas, wind and solar. And that price does not include waste disposal. It's so expensive that France, the most nuclear-friendly country on the planet (75% of their electricity), is abandoning nuclear plants that are already under construction. And no, there is no magic reactor that will never produce waste. The key thing in the claims people make about not producing waste is to limit the discussion to only certain kinds of waste that they might eliminate....if there's no unforeseen issues like with pebble bed reactors. And if we ignore non-proliferation issues.

      Which leaves wind and the one you didn't mention, solar. Which then means the primary thing we need to engineer is grid-scale storage to deal with intermittency. On the positive side, there's very little engineering required for that. We need to build massive batteries where size and weight are not terribly relevant, so any battery chemistry will do the job.

    4. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no solutions. The climate changes, that's what the climate does. There have been warmer periods throughout history, even when we were NOT an industrialized society. I had diarrhea this morning - I blame climate change. . . .

    5. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is about 4 times to 8 times the kwh price of natural gas, wind and solar.

      You do realize that I have access to the internet, don't you? I can fact check this. It's real easy for you to fact check it too. Here's a place to fact check that:
      https://www.instituteforenergy...

      Nuclear power is cheaper than off shore wind and every form of solar power. Nuclear is marginally more expensive than onshore wind and hydroelectricity. Natural gas is real cheap, nearly half the price of wind or nuclear. The problem with natural gas is the CO2 output. If the goal is to replace this natural gas with something reliable then that's going to be nuclear or hydro. We don't have many places left for cheap hydro, that leaves nuclear as our only choice.

      The argument isn't if we will build more nuclear power plants, it's when and how many. We've run out of choices for cheap and reliable electricity. We will be building more nuclear power. The sooner people can wrap their heads around this the better. Continually pushing off new nuclear power into the future only means having to run the old nuclear power plants longer.

      I keep reading claims of how solar will get cheaper in the future. That may be true, I believe it's nearly certain. Do you believe that nuclear can't also get cheaper in the future? I believe it can. One way to make it cheaper is to start training nuclear engineers now. To do that we need to build nuclear power plants, as there is no better training than real world experience. We've effectively skipped a generation of nuclear engineers, from a 40 year stagnation in the industry, and a lot of experience will die with those experienced engineers. It may be wise to get a new generation trained on nuclear power before the current generation of nuclear engineers retire, go senile, and/or die.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that I have access to the internet, don't you? I can fact check this. It's real easy for you to fact check it too. Here's a place to fact check that:
      https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]

      You do realize that your fact check should also include checking on the source for your statistics? 'Cause you cited an "institute" that was created by the nuclear power industry. They may just have a weee bit of bias in their study.

      Better numbers from a variety of sources just so happen to disagree with the people who only get paid if we pour money into their new theoretical reactor designs. Odd.

      It should also be noted that "nuclear" on that Wikipedia page is using those new theoretical designs, not existing designs. So, best case scenario for nuclear and assumes that we won't run into the same thing we ran into with pebble beds where they turned out to not be a panacea. Real-world nuclear is much more expensive.

      The argument isn't if we will build more nuclear power plants, it's when and how many. We've run out of choices for cheap and reliable electricity. We will be building more nuclear power.

      The massive gaping hole in this is the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry is abandoning plants in the US in mid-construction. Already approved, so no issues with regulation or NIMBY. And the people who are closest to the numbers are giving up.

      That's really odd for something that's supposedly so incredibly cheap.....almost like it isn't actually incredibly cheap.

      Meanwhile that "incredibly expensive" solar power is actually the fastest-growing power source in the US...even with a trade war and subsidies that expired last year.

    7. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The institute for energy research and Wikipedia both got their numbers from the US EIA. I don't know what you think you proved but all you proved is that the numbers changed over the years. In both cases solar costs more than nuclear.

    8. Re:Again, another statement of the problem. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could help me find where it shows on that Wikipedia page where nuclear power costs 4 times that of wind, solar, or natural gas? I can't find it.

      Also, I can fact check you on claim that solar energy subsidies expired. I saw that there is a tax credit for new solar installs in the USA up until at least 2020, and the tax credit for 2019 is the same as 2018 and 2017.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  32. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If youâ(TM)re still this butthurt 2 years in, 2024 must seem like an excruciatingly long time to get another chance. Try not to alienate too many moderate swing voters in the meantime, pal.

  33. Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'God' doesn't give two shits or he'd just fix it himself. Wake up sheep, there was no Sheppard, you need to solve your own problems.

  34. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I count less than 4 months to the flip-terms--er, mid-terms.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  35. Stormy world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once the Hadley cells start to expand we'll see some additional fun.

    So as the atmosphere expands, it becomes less dense. The baseline surface pressure won't be 1013 hpa anymore. It goes down to, say, 1005. A stormy future ahead!

    1. Re: Stormy world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surface pressure in my town varies on a daily basis with more spread than that. No issue.

    2. Re:Stormy world by barakn · · Score: 1

      Several things are wrong with that line of bullshit. First, the atmosphere is shrinking because CO2 is trapping heat closer to the surface. Second, the pressure at the surface is essentially the weight of a column of the overlying atmosphere divided by the area of surface that column is lying on. Since the mass of the atmosphere isn't appreciably changing, the average pressure won't change much either.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:Stormy world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the mass of the atmosphere isn't appreciably changing, the average pressure won't change much either.

      Who's talking about average? Pressure can and do fall any day, anywhere [even the poles].

  36. Entitled much? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    It's clear who's causing the problems America. Last time you said Sweden and Switzerland were your targets so I showed you them too. Which countries are all clustered together down the bottom? Which country is double the other countries?

    You first Windy. Drop your levels down to anywhere near those other countries and you won't just look like a whiny douche blaming everyone else for the problems you caused.

    1. Re:Entitled much? by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting graph, especially the slopes on those lines. China's CO2 output has been climbing, quite rapidly too. For USA it's been pretty steady, even dropping slightly. The CO2 output per capita in the USA is the same now as it was in the 1960s, and down about 20% from the 1970s. Shouldn't we get a little credit for that?

      I'd like to see the CO2 output go down in the USA. Judging from what I've picked up over the years there will not be a significant drop until we build more nuclear power. We've damned up all the rivers worth a dam for hydro, so we can't grow much there. Windmills are popping up like dandelions, that's good. What we need now to balance this out and really put a knife in the heart of coal, the biggest CO2 emitter of them all, is more nuclear power.

      I've read some encouraging news recently. Seems like the powers that be are now taking nuclear power seriously. I suspect a lot of nuclear power plants breaking ground in the next five or ten years. Unfortunately most of that is just to make up for the nuclear power we'd be shutting down. We'll see growth in nuclear power yet, then we can see the CO2 per capita drop.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Entitled much? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Yes, I give credit where it is due. America could be far worse, and was in the past. All countries seem to follow the same trajectory of increasing CO2 as they develop and become rich, and then level off and then decrease when they can afford it. Obviously America is past the hump and is in the decreasing phase. China is likely at the top or close to it and will decrease as well. The thing to notice, is that China will peak at a much lower level than America did.

      I only have a problem with entitled people like Windy who think America is the greatest and China is the worst. Without any consideration for the size of the populations or stage of development. As long as he continues to pat America on the back and paint a rosy picture, I'll keep telling him it's just his glasses that are rosy and America still has a long way to go.

      Check the slopes for just the last 5 years for a better indication of current trends. Remember a lot of that previous increase was China turning from a basket case of an economy with millions starving to death, into something approaching a normal country. They were coming off of a very low base. No one credible thinks it will keep growing that fast.

    3. Re:Entitled much? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem with China is that everyone uses them as an excuse to do less themselves, or to deflect criticism. China is doing a hell of a lot to mitigate what would have been an environmental disaster if they had followed the same path as other developed nations.

      Much of Europe is committed, but there are some stragglers like the UK. The US is a mixed bag, some states are trying and others are not. It's hard to know what to do about America, because the usual economic pressure just makes Trump so something even more stupid. I guess waiting a couple of years and hoping is an option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Entitled much? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Interesting graph, especially the slopes on those lines. China's CO2 output has been climbing, quite rapidly too. For USA it's been pretty steady, even dropping slightly. The CO2 output per capita in the USA is the same now as it was in the 1960s, and down about 20% from the 1970s. Shouldn't we get a little credit for that?

      Nope. That just meant you historically contributed even more to climate change than what you are doing now, so you should cut your emissions even more than the others to compensate. With the world average CO2 emission per capita being about 1/3 or 1/4 the current US level, there is nothing to brag about anyways.

    5. Re:Entitled much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that after Brexit all bets are off in the UK, as there are strong links between the Hard Brexiteers and climate change denial.

  37. It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Considering how many people in the US believes science is fake

    It's not that many in the U.S. believe science to be faked. It's that, based on decades now of scandals, they believe many so-called SCIENTISTS to be fake.

    Hard to argue with them when they constantly re-adjust data to fit theories, which when run backwards can't even fit past climate behavior without further massaging datasets.... or when so many studies published are found to be bunk when anyone tries to replicate results. After reading something like that, how can you not assume a lot of scientists are faking things?

    It's at the point now where Global Warming Hysteria comes off as a religion that isn't even as believable as scientology - and Scientology has e-meters!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      None of this tackles the most important point about Global Warming.
      You have to be an ignorant fuckwit in order to have even an iota of certainty about it occurring due to anthropogenic carbon cycle short circuiting.

      I don't give a shit about the models, the predictions, or any of that shit. That's the job for the guys trying to determine how quickly we'll kill ourselves. The fact that we are should be completely without question.
      We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years, by injecting trillions of tons of carbon into it that was previously excluded from the system. There can be only one result to this action- warming. I don't give a shit about the political nightmare those poor scientists have to go through to make the retards believe in it- basic fucking QED and thermodynamics insist that what we are doing must warm this planet. You can keep kicking the goalposts away to whatever idiotic fucking theory you have as to what might "really" be causing it all fucking day long, but you are literally contributing to the death of us all by doing it. Thank you for being a useless sack of flash.

    2. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      s/certainty/uncertainty/;
      s/flash/flesh/;

      And again, fuck you very much.

    3. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years, by injecting trillions of tons of carbon into it that was previously excluded from the system.

      Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....

      Fuckwit, indeed. The fact you truly believe that out contributions are "Fundamentally altering a cycle" that has vastly wider cycles than humanity has ever experienced - well, if that doesn't show you are a first-rate ignoramus, nothing will! It is exactly your kind of "Science" that has so many people skeptical of anyone who claims doom is at hand.

      I'll let you have the last word, because the ignorant never miss a chance to dig deeper.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....

      Horse shit, they would.
      Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion. They're not even the same fucking sport. Quit lying.

      Last word? If your argument relies on your being full of shit to make sense, that makes you a fuckwit.

    5. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      Only a moron or a religious fanatic would think that science is crap. Everything you have or want has been or will be produced as a direct result of science- not prayer.

      Now they say "maybe we better slow down" and suddenly they're all idiots or part of some vast conspiracy to benefit whom?

    6. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Your link is about medical science, not climate science. Anthropogenic climate change has been confirmed and re-confirmed by dozens of independent lines of evidence, by thousands of peer-reviewed papers from thousands of climatologists from all over the world, for decades.

      how can you not assume a lot of scientists are faking things

      Uh huh. The vast majority of climatologists are all faking their results in a massive global conspiracy, risking their integrity, reputations, jobs, and careers, just so they can keep collecting a middling wage for studying a subject that they regularly get harassed about. And every scientific institution around the planet is backing them in this. How could I not assume that?

      Or perhaps you're just too blinded by your conspiracy belief bubble to even consider that you could simply be flat-out wrong, and the thousands of trained experts who have studied the raw data for decades might actually know what the hell they're talking about.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    7. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Remember the Pinatubo eruption? Wasn't that long ago, back just in the early 90's. I remember it well. Most of the summer was 14-18C(normal highs are 22-31C), and all it did was rain or be overcast. Millions of dollars in crops were destroyed or lost, tens of thousands of farmers went under. That was just in my little neck of the woods in southern ontario. I mean I remember it getting so cold we had to break out comforters at night in July and August, 4-8C at night. Hell there were still parts of the forest near where I lived at the time that still had snow on the ground the first week of august too. Just think how bad people had it with the year without a summer in 1816.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I do, in fact. The change in weather was noticeable in the Pacific Northwest, as well.

      17Mt of sulfur dioxide is a great example of how even small changes in atmospheric composition that affect radiation flux, spread across the entire globe can effect radical shifts in climate.
      Fortunately, SO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere all that long.

      I think I missed the point you were trying to make, though?

    9. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > stable for millions of years
      Are you retarded?
      Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Last glacial period. Those are just the first three results, all withing 200000 years, the warm periods within less than 3000.
      I believe that current warming is due to CO2, but saying that the climate has been stable for millions or years is stupid.
      We have been having hot and cold periods for millions of years, with hot periods several degrees hotter than current average temperatures. The difference is that the change seems to be happening particularly quickly right now.
      Given that we are currently coming out of a mini ice age it should be no surprise that temperatures would continue rising.

    10. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Hard to argue with them when they constantly re-adjust data to fit theories, which when run backwards can't even fit past climate behavior without further massaging datasets.... or when so many studies published are found to be bunk when anyone tries to replicate results. After reading something like that, how can you not assume a lot of scientists are faking things?

      Since scientists publish papers that explain exactly what they did to adjust the temperature data how come someone like you doesn't take that information and explain exactly how the algorithms they use to adjust the data make it fit the theories. It's easy to make that claim but it never gets backed up with solid data to support it.

      As far as replicating results, yes it's a problem in medicine and social sciences but not so much in physical sciences like climatology. Again if it's such a problem why aren't guys like you actually doing the science to prove it's a problem.

    11. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Hard to argue with them when they constantly re-adjust data to fit theories

      We are having heat waves because scientists tampered with our thermometers ?

    12. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years, by injecting trillions of tons of carbon into it that was previously excluded from the system. There can be only one result to this action- warming.

      This basic point seems to get lost in the fray, where balancing an equation is something basic taught even to grade schoolers. Except in this experiment, we're changing the variables to an equation that noone can fully yet understand or model completely.

      I'm reminded of why users should not be able to access service menus. Yet here we are, dealing with button pushers who seem to think the system is designed to be idiot proof.

    13. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      You failed basic reading comprehension, AC.

      We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years

      Nobody said the climate was stable.
      The carbon cycle was stable, thus the atmosphere's ability to capture long-wave radiation was stable.
      The climate includes a billion ways to distribute that energy within the thermosphere.
      The (comparatively small) oscillations of the last 800,000 years or so have been based on albedo fluctuations due to ice.
      The last major carbon-based climate event was about 50 million years ago.

    14. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Which scandals are you referring to specifically?

    15. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing dust ejected by Pinatubo, which affected the weather, and CO2, which is what we are discussing. In any case, a Mt. Pinatubo does not happen every year.

    16. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion.

      Don't underestimate the potential importance of volcanoes to global climate. They could have caused the "Little Ice Age" - not through CO2, but through ash and sulphates. We're talking decades of climate change - some would argue centuries.

      It's quite possible we may be thankful somebody for human influence on warming the climate - we may need it to offset volcanic activity. All it takes is a couple of badly timed eruptions ...

      Also, with respect to the CO2, it's important to recognize that an average is not very useful in telling us about what can happen - as the Little Ice Age demonstrates. On average, volcanoes don't much impact, but the variance over the long term can be extremely important. It's a small data set, and with small data sets you don't have much predictive power from the average statistic alone - take a basic class in statistics or read a book.

      Wikipedia:

      In a 2012 paper, Miller et al. link the Little Ice Age to an "unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg" and notes that "large changes in solar irradiance are not required."[6]

      Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[83] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. The ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When it reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface.

      A recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1257, possibly of the now-extinct Mount Samalas near Mount Rinjani, both in Lombok, Indonesia, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 did not allow the climate to recover. This may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452â"53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[6][14] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.

      Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Huaynaputina (1600), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Laki (1783).[21] The 1815 eruption of Tambora, also in Indonesia, blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer,[84] when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.

    17. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the Pinatubo eruption? Wasn't that long ago, back just in the early 90's. I remember it well. Most of the summer was 14-18C(normal highs are 22-31C), and all it did was rain or be overcast. Millions of dollars in crops were destroyed or lost, tens of thousands of farmers went under. That was just in my little neck of the woods in southern ontario. I mean I remember it getting so cold we had to break out comforters at night in July and August, 4-8C at night. Hell there were still parts of the forest near where I lived at the time that still had snow on the ground the first week of august too. Just think how bad people had it with the year without a summer in 1816.

      I love global warming, I truly do. I see the mid western USA in storms, in 100F heat, and in burnt crops. I see the cost of food increasing, and the migration of people to the north.
      I am in Québec, and our summers are just fantastic. We have warmer summers, but not boiling (80-85F) with a few days of 95. For the past few years, we have had no rain on weekends. Two consecutive weeks or dry spell.
      Our winters with 4 feet of snow have become winters of 2 feet of snow. Where we had -25F overnight, it's now -20F overnight. Wow, fantastic.

      Canada, climate wise, is the future. Americans and immigrants are moving to Canada with the result that our property values are increasing.

      Hip-Hurrah for climate change. Some countries benefit, some lose.

      And my heart goes out to those around the equator.

      Americans, here is what you can do in very few words.
      Plant trees. Plant as many as you can and give up those 500sq foot lawns.
      Growing lots of trees will delay and even possibly reverse the global warming.
       

  38. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by youngone · · Score: 2

    ...in the image of God.

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

  39. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man is special -- made in the image of God.

    Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  40. Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Too many people, and particularly the Media, tend to focus on the negatives of global warming and climate change. Just as there are losers there are also winners and the longer summers are very beneficial in the northern areas. We're getting longer growing seasons. Our winters are more temperate although still deep snows. The news is good.

    1. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

      "Just as there are losers there are also winners and the longer summers are very beneficial in the northern areas. We're getting longer growing seasons. Our winters are more temperate although still deep snows. The news is good."

      And here i was, with all the doors and windows sealed, trying to not to be asphyxiated by half the continent being on fire, when I should have been thinking, "Hey, my strawberries did do better than ever this year!"

      --
      -
    2. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Tell that German farmers, who made a billion loss this year due to droughts ...
      (Google the other European countries, I'm to lazy to do your work ...)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Weather is not climate.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re: Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be very thick not to have noticed that farmers *always* complain about losses, each and every fucking year. The ones making the correct call never shout about gains.

    5. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      No, but if you change the climate, you change the weather.

    6. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We're getting longer growing seasons.

      Only if you ignore the lack of water during those growing seasons. And forget that temperature isn't the only limit on your growing season. Or forget that crops on fire or covered in smoke tend not to produce a high yield.

    7. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      If you put your head in a plastic bag along with the strawberry plants they can thrive on your exhaled CO2 and then when you decompose they can use your nutrients to grow better.

    8. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      You're simply wrong. We're getting plenty of water. You apparently have a hard time reading, I addressed this and perhaps you simply don't have much science background. Global warming and climate change do not mean drought. In fact there is a lot of discussion about many areas getting more rain, which is great for longer growing seasons. A big win.

    9. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're having a hard time reading. I said above there are losers as well as winners. This is a fact that too many people are ignoring. It is much more sensational to focus on the losers than to recognize the good that global warming and climate change bring. The reality is that periods of cooling are when there have been the worst die offs and periods of warming are when there have been the greatest biodiversity. That's the science. Try reading the whole thing rather than over reacting with the voices in your head.

    10. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      o recognize the good that global warming and climate change bring.
      We don't know anything about those things ... so claiming "something good must be happening too" is ridiculous.
      Who cares if you can in theory plant a certain grain here or there but lack water?
      Who cares that a desert suddenly has water, but it takes another 500 years that it gets green because there is no humus?

      Exchanging x% perfectly areable land for y% where we don't know the numbers for x and y is just idiotic.

      If you want to say: in the grand picture, 1000 years from now, all that does not matter much as somehow x% and y% will even out, then I half agree. Half because migrations/wars will kill millions or billions. There will be no one better of.

      And: summers don't get longer. Warm periods do perhaps. Summers are defined by the length of the day. Being able to plant ten days early er because you can now be "somewhat certain" the ground will not freeze again, has a minimal impact on food production. Length of day is much more important. And believing that you get enough water in Siberia where perma frost is thawing to be able to plant grains: that is idiotic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Global warming and climate change do not mean drought.

      Tell that to people in already dry areas who see farmland turning into desert.

  41. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    "I will be dead by the time I give a fuck."

    at the rate we are going, that may be an optimistic climate model.

    The truly justifying part in attacking this sort of argument to me is that shits hitting the fan right now, in 5 years exponentially worse, and so on. You will live to see it because you are living now. So that becomes less and less of an excuse as time goes by.

    --
    -
  42. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the crisis Trump has been waiting for to declare martial law.

  43. More Windy lies, don't you ever get sick? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 4, Informative

    In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

    Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

    1. Re:More Windy lies, don't you ever get sick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. On the first page of Google, you say? Oh well, that clinches it! Whatever appears there must mean its true!

    2. Re:More Windy lies, don't you ever get sick? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean it true, but it means it's trivially easy to find. Anyone with a functioning brain would realise while America was ans is the biggest consumers on the planet with the biggest industry causing a literal shit ton of CO2. China was a country of peasant farmers where millions of them were literally starving to death. What kind of fool claims China was the biggest emitter without at least taking a quick look for the facts?

      Answer of course is Windy, lie first, check never.

      Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

  44. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by ixuzus · · Score: 1

    I suspect you're trolling hard but I'll play along. Revelations 11 makes a reference to time to judge the dead, reward the righteous, and "destroy those who destroy the earth." Your turn...

  45. Re:And who consumes the shit that China manufactur by mukinrestak · · Score: 0

    And the point you're missing here is that environmental regulations here have fuckall effect on China, and are thus essentially useless past a certain point.

    Also, by decreasing trade with China, by your own logic, we'd be improving the environment. Who's threatening a tariff battle with China that would decrease trade? El Trumpo, baby.

  46. Weather not equal to climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time liberal opens his mouth about global warming they always say temperature is not equal to the climate. This article is all about temperature. There were no shattered records anywhere in the world. Who the fuck cares if Spain had a record year because nobody else did.

  47. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A -1 mod for quoting the Bible in order to refute an AC troll about man being a "mere creature"? Slashdot mods must be a bunch of heathens and Moloch worshipers.

    Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, [and all Slashdot mods,] shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    Repent!

  48. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, I have it on good authority that weather != climate, especially in the winter time.

  49. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weaponized Bible verses! Nice try, Satan.

    Revelation 12:7-9

    7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan [this is you!], which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him

  50. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean where your leftist pals running the polls are wrong again and the R gal seats in Congress?

  51. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your take on Yahweh, or Allah? Are they assholes too?

  52. Weather man can't even predict a few days ahead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or hours for that matter. Noon on Wednesday the weekend is a monsoon, thursday morning Friday-Sunday is 80 and Sunny, Friday, it's raining while the weather report says it's sunny......

    With that said, these climate change retards have little to zero trust in their ability to predict a thing.

    Typing this from where there used to be a glacier 10,000 years ago, which in case you were curious, GWB or Trump were not responsible for. :)

  53. Warning: Bologna Detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Analysis indicates that the article and the conclusion of the scientists written about in the article have very a high (>97%) bologna content.

  54. Bullshit liar, show your sources. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit liar, show your sources.

  55. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >thousands

    I bet you can't even name 200.

  56. I call BS. by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows global warming is a hoax made up by the Chinese. The President said so.

  57. More Windy lies. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 3, Informative
    I already showed you you were lying about that here.

    In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

    Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

    Why bother continuing the lie further? Are you really that stupid?

    1. Re:More Windy lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother continuing the lie further? Are you really that stupid?

      Dude, this is slashdot.... It's what we do... If you want real facts and constructive comments then you're on the wrong site

    2. Re:More Windy lies. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of real facts and constructive comments. Lots of people show links and evidence and have interesting ideas and evidence to back them up. Pointing out the obvious lies and trolls like WindBourne is what everyone should do, helps the other more useful comments rise to the top.

  58. Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are fucking brilliantly funny! That and your other lines were so good I was laughing so hard my gf made me read them to her.

  59. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Norway is going to move to Chicago?

  60. Re:I live in Norway. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Norway is going to move to Chicago?

    If it gets that bad, Chicagoans are going to move to Norway. And they'll be bringing their pianos.

  61. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

    There have been thousands of names for the flower of the rose ... they still smell as sweet. More pertinently, it couldn't have been man that was made in Her image. After all, men are women with a bit of genetic damage. Obviously the the creator god(dess) would have the full complement (or there would have to be, in turn, a greater Creatrix from whose X the broken Y of that god was formed).

  62. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's your take on Yahweh, or Allah? Are they assholes too?

    El and Alah are cognates, meaning that the god called God (El*) is the same numen as Alah (the god of Abraham). Yahweh (the god of Moses), of course, is a separate deity.

  63. Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore promised us that snow would be a thing of the past. So many of us have been working overtime to increase greenhouse gasses and other emissions to ensure that future becomes reality. We do not need a winter season on this planet.

    You can thank us later

    1. Re:Good thing by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's hilarious how the climate science deniers passing memes around becomes like a game of telephone. I don't think Al Gore ever said anything about snow being a thing of the past. That was a scientist in Britain making an off the cuff remark that wasn't a scientific publication.

  64. Could Be Good News by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this means that we will be able to have longer pot growing seasons with bigger yields here at 45 degrees north...

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  65. Re: And who consumes the shit that China manufactu by Barsteward · · Score: 0

    China is in the lead with getting renewable up and running. And the poster was saying it's upto YOU to stop buying cheap Stuff from China, it's the citizens fault for continually buying cheap derivatives from China instead of more expensive locally produced goods. Nothing to do with the Orange President.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  66. Stop with the lies Windy. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 3, Informative
    Stop with the lies Windy.
    Three times now you have claimed this with nothing to back it up. where this shows clearly America was far far worse going back to 1900.

    Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

    And that isn't even considering America is a quarter the size of China.

  67. More Windy lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't be the slightest bit serious. If you Added China to Denmark or Finland, maybe even all 3, the level would be less than America. Obviously China is much closer to their level than you are.

    More lies. Transportation is clearly in front for over a year or 2 now, and is increasing, it's not going down, why say it is? Now getting worse is taking care of itself?

  68. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, the DOD have been helping into this way before.

  69. you lying ignorant fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK we know 1850 1950 is clearly a lie by you
    Did you have any evidence to show 8 and 15 aren't also lies by you?
    Of course the last 10 years China produced more, they have 4.2x as many people and send 10's of billions of dollars of products to you every month, that they pay the CO2 for and not you.

  70. Re: Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, most people don't Cate but if things goes like this, that case might be sooner than you might think, even with the best air conditioner and the best calefaction the climate change is already making harder to create energy.

  71. Why are you making things up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1970 - 2013 America is clearly higher than China, why are you making things up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

  72. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This has fuck all to do with the topic. What did you do, open the Bible on some random page and quote it?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  73. Every time the topic surfaces on /.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You know what? I don't even have to read the funny pages anymore. Just launch a story about climate change on Slashdot, grab a bag of popcorn, lean back and enjoy. It's hilarious. Well, it would be, if it wasn't so terribly sad.

    And yes, I'm beyond caring. I tried to care. I really did. But I simply don't anymore. I have no kids. And the planet will stay habitable for the maybe 20 years I have left. Why should I care about this ball being habitable for you or your kids if even you can't be assed to?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  74. Chuck out the nuclear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it hadn't been for deniers denying we could have started 20 years ago and THEN there would have been time to include nuclear. No longer.

  75. who mods lies informative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who mods lies informative? How many sock puppets do you have WindBourne?
    https://google.com/search?q=co...

  76. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I will be dead by the time I give a fuck.

    Unless your expected continued life span is less than 10 years I wouldn't count on that. And even 10 years might be too optimistic.

  77. Re:alarmist bullshit by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Just more bullshit, there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas, it's a failed theory that doesn't make sense at all. The additional warmth of the earth's surface is due to adiabatic compression of the atmosphereby gravity. This is why Venus' surface is much hotter; it has 90 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth.

    You can keep telling yourself that all you want to and it still won't make it true. If it was how could an air conditioner work? After all it compresses a gas to liquid form which causes it to heat up but then the heat energy is removed and when the liquid becomes a gas again it's cold enough to cool down your air.

  78. Re:I live in Norway. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    They come anyway. EU courts have consistently decided to make blocking entry at the border and moving illegals back to where they come from impossible legally. There are now numerous countries that tried and have been tried. On top of that EU hired shops hover not far away from the coast of Africa to bring whoever pass to international waters to Europe. Mostly these are young men in best military age and w/o any chance to get a proper job in Europe. We do not need massive natural catastrophe to have what you envisioned. But yes the problem from chronic will move to acute if the shit hits the fan.

  79. Re:I live in Norway. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    You mean we reached the end of the petri dish?

  80. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    Seems to me humans are just like Machiavelli described - ready to be the worst at any time. Evil conservatives will make life miserable for quite some - that is their nature. Some of them will support regimes that are not so democratic to say the least. The other side deteriorated to be marxists i.e. people ready to kill other people so that they cannot become evil. I wonder how we proceed from there. No discussion is possible with marxists. They just claim arguments against their views are invalid and their positions are non-negotiable anyway. We are still on the left swing - I wonder what happens when we reach the end of it? Will we have reeducation camps or we just lock automatically (google will help I am sure) bank and media accounts of evil people so that they die in elevators etc because they cannot open the doors with their now invalid cards etc.

  81. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing he means spaghetti and meatballs.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  82. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    Is that what science says? I am asking because from what I read about global warming (of whatever origin) that is not the case. We may have made it worse by multiplying w/o end. The bed news is that any process that involves for instance an ocean is slow. This does not mean the wind is slow but that the process is slow. But this also means that if we stop CO2 production then assuming that this is really the reason we have a problem in the first place the results of that may be visible in 50 or 100 years. Which kind of proves the comment of not giving a fuck. What you should do is to decrease population levels as humans living everywhere tend to be affected by a storm anywhere. What you could also do is build walls the way Dutch do it. It is unavoidable so you can just as well start now or start preparation to move all your stuff inland. Whining here about climate change because we had a warm summer is just silly as it is ineffective. It also has negative effect on people like me who were sympathetic but became annoyed by silly fucks running around and telling me that I should not drive diesel while they are traveling half the world for holidays with friends and family, 4 times a year. I used to go for a good steak, baked potatos, nice salad and a bottle of wine every time discussions became too heated to have an argument. We are now at a point where I cannot do it every time because I would have to my friendly restaurant every day. I just stopped caring.

  83. Re:Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you don't like Trump, get the fuck out of the US. You won't be missed.

    Did you say the same about Obama when Obama was president?

  84. Re: Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly what's happening, since all trees will be cut down for industrial processes, or wilt from lack of water.

  85. Re: Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, we're swinging left with a Republican lead in every major branch of gov't. Check your facts before spouting BS, please.

  86. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, man is special. The only species capable of breaking the planet eventually.

  87. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The left doesn't exist in this country. It's the moderate right versus the not-so-moderate right.

  88. Re:Who gives a fuck.. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    I will be dead by the time I give a fuck.

    That time is now. Are you dead already?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  89. Re:I live in Norway. by fedos · · Score: 1

    How many pianos would that be?

  90. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by fedos · · Score: 1

    I always find it weird to see you science deniers here.

  91. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Right and Christianity has an odd intersection with environmentalism. Humans are special. Humans are to have dominion over the earth. All of creation is a gift from God.

    Some Christians take the sad view this means the earth is ours we are free to do whatever we like.

    Some take the view the world is a gift and we must reverently preserve it as is.

    Finally there are those that take my view the world is a garden we were given to tend. We should treat it respectfully but we may mold it to our desires and our benefit. The way a gardener selects and shapes plants; the way a landscape architect forms the terrain. We had just better be sure not to abuse it not thru pridefully thinking we know best all the time and not thru neglect - The world has a purpose and to abuse it is sinful. Because of free will if we sin in that way we will bear the consequences for that sin.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  92. Re: And who consumes the shit that China manufactu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it hard to wake up and blame everything on straight white American males or does it just come naturally?

  93. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    under a "new world order" to quote a-hole George Bush (41).

    Get outta here, you voted for Bush!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  94. Dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Global warming: Is there anything it cannot do?

  95. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but in hindsight we should have.

  96. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.

    While I know basically nothing about you, do remember that people tend to respond in kind. Based on your chosen username, I'm guessing you have no problem telling others what you think of them. You see where I'm going with that?

  97. Re:I live in Norway. by jbengt · · Score: 1

    To be fair, it rarely gets up to 40C in Chicago (of course, the day my brother asked me to help him move it was 41C). Also, most years it gets colder than -20C a few nights, and has gotten as cold as -32C.

  98. Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God isn't real dipshit.

  99. Re:I live in Norway. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    You really sure you wanna ring that bell? Because when Norway is 30C all year round, that means that a good portion of the planet is going to be uninhabitable. So there will be billions of people, many of them with guns, who will come for their piece of Norway. And you can't stop them all, especially if the famous winter slog that caused the Russians so much trouble before isn't there any more. Some people think Scandanavia has african migrant problems now, if what you wish for comes to pass there'll be several hundred million migrants coming your way...

    Guess who will be wishing they had a wall then ;-)

  100. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >fuck all to do with the topic

    What was the topic again? Oh yeah, "stuck" weather patterns.

  101. Re:Thanks, Putin! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    It's garbage like this that makes me think an Internet License is required.

    Anyone under the age of 12 should not be allowed to post their political opinions.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  102. Re: And who consumes the shit that China manufact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's very easy on account of how many problems they are genuinely responsible for

  103. Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by houghi · · Score: 1

    If we are dumb, then God is dumb (and a little bit ugly on the side) -- Frank Zappa

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  104. Re: Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would help if you alarmist were ever right. Your tired 10 year predictions are laughable. Hell, you alamists have been beating that drum for 30 years already. LOL and you are completely oblivious to this fact.

  105. Heat is stored in oceans not atmosphere by huckamania · · Score: 1

    99% vs 1%

    It's sad to see the so-called scientists here on slashdot continuously ignore the most pertinent points. C02 is the albatross of the AGW movement and blinds people to the real causes of climate, which are extremely complex and cannot currently be modeled.

    1. Re:Heat is stored in oceans not atmosphere by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      99% vs 1%

      99% what, vs 1% what?

      It's sad to see the so-called scientists here on slashdot continuously ignore the most pertinent points.

      Still trying to see what you consider those points to be so I can judge their pertinence.

      C02 is the albatross of the AGW movement and blinds people to the real causes of climate, which are extremely complex and cannot currently be modeled.

      Ah, this is, I believe, a straw man.
      Nobody in their right mind would argue that CO2 is the "cause" of climate. Nor would they argue that the climate is truly able to be perfectly modeled.

      CO2 is, however, the cause of Earth being warmer than the difference between its solar input, it's ambient internal temperature, and its radiative output.
      Sure there are other atmospheric components that also affect that flux, but they all grind to a stop without CO2. CO2 is the driver.

      So really, you're Not Even Wrong

  106. same lie 4 times now, you really are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    show some evidence idiot...

  107. It's non-anthropogenicand and this a non-story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's non-anthropogenicand and this a non-story.

  108. pants on fire Windy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's clear you are the one and only true liar WindBourne.

  109. NEWSFLASH!!! by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    Summer weather causes ice to melt, and water to heat up, film at 11.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  110. Re: And who consumes the shit that China manufac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im streight and white but I,didnt do anything to anyone. I,didnt even vote. Leave me alone.

  111. Re: Thanks, Putin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd revoke you speech licence if I could you facist

  112. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > So there will be billions of people, many of them with guns, who will come for their piece of Norway.

    Right, Americans will swim over to Europe and spread their gospel of bullets.

  113. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

    I bet you can't even name 200.

    Challenge accepted.

    God
    Jehovah
    JHVH
    Allah
    Aakash
    Aditi
    Agni
    Anila
    Annapurna Devi Mata
    Anumati

    Anuradha
    Ap
    Apam Napat
    Aranyani
    Aravan
    Ardhanari
    Ardra
    Arjuna
    Aruna
    Arundhati

    Aryaman
    Ashapura-Mata no Madh
    Asura
    Asvayujau
    Aswiniis
    Ayyappan
    Ayyanar
    Ayya Vaikundar
    Bagalamukhi
    Bahuchara Mata

    Balarama
    Bhadra
    Bhadrakali
    Bhaga
    Bhairava
    Bhairavi
    Bharani
    Bharati
    Bhavani
    Bhishma

    "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." Slashdot's filter is racist. Continued in next post.

  114. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

    I bet you can't even name 200.

    Challenge accepted.

    Continued from previous post. Slashdot's filter is racist.

    So racist it's blocking even an additional list of ten names. So have a fucking Wikipedia link instead. There's more than 200 in the Hindu pantheon alone, nevermind the ancient Egyptian pantheon, Norse pantheon, Roman and Greek pantheons, Mayan pantheon, not to mention the DC and Marvel pantheons.

    The list of 200 would have had more impact... Fucking filters. My karma is Excellent, assholes. I should be exempt.

  115. Re:I live in Norway. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    The people anywhere in lower latitudes where it is 40C or higher will complain, and will likely move in mass migrations to places like Norway. Be careful what you wish for. Also at 30C year round, the elderly will be under heat stress and die more quickly. Maybe that appeals to you.

  116. Re:I live in Norway. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    No, the EU courts have not done any such thing. The EU courts have backed the requirement to follow the UN human rights regulations on refugees that European nations signed up to. In large part those regulations were drawn up by the USA and European nations after the mess of mass migrations at the end of the WW2 that led to up to 300,000 people dying. As I understand it Merkel is particularly sensitive to this, as her parents were some of those forced to migrate.

  117. Re: Who gives a fuck.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the climate has changed slightly faster than the projections made 30 years ago (Hansen et al), but have largely been spot on.

  118. Re:alarmist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An air conditioner works like this:

    Compress gas (work), its temperature and pressure and increases (adiabatic compression), then cool the gas back to it's original temperature (but higher pressure) using a radiator so it condenses into liquid, expand the gas to low pressure, the liquid evaporates inside an evaporative heat exchanger, absorbing energy.

    This is a thermodynamic cycle, I'm an engineer, I've spent years studying thermodynamics, I can calculate and design an air conditioner. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, no amount of telling yourself it's true will make it so.

    Greenhouse gas theory is bullshit, carbon dioxide does not form a blanket, there is no radiative greenhouse effect, period, it's pseudo science and you and many others have been fooled, wake up and educate yourself. It's claimed that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat back to the earths surface from the middle of the troposphere, how is that possible given the CO2 is much cooler than the surface it supposedly heats? Pseudo science. If air increases in temperature in the troposphere, it rises, given enough energy it rises up towards the stratosphere, the hotter the air the higher it goes, note that as it's expands, its pressure and temperature drops, but its entropy remains constant. The stratosphere has a higher entropy than the troposphere, so the air doesn't rise any higher, but higher entropy in the troposphere will push the stratosphere higher, for example the stratosphere is much higher at the equator than the poles.

  119. Re:alarmist bullshit by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    CO2 absorbs infrared photons then distributes most of that energy by collisions to other molecules in the atmosphere. Those molecules eventually give off IR photons in random directions so approximately half of them go back toward the surface of the Earth. So the total amount of energy impinging on the surface of the Earth is the part of sunlight that gets absorbed plus the IR energy from the atmosphere. In order for the temperature of the Earth to be at (a dynamic state of) equilibrium it has to emit as much energy as it has coming in. Increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will cause it to intercept more of the IR energy from the surface of the Earth. That will increase the IR energy emitted from the atmosphere including back toward the surface of the Earth. In order for the surface of the Earth to increase the energy it emits it has to heat up.

    So CO2 doesn't directly heat of the surface of the Earth, it just changes the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in such a way that a higher concentration in the atmosphere forces the surface to heat up (from absorbed sunlight) in order to reject enough energy to reach a new balance.

  120. Denmark needs nuclear power by blindseer · · Score: 1

    So Denmark has a large natural gas installed base (great for power when required) but rarely uses it (great for the environment). This means they don't need to go to the trouble of building nuclear, as they have it covered.

    Those windmills and natural gas plants will wear out, and likely new capacity will be needed as populations and standards of living grow, so they will need to build new power plants eventually. What should Denmark do then? Seems to me that choosing the safest energy source we have available to us today would be the wise choice.

    I could see an argument made to continue building windmills for power, as it is likely as low carbon and low cost as nuclear. Possibly just as safe as well. Replacing old natural gas with new natural gas though fails on several levels. Natural gas is not low CO2, it's not safe, and even if it is cheap there is still a case to be made to save on natural gas used for electricity and save that for heating or sale as exports.

    It's easy to find a number of natural gas rich nations that are building nuclear power plants. This is because in nearly every case natural gas use, for domestic heating and cooking as well as electrical generation, is increasing and by not burning that natural gas for electricity they avoid having to end up importing it. Even if a nation has plenty of natural gas this can be exported, or used domestically to displace higher CO2 petroleum liquid fuels for transportation.

    Denmark does not "have it covered". There will be a continual need for new power plants as the old ones wear out. They can replace them with more dangerous and higher CO2 sources like natural gas, or with far better nuclear. Europe as a whole is burning far too much coal and natural gas, and they have an international grid for electricity and natural gas. If Denmark builds nuclear power then they can help their neighbors in reducing their CO2 by exporting natural gas and electricity from nuclear to displace the coal and oil that's being burned now.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Denmark needs nuclear power by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Those windmills and natural gas plants will wear out,/p>

      So? They will replace them. Turbines in nuclear plants also wear out, and the cooling systems, etc. It's hardly unique to wind or natural gas. In fact if you are using turbine-based peaking plants, they are pretty simple and reliable.

      new capacity will be needed as populations and standards of living grow

      Denmark's population is pretty static, standards of living increasing don't always require lots of additional power.

      Natural gas is not low CO2

      It is compared to coal, and 7% of energy from natural gas is tiny, so it doesn't make very much difference if it is replaced with nuclear (which still has some CO2 footprint up until the point that uranium springs from the ground and refines itself). I think you are also confusing the overall CO2 footprint of natural gas, and the issue of leakage from reservoirs of it, which depends very much on the type of reservoir.

      If Denmark builds nuclear power then they can help their neighbors in reducing their CO2 by exporting natural gas and electricity from nuclear to displace the coal and oil that's being burned now.

      I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.

    2. Re:Denmark needs nuclear power by blindseer · · Score: 1

      So? They will replace them. Turbines in nuclear plants also wear out, and the cooling systems, etc. It's hardly unique to wind or natural gas. In fact if you are using turbine-based peaking plants, they are pretty simple and reliable.

      Yes, nuclear power plants wear out as well and when they do they should be replaced with new nuclear power plants. At least until something better comes along. Why would Denmark not want to replace worn out natural gas with something safer and with lower CO2 output?

      Denmark's population is pretty static, standards of living increasing don't always require lots of additional power.

      That's fine, I'll give you that. There is still a need for new power plants to replace the old.

      It is compared to coal, and 7% of energy from natural gas is tiny, so it doesn't make very much difference if it is replaced with nuclear (which still has some CO2 footprint up until the point that uranium springs from the ground and refines itself). I think you are also confusing the overall CO2 footprint of natural gas, and the issue of leakage from reservoirs of it, which depends very much on the type of reservoir.

      I do see that natural gas reduces CO2 output from coal by half. Nuclear power reduces that to near zero. Again, why use natural gas when there is an energy source that is safer, lower CO2, and just as cheap? It's not likely to completely replace natural gas for things like load following but it makes sense to reduce the natural gas, and certainly coal, burning as much as possible.

      I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.

      Well, let's see...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Coal power provided 48.0% of the electricity and 22.0% of the heat in district heating in Denmark in 2008; and in total provided 21.6% of total energy consumption (187 PJ out of 864 PJ).

      Official statistics estimate 231,000 residences heated by oil in 2014 (down from 328,000 in 2013), but only 87,000 actually purchased oil during 2014.

      Looks like Denmark could in fact displace a lot of coal and oil with nuclear and natural gas.

      https://www.worldenergy.org/da...

      As of 2014, Denmark only held 35 bcm of proved natural gas reserves. Denmarkâ(TM)s fields in the North Sea are mainly responsible for the countryâ(TM)s proved natural gas reserves and have allowed them to become a natural gas producer. Denmarkâ(TM)s natural gas production was only 4.6 bcm in 2014. However, their production level still plays an important role as it is sufficient to not only cover their domestic demand, but also allows for exportation as well. Denmark is self-sufficient in regards to natural gas as evidenced by their consumption level of 3.2 bcm in 2014. This self-sufficiency has aided Denmarkâ(TM)s energy security of supply.

      Denmark also is a net exporter of natural gas. The country currently exports natural gas through pipeline trade. In 2014, Denmark exported 2.1 bcm of pipeline natural gas to other European countries.

      The less natural gas Denmark burns the more they can sell to other European nations. They are already a net exporter and use of nuclear power can increase those exports and bring them greater income. Or, put another way, with their limited reserves of natural gas they may want to hold on to it as long as they can. Reducing domestic consumption can make this reserve last longer, perhaps to the point that some new technology for storage can come along to displace the need for natural gas for load matching.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Denmark needs nuclear power by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.

      Oh, and one more thing in addition to the sibling post...

      What I mean is that exported "clean" energy from Denmark can displace "dirty" energy that is produced by Denmark's neighbors, neighbors that burn a lot of oil and coal for heat and electricity. This means primarily Germany but there are wires and pipes to other nations for exporting electricity and natural gas. With Germany depending so much on domestic brown coal to get its power it would be best for everyone if Germany bought more nuclear power.

      By the way, Germany will have to also embrace nuclear power at some point or be left at the whimsy of the French with their nuclear power or the Russians with their natural gas.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Denmark needs nuclear power by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Why would Denmark not want to replace worn out natural gas with something safer and with lower CO2 output?

      Because they have a high start-up cost and energy providers don't want to spend that money in one go. It's easier, in terms of finance, to build simpler, cheaper, and more incremental gas plants.

      Nuclear power reduces that to near zero.

      It's lower than natural gas, but not zero, as the supply chain to obtain the fuel still uses fossil fuels to power it. If the entire supply chain didn't use fossil fuels, then that argument would be more convincing. And I am a firm believer at looking at all the inputs, and this applies to renewables too (e.g. the concrete and steel for a wind farm).

      Again, why use natural gas when there is an energy source that is safer, lower CO2, and just as cheap?

      The levelised costs of natural gas are lower in every assessment I've seen, and the finance for new plants is much easier to work out, and it is power companies that build them, not Denmark per se. If it really was cheaper, in terms of the operating costs and the cost of capital to build them, they would have been built already. Look at the UK where the government has had to pretty much beg someone to build on. Because it is a hugely capital-intensive operation, the cost of capital and the ability to attract finance is the killer as there are places with faster and better returns available if you have $1 billion of money to invest and burning a hole in your pocket. Part of the issue here is that investors build in a risk premium based on the chance of delay, and that is very likely for large projects.

      It's not likely to completely replace natural gas for things like load following but it makes sense to reduce the natural gas, and certainly coal, burning as much as possible.

      I am not sure how it breaks down for Denmark, but at 7%, that looks a lot like almost all of the natural gas power generation being load following, except that grid trading across borders might undermine that suggestion.

      I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.

      I wasn't aware that Denmark had any natural gas. I stand corrected, thankyou.

  121. We need hydro by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Hydroelectric power is a lot of things including the most dangerous of the non-fossil fuel power sources (except biofuel/biomass) due to just the immediate causalities from dam failures. That is 3 times more dangerous than solar, 9 times more dangerous than wind, and 16 times more dangerous than nuclear. Including casualties from long term effects like famine makes it several times more dangerous but that would apply to any dam whether power producing or not.

    You are looking at the global numbers to get such poor performance, which does not apply to US policy. In the USA hydro is exceedingly safe, beat out only by nuclear. For the USA hydro should absolutely be used. If not only because it is safe, low CO2, inexpensive, and generally a good performing energy source, there is the need to match the load which also applies globally. I'll get into details next.

    Even if we look at the global numbers on safety there is a very real need to keep using hydro power. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources, so something needs to back them up when they are not available, and even possibly provide storage when there is an excess. Nuclear power, at least the third generation water boiler styles being built today, do not load follow well and will need something to match the changing loads through the day. If there is no hydro to go with the wind, solar, and nuclear to match supply to demand then that means oil, natural gas, or perhaps bio-mass fuel. This is not a choice between hydro, wind, or solar. This is a choice between hydro, natural gas, or oil.

    If we are going to build out wind and solar to the point that there is an excess capacity with regularity, which inevitably comes with shortages, then there will be a need for storage to time shift the peaks to fill the valleys. I haven't seen any performance metrics on storage technologies except for price, and nothing is cheaper than pumped hydro storage. And no matter how you compute it, money saved is lives saved.

    Fourth generation nuclear promises to offer the capability to match supply to demand. If this comes true, and maintains it's safety and other benefits, then we need nothing more for electricity. That's not likely to come for at least a decade. Until then we should invest in hydro and current generation nuclear when and where we can.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  122. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    That and bacteria.

  123. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freshwater fish seem to be a loophole here.

  124. Why doesn't God show himself anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of the blemish upon his image those made in his image have become. He's like the parents too embarassed of their child to acknowledge them in public.

  125. Too many lies again WindBourne by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    You really are one dishonourable fucking asshole aren't you WindBourne.