Slashdot Mirror
Startling New Research Finds Large Buildup of Heat in the Oceans, Suggesting a Faster Rate of Global Warming [Update] (washingtonpost.com)
The world's oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.
From a report: Over the past quarter-century, the Earth's oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth's atmosphere -- more than 8 times the world's energy consumption, year after year.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
And the second angel poured his bowl out into the sea, and it became red like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.
science deniers in ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ........
We were warned. Scientists told us this shit would happen, but fucking sheeple just had to believe what Republicans told them because they were white and by denying climate change, they could own the libs.
So now, fuck you. I'm living in a place that's going to be one of the last places to suffer with climate change and the rest of you over in Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Houston, Texas and all the shitholes that are going to suffer the most can eat shit and die. Your lives were forfeit anyway when you started voting Republican and eating oxycontin and KFC gravy bowls like your flabby disgrace of a president. We will all be better off when you're floating face down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Have a blessed day!
You are welcome on my lawn.
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
This basically tells you all you need to know about climate "science". The "scientific consensus" did not notice until now that one of the main things influencing climate, the oceans, absorbs _60%_ more energy. So in essence all the previous climate models will need to be thrown out because they can't possibly be anywhere near correct at predicting the future. The world's politicians, however, are already ready and willing to commit trillions of dollars of somebody else's money on the predictions made by the old models.
Go ahead and fix it.
Who cares?
Seriously, this is insane. We are losing the battle with AGW not because of far right extremists, but BOTH far left/right extremists.
Far righties, even in Eastern Europe, along with Trump combine with far left like CHina, and those claiming that China can continue to grow their coal emissions faster than what the west is cutting, are the ones to blame.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China is growing theirs by 250-300% over the next couple of years. This is a no-win situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why crash on the GOP? Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it. And their fear is not founded on science or logic. Just fear. There really is NO difference between the far left and right. Both hate science and logic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
These stories are so boring. I don't care what happens. We all know in our heart of hearts all this alarmist bullshit will never happen. The only purpose these stories serve is justify the government taking money from productive people and giving the money to parasite university frauds.
The warming of the ocean could be do to the undersea eruptions occurung under Antartica. You didn't think all the glaciers were melting just from Global Warming did you ?
Prove that global warming is real.
...when they say their findings were flawed.
This $hit is ridiculous.
Come for the tech discussion, stay for the climate change berating.
Here to pretend moderate ionizing radiation is "healthy" and the spent nuclear fuel problem is solved and BWR mk I reactors aren't brimming with danger and lack of safety revamp funding...
Seriously, windbourne tries to hijack every discussion on climate and pretend it's "the left's fault" because he's a dishonest faggot first and a nuclear engineer never-at-all.
Ad hominem in the first one already? No, that's not how it's played. First you have to make up some argument. Whether it's for or against climate change doesn't really matter, nobody's gonna read it anyway. Then you'll have someone react to it, then two or three more before someone derails it and goes of on a completely irrelevant tangent, and THEN you can come in with the ad hominems.
Stick to the script, please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or some other kind of hoax. Not real, I can tell you that.
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
Who really cares anymore, schmuck. Glad you're a sideline jerk though.
Reality - nothing will be done. Anyone who thinks it is reversible is a fool.
Good luck now to future generations. We tried, we failed. And then Trump was elected.
China, far left! I think you should reconsider that premise.
Juts plain Fuck You.
Hope you die, trapped in a burning car, squealing like the Communist Pig you are.
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit back, relax and watch the show.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dishonesty runs in faggots like Zorro, it can only be cured by hanging the faggot from his bitchlike neck until his worthless life is over and he stops lying for the first time.
And you think that AGW is not a problem?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Okay, what assumptions did they change, or what data did they throw out, in order to arrive at this conclusion? Or, did they invent some new data that they hadn't invented before?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I do, but plenty of people are still denying it.
Elvis has left the building.
Looks like we're pretty much fucked.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
The story just does not add up, except to basically scream to us we should be worried. Why should we trust someone with such an obvious fear based agenda?
Fear is not Science, and your attempt to help spread it is anti-Science as well. Shame on you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not taking a for or against stance but to quote the article "It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already"... That gives me no confidence that they had any sort of valid historic numbers to compare against.
Actually, there really is NOT a lot of ppl denying it. Yes, we have trolls here denying it, but in the Academia world, as well as in most of the political world, finally, in the real population, it is accepted that it is occurring and that we MUST do something about it.
So, you will NEVER get 100% of any large population that will agree on something.
I have no doubt that If we were invaded by aliens today, a number of religious fanatics would scream that it is god/allah/buddha/etc come back to take us to heaven. And they would say that while watching the rest of their family be eaten.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yet another article on how doomed we all are. How about some solutions? Here's one we should embrace, nuclear power. If nuclear power isn't in a national energy policy, along with wind and hydro, then I believe the policy makers don't believe what they are shoveling or have an unrealistic belief on the threats nuclear power pose. Much like how people choose to drive instead of fly because they saw a news report on a plane crash.
I've heard this term before, "global lukewarming". Perhaps this is how I should describe myself, a "global lukewarmer". This is the idea that global warming is happening, it's man made, but it will be mild enough that we have plenty of time to resolve the problem. If I'm right then we need nuclear power. If I'm wrong then we need nuclear power right now. There is no long term energy policy that does not include nuclear power any more. Hoping and wishing for wind, water, and solar power to save us is not an energy policy. That's just waiting at the port for a ship that might not come.
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more. I'm guessing it's a bit of both.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
With all their denials of global warming in 3 2 1...
From no less than the MasterBeraters at the WaPo.
These "Scientists" are finding "proof" of global warming like Democrats "find" ballots after they've come up short of the win.
If you are driving around in a fossil fuel vehicle, OR riding in said bus, then you are as much responsible for this as the GOP. In many cases, we do not have choices. That is why I continue to say that we need tax goods/services based on where the worst part comes from. However, you DO now have a choice on buying electric vs fossil fuel. But most here will not choose electric.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China...
Coal consumption in China has declined during the 2010s with its percentage in the energy mix falling from 80% in 2010 to 60% in 2017. Looks like they are on the right path. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree that nukes need to be a big part of the solution.
this dying planet already. We're being lead by a nation of morons.
Well let's take that bull by the horns. In 100 years we will push back from the oceans. Meanwhile technology will be unrecognizable and none of this will be any matter either way.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
it is accepted that it is occurring and that we MUST do something about it.
Really ? According to this recent interview, Trump doesn't think it's urgent at all. He wants to wait until it swings back again. In that case, we don't need nukes.
President Donald Trump is backing off his claim that climate change is a hoax but says he doesn’t know if it’s manmade and suggests that the climate will “change back again.”
In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said he doesn’t want to put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to climate change.
“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”
Now my counter argument. I happen to live in the Alps. They were always famous vacation resorts, and here, skiing and bobsleigh were invented. We have thus hundreds of printed pictures of well known regions like St. Moritz or Bad Ischgl dating back 250 years and photographs dating back 150 years and more, and we have the touristic and sport infrastructure built during the decades.
Thus we can tell from the pictures, from the buildings and the natural features like moraines, how far snow and ice have been in the 1700ies, the 1800ies, the 1900ies and today. And they all tell a consistent picture: Temperatures in the Alps have risen about 2.5 degrees Celsius since the 1700ies, and the end of the glaciers have retreated 750 height meters. Oetzi, the Similaun Man, an ice mummy more than 5000 years old, was only found recently, because the glacier on the Timmelsjoch, which covered the corpse, has tawed to a point where the mummy came back to the surface.
At least for the Alps, the climate development is definitely consistent with what the computer models tell us. Actually, it's more the reverse. The computer models are gauged with what we see in temperature sensitive regions like the mountaintops, where the extension of the glaciers is directly dependent on the recent average temperatures.
(And of course, daily temperature measurements started in the Early modern period, and thus, we have continuous climate protocols dating back until the first half of the 18th century. And of course, some of those early temperature stations were too close to buildings or inside towns, giving too high readouts for the local temperature. Later the stations were moved to more appropriate places, giving slightly lower readouts. And sometimes, the towns have grown around climate stations, making it necessary to move the stations.)
You people love to talk Civil War, but you forget that one side has all the guns and the other can't decide which restroom to use.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I suspect that if one were to audit the data and the process involved in coming to their conclusions, it would be found wanting at the very least.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
China is building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants capable of generating a total of 259 gigawatts (GW) of electricity—that’s equal to the entire existing U.S. coal fleet of around 266 GW, findings by advocacy and research group CoalSwarm show.
Seriously, this is insane. We are losing the battle with AGW not because of far right extremists, but BOTH far left/right extremists. Far righties, even in Eastern Europe, along with Trump combine with far left like CHina, and those claiming that China can continue to grow their coal emissions faster than what the west is cutting, are the ones to blame.
Just because a small group of idiots claim that it is not real, it not that big of an issue. America continues down the right path (so far).
The one path we need desperately is to restart out nuke industry. Trump is doing as little for it as O/W did (clinton was a disaster to nuke energy).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean like temperature measurements like at airports that have experienced large growth the past few decades? In high school, I helped maintain the weather station at my local airport. There was one runway, a tiny terminal, and no other buildings for over half a mile from the airport at that time. Now, there's three runways, two much larger terminals, and growth all around the airport on all sides. It's not shocking to see that there's been an almost half a degree rise in measured temperatures.
I wouldn't call it rejecting empirical data. It's more just cherry-picking data.
Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it.
The all powerful hippies are still crushing corporate America under their dirty Birkenstocks! Will hundred billion dollar energy companies never catch a break? Oh the humanity!
This is a fantasy that never dies, since it floats around without the least bit of evidence to support it (notice that Windbourne offers none).
The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment for capitalists, and without a lot of orders the industry has shriveled and become unreliable for those who do place orders. If you consult this handy industry webpage you will see that no fewer than eleven construction and operating licences for units have been approved since 2007, but of these seven have been withdrawn/cancelled, only two are still under constructions (the two Vogtle units) but which are way over budget (and in imminent danger of cancellation), and two more have yet to break ground. The DOE shares the costs of these license applications, and the U.S. government provides loan guarantees, as well as free insurance, yet no plants are being completed.
It isn't lawsuits, or protests, or public opinion, or "government regulations", bringing these projects down, it is hard-nose corporate bean counters pulling the plugs.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
We're fucked no matter what the Repulicans or anybody else does. Human breathing creates 0.9kg per day. The population of the earth is 7.7 billion, so just the lot of us stupid hairless monkeys running around breathing the air contributes 2.53 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This is the equivalent of about 1/4 of all of China's emissions (and they are the top emitter by far).
And this is before you think about having those 7.7 billion stupid humans eat stuff, heat their homes, fart, make more stupid humans, etc.
The only hope for the human race is that some disease comes along and wipes most of us out. There is nothing you or anybody else can do to save us and even our deaths create CO2 (bonus points if you go for cremation).
It's sad but it's true. If we want to save the earth we need to stop breeding like it's our right to procreate beyond control. But we have no fucking self-control at all so we won't. I for one am looking forward to seeing our Mad Max future. I want to be the guy with the flaming guitar.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
We should burn this denialist faggot sycodon in the barn his mother fucked horses in..
And just what side makes the guns and larger weapons?
My reading is that one of the biggest heat sinks we have is filling faster than we thought, reducing future ability to absorb heat.
So where was it laid out exactly at what point the ability to reduce heat is diminished?
They apparently did not know it could absorb heat as fast as it is, so why would you think anyone has a handle on what the reduction of absorption would be at various temperatures, or if there is a limit?
The only thing known is that the ocean is acting to absorb a lot more heat than they thought before, so presumably it will for some time to come as well. All of that excess absorption is a bonus as humanity greatly accelerates the uptake of solar power and other clean forms of power (like nuclear), probably reducing to some degree the maximum temperature increase we'll see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What is Winter Sunlight?
I used to care. The older I got, the more I realized that people WILL believe what they want to believe. They won't be convinced. They will come up with amazing, overcomplicated stories for how their version of reality is actually reality. They will believe that zaniness without proof over a simpler explanation with proof. Because we will believe in the conclusions we want to be true and then work backwards to cherry pick evidence, discount any non-supporting evidence, and engage in personal attacks on anyone who argues differently. I got tired of it. It's too draining. Too few want to honestly exchange ideas. We just want to sit in our tribes.
I agree with you for the most part on this subject but this is seriously understating things. Without some huge technological breakthroughs, many of the countries on the planet would have to massively change their lifestyles and have a much lower quality of life. That's never going to happen, especially under capitalist and democratic political systems.
Do you have something to refute or are you blowing a lot of hot air again?
Even though you don't like reality doesn't mean you get to assert alternate "facts".
Pentagon is still preparing for global warming even though Trump said to stop
Climate change threatens half of US bases worldwide, Pentagon report finds
The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration
That last one shows how an ill-informed leadership can steer misinformation to suit a political message, even at the risk of our national defense.
Here to pretend moderate ionizing radiation is "healthy" and the spent nuclear fuel problem is solved and BWR mk I reactors aren't brimming with danger and lack of safety revamp funding...
Seriously, windbourne tries to hijack every discussion on climate and pretend it's "the left's fault" because he's a dishonest faggot first and a nuclear engineer never-at-all!
I can't read the article, pay wall, but this quote seems to indicate what you are saying:.
2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness.
So they rejected the not only the previous findings, but all other methods of measurements. All of this makes it seem it is really hard to get reliable temperature measurements. I mean we really only learned how in 2007.
No, you don't have to do that.
There. Argument started, emacs user.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Heh, this Republican meth faggot never served, can't fight, and thinks he can go up against the US LEO. Shoot this obese treasonous faggot. Send the hide to the NRA to be stuffed and put on display as a warning.
Treasonous nazi cowards get the rope. Mueller is going to tie it for the poor inbred bastards. You're too fucking stupid to live, now you die.
https://thenib.com/mister-gotc...
I guess this means that we're completely fucked now. The worst case Methane release mass extinction event is more likely than ever.
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
To agree on a solution does not mean all must agree on the problem. Nuclear power is a solution to a lot of problems.
You want to get rid of all that dangerous plutonium we've piled up from the Cold War? Megatons to Megawatts isn't just a good idea to get rid of old Soviet weapons, it's a good idea to get rid of our own.
You want to see the USA be more energy independent? As a nation we import a lot of natural gas for electricity and heating, if we had more nuclear power then we wouldn't have to import so much. Hawaii and Puerto Rico still burn a lot of oil for electricity, get them some nuclear power and it will reduce our dependence on imported petroleum as well.
You want cleaner air? Sure would be nice to have more nuclear power so we aren't burning so much coal. (And oil.)
Are water prices too high for your tastes? If we had some nuclear power on the coasts then we could desalinate water cheaply, day and night.
Does the threat of war in the Middle East look like a threat to the nation's ability to fuel our military to you? Maybe Congress should get the US Navy and Coast Guard those nuclear powered ships they've been asking for. Nuclear power isn't just for carriers and submarines. We had nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers before, perhaps it's time to build them again. Icebreakers and amphibious assault ships would be excellent platforms for nuclear power as well. Oh, and the US Navy has been working on a seawater-to-jetfuel program for some time now, maybe Congress could put some money towards that. If it works well for the Navy then maybe we could see if it can work commercially as an alternative to petroleum on the open market.
There, I just gave five good reasons to deploy nuclear power in the USA. Add global warming to the list and it's a half dozen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I guess you can believe what you want and most people do, very few actually dig through the numbers themselves.
Of course you can believe what you want, but personally I'd like anthropogenic warming to be wrong. Unfortunately, it's the best-supported position at present.
I have seen more scientists of late who early on said climate change was real are now very skeptical if not completely convinced its not a issue.
Oh, really? Who?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Try again:
"Green house gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, from months to millennia, and affect the climate on very different timescales."
"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years." https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Nuclear power is a solution to nothing, at least in the United States' commercial environment. It inevitably takes far longer than expected to come on line and then is unreliable and expensive when it does. What is needed is to focus on immediate, practical solutions like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal instead of having another distracting political debate over past failures.
Or there will be so few people due to war, that the land mass left is sufficient enough for the couple million people left.
If humans won't address overpopulation, nature will do it for us.
Is this simple as, planet warms up, crops cannot grow, animal stock starve, people starve, and people die. If enough people die, this reduces the amount of pollutants and eventually the temperature cools down. It might be a rocky few centuries for humanity, but I expect a few will survive in pockets on basic food like rodents and bugs.
Basically, yes. A lot of hippies think that we're destroying "Mother Earth" with Climate Change. No, the planet doesn't care, and it will recover from it just fine. Humans are the ones that are going to be completely fucked. We don't need to fix the problem to save the planet, we need to fix the problem to save our own asses.
Climate change was the original term from the 1950s when the area first started to attract funding, and has been the main term in the literature throughout.
Not making the point you think you are. CO2 levels started to move in about 1900. You point out that temperatures in the Alps have been going up for 200 years prior.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Do you chafe at the idea that other people are smarter than you? Making up nonsense about the temperature record has zero chance of disproving AGW. You don't understand the evidence, therefore you don't understand what is or is not an argument against it. Go read about CO2 in the upper atmosphere. AGW is settled science.
Quote: "The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment..."
Humans have shown that they cannot manage nuclear power in a safe manner. One example: Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds (March 29, 2018)
What ridiculous propaganda. Global warming will thaw out far more new farmland in Canada and Siberia than it will scorch in the current temperate zone. Yes there will be economic and political impacts, but this science-fiction panic mongering just makes the Global Warming crowd look like nutjobs. When people doubt your predictions , and you respond by trying to persuade them with even more shrill notes, they just put their hands over their ears.
Climate Science is probably the only Science that rejects empirical data for data ginned up on computers.
Quite the opposite. Climate Science has generated the single most scrutinized set of datum from temperature sensors around the world resulting in an ever increasing accuracy as faults are calibrated out.
But it's easier to say "science bad" than it is to actually read how and why data sets get compensated. I mean if you tried to do the latter you'd actually have to come up with a basis for your argument. "science bad" is just easier.
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
Burning wood is a carbon neutral activity as long as you plant new trees to replace the ones you burn because that is a closed cycle. Pumping up billions of tons of sequestered carbon and releasing them into the atmosphere is not a closed cycle and if you are de-sequestering carbon at a scale that is on par with the carbon release that caused the great permian extinction you have a really serious problem. As for: "Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products." there is only one answer to that which is: "Well DUUUUUUHHHH!". Claiming that somebody is not allowed to comment on the folly of excessive carbon fuel use because they use them for lack of an alternative is like saying that you aren't entitled to criticise the navigational skills of your captain because you happen to be a passenger on a ship that is heading straight for an iceberg. Fortunately it is beginning to look as if the problem of petroleum product use will largely solve it self by the simple mechanism of petroleum products becoming an obsolete technology that is being economically outcompeted by renewable alternatives. One is only left to hope it is not too late. Now please go back to sorting your collection of MAGA hats and let the grownups work on sovling this problem in peace.
Statistical liar!
% of total is a stupid metric. China went from 3,200 TWh to to 3900 TWh from coal in that period.
Chinese self reported numbers so take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you had two working brain cells, you'd have replaced yourself with a really stupid bot by now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right" - yeah, that's not gonna help your case much, Mr. Scientist. (And before you start downmodding me for being OMG TEH DENIERZ!!!1, I'm not a denier. However, that statement makes me veeeerrrrry suspicious of the findings.)
Nope. The industrial revolution started way before 1900.
Please try again.
Prior to the Argo buoy deployment starting about 15 years ago and reaching good coverage about 10 years ago the global data were incredibly sparse and of low quality (subject to all sorts of sampling errors), relying principally on ship engine water intake temperature recordings with a lot of variability and error sources. There is no amount of post processing that can fix that, so to claim some great new improvement for data going back 10 years before the Argo system was commissioned is, to be very kind, optimistic. It should be viewed very skeptically (as should all ocean temp data pre-Argo), you can't fix bad data.
Since the highly accurate Argo system has been in place the ocean warming has been warming at about 0.3C per century in the upper 2000m of ocean, setting tight bounds on the total energy being accumulated by warming globally, and no-one on any side of the debate is going to argue with the data it produces, nor find ways to 'reinterpret it' to fit their biases.
I would think the increased ocean temps mean an increase in hurricane strengths
The actual absolute amount of temperature increase of the water is negligible, so it won't really affect hurricane/cyclone strengths.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The left don't want to solve anyything. They want to fuck things up and blame it on someone so folks are at each others throats and ready to fight.
How can this be? What trickery is this?!
"And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants."
built-in karma:
the more kids you had the more it made the problem worse and the more your many kids will suffer
No what's settled is that you're a twat.
When did he "point out" any such thing? He said there are temperature records, but he never said those show an increase in the distant past. You just made that up because you're a liar grasping at straws. Perhaps those records show a relatively flat temperature from 1700's until the industrial era? Maybe you could even look those up like I just did, if you weren't a lazy piece of shit.
If the science is settled, I guess it's time to stop all funding into it, right?
This is called "urban heat island effect" and Watt's Up With That research has conclusively proven that it's being corrected for correctly and it's not affecting the measurements.
CO2 emissions over time aren't a secret. Check your facts.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Strange how the most prominent areas of warming in the recent instrumental record are in the Arctic and Siberia.
Yes, the point is using higher quality measurements with wider coverage and less systematic bias.
They also used atmospheric CO2 and O2 measurements at a high precision and by physical chemistry means could estimate the heat because of the known change of solubility with temperature. The estimates from the methods matched. This is entirely different and physically integrates over the planet.
It's hard to get temperature measurements of an ocean because it's very large and deep and there are no human installations there, unlike on the surface, or in the atmosphere which is quite substantially probed by balloons and satellites. So if this is a criticism of atmospheric and surface temperature records, it doesn't work.
Measuring temperature at a point isn't the problem, it's getting the instruments there to sample something as big as the Earth.
There are almost a thousand balloons released every 12 hours over the planet gathering data and this has been happening for decades.
No it isn't.
Fully capitalist private utilities turned them off because they didn't want to pay for the maintenance, and their parent companies make money from natural gas pipelines and generation.
Germany's a different story perhaps, and completely wrong.
Climate scientists aren't uniformly against nuclear power either, and mostly support it as an interim necessity to make through the next 100 years.
You didn't see what else they did. They used high precision measurements of CO2 and O2 from the atmosphere. (Burning carbon moves the O2 around but the net amount of oxygen stays fixed). With this and knowledge of the properties of water and solubility vs temperature you can get information about the heat content deltas from a physically distinct measurement.
It's very impressive.
And yes, there are samples of the atmosphere going back many years stored in sealed tanks. I've seen them personally. This means you can measure all of them using the same calibrated instrument.
If someone falls of a roof that is not called a solar death.
I think confirmed deaths from Fukushimas is about 1. Plus maybe a dozen more statistical deaths. The tsunami killed thousands.
And that is the point. Nobody talks about the tsunami. The reactor is considered to have been far more dangerous than the ocean, even though the facts are quite different.
This makes nuclear untenable. Safety issues are over blown. Nobody is going to shut down the solar industry because someone falls off a roof. But think about what happens to nuclear investment if even one person dies.
Likewise the nuclear waste. It is a major issue precisely because it contains those two words, "nuclear" and "waste". Perceptions are reality.
So let's hope the price of solar falls before the globe cooks.
This is the same trick as with the tropospheric hotspot, heres the process:
1) AGW theory predicts a measurable phenomenon; for example either the existence of a tropospheric hotspot , or ocean warming
2) Measurements show the predicted phenomenon doesn't exist ( Hadley Centre’s radiosondes for the hotspot / Argo buoys for ocean warming)
(Real science)
3) Theory is falsified, abandon or adjust the theory and start again
4) Science!
(Pathological pseudo-science)
3) Earth system scientists ignore the measurements and proceed to cobble together a proxy (wind speed, atmospheric gas concentrations)
4) Torture the proxy model until it agrees with the AGW prediction
5) Claim victory
Humans have only got a couple of generations left at most anyway.
If you are driving around in a fossil fuel vehicle, OR riding in said bus, then you are as much responsible for this as the GOP
Not really. The GOP and media sympathetic to them have been willfully spreading FUD about climate change since it was a thing. Most ordinary people don't have a choice and do have to take the bus, heat their homes, etc. because it's just the way society works. Willfully deceiving people for power and profit on the other hand is on a different level entirely.
Oh nos
World am endin
Nuclear power's higher costs may indeed make it uncompetitive with power from fossil fuel (and some of those higher cost are due to endless litigation by opposing environmentalists, at least in the U.S.). But if we have very little time to sharply cut CO2 emissions, ten years according to the IPCC, then we need to at least keep running the nuclear power plants we already have, even if the cost is higher. There is no way we can develop and bring on line enough renewable power to eliminate fossil fuel use in that time frame, and as long as we depend on some fossil fuel, shutting any nuclear plant results in a lot more CO2 emissions. Why aren't environmentalists demanding a moratorium on closing nuclear plants?
This is an elementary mistake.
Humans and other animals breathing CO2 is not contributing to global warming, because that carbon came from plants and animals. That was all in the biosphere and oscillated from land and ocean to air through global ecology.
The problem is the burning of fossil fuels, which were fossilized and buried underground for far longer than dozens of ice age cycles.
More humans are problems because they use fossil fuels, not because of their breathing.
Nuclear energy hasn't replaced fossil fuels because it is massively more expensive than fossil fuels, especially in the USA where wild mismanagement and corruption in large construction projects is so prevalent. This is well quantified, to the point that it was covered in detail in a course on water management that I took a couple of years ago. The studies were on the building of dams. It turns out that small really is beautiful.
Besides, no new construction of nuclear power plants has happened since the 70s. One of the last two NPPs to go into production took 9 years after construction was complete. The other took 23 years from ground-breaking to commercial production. To investors, that is a huge risk. When compared to combined cycle natural gas fired electrical generation and, more recently, wind and solar generation, nuclear just isn't a good option.
Clearly, this isn't a partisan issue as both parties have had power many times since the 70s.
Not following you. The biosphere you speak of has, at any given time, a finite capacity for transforming CO2 and Oxygen to each other. If I put you in a plastic bag with a houseplant you could both, in theory, survive, but because your ability to convert Oxygen to CO2 is greater than the ability of the houseplant to convert your CO2 to Oxygen, you would eventually pass out.
You can't discount any source of CO2 in this biosphere because of where you think it came from. The problem is that CO2 generators are eclipsing CO2 sinks and human breathing is part of the generator.
Fossil fuels are part of the problem because they use to be CO2 sinks. Until we dragged them out of the ground and burnt them to turn them into CO2 generators.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
The only kind of the exchange of ideas most people are interested in is the exchange of another one's ideas with their own.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you cock-smoking teabagger
I think there are places where you can have honest, open dialogues with most people: person to person. Not at a rally, not at a big gathering or even a big party. Maybe not even at a bar. Just two people honestly trying to figure each other out. It's a hell of a lot harder to demonize someone in that sort of a setting; you have to really ACTIVELY work at it, while if we don't have that personal contact, it's very easy. Forget the Internet. The Internet sucks for exchanges of ideas and debates. How optimistic and wrong about it I used to be!
There are two interpretations of that:
1) He has more than two, so of course he won't.
2) He only has two.
I'm thinking that latter applies to parent, not parent's parent.
And Todayâ(TM)s global warming story is... and tomorrow, a shocking story of the demise of the wooly mammoth!!!
These cyclic population adaptions only appear up to a certain growth rate. Above that, these systems become chaotic. In chaotic or very strong cyclic systems, the population of a species can hit the number zero, from which there is no recovery. This has been observed for many species in the wild.
No.
Unless you believe that the earlier explorers were capable of competent temperature measurement, because the early readings have been adjusted down (for a number of reasons, which seem to be difficult to rationalise as 'stations put too close to hot towns').
If you believe those initial exporers were able to read a thermometer accurately, then no, they have hardly moved.
The point was about data record, wasn't it? Then this is a reasonable example of a good one (historically).
Ezekiel 23:20
The world will go on. We won't.
I'm ok with that. Evolution will come up with a new species at the top of the food chain and the process will repeat.
We're too fucking stupid to survive. My recommendation to the next species: don't try to protect the stupid fucking members of your species. Let them die. Don't put safety caps on anything. Don't safety label anything. Don't tell people not to eat Tide Pods. Fuck em. This is how natural selection is supposed to work.
I can't see behind the paywall, but using atmospheric measurements to infer processes that are occurring in water that typically won't touch the atmosphere for 100's-1000's of years, and in which diffusion processes are very slow, seems again, extremely optimistic. Looking at sea level rise for the thermosteric (expansion) portion would be more likely to yield useful data on heating, if the net rate of ground water abstraction and ice cap melt were known, but sea level rise has been remarkably consistent for the last hundred years, so would tend to indicate no significant increase in warming rate (compared to what is seen in recently available ARGO data).
Not making the point you think you are. CO2 levels started to move in about 1900. You point out that temperatures in the Alps have been going up for 200 years prior.
Bzzzt, wrong interpretation.
Temperatures in the Alps have risen about 2.5 degrees Celsius since the 1700ies
The temp has risen by 2.5 degrees C between when they started recording it in the 1700s and now. There was no delineation as to how much of that occurred before the industrial revolution and how much after - that was your own datapoint. Heck, it could have dropped by 10C until 1999 and then bounced up by 12.5C, and his statement would still be correct.
I thought this was a site for tech news?
DO now have a choice on buying electric vs fossil fuel. But most here will not choose electric.
It's much worse than that. Buying electric won't help - that power still has to be generated somewhere, and building those vehicles in the first place is very far from carbon-neutral. The real answer is to walk, or ride a bike (or skateboard, or whatever). And don't buy a new bike, use a second-hand one from somewhere. And if you live so far from your workplace that you can't, then move.
Ok, you did the "don't read what the parent posts", but you're still two postings too early for the derailing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yup, that's how it's done. Pointless argument, ridiculous counter argument, derailing, ad hominem... classic progress maintained.
I'm proud of you, guys.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
would you debate with what applied pressure it was safe to poke the gorilla
Yes because if the gorilla is our only source of food I would say you are not poking nearly hard enough, given that you have a brief advantage.
You would be starved or dead while I would take decisive action and we'd all still be alive. Because I took the whole context into account while you ignore everything else going on, and only see the gorilla in the cave.
Pretty sure Plato could get a new book out of that were he alive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This troll ac doesn't understand the Post is just reporting what Science is finding.
Get up!
The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment for capitalists, and without a lot of orders the industry has shriveled and become unreliable for those who do place orders.
Hmmm.
Lets see. unsubsidized Nuclear power cost $33 / MWh, on average. And when I consult your handy industry webpage, we see that wind gets a $23 MWh subsidy from the feds (and in some states, even more), which brings their $40-50 MWh down to $17-27 / MWh. It is hard for a clean nuke plant to compete with that.
However, if we were to NOT pick winners, but instead say that anything that is clean energy (in terms of emissions) gets a subsidy, then Nukes would get the same 23/MWh, making them be $10 / MWh. I suspect that at that time, Nuke would win over everything, except for geo-thermal and hydro.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
LOL
I wish that ppl would quit repeating such BS.
First off, 40% of the electricity in America is CLEAN. i.e. it comes from Nukes, wind, hydro, bio, solar, geo-thermal, and does not add to the CO2/CH4 issues.
Secondly, 30+% comes from Nat Gas, which is VERY clean. That leaves us with less than 30% from coal, and by the end of this year, it should be around 27%.
With that, it means that EVs running around AMerica will be very clean. Now, as to the manufacturing of it, Tesla is now using Solar to power making their cells, batteries, and motors. It is doing it day/night. So, how clean is it? Far far cleaner than any ICE out there. We need ppl to move to EVs, and for gov/businesses to move to not only EVs, but also to move electricity over to clean energy (nukes, wind, hydro, biol, solar, geo-thermal, etc).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Good points about the deceiving ppl. BUT, again, that is not just the GOP. Look at China.
In fact, look at most govs. For example, France was claiming that trees were being put in for them over in eastern europe. Yet, it was known by them that it was not happening.
So, deception continues by most govs, and we all need to deal with that.
That is why I want to see us put an increasing tax on consumed goods/services based on where the worst part/service comes from. That would solve many issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Look up the definition ... that's what our oceans are. We are all fu#ked and your emotional arguments won't change that.
Yeah, it basically doesn't matter. There is no way we are going to do what is necessary to get back to 350ppm in the atmosphere, which is the safe level to avoid a runaway climate scenario. So the warming is coming, and New York will be under water.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, you still need more studies to continue scaring people into doing something. You know how it is, if the headlines stop people will naively assume the problem has gone away and roll back all the progress. But it would be cool if we could stop arguing about whether global warming is real or not, or whether animals are going extinct because of us or not, and just start being responsible for our planet.
Yup, it got warmer since the Little Ice Age. Glad you noticed.
If climate change wqs real, i would have expected to see a major US base take major damage during a storm by now. A hangar or two would lose a chunk of roof, some planes would have been damaged, and a billion dollars would be needed to fix it.
The hurricane that hit Florida a month ago and already did that doesn't count... Because... Reasons.
Why crash on the GOP? Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it. And their fear is not founded on science or logic. Just fear. There really is NO difference between the far left and right. Both hate science and logic.
The left are not blocking nuclear power (not that some of the don't try to). The Obama administration approved the building of four nuclear plants two of which got cancelled because of cost overruns and two of which are still being built at nearly 4 times their original cost. The problem is the financial industry won't touch them without massive government loan guarantees. Fix the problem of building them on time and on budget (with maybe 25% wiggle room) and you might see some more action. But they still have to compete on the cost of the electricity they produce with natural gas, solar and wind which is difficult.
Uh, recall that in addition to having a disastrous safety record, there is no US solution to the nuke waste problem, + nuke power is so high-cost that even new approved Nplants are being scrapped voluntarily by utilities like Duke Power. You evidently like your âoesymmetrical extremesâ theory so much you hv failed to examine the facts..
It's much worse than that. Buying electric won't help - that power still has to be generated somewhere, and building those vehicles in the first place is very far from carbon-neutral. The real answer is to walk, or ride a bike (or skateboard, or whatever). And don't buy a new bike, use a second-hand one from somewhere. And if you live so far from your workplace that you can't, then move.
In the USA we have an infrastructure largely built around the automobile. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Keep working for the change you believe in but don't expect it to change at the rate you think it should. It just ain't going to happen.
In the meantime electric vehicles do help. Even if they draw their charge from a coal plant. The coal plant is something like 30% more efficient than an ICE automobile. And the grid is gradually getting more carbon free. I expect the rate of adding non-carbon power sources to the grid to increase in the future as they get cheaper and the effects of AGW become more and more obvious.
You are such a liar Windy. You always hand wave away the fact Americans just use way more electricity than everyone else. Even if they are 40% clean (haha liar) they still use at least twice the electricity as most places. So a country that is only 20% clean would be exactly as polluting.
60% dirty and twice as much use as similar countries makes you very dirty.
Anthropogenic global warming is one of the causes of climate change. In fact it appears to be the main driver of climate change at the current time.
You are just a regular liar, coal peaked in China in 2011.
And is now warmer than the medieval warm period.
BEST took the urban stations out in its studies. The warming trend is stronger without them.
I believe the GP is talking about more recent measurements, over the last 40 years, including satelites. They show a much faster warming rate in the polar regions than the equator.
It will take at least several hundred years for thawed out permafrost to become suitable for agriculture.
In the UK wind now does not get subsidy from the state, but nuclear does via a high strike price. The issue, though, is that nuclear plants are large, capital-intensive projects which can only be productive when all elements are built, so it adds significant risk. A wind farm still works if you only end up building half the turbines. So capital demands an additional premium on the risk of non-completion, delays, etc for nuclear which it doesn't for a wind farm, which makes the finance more difficult to obtain.
Your lies are just getting worse and worse. Have you given up on trying to hide them now?
300% in a couple years? You are so full of shit.
Quit it with nuclear already, please. It is not cost effective. It only exists because it was a neat 60ies techno-romantic pipe-dream and we've dumped obscene amounts of tax-payers money into it.
The reactors don't last nearly as long as people thought they, they're constantly faulty, cost bizar amounts of money and need to run for decades without a hitch to barely cover their own costs. One company with big hopes on travelling wave and new microstructure just went bankrupt a few months ago, scraping their entire idea because it apparently doesn't work in a feasible way either. Germany is exciting fission as we speak and even the French are starting to have second thoughts and they used to jerk off to pictures of the Catenom reactor complex.
Nuclear Fission does one thing well: put massive amounts of distribution power into the hands of a few and burdening the rest with risks, costs and a huge waste problem. And that's about it.
Nuclear fission isn't cost-effective and the fastest we're out, the better. So please quit the nuclear hype. It's out and over. Big time.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Shut up, n1gger fqggot!
Since they DEFINITELY admit climate changes. Funny in a stupid monstrous way how you fuckwits insist that your denial isn't because "you accept climate CHANGES!!!" yet you 100% love to insist that unless someone says its all a catastrophe they are deniers.
You are a moron. Nothing better.
Earth Last. Lead by example and repeat before hitting the destruct button.
Over those decades the AGW would have increased temperatures by less than 0.1C. Meanwhile the solar constant changes over a decade could be as high as 0.3C 5% of the time, wiping out that change.
But there's a 0% chance of it being 1C from the solar constant because the sun is generally cooling, so the cycle cannot go much beyond that 0.3C, whilst CO2 can go well above 2.
You're a fucking idiot.
There's fuck all way to turn AGW into a power grab that works any better than "terrorism" or "globalism" or even "scientists are all in a huge conspiracy to create a NWO and take our guns and give all our stuff to the third world".
Guess which alarmism YOU are completely swallowing there...
Well when we see any scientists or acolytes thereof claiming scientists are infallible, we'll point them to your post telling them off. But until then, we will ignore your imaginary targets. Now, what do you say to the morons who insist scientists get things wrong all the time about climate? Surely you must be disbelieving them about this too, right? Or do you only disbelieve them when you feel like they aren't saying what you prefer?
If when you're informed of the situation you call it "scaring people", then this is clearly what you think of information.
You vote trump, don't you? Or would if you were a merkin.
IF your proposition is "it's too late, ignore it", then end it now, rightly. And find everyone else who thinks like that and do likewise to them.
Meanwhile the only option that you can do is counter the fuckwits who want to not merely not do anything but stymie the work of anyone who does. AGW deniers.
Wow, I never knew Carter was a Republican. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read up on his energy policy during the energy crisis of the 70s.
No, we are not paying a carbon tax. I don't care if the planet heats up to 200 degrees, I am not paying a carbon tax to a bunch of asshats in Washington DC to turn around and waste by spending on other projects.
If government was serious about climate change they would...
1. Require all new factories built to be 100% green.
2. Reduce or eliminate all permit fees for building a Windmill or a permit. Currently you can expect to pay as much as $6,000 just for the permit.
3. Stop restricting the collection of rain water. For every gallon a person collect, that is 1 gallon that doesn't have to go through a water treatment plant, or be pumped through pipes which requires more grenhouse gasses.
4. Stop restrictions on people growing gardens.
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't a big chunk of nuclear energy simply shifting when and where energy is used? Lots of energy input on mining and refining, followed by later release of energy when the nuclear fuel is used.
fencepost
just a little off
Not concerned that it's getting warmer, just concerned that it's getting warmer 100x faster than the 2nd fastest warming event, which was a pan-extinction event. The fastest warming event is happening right now.
There's no evidence that another intelligent species exists in the observable universe. Humans may be the only hope of life surviving past Earth perishing a few billion years from now when the Sun destroys it. Maybe life doesn't deserve to survive. If that's the case, lets jump past all of the guessing and just purposefully make the Earth uninhabitable. Screw life in all of its forms, it deserves to die.
undoing an accidental flamebait moderation by posting.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Kevin and his missing heat back again? Please.
You sound like a swell fellow
First off, new ICE cars will probably stop selling in about 2 more years. Certainly the luxury versions will because rich ppl will not want to put down 80K and in 2 years, have it be worth 10K. They are not stupid.
Secondly, once Tesla, possibly ravain, is out with a pick-up truck, it will rather quickly kill the new gas/diesel trucks sales. Anybody that is buying them for the 'cool' look, will likely pick up the cheaper vehicle. Anybody buying them for a working vehicle will pick up the EV because they will out do any gas/diesel vehicles in terms of torque.
Finally, while the absolutely NEW coal plants coming out of Japan and China are some 50% efficient, those are STILL dirty as hell, and remain high CO2 emitters. There is no possible way to get coal to being low co2 emitters / kwh. And in American, all but a FEW of the coal units, are pretty inefficient. Most were built before 2000, and at that time, we ran some 35% and under efficiency on these. The simple fact is, that nat gas is much much cleaner than GAS/ICE, which is actually cleaner than coal. If our grid was 100% based on the coal plants from China, it would still emit more pollution AND CO2 than the ICE vehicles. The reasons is that gas has a narrow range of hydro-carbon chains, so it is easy to get the O2 mixture right. In fact, a big reason why nat gas is SO clean is that 95-99% of the burning is done with CH4, which has 2 more H2/C, but also the fact that it is so high concentration of 1 element; CH4. Gasoline is something like C4-C13. Coal runs the gamot from C5-C50+ and are x-linked with double and sometimes triple bonds. You can not get that decently mixed.
There is 1 way to get 'cleaner' energy out of coal, and that is by first converting to methane, and then burning it. Problem is, that you get all the CO2, and have you have energy lost in the system. China stole the tech from an American company, but rather than bury the extra CO2, or even use it in chemical compounds, they are dumping it into the air. IOW, they will dump more CO2 to the air.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The study did NOT find a greater buildup of heat in the oceans. What it found was that some measurements of O_2 and CO_2 in the ATMOSPHERE probably imply that the oceans must be slightly hotter (0.83C iirc) than previously thought, based on other measurements. This study is not dispositive.
You're a disgrace to your user number. /. posters are usually more scientific and reasoned. You come across like you registered last week. And even if that was true it would still be a very poor troll.
Older
If climate change wqs real, i would have expected to see a major US base take major damage during a storm by now.
So why are you ignoring the damage to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida? Luckily no F-22s were in the structures that took damaged, at $300m a pop it would be easy to hit a billion in damages.
The hurricane that hit Florida a month ago and already did that doesn't count... Because... Reasons.
Wouldn't it be better to predict and avoid damage instead of waiting to react to it? The kitchen is on fire, but we'll wait until it reaches the bedroom before we take it seriously.
China claims it peaked in 2014.
I'll just call you wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Which fucking graph has a fucking hockey stick shape?
https://www.sportsdirect.com/h...
Fucking Americans.
The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are examples of humans not being able to manage nuclear power plants in a safe fashion.
More examples of nuclear power plant problems: Problems with Nuclear Reactors.
Do your costs include all operational and decommissioning? A quick google search shows me this:
The levelized cost of nuclear power is relatively high compared to other energy sources: the minimum cost per megawatt hour to build a new nuclear plant is $97, compared to $49 for utility-scale solar, $48 for combined cycle gas, and $32 for wind.
Paradox of the missing clue: when you fix a glaring error, your Bayesian prior on the quality of your work as a whole goes down rather than up.
QED hasn't fixed a glaring error in fifty years. Victory, QED.
My underlying joke was this: if this strikes you as a paradox, look no further for the missing clue.
File under whoosh sarcasm.
alright then, let's spend the money fixing the problem
horror vacui
It will take at least several hundred years for thawed out permafrost to become suitable for agriculture.
It will take one season, growing some non-food crop to establish soil bacteria, and then one afternoon spreading petroleum-based fertilizer the following season.
You didn't think natural soil was relevant to modern agriculture, did you?
A few decent farts puts out a decent amount of methane, which is far more potent than CO2.
Maybe we should ban beans?
First off, new ICE cars will probably stop selling in about 2 more years.
No chance of that happening. The automakers wouldn't be able to ramp up the production of EVs that quick and the supply of batteries couldn't support that level of production yet. More like 5-10 years for that to happen.
Yeah but 30 feet of mud and mire don't disappear overnight. At best you might be able to do something with it in a couple of decades.
I wonder whether this will get people to stop being distracted by dramatic images of icebergs calving from glaciers. Most of the mass loss is caused by sublimation anyway:
"General climate models employ bulk methods and, consequently, underestimate deposition. Loss of water vapor by the surface predominates in summer at lower elevations, where bulk methods agree better with twoâlevel methods. Annual net water vapor flux from the twoâlevel method is as great as â'87±27 mm at 960 m elevation and â'74±23 mm at equilibrium line altitude in western Greenland. At an undulation trough site, net deposition is observed (+40 mm ±12). At the adjacent crest site 6 km away and at 50 m higher elevation, net sublimation predominates."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2001JD900219
Sure, you start with your money.
A word of advice: if you think we're beyond hope, please keep your advice to yourself. Otherwise people will get the impression that you think there *is* hope for improvement.
I can't speak for the Alps, but around here in the American Midwest I don't need photographs because the climate has noticeably changed within my own lifetime. And I'm only in my 30's, which makes it a bit concerning to say the least.
I'm going to walk to the South Pole. I'm on the right path so everytihg is ok.
You are a delusional idiot WindBag.
Full of shit as always WindBourne.
ICE cars are still being designed now to be released in 2020-2022. You think you know more than the multibillion dollar car companies?
Just logically it's not even possible to make that many electric cars in such a short time. Tesla can't even do it and they are run by a supergenius.
You seem to be confusing eficiency with utilization rate or something. You are just a drowning man clutching for anything to look like you know what you're talking about.
Simple facts are America uses much more electricity than comparable places, it won't help the Earth in the slightest if you are a tiny bit cleaner and then use twice as much. Even if you were twice as clean, using twice as much means you are polluting the same. (hint - you aren't twice as clean and you use more than twice as much. You do the math)
Consumption tax would be great. Americans are the biggest consumers and the biggest problem for the world. Tax everyone's consumption and use the money for solar and wind in 3rd world countries.
You were still more wrong-er.
They are already stopping car sales. GM and ford are no longer going to sell ice cars (sedans), save pony/muscle cars. Luxury ice cars in America have also plummeted, and will likely continue downwards next year. GM will likely introduce their EV Camaro in about 2 years. At that point, nobody , in America, will want ice versions of cars. Note that ice SUV, XUV, and trucks will continue until around 2024. By then multiple companies will have EVs of all these. Game over at that point. Btw, as I said, cars will not be selling. Car makers will attempt to continue making them and pushing, but nobody will buy in those time frame.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You truly are delusional. America is stopping sales of sedans, because they can't compete with foreign mader cars. They will keep making suv/'trucks' etc because they can still hide behind the massive tariffs on importing those products.
Yes percent of total is a stupid metric. Especially when Americans use twice as much electricity as Europeans, 3x a Chinese of 20x an Indian.
Puts America's 7% decrease into perspective doesn't it. IE it's meaningless as they use so much more.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/03/luxury-car-owners-trade-up-for-us-pickups-as-ford-gm-dominate-market.html
Clearly not the actions of a population that cares about the environment.
Let's just double down on the least efficient form of transportation we can.
When you consistently keep missing *huge* variables, how reliable can any climate model be?
I want to see billions of trees planted ASAP
Go well