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.
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...
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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.