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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
70s are great. Once it exceeds 80, especially with high humidity, it's just gross outside.
I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.
"Global Constipation"
Table-ized A.I.
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/
"...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
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.
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
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.
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.
Yay, no more winter. Summer forever.
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.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit.”
Why don't we burn all the straw men that keep getting thrown at us? They're carbon-neutral.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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
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!!!
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
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?
Venezuela lacks rusty old nuclear weapons.
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.
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.
I count less than 4 months to the flip-terms--er, mid-terms.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.
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.
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
If you burn the straw men all you'll get is hippies in a desert somewhere.
#DeleteFacebook
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
Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
s/certainty/uncertainty/;
s/flash/flesh/;
And again, fuck you very much.
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.
-
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
Since the CO2 effect is cumulative, a fair comparison would take into account past emissions as well as current ones.
And we'll see more and more places with humid 30+ C.
Everyone knows global warming is a hoax made up by the Chinese. The President said so.
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?
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?
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"?
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!!!
Yep. And them hippies and hippie wannabes are some pollution motherfuckers.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, come back when you have an actual, scientific ENGINEERING PLAN to combat it in a way that doesn't involve
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a great Nat Geo article about the Netherlands and the future (for everyone else) of farming.
https://www.nationalgeographic...
BlameBillCosby.com
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.
You mean we reached the end of the petri dish?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
How many pianos would that be?
I always find it weird to see you science deniers here.
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
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 ?
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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 ;-)
BOTH population and pollution per person matter.
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.
No.
That is a logically stupid proposition.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Summer weather causes ice to melt, and water to heat up, film at 11.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
That and bacteria.
Which scandals are you referring to specifically?
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.
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.
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.
Then make it 10 or 15, does not matter to me
Even half is an overestimate. 10 to 15 times is still absurd
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.
You really are one dishonourable fucking asshole aren't you WindBourne.