Slashdot Mirror
Many of the Climate Impacts Predicted in the Last National Climate Assessment, in 2014, Are No Longer Theoretical (nytimes.com)
This year's report contains many of the same findings cited in the previous National Climate Assessment, published in 2014. From a report: More and more of the predicted impacts of global warming are now becoming a reality. For instance, the 2014 assessment forecast that coastal cities would see more flooding in the coming years as sea levels rose. That's no longer theoretical: Scientists have now documented a record number of "nuisance flooding" events during high tides in cities like Miami and Charleston, S.C.
"High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast," the report says. As the oceans have warmed, disruptions in United States fisheries, long predicted, are now underway. In 2012, record ocean temperatures caused lobster catches in Maine to peak a month earlier than usual, and the distribution chain was unprepared.
"High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast," the report says. As the oceans have warmed, disruptions in United States fisheries, long predicted, are now underway. In 2012, record ocean temperatures caused lobster catches in Maine to peak a month earlier than usual, and the distribution chain was unprepared.
I guess this is the "extreme scenario" the White House was talking about. Now what pack of bullshit will they come up with?
blah blha blah manbearpig lolol blah blah
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year, and that rate is expected to accelerate as warming continues. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the long run, and we need to deal with it.
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding. This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
You're incoherent.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve. Seed the upper atmosphere with sulfates, dump iron in the ocean to increase carbon sequestration, feed seaweed to cows, replace CO2 producing power generation with nuclear?
No? Doesn't fit some preconceived agenda? Then global warming must not be that important if we are throwing options off the table that lightly. Come back when it's a problem.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'd guess that it's people building closer to the water as it all that's left undeveloped.
Will wonders never cease
Thankfully, few believe the propaganda.
Not to mention that much of the lower half of the Atlantic seacoast is subsiding at a rate around 3-4mm per year.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're an idiot. You get 1 if you log in (zero if you're an AC); if you have posted a lot and gotten a lot of up-mods, you get a karma modifier. That's what Bill (and myself) have. Click on the (score:2) and it will tell you that.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Honestly this is fear mongering at its worst. Silly msmash.
But why is slashdot now participating in this? Last gasp for relevance before they close the doors?
is that America will NOT be the hardest hit. Mid to Southern Europe, along with China's breadbasket, will be hit by high temps and massive droughts.
If Nations want to avoid this, they will all work together, as opposed to pushing others to cut back, while they continue to add lots more fossil fuel plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Come up with actual solutions that don't involve mass starvation before throwing around insults like "denier" and "liar."
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born. The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
3. More efficient air conditioners. The best ACs use a 3rd the power of the worst. Wider adoption of ACs in India, China, and SE Asia is the biggest reason for growing CO2 emissions. We should have an $10M X-Prize for a better and cheaper AC.
4. More efficient and cost effective insulation, and improved passive heating systems for buildings.
5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.
6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.
7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.
8. Improvement of internet speeds and tele-presence technology so that fewer people need to travel and commute.
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
10. Iron fertilization of the oceans to generate plankton blooms. This will remove CO2 from the ocean, and increase fish harvests. People can eat more fish and less beef. Of all the geo-engineering proposals, this is the easiest and the most likely to work.
None of these require killing half the human race (although #1 and #2 will reduce our numbers) nor destroying our civilization.
Know what I love about fake APK? You HATE her posts, but you're powerless to stop them. Instead, you're stuck ranting and raving like the loon you are. Always good to see a troll like you get so butthurt.
Most solutions will cause the planet to warm further. The BIG government sponsored efforts tried and have failed 1) treaties ( never signed) and not obeyed and counter productive 2) Ethanol in US -- Barely produces 3 times the energy used to create it, 3) Wind in Germany designed to produce 30+% of their needs and only produces 16% and HUGE lignite coal plants 4) Pushing production away from western countries that care about pollution (and God given human rights) to such places as China 5) More socialism more government control
What can work?1) Solar thermal heating for every house and business 2) I do like fertilizing the oceans 3)capitalism 3) Wood and dung(for cooking and heating) is by far the biggest renewable and it does not get mentioned
Alas Big Brother has forbidden debate
Excellent. I love a karma scoring system.
It's funny how, when I said the pouring of money into the Great Barrier Reef will do nothing, you replied to me saying that I'm the typical Slashdotter believing I know more than the experts.
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Sorry, but you're a hypocrite.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
He will tell us what his host file is for. And how it should be configured. My faith in APK is unconditional.
"U can't win Darth: If u strike me down I shall become more POWERFUL than u can possibly imagine" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
* Take a GOOD READ there to my p.s., lol - & KNOW why I RoTfLmAo @ U at YOUR EXPENSE in 'downmodpoints' fool... lol!
(You're toying with POWER beyond your LIMITED brain's comprehension OR ABILITY).
Should I "OpenSORES" that on github or sourceforge? Whipslash'd SHIT BRICKS (He has already FAILING vs. me LONG ago EATING HIS WORDS, lol).
APK
P.S.=> I think THAT above goes rather NICELY w/ https://science.slashdot.org/c... lol... apk
Yes,but only if Trump can save us.
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
I've got a better idea—how about we design our cities and neighbourhoods so that the shops are within walking distance of most people instead of regarding the mandatory use of a car for this as something "normal", which in much of the rest of world it is not?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Slashdot is now the global warming alarmist blog, every other story is some corny ass environmental bullshit no one cares about. It's not even a fucking election year, spare the propaganda.
See subject & see WHY u LIMITED dolts provide me SUCH huge amusement everyday FAILING & FLAILING vs. superior ability https://science.slashdot.org/c...
* LOL!
APK
P.S.=> "U can't win Darth: If u strike me down I shall become more POWERFUL than u can possibly imagine" so what happened to all your "downmodpoints"? My posts ARE reposted courtesy of MY work blowing you AWAY, lol... apk
See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...
* Is that the best your "phantasyland FAKE NAME" (for your fake lie of a so-called 'life') can manage?
When a FAKE NAME do nothing like YOU does better than I have? Then talk (you're all talk & no action)...
You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings.
APK
P.S.=> The TRUE PRICE of your UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME do-nothing selves like you that I can ALWAYS CASH IN ON (lol) is that I can use FACT/TRUTH on them to SHATTER their all TOO fragile delusional egos that they actually know A DAMN THING in computing, lol... apk
This awesome thing about science is that it works even if you don't believe in it.
Humans are indeed the cause of climate change. I'll just leave this right here.
Your proposed solution of just moving to higher ground or putting our houses on stilts is just not realistic. Temperature and sea levels are not the only things that will change. We will also see shifts in the location of weather. Habitable and arable land will shift and dwindle. Not all crops can simply be moved and cultivated elsewhere.
Recall what has happened in human history when a resource has become scarce: war.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
More paranoia please. That would be *lovely*
without force. Only government can decide who suffers and who gets to live the Great life.
;)
Government will decide who's money is taken to pay the price, who is affected by the grand goal of controlling our climate. Who must downsize their dreams/houses/lives, Who gets what amount of electricity, heat and food. What industries are outlawed. Who's jobs are done away with. Who gets travel permits and who must stay where they are.
It seems to me that most everyone here is shouting that something has to be done but usually exclude themselves. They see it as the fault of others that little is being done.
Step up, vote correctly and you will bring your wildest dreams in to reality. But you may not like what you get. Socialism really does suck kids!
As for me, I don't see much happening that will affect me. I am 63. Have not flown in 10 years. Put 23 miles on my Toyota Prius last month. Have not driven over 2k-3k miles a year in, well years. Live in a 2000 sq ft house. And work remotely for the most part. How about you?
Just my 2 cents
on creimer? Is he like a Gremlin and gets fatter when it's warmer??
I stopped reading after your first two hateful, racist, misogynistic so-called solutions. Hey, I know, how about we kill all the Jews while we are quote educating all those dumb non-white women?
I wouldn't exactly call four years of data climate. Certainly not enough to start with some of the whacky seeding proposals. Reduce greenhouse emissions? Sure, that's always a good idea.
Make this number one on the list of tired ideas people need to give up on. No, we are not going to cooperate with reducing our standard of living to that of the third world. No, we are not prepared to walk a city block or two carrying ten bags of groceries. No, we are not going to move into higher density living and give up our better living arrangements to make cars less necessary. Now go away and engineer someone elseâ(TM)s lives and communities and leave us alone.
I'm not so convinced, don't forget that we're talking averages here. If tides become more pronounced as well, an inch average can quickly get closer to a foot in tidal effects.
We should take a look what the extremes (flood and ebb) changed, not just the average.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.
When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.
Come up with actual solutions that don't involve mass starvation before throwing around insults like "denier" and "liar."
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
I'll toss out a couple. They won't make everything magical by themselves, but baby steps sometimes add up.
First make sure, for tax purposes, you tax the interior space, not the exterior square feet. For instance, one relatively low cost way to super insulate is a double 2x4 wall with say a 9" total span, with a gap of 3" in the middle. Fill it up with much cellulose and you have a pretty low cost assembly that is around R30. (The gap reduces thermal bridging from the studs. You can also offset some interior studs from the exterior studs to increase this affect.)
Why is this important? Consider a 40'x40' house for instance. If you do square foot from the outside, then you have about 73 square feet your being taxed on that is only insulation. Again, this is not huge, but if taxes can't be biased towards better insulated homes, then they could at least not be biased _against_ them.
Another way would be to give people a larger break in time if they meet certain standards before you increase their property taxes after a major update. Basically you try to make it more affordable for people to do the upgrades, particularly if they meet energy goals.
As far as bigger goals like trying to get people to care about science/reason/etc. Sure, why not, but don't forget all the little ways you can make a difference that are actually attainable.
Another bonus way would be for new houses to automatically put in a large enough electrical service to handle electric cars, by effectively offsetting the difference. Of course to avoid waste you would probably focus on areas closer to major cities and/or property owners that have already invested in an electric car.
You ARE aware that all the impacts you cite happened long before human emerged to be a problem for this planet? And that these things are (fortunately) quite rare?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You stopped reading before you got to the "literally magic" answers! It's really a perfect example of how climatists demand that we destroy western civilization if we want to "save the world." "Let's use more electricity and batteries! These clearly have no environmental impact because my only point of view is that fossil fuels are bad."
Are you going to foot the bill for bulldozing and rebuilding all the major cities in the world to fit your design concepts? It would cost around 20-30 times the global domestic product and nobody else has that kind of money.
don't forget all the little ways you can make a difference that are actually attainable.
I heard an interesting story about how an accountant reduced CO2 emissions by a hundred thousand tons per year.
Potatoes were sold by the ton. So farmers would soak their harvested potatoes in water to increase the weight before they sold them. Then the buyers would put the potatoes in warehouses and run giant dehumidifiers to dry them out so they wouldn't spoil, and so they would cook faster.
An accounting change, started by McDonalds and soon adopted by the rest of the fast food industry and then groceries, was to buy potatoes based on dry-weight. This obviated the need to soak and then dry the potatoes, saving time and energy consumption by both the farmers and their customers.
The annual rate of sea level rise has been several mm/year for centuries, and people have simply adapted.
The one thing that is crystal clear: we can't prevent it. Sea levels are going to continue to rise at that rate for a century or more no matter what we do.
Say someone is diagnosed with a Stage 1 cancer. The doctor says, "Treat this now to give you the best chance to survive." The patient either doesn't believe the doctor, or doesn't think the money is available, or thinks that God will save them, or thinks the doctor is just being an alarmist. So, the patient does nothing.
A couple years later the patient goes back to the doctor. The cancer has metastasized. There's a huge effort, but it's all for naught.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
human emerged to be a problem for this planet
That clenches it. We know what you view as the problem. Leap into the acid vat and become part of 'the solution' now, dude.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Science has become an Institutionalized Church just like what has happened to the religions. Any facts or data that calls a certain agenda into question becomes marginalized.
The source of Tyranny is always from the people, places, or ideas you are NOT allowed to criticize or question and no matter how many facts are involved.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/d...
According to this journal only 52% of Climate Scientists, Meteorologists and Atmospheric Scientists believe that GW is mostly human. 10% believe it is a combination of humans and natural, 5% natural 20% believe data is insufficient to make the call, 1% don't know the cause, 7% do not sure if GW is happening, & 4% believe that GW is not happening at all.
This results in 2/3rds of Scientists believing that GW is at least happening with only a little over 1/2 of them being sure it is caused by Human efforts with just under 1/2 of those that believe GW is happening as being either a mix of human and natural or just natural.
And judging by Sciences past, I am going to stay suspicious. I don't "disbelieve" that GW is happening that seems fairly clear, but I definitely "disbelieve" these projections as I have yet to see a single one come true and just like in this article there is "conveniently" no data attached. I want a smoking gun folks, not more bluster, fear mongering, or chatter that does not have links to data.
Some of us post with the karma bonus modifier turned off. It means I post at 1 instead of 2, but it means if I type anything deemed of value, I get a markup. It allows me to not really care if I get 'marked down' occasionally, because the upticks generally cover the downticks.
Also, I don't feel self-important enough to need the karma bonus.
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year
Let me explain how you're being tricked. To get the annual rise they take the total rise over the last 100 years and divide it by 100.
Did you spot the problem? What if I took the total rise over the future 100 years and divide by 100? Now Miami is sinking at at least an inch per year.
The Bible predicted the world would flood to punish the wicked. I guess science it finally catching up. I have prayed on it and firmly believe that Elon Musk is a prophet sent by God almighty. We should all buy a Tesla Model 3 and denouce homosexuality to show our devotion to God so he doesn't flood our earth with global warming.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
people are beyond tired of this subject. bots/astroturf promoting needs to be better flagged on these headlines
dont give a shit. go cry somewhere else.
When science gets it wrong, it's still wrong.
That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.
They are no longer theoretical instead we have reached the much greater proof they are total bullshit by a science body 100% dependent on promulgating bs to fund their miserablr failure research
Mid to Southern Europe, along with China's breadbasket, will be hit by high temps
Good news then as higher temps mean even more agriculture can blossom, since it will be warmer and WETTER. Which anyone would know intuitively, since warmer temperatures mean more water evaporating from the ocean - anywhere that gets water now will get more as it grows warmer.
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
Has anyone ever been to the deep southern US during summer? Does it get dryer there, do you find? Or in fact does the humidity not become worse during the summer than the winter....
I think the warming alarmists should really study how deserts are actually formed before they go making absurd claims like this one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
But hey, don't let that ruin the narrative. Feel free to downvote me to hell and keep cranking out those man-made global warm^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change stories all you want...
Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart. A grocery store can make a go of it with market area of only a couple thousand people if it is small and has no competition. If you want to have two competing supermarket class stores (plus some smaller players) that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
I almost always post without Karma Bonus. I used to post with the bonus sometimes until someone modded me down as 'overrated', (I think it was because they did not understand the reference I was making to movie about Michelangelo that starred Charleton Heston. It never occurred to me that someone might have missed that movie.) That down mod cost me quite a bit of karma. I decided then and there that I would only post with karma bonus if I really felt it was important, which I don't think has ever happened. But I had a post once which was modded up by somebody, and then modded down again as 'overrated' and I still lost karma points. So, when I see a post of mine get modded up, I sort of cross my fingers that nobody's going to take aim at it.
My advice is, when you post on slashdot, don't take yourself too seriously, no matter how much karma you have.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
If you look at data for Fort Denison in Sydney for example, they show a rise of around 0.25 feet over 100 years.
If you look at that graph even more closely, you'll find something pretty interesting.- the sea level is pretty stable up until 1950 or so, where it takes a large rise and then remains fairly stable thereafter (draw your own fit line from 1860 to 1950, then from 1950 to 2010).
So since 1950 there has hardly been a rise at all, at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
Just how is that much sea level rise supposed to result in any flooding above and beyond the huge variance that is tidal levels?
In any coastal city I have seen it would take feet of sea level rise, at least, to cause any real long term worry for a city and then only during larger storm events (which has not changed due to global warming, despite what people would have you believe).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
#1 and #2 requires the eradication of Islam, for it's the religion based on the subjugation or women and children.
#3 has already reached the laws of thermodynamics. You're not going to get much better improvement in tech. You're far more better off with maintence of existing equipment until the compressor has to be replace.
That is data over time... I want the data that shows the rate of change from their "predicted" vs "reality" along with the "prediction data".
I don't dispute that sea levels are changing in either direction, that is just data. I want a smoking gun, the data that shows clearly that...
#1. Global Warming is undeniably caused by "certain gasses" and their proposed links to human activities. Right now there is a logical breakdown with correlation does not equal causation dilemma. Are these gasses rising because temp is rising or are temps rising because these gasses are rising? What if its all coincidence as well? Water vapor is empirically provable because everyone experiences less heat when the clouds block the sun, is there a threshold for how effective this becomes at certain ratios? Very little carbon is actually needed create steel which is considerably stronger than iron on it's own.
#2. A "real solution" to the problem and NOT a money based one. I know that politics cannot be separated from the process but as long as the solution is to just TAX people based on how much "carbon" they use it will not solve the problem. It might just cause more economic strife or trouble like how Paris is getting into now.
I read a report where America is actually ahead of several countries in Carbon reduction even though we backed out of the Paris agreements while the nations that stayed in are not doing as well in their reduction targets. If the solution is just to make people pay more... then they are just going to pay more. Nothing much is really going to change over the long term. People are creative at how we can cheat systems... which is why there are practically more laws on the books than there are people alive!
Additionally, it might be more effective to find ways to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and use them for other applications. I hear some news on those front but they all seem experimental for now.
The best way to solve any problem is to turn it into a money generating enterprise instead of a taxation one. There is a way to do it and we need to find it.
Enough dude.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Your claims are as absurd as claims of other people.
On average it will be wetter or more precisely: more humid. There is no evidence that deserts will become green or "food baskets" as your parent calls them get more water in the right time.
Humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.
We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and you want to predict which area of the world will have more water for agriculture in 20 years or in 50 years? I call that hubris (no idea why americans spell it that way) .... but good luck!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Whatever you were trying to say, you fumbled it.
> What if I took the total rise over the future 100 years and divide by 100? Now Miami is sinking at at least an inch per year.
That's not sensible math (Miami will not be sinking or rising when the internal shape and volume of the earth is roughly constant) and in fact is entirely inherently nonsensical because 'the future 100 years' doesn't send data back in time to us.
Smoke less pot. Not none, dude, chill! Just... less.
Just how is that much sea level rise supposed to result in any flooding above and beyond the huge variance that is tidal levels? ... however that depends on coastal structure, no idea if Sydney is particular prone to storm floods.
Because 1mm average sea level rise means 1mm more water in low tide and roughly 6mm more water in high tide and on top of that, if there is a wind from the wrong direction it increases those 6mm to 18mm to 36mm
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Tokyo, Manhattan, and London are third world?
Thanks, greybeard! Your healthier lifestyle is hopefully improving your quality of life, and by not shitting on the world and being happy while doing so, you provide a good example for the rest of us.
(I buy >90% non-food 2ndhand, drove under 200km total in 2017, vegetarian 6 days a week with 1 for meat enzyme production, work remotely or bike to work, bike or walk to groceries and entertainment - over 1,000km biked last year. It's really reinforcing when I get somewhere faster than the drivers (once they had to find parking) and don't have the gross mental load and tension from jostling while trapped with cars in traffic. I have time with my family, to read, bake, etc. because I don't have to put in the hours to make car payments.)
That will be the title of my book, should I ever write one... I am sure there is rich fodder to be had from these crazy times, I'll have to start keeping notes.
humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.
It is curious you would marry two un-related points; plainly increased water was from the ocean, not from humidity.
We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and you want to predict which area of the world will have more water for agriculture
You seem to be just fine with them predicting less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And the fact that you know nothing about how points come to the posts show that you are ignorant about how /. works or an idiot or both.
Hint: if he would have been modded from 0 - 1 or 2, there would be a tack like +insightful, +informative etc. on the score.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
How many third world countries are there left? Somalia comes to mind ... and do you know more?
How much population do they have?
How much CO2 do they produce?
See: cutting their population growth to zero, would change nothing!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I wouldn't exactly call four years of data climate.
The data on sea level rise goes back WAY more than 4 years.
Recent Sea Level Rise
Satellite altimeter data goes back 20 years, and there are tidal records from around the world going back more than a century.
Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart.
It is not a problem in Europe, and neither in the few countries I visited in Africa and Asia.
that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
You have never been in a civilized city, like Paris?
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m ... and the big stores you find in commercial areas or outside of every medium sized town, like Leclerce or Auchon etc. have a "miniAuchon" etc. all over the city.
And then again: every majour road is chained with "Arabs" selling food and groceries and "Chineese" selling vegetables and fruit. I live in Menilmontant when I'm in Paris. In a radius of 100m around my place are probably close to 50 food shops, and 3 or 4 of them are super markets. In a radius of 400m I most likely have 20 super markets.
Three times a week thee is a market on the middle "lane" of the road. The road is "three lanes", a double lane in each direction, and a center lane for pedestrians, lined left and right with trees. There is market so often and you can buy everything from eggs via cheese and oysters and fish to vegetables and simple clothing and a USB charger ... or second hand cloth.
https://www.google.co.th/maps/...
Use street view and walk around. It is full with small shops, restaurants, small hotels, coffee bars and: super markets!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Is Global Warming FINALLY a reality? After 30 years of non-action???
I call bullshit on GL.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
No, it isn't. But that is NOT what TFA is saying. It is saying that the 16mm rise from 2014 to 2018 is causing serious flooding NOW. That is nonsense.
Why do they buy the least efficient cars/ air conditioners/ foods?
That statement is complete garbage. The reason American's emissions have fallen a LOT in comparison with everyone else, is BECAUSE we are mostly all buying the most efficient cars/appliances/foods..
Anyone who can is buying green cars (like Teslas or high efficiency vehicles, sometimes not by choice).
If you go into any store to look at washers/dryers/fridges/AC units you are looking at almost all very high efficiency units.
For food farmers markets are springing up all over and I notice grocery stores making more use of local produce than the have before (saving energy costs in transportation and storage).
America is, as per usual, at the forefront of technology - why on earth did you think it would be any different just because the technology was environmental?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Screw that, I'm not walking, and neither are many others.
The alarmists don't get it. They may be willing to sacrifice their lifestyle, but others aren't.
Either innovate and replace CO2 emissions with a fully renewable chain, or people will continue emitting. Welcome to reality.
Watching global warming experts (or is it climate change now???) is like watching monkeys trying to fuck a football. Follow the money. They can't agree on the time of day, and if they did it must be due to climate change. Global warming, the latest pyramid scheme.
#1 and #2 requires the eradication of Islam, for it's the religion based on the subjugation or women and children.
Iran is Islamic, and averages 1.6 births per woman, well below replacement level. Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are Islamic and average 2.1 births per woman.
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus., 2) it is not 99% anyway, 3) th AGW crowd does not follow the scientific method and therefore is not performing science.
A couple of months ago, I started reading the Wikipedia articles on the American Civil War, with an aim to draw comparisons with the global climate change problem. My background is I got a degree in American Studies. It is like reading a lot of American History and looking at the many scholarly takes on what goes into the American style and dilemmas.
Abraham Lincoln had been in office only 43 days when the federal Fort Sumpter was fired on and forced to surrender. The northern states and Abraham Lincoln were thrown into a shooting war and the ostensible grounds for conflict was can a group of states secede from the American union? Abraham Lincoln's opponents had done the rhetorical trick of hiding the deep moral problem of human slavery under a technical question of secession.
The modern comparison is we have an enormous blanket of radiation retaining CO2 and other greenhouse gases over all of the heads of the entire world population. Decades ago, global warming opponents defeated the definition of CO2 as a pollutant. A clever piece of maneuvering that still cripples the Federal thinking and response to our problem.
Looking at Civil War history is important because we can see what the Federal government had to do in the face of an existential threat. We, now face an existential threat. The problem for us is to think very very hard, think with compassion, think with understanding, and try many solutions until we find effective solutions.
I invite you to pop up to my website and create a community of thinking and discussing what to do. www.lowco2america.com
Your UID shows you have been around here longer than most of us. If I were you, I'd post with the bonus modifier on. You have earned it by contributing well-received posts for a long time. It encourages others to do likewise.
I'm not sure that turning your modifier off protects you from the effect of down-mods. And where can you see your karma points? Slashdot stopped showing these a long time ago -- before I even joined, I think.
So, IMHO, my advice is, when you post on slashdot, be honest, rational, and polite as much as possible. Karma will take care of itself.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I wonder why my skeptic global warming (aka climate change) posts are getting deleted??? Some high and mighty, Kool-Aid drinking loser admin getting triggered??? I think so...
And how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you rig freedom of speech? Fuck you.
You are lying out your ass.
Americans are buying up the biggest most polluting cars. You have basically given up on sedans and doubling down on trucks.
Americans AC is amongst the least efficient in the world. Why buy efficient when your electricity is so cheap. Also why you use much more electricity than everywhere else too.
What you are saying doesn't pass the sniff test.
It's just common sense that you must be full of shit. If you were correct, America per capita wouldn't be twice China and Europe. But it is. So you are clearly just making shit up.
They reason they drop is because you were even worse before, and are now only twice as bad as the rest.
As someone who lives in Manhattan and travels to London occasionally, yes, they are third world. Not sure about Tokyo, never been there.
Agree. Assume the editors are getting paid for this shit else they are fully propagandized and their priority is to convert the unclean.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
2) it is not 99% anyway,
A popular (and sloppy) figure of speech. The point is that scientists who disagree with AGW conclusions (and the need for action) are a tiny minority.
3) th AGW crowd does not follow the scientific method and therefore is not performing science.
Citation please.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I went back later after finishing everything else. Yes magical crap. And those people think they are the pro-science crowd. No concept of science, economics, human psychology, sociology, history, or pretty much anything sensible or logical. I often wonder if the bulk of the loud pro-AGW anti-science religious nutters are just dumb high school kids repeating what their ill educated teachers stuffed into their mushy skulls. I find it hard to believe that educated intelligent adults would a) brelieve all this AGW clap trap or b) be so ridiculously childish about it with their fact free rants and 4th rate logic.
It's funny how, when I said the pouring of money into the Great Barrier Reef will do nothing, you replied to me saying that I'm the typical Slashdotter believing I know more than the experts.
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Been waiting for all this global warming bullshit to kick in for decades, but it's still going to be in the 30s for the next week. Every time I read one of these articles my only reaction is "Finally, let's get this show going already!"
I don't give a flying fuck about billionaires with oceanfront property or the climate in Syria or the fate of Australian coral reefs or the Ecuadorian Bot Fly, I'm fucking cold. There are too many humans on this planet already anyway, time for a little bit of natural selection.
Because 1mm average sea level rise means 1mm more water in low tide and roughly 6mm more water in high tide and on top of that
Stop making shit up. I can tell you are making shit up BECAUSE YOUR MATH DOESNT WORK.
If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt? the 1mm you just claimed. You just shat a giant dishonesty turd on the discussion AND ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.
You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. People as egregiously dishonest as the lying fuck you are harmful to every possible conversion
"His name was James Damore."
I lived in Charleston during the late 1970s, when it was still a finely-crafted & amusingly racist city. No Aerospace money or bullshit rainbow coalition ... but folks Geeche & white managed. Downtown Charleston flooded every spring. Every year ... some floods worse than others , like those from 'cains but the Battery cannons always went under. No global warming required to flood Charleston.
"Socialism really does suck kids!"
Yup, we're living in a world dominated by corporate socialism, where you have a rich politburo dominated by CEOs, large stockholders or their proxies, and their apparatchiks (lawyers, accountants, politicos, etc) and the teeming $20 proletariat.
So since 1950 there has hardly been a rise at all, at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
50 mm is 0.164 ft, nearly 55 times more than your 0.003 ft!
We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and you want to predict which area of the world will have more water for agriculture in 20 years or in 50 years? I call that hubris (no idea why americans spell it that way) .... but good luck!
Amazing.
When a prediction has a positive attribute, it's hubris to try and predict climate change.
When a prediction has a negative attribute, the science is settled.
[a] Make lots of predictions.
[b] Wait a while
[c] Brag about the ones that either come true or that you can stretch details enough to claim came true
[d] Say NOTHING about the huge number of predictions that did NOT come true.
New Your city is not under water, and Al Gore pointing to flooded subways in a discrete WEATHER even (a particular hurricane) is NOT the flooding he had predicted. Oh, and he and his pals always insist people are morons if they confuse "weather" with "climate" when it goes against them.
The Arctic ocean is NOT ice free (though if it was, as humans have long wished, commerce would be greatly improved.
We are NOT seeing more and more hurricaines - indeed we are seeing far fewer than we used to.
Most of the increases in damage from storms and wilffires are NOT from increased severity of weather events but rather because humans have been building more valueable stuff in places that used to be wilderness. A swamp hit by a hurricane has no loss of human lives and little economic damage, but build a city there and run the same hurricane into the place and the losses, both human and economic, are enormous. A wildfire in a forest is sad, but has no human casualties and no real economic cost, but if you build a town in that forest and then the same fire comes through, then the human and economi costs can be high - particularly if the people building there make NO PREPARATION for such an event (i.e. no adequate warning systems and escape routes, no community fire shelters, wooden homes built above ground amongst the trees insead of homes built into the ground and of fire-resistant materials...)
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born.
The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
No science supporter thinks population is either the problem or a useful solution.
Not while a 1st world person consumes 30 times the resources of a 3rd world person. Sex ed, condoms and an education are never going to result in a 30x drop off in 3rd world population.
Helping the third world rise is a nice thing to do. It can certainly yield some benefit on the margins (assistance with renewable energy technology, land use...etc) as they will rise regardless of whether they are assisted or not yet realistically in aggregate expecting this to have a positive effect on the environment is pure madness.
The ONLY viable solution at this point is advancing technology. Improved efficiency, better cheaper energy generation, storage and transmission.
That is not how they measure annual rises.
Women in Iran are also, on average,well educated. Ditto Turkey (I don't know what the levels are in Malaysia and Bangladesh).
I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.
When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.
We can measure the effective 'age' of the atmosphere via carbon dating. It is getting older. We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. We have sophisticated models that predict the change in climate accurately (and models from 30 years ago have proved to be very good). So in what way is this correlation and not causation? For it to be only correlation you need to show why, this time, CO2 is not trapping heat in the atmosphere.
programa trÃs marias
Dieta das trÃs marias é uma dieta alimentar que funciona de verdade pode ser feito e seguido por qualquer pessoa programa trÃs marias funciona
Citation please.
The process of science does include a predictive element as a form of abductive inference, but the product of science is never, ever proof of future evidence.
If the method of climate modeling today is science, all the future advancements of science can also be had today. Proving future evidence is sufficient for making every future scientific discovery in the present.
Ask the climate scientists, science journalists, and posters here which claim modeling is the same as scientific reality where they are hiding fusion reactors, matter replicators, and holodecks. We could use them as stocking suffers.
"Ewe Wanna Taek Aweigh Meye CAR!" [incoherent babble]
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
3. More efficient air conditioners. The best ACs use a 3rd the power of the worst. Wider adoption of ACs in India, China, and SE Asia is the biggest reason for growing CO2 emissions. We should have an $10M X-Prize for a better and cheaper AC.
4. More efficient and cost effective insulation, and improved passive heating systems for buildings.
Efficiency angle already well into diminishing returns territory especially heating and cooling scene. While it is physically possible to do some crazy shit like heat a mansion in sub-zero weather with a candle the reality is quite different.
5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.
This is often a counterproductive strategy for the most energy efficient heating and cooling technologies as a practical matter they operate by leveraging temperature differentials on a continuous basis. When you heat or cool a space it's not just the air and moisture content you are also heating or cooling solid matter in the environment which is 1000 times the density of air.
6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.
7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.
By far the biggest bang for the buck in energy space is development of dirt cheap batteries that don't suck ass in any way (low weight, high density, safe, operating temperatures, long life). If you can pull it off everything in the energy scene changes overnight.
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
If you want do something meaningful on the conservation front increasing household size is the most effective option available.
Iron fertilization of the oceans to generate plankton blooms. This will remove CO2 from the ocean, and increase fish harvests. People can eat more fish and less beef. Of all the geo-engineering proposals, this is the easiest and the most likely to work.
There are productive things that can be done with carbon without polluting the air and seas with crap and seeing what happens.
STP/biochar for example can provide best soils for growing crops while sequestering excess carbon.
*...Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?...*
Classical strawman. Apart from the fact that science is decided by majority, your statement is also false.
There exist a small number of politically motivated extreme leftists that disguise themselves als climate scientists.
They continually spout nonsens, much like you do. Please stop.
Climatism is political dogma trying to present itself as science.
How many of you geniuses actually read the report, or even the chapter summaries? ."
"Annual median sea level along the U.S. coast (with land motion removed) has increased by about 9 inches since the early 20th century . .
Saying Many did does nothing for the Other side of the Coin, I want to know how many fell flat on there face or is that a Statistic that is only for then to See.
And No I am not a Republican, But it seems to me that when a movement Changes its Name as they did with Global Warming to Climate Change because it no longer fit there Narrative People have every right to be Skeptical of what they Say.
I haven't lived in a german town where you could not wit6hin 10 to 15 minutes either by foot or by bus be to a supermarket. Case in point there are 3 within 15 minutes where I live. Sur4e they are not the super-hyper-mega-big supermarket I saw in the US, but they all can deserve locally. One of them is even a discounter.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Say every single person is theoretically diagnosed with stage 1 cancer because "science" (actually trough-feeding alarmist) said they should all have it and face dire consequences because of "studies". Politicians start all kind of wild rules, regulations, laws, subsidies and pet peeve projects. Everyone must repent. Costs for everyone go up through the roof as half the economy starts working on an imaginary problem trying to find pie-in-the-sky solutions. That's the stage global warming alarmism is at now. Maybe, maybe some people with actual stage 1 are helped, but to the overwhelming majority it is a misallocation on a biblical scale. We will suffer the results of this mass hysteria for a very long time.
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells. The heating of the air at the equator (really the point on the Earth where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the surface) causes air to rise. As it rises it cools and the water vapor precipitates out creating the tropical zones where there is a lot of precipitation. Once the air reaches the tropopause it spreads out horizontally until it reaches about 30 degrees north and south. Then the air drops back to the surface and as it drops back it is adabatically heated and and becomes drier relatively. Where the Hadley cells drop their air back to the surface is where most of the great deserts of the world like the Sahara are located.
Studies have found that global warming increases the strength of the cells slightly leading to perhaps a 2 degree expansion of the northern and southern boundaries of the Hadley cells. The moves those boundaries closer to Southern Europe which means the area along the Mediterranean Sea is likely to get a bit dryer. That's why it's not puzzling that Southern Europe would become dryer in a globally warming world.
The Earth doesn't care what it "reverts" to. It will be what it will be. But from the point of view of humans we want it to revert to a climate that best supports the civilization we have built. Anything outside of that becomes more costly and if you get far enough from that ideal climate it could mean the collapse of the civilization,and undesirable outcome from most humans point of view.
This is exactly how cities and villages are made around the whole world that haven't been bulldozed for a highway. I lived this way for years on the West Coast of the USA, and I saw it in Peru. Mixed-use densely populated centers, built to a human scale rather than an automobiles. Guess what? It's way more pleasant to be able to do your daily commute and socializing and basic grocery shopping in the course of a half-mile walk than sit in traffic. It's way more fun, way more affordable, way less accident-prone, way better for everyone to live around. And, it spares the environment of a lot of damage.
Globally, sea levels havenâ(TM)t risen. Itâ(TM)s apparently quite convinient to ignore areas where sea levels have stayed the same for many decades or even receded and instead only focus on areas where itâ(TM)s risen. Do so many people genuinely think that the fact that sea levels have risen someplace automatically means they have risen everywhere? Newsflash: it doesnâ(TM)t.
Because replanning and rebuilding every American city is not a reasonable proposal. It will take too long and involve too much concrete, and you know what the carbon cost of concrete is? huge, that's what.
Mod parent up
Not to mention that much of the lower half of the Atlantic seacoast is subsiding at a rate around 3-4mm per year.
Ahh no.
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...
Recent research indicates that global mean sea level, or the average height of the world’s oceans, has been increasing by 3 millimeters (.1 inches) per year on average since 1993, when satellites first started measuring it. But along the U.S. East Coast north of Cape Hatteras, rates of sea level rise were found to be some three to four times higher than the global average over certain periods.
As someone whose livelihood relies on the Barrier Reef, please kindly be the first to throw yourself in a fire as part of your effort to assist with overpopulation. The world, and the gene pool, will thank your contribution.
If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt?
No it is not.
Sea levels are measured by the low tide.
So if on average over the whole world the sea level rise at low tide is 1mm, it is considerably higher during high tide.
Sorry, if I was unclear. (However: no idea why you think average means a distribution over low and high tide ... why do you think that would make any sense at all?)
You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. Perhaps you should visit a phsychiatrist, if I had seen your follow up rant more early I probably had refrained from answering ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
lolwut?
Not sure why you're switching to decimal fractions of a foot (isn't is more conventional to use multiples of 1/537 of a chain at this point), but that's 0.16 feet, or in more common Imperial parlance, 2 inches.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I think you need to grow up
Let's assume your unsupported assertions are true. You're talking about a rise of .7 - 1.4 inches at high tide. And you honestly believe that's going to flood cities?
"A popular (and sloppy) figure of speech." In other words, alarmism.
with your extensive knowledge of economics and how to solve the world's problems, I am shocked, shocked, that city planners and UN agencies are not gathering around you to listen to your sage advice on how to reorganize the world.
People will not stop releasing CO2 for a while and sucking it all back in is impractical. Time to get going with practical mitigation like Netherlands-style dykes, genetically modified coral that can withstand heat/acidity, spraying aerosoles in upper atmosphere, thinning out the forests to control wildfires and so on. The great thing is that a lot of these measures can be done locally rather than waiting for 7 billion people to agree. Humans have modified the environment and remedied their own impact for the longest time.
When something is done "for the children" is it for YOUR children? Is it ONLY for the current generation? No. So, yeah, please send your children, if you have any, up for adoption, stupidity like yours is a cancer.
What else did he say? It would cause massive disruption when it did happen. Guess since that proved true, you "forgot" to mention it, 'cos by your asinine "thinking" you would have to accept AGW as real and the predictions came true, and you don't want to do that, you prefer to live in denial of reality that makes claims you can't fix with your ideology.
Try again, idiot.
Oh, and if consensus has no meaning in science, please explain how peer review and repeatability have any purpose whatsoever: if you repeat my experiment, all you've done is create a consensus when the results match. But if that isn't science, then what? So everyone has to redo all the experiments for all of time to convince themselves that the thing happened, but that still would then be a 100% consensus on the things that the experiments repeated. Just consensus again.
So, yeah, if consensus has nothing to do with science, how the fuck IS science done???
And what % of CO2 comes from manufacturing?
Go troll your lies elsewhere of show the tiniest bit of evidence.
How dumb ARE you to think that anyone else is dumb enough to accept THAT assless whinge from you unchallenged?
Unless you can accurately predict the next impact, your arguments aren't very convincing. I believe poster was referring to detecting and diverting those killers, which we could do if we chose. Waiting until it's too late is exactly what many accuse 'deniers' of doing.
So it's really about which catastrophe is the most damaging vs time to deal with it. Meteor damage wins hands down because of magnitude and the fact it occurs instantly.
That being the case, it's something other than human survival that's driving the other causes to be more popular.
You whinge that nothing needs to be done because the rate of rise is so slow everyone will just move above the new shore, but now you claim it will cost so much to move every city that this is not at all in any way possible to do. So how do you expect it to be possible to "migrate away from the slowly rising sea"???
When I visited here many times as a kid there were whole stretches of empty coastline and Tampa used to be surrounded by citrus orchards. Now the coast is a constant line of condos and beach houses for 2 hours in each direction, and all the orchards are HOAs.
People want us to spend trillions of dollars and give up our rights because their $5 million dollar beach house might be affected. Those of you buying into it are a bunch of sheep, and everyone knows that livestock is a major contributor to the "global warming crisis".
Found APK!
Stop repeating yourself. He will respond to you if he wants to. I dislike bill as much as anybody, hes a moron. But in this instance you're both fucking stupid and should STFU.
Anon for obvious flamebaity reasons
Flooding as the result of sea level rise is a non-linear process because flood/no flood is a threshold. Your shore management system was maybe planned and built in the 60s and there's been 10 cm of rise since then. That was fine, big storms might surge over it but day to day high tide wouldn't. Except high tide with the right wind gets closer and closer to the top of that berm each year....
Sounds like bullshit to me. Wet potatoes go off really quickly, almost overnight. Anyone trying that trick would get zero repeat business.
At the bottom of the
UID doesn't mean that much. This community is full of stalkers, and many people have thrown away accounts and started fresh.
What it's a shame that Slashdot shows, which didn't used to get displayed right in our face, is the UID number after an account name. That change can be blamed on Bruce Perens and his cloners.
Tell me, since there is consensus that the sun rises in the East, does this mean that the rising of the Eastern sun is not a fact???
And why does replication mean anything in science when all that can do is create another person in the consensus, which by your "thought" cannot be fact, let alone science?
Or have you never had to think this through before?
Huh? I live within easy walking distance (less than 5 min) of two general grocers and half a dozen fresh fruit and vegetable and specialty grocery places. Population density in my neighbourhood is around 8000 / km^2, which is nowhere near the density downtown.
What is more questionable is that these reports never discuss any positive effects of global warming. Perhaps there are none, however we're a pretty cold planet and our cold climates suffer quite a bit from said cold temperatures - much plant life including crops have very short growing seasons which are completely driven by the first and last frost of the year.
It makes you question whether the authors are being balanced about the effects, or pushing for certain political outcomes, which would make the report itself more a political than a scientific one.
Bangladesh is actually a case study in population control. The birth rate was one of the highest in the world, somewhere around 7 / woman. The country realized this was a problem and tried all kinds of things, including heavily promoting (and giving away) birth control.
Nothing really put a dent in the birth rate. However, concurrently, the ministry of education had decided that all children, including girls, should receive a mandatory minimum education. Bam, birth rate dropped. Now it's about 2.1 / woman.
My city has tried this, and the problem is that the social-engineering approach to designing neighborhoods and transit doesn't line up with how people want to live and commute (as evidenced by the choices made with their real dollars, eg. buying big houses in the suburbs), and it eventually becomes an expensive disaster.
The notion that "global warming" means that it has to warm everywhere equally all the time is a ridiculously weak straw man. But even if that were true, a +2C increase would not be enough to make snow disappear in places where it is common. In fact in most such places the limiting factor in snow isn't temperature, but atmospheric moisture.
The simplest disproof of the "uniformly warmer everywhere all the time" straw man is winter. AGW is caused by solar forcing, which is locally weakest in winter. In fact, at the North Pole, there is no wintertime forcing at all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Both of them have already seen collapses in their agricultural markets due to drought and high temps. Do you often need sources for things that already happened, or is it purely because you really REALLY don't want to either accept AGW nor face your denial?
Ahh, yes, a large portion of the Atlantic seaboard is sinking. Around 2.8mm/yr average, and 1.8mm to 4.8mm/yr i n the central Atlantic seaboard.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
When the "experts" are alarmist/warmist Trotsky-sluts ... sucking-the-tit of grant-money ... why yes I'd smash-face their spewing mouth closed !
It's not the time interval from 2014 to 2018 that we need to worry about, but the interval from now to the indefinite future:
From the report (oddly placed numbers refer to peer-reviewed scientific papers):
Saying ASAP does not sound like expert should be saying. Too non specific
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
gweihir KNOWS u IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... c6gunner proves it https://linux.slashdot.org/com... he forgot to SUBMIT as AC & using his registered 'lusrname' instead (because he tried to mock me both BEFORE & after I FAIRLY challenged him to show he's done better work - he had ZERO).
& NO WAY I'd "cry" like you "playing victim ne'er-do-wells" on /. (TROLL /.ers, not all) OR post on hosts offtopic.
YOU HELPED ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... (& you quit trying to make me look bad trying to "tell lies" on hosts as "ME" IN YOUR IMPERSONATIONS of me e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... as regards Intel speculative execution attack? Hosts PREVENT 'EM)
APK
P.S.=> I KNOW the 2nd to last link above's KILLING YOU - YOU ACTUALLY HELPED ME getting me to see if hosts stop more than portsmash (& Meltdown + Spectre too) & "lo & behold" - hosts WORK on 'em - U LOSE... apk
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
Are you merely demonstrating your math skills or are you actually trying to imply that sea levels only began rising four years ago?
With all the AI that is now blossoming everywhere, why is it that websites can't monitor and ban spam and offensive behavior?
Although in the US we have a first amendment, there is nothing in that tells every website that it must serve as a platform for the most egregious and time wasting bs.
The more important question is, why do we live in a society that requires alarmist propaganda to function? You cry wolf enough times, it stops being alarmist and becomes normal, then you walk the psychological baseline for stimulation up until people won't leave hurricanes because last time the media cried wolf on a rainstorm.
Note TFA has no paragraphs; it's all sentence, spacer, sentence, spacer. There are no thoughts that are being strung together or conclusions the article comes to or presents; every statement is meant to be taken as fact. You are not talking to a rational mind when you write that way, and if you want proof, copy and paste into notepad and take out the paragraphs. Metered Speech has been used back since at least the brimstone and fire days; compare how that article reads and where the pauses are at to a Fire and Brimstone speech on Youtube, to how Chavez speaks. This is a well-documented, scientifically proven hypnosis technique that is in wide-spread use.
When you see that being deployed, the best thing to do is either to look for the source of the article and read that, or simply move onto something else and consider it rubbish. Free News is Fake news, so if you want to attain basic news literacy, you have to learn to work through the fake news.
The only reports I trust are from the IPCC and their accuracy is improving every year. The merits of their research indicate we need to be making consistent changes and investments in renewables and Nuclear power due not to what's coming right around the corner, but due to the long-term effect of cumulative, irreversible pollution. E.G 80% of the world's oxygen comes from Phytoplankton in the ocean; we know they'll still live even with a 20C increase in temperature, but what about acidity from oceanic absorption of carbon? You start looking at 100-200 year time frames and things look bleak.
OK, I confess, there's a bit of ego involved. If I post a comment at 1, and it gets modded up to a 5, that's a bigger achievement than if it started out as a 2. A gold star vs a silver star. (Do they still give out gold and silver stars in elementary school or does anybody even know what I'm referring to?)
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
Uhh, I wouldn't give them that, considering how theories and laws are formed / accepted. They are literally a consensus of many people doing the same experiment and saying "yep, that's what we observed". If there are any outliers that are found, the theory / law gets adjusted accordingly.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
There's nothing to question. "Manmade climate change" is a hoax and now we can move on to actual concerns grounded in reality.
No. With higher temps, we WILL see more moisture in the air. BUT, the temps have to drop down for the precipitation. Since that will not be the case, we will see a LOT more droughts, but also a lot more flooding. For example, here in Colorado, we are a high plains Desert. We used to get lots of snow (.5-1.5 m at time just on the plains). Now, we are doing good if we get 2-3 cm and 1 blast with maybe 5 cm. For the last 10 years, we have been in a drought (of course, some would say that is simply weather or climate change). We had 1 year where we got major flooding which our rivers, reservoirs, etc was not prepared for, but otherwise precip has been way down. BTW, I was born in GreenVille Miss, and lived in more than a dozen states including Irving Texas, and little rock, Ark. Those are HUMID. Lots of farming goes on in those places. Now, imagine temps of 115-120. How much farming do you think will go on in that sauna? south Europe will be suffering same impact and so will China's breadbasket.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Quote: "Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package."
WTF? - how about WALKING to the grocery store or post office? Am I losing my mind here, or is this just such a staggering "first world" idiocy of a problem?
Sure, if your grocery store / post office is 3 miles away, fair play. But if you get in your car to go anywhere under a mile, FFS, get with the program already!
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells.
I already know more about them than you appear to.
You yourself need to read up on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (at least), which demonstrates how warmer oceans add moisture to arid regions, just as cooler oceans dry things out. As I said...
Keep up with the research man. My point stands.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
4/5 don't fit, except for the lightig, which is no longer an issue with LEDs anyway. If a builing has proper insulation, it's not meaningful to heat only one room. Everything inside the outer insulation is at more or less the same temperature anyway.
Tidal variance is measured in feet - or entire meters. A 1 mm variance will never be noticed. Your claimed 6mm variance will never be noticed. It would takes years, possibly decades, to prove the presence of sea level rise on the order of 6 inches - tidal variance plus waves plus wind plus erosion plus subsidence so vastly outweigh the sea rise that it is nearly impossible to detect.
By honest people, that is. Fakers can claim to detect sea rise over a mere two years.
This is from the same people who can't tell if its going to rain tomorrow or not.
Not while a 1st world person consumes 30 times the resources of a 3rd world person.
Do you really expect this disparity to continue for the next century?
A generation ago, China was as poor as Africa. Today they are 8 times richer per capita.
Nitpick: America emits ~10 times as much as Africa per capita, not 30.
Do you really expect this disparity to continue for the next century?
It's irrelevant what I expect. Whether it takes 10 days 10 years or 100 years the problem is STILL resource utilization per person not population.
A generation ago, China was as poor as Africa. Today they are 8 times richer per capita.
Today China is the worlds largest polluter by country.
Nitpick: America emits ~10 times as much as Africa per capita, not 30.
Right because Americans don't trade with any other country and produce everything they consume entirely within their own borders.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
99% of experts don't say we need to solve the problem as quickly as possible, you ignoramus. Not even close. Read some actual science sometime and stop reading blogs.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m
Fun fact, in some countries it is actually almost never allowed to run a large supermarket outside city limits, which prevents consolidation of grocery stores and city supermarkets into hypermarkets on cheap ground outside the cities and towns. Such laws should be more prevalent to improve the quality of living, imho.
Ok, stop.
In my country, the czech republic, stuff really is happening.
We (and in this case most of Europe) have had a terrible year for crops. As we speak cattle is being slaughtered because there simply isn't enough hay to feed the entire herd through winter (I know this is also happening in France).
Also note that this year is only exceptionally bad. The past 3 have been just bad.
Our main rivers are non-navigable, and have been throughout summer.
And parts of Moravia are expected to sprout deserts within 30 years.
Take a look at a globe with climate zones.
You were shown the facts numerous times. American AC is worse, than China's.
Its just a fact WindBourne.
Even though you have better AC available, you get the cheapest and crappiest.
It's clear in the pretty picture Europe, Japan, Korea and China are all better than America.
Why do you still lie about this and all things WindBourne?
Are you going to lie again and claim your account was hacked and that's the reason for all your lies.?
You were shown the facts numerous times. American AC is worse, than China's. Its just a fact WindBourne.
Even though you have better AC available, you get the cheapest and crappiest.
It's clear in the pretty picture Europe, Japan, Korea and China are all better than America.
Why do you still lie about this and all things WindBourne?
You could buy the best. You have the best available. But Americans clearly care the least about the environment and get the worst that they can. China has much less money and worse AC available. But they still by better AC than Americans.
This is all old news to you WindBourne. You tried to lie about it last time as well, but now you are too stupid to remember. Or is lying just so natural to you it's like a reflex?
China obviously doesn't import all those electric cars from the US. You are going to have to show how America manufactures the most EVs. Or just more lies from you? Only a handful of states even have EV's as more than 1% of car sales. That bubble you live in will pop one day...
The 99% number was from a presentation by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Maybe I should stick with the 97% number, since that presentation isn't online.
Science isn't conducted as a popularity contest, correct. However, the percentage of scientists that can't find issues with the models or mathematics is a useful guess as to the probability of correctness.
Let's go to another cancer example. Say the patient is my young son/daughter. I am the only guardian, so I have to make the decision. The first doctor orders a few tests and diagnoses Cancer. I want more assurance before making a decision, so I take my child to 9 other doctors. Some doctors order new tests. Others just review the results from the previous tests. In the end, 9 out of the 10 doctors diagnose cancer.
Given that there's no way I can become a cancer expert quickly enough, my best choice is to go with the 9 doctors. I'm not going to bet my child's life on the chance that 9 of the 10 doctors were idiots.
I sure as hell am not going to bet the future of humanity against the knowledge of 97% of scientists.
As for not following the scientific method, considering I don't know what specific mistake you think scientists have made, there's no way for me to agree or disagree with you.
Not really. A lot of the time Slashdot doesn't show the modifier. The post below is at 3 but I had to click the 3 to see it had been marked informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around. The problem is that global warming is as much faith and science. It might be true, but the data is not there, if you are honest.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
A couple of effects, wind, which can pile up water at the coast, so if there were steady westerly winds blowing on the east coast, the water will rise, and the opposite also holds true. Lots of places have steady winds.
Gravity, seems the ocean levels by Finland are actually dropping due to the glaciers melting and having less mass to pull the water closer. Gravity is actually somewhat uneven all over the world and as the Earth is an oblique sphere, weaker at the poles.
There's also barometric pressure, lower pressure raises the sea level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
We could now put funds towards avoiding a catastrophe that may or may not happen within our lifetime, or that of any descendants that at least remember us by name.
Or we could put funds towards avoiding a catastrophe that WILL happen within our lifetime, with no descendants to curse our name if we don't do anything.
Your choice. For me, well, I don't give a fuck either way, lacking descendants.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
cities, I was told that most of the older houses and apartments had neither air conditioning nor heating until the last few years. In this region, people were accustomed to apartments that were âoehot in summer; cold in winter.â Their drafty homesâ"built with leaky window and no insulationâ"pretty much reflected the temperature outside. But lately, almost all the residents of these older buildings have installed window units that provide both heating and cooling. I asked my Chinese colleagues if they were less efficient than central AC or heat. In terms of mechanics, of course, these smaller units are less efficient. China is horrible with efficiency and I showed it last time that you were a liar.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Caffeinated bacon,, your link shows America is not only superior to China's but that we have the highest efficiency units. Basically, your link, like all your garbage, proves you are a liar
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Anon for obvious coward reasons.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Well, which is it then? Warmer waters causing more destructive storms dumping more water on land to create more land ice? Or colder waters caused by drastic ice melt making destructive storms less likely? It can't be both!
Bonus points if you can answer this without resorting to ad hominems or just typing the word "google". Yes, it directs money to science and the social safety net, but it's not like there aren't real problems for science to work on.
You clearly didn't even read your own link as it says you are wrong and proves you are lying.
You were already shown the indisputable facts that American AC is less efficient than Chinese AC 4.4 vs 4.2
Quit your lying. Quit your false accusations.
Only liar here is you.
You have access to the highest eficiency units...But you don't buy them.
You buy worse units than all the countries shown in the graph to the left of you. Europe, Japan, Korea, China, then America.
The fact you have access to the best, have far more money, but still cheap out on the worst, shows the kind of people you are.
Keep on lying WindBourne, anyone who cares can clearly see the truth.
Only deniers like you who will say anything, are likely to ever believe you.
Your Fort Denison chart ends at 1993, so how are you interpolating to 2010? Also, as others have noted, 50mm is not 0.003 feet (it is 2 inches = 0.17 feet).
If you look at this Fort Denison chart, which goes all the way to 2018, the trendline since the mid '90s is for ~10cm of rise.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
They didn't claim that the global mean sea level rise since 2014 is responsible for the coastal flooding.
The claim is: Since 2014, more detailed economic research has estimated that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in annual damage, as deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and an increase in extreme weather take their toll.
However, you might be surprised about the impact of a millimetre. In 2016, Sydney experienced a storm that occurred at near the highest tide of the year. The erosion was 50 metres of beach in many areas, despite the storm only falling on a tide that was millimetres more than a normal spring tide: The cost of those millimetres or less was $300m.
This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
I think you have to misread the article, and misunderstand the science to come to this conclusion. This sort of silly denialism is causing frustration with and just supports those with a financial interest in encouraging distrust in global warming science.
All those 'window units' you claim are so bad are in fact the 'mini-splits' you say are good in the very next sentence.
Your ignorance of all things knows no bounds.
Just glance at the linked report and open your eyes.
All those 'window units' you claim are so bad are in fact the 'mini-splits' you say are so good in the very next sentence.
Your ignorance of all things knows no bounds.
Just glance at the linked report and open your eyes.
The 99%/97% number is based on a review that was papers reviewed and is bogus.
Let's ask Steve Jobs. Perhaps he has an answ...oh.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year, and that rate is expected to accelerate as warming continues. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the long run, and we need to deal with it.
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding. This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
Shhhhh. Nothing should be done about climate change until I have ocean-front property!
think about how much water is in a puddle a half inch deep the size of all of the oceans.
it's a lot of water and that's why what sounds like a small rise can huge huge effects. water moves around a lot. tides and wind push local sea levels higher and lower and move large amounts of water around. with the extra water in the oceans this effect is magnified as we are experiencing.
I would argue this differently. It's not so much about, "treat now or die". That analogy is a bit flawed anyway.
The issue here is the cost of change and the effort required to make the necessary changes. We are going to have to restructure our entire energy economy and it's going to take decades and cost billions of dollars. Now, would you rather start slow, take advantage of servicing intervals to make incremental changes, and pay the costs a bit at a time and save (big) money on the restructuring? Or would you rather ignore, delay, obfuscate, and then panic at some later date? Then you will pay top dollar for retrofits, and make mistakes because you didn't plan properly?
At a minimum, we need to:
1). Distribute at least part of our generating capacity. This is a pretty big change because it is most centralized now;
2). The electrical grid needs to be expanded, in particular for long-distance power transmission. This is because many renewable energy sources are "bursty" in nature and you need to balance supply with demand;
3). Demand for electrical cars are going to cause large increases in consumer demand for electricity;
4). Meanwhile, demand for hydrocarbon fuels will plateau or even fall off slowly (though I don't think this will be dramatic, at least not for a very long time);
5). Who knows what else? A change like this may well have unintended consequences.
You... do realize you just refuted your own claim, right? The Nature article claims the seaboard is sinking, which means that the sea level is rising. What did you think it meant?
And that evidence DOES NOT DISAPPEAR if you screech "climate is not weather!!!" since you DID NOT ASK ABOUT CLIMATE. Sheeit, you deniers are fucking annoying dumbasses.
What the fuck? They have SOME coal plants, so yes they kept THOSE open.
You can also prove that combustion produces it. Prove we put most of that extra up there. And so on. So AGW is 100% as repeatable in a lab as the claim nuclear fusion by done the sun is.
If the models aren't science, then there is no science in the future, since science requires models to test theories against. Prove the universal law of gravitation without a model. Prove ANYTHING scientific without sums. Because that is all a computer model is: a lot of sums.
You can keep your ant farm for humans. I can stand outside at night and hear the wind blowing in the trees. When I lay down to sleep, it is actually dark in the room.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
That's because Bill is a conservative. Hypocrisy is his name. Now stop doing what he does, and do what he says, cause he's a goddamned expert.
How do you haul all your cheap Ikea bullshit home? I sure as fuck am not hand carrying that shit home, nor try to wedge the big ass boxes onto a train/subway. I know, you drive there and haul it back like any sane person would. Google some Paris photos some time, you'll see bumper to bumper traffic all over town, just like every other big city on the planet. You ain't as special as you think you are.
You don't manufacture the most WindBourne, why the constant lies? https://www.forbes.com/sites/b... https://www.greencarreports.co...
The restructuring comes as the U.S. and North American auto markets are shifting away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. "In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs," reports Chicago Tribune. "It was about 50 percent cars just five years ago."
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Told you so...
Looks like he was right and you were wrong, (and lying as you always do.)
You have been a busy little bee haven't you WindBourne.
lying about beef, lying about electric cars, lying about CO2 emissions, lying about Aircon, lying about other people being liars.
What is keeping it down now, is NOT nat gas prices, but the states, along with utilities, which KNOW that CO2 is a real issue. In fact, out of all the idiotic things that Trump has done, I think one of the worst, was in allowing massive exports of our nat gas. That is going to raise our price, which will encourage some utilities to re-open coal.
You claim the states and utilities know it's a problem and it's not the gas price. And then in the next breath tell us they will all change to coal if the price goes up.
Why make the outrageous claim (lie), if you are just going to prove you were wrong straight away anyway? Bit of a thickie?
It's no wonder people always call out your lies WindBourne.
Even when there is a link that shows you are wrong, you still try to claim someone else is the liar and not you.
I'm not at all surprised he keeps on pointing out your lies. If someone was harassing me constantly and falsely accusing me of being a liar like you do to him, I'd do the same.
You should focus on having honour instead of worrying about how to spell it.
Just admit you were wrong and Caffeinated bacon wasn't lying after all.
It's no wonder people always call out your lies WindBourne.
Even when there is a link that shows you are wrong, you still try to claim someone else is the liar and not you.
I'm not at all surprised he keeps on pointing out your lies. If someone was harassing me constantly and falsely accusing me of being a liar like you do to him, I'd do the same.
You should focus on having honour instead of worrying about how to spell it.
Just admit you were wrong and Caffeinated bacon/Crimson Tsunami, if it was them, weren't lying after all.
You and whoever wrote that blog piece you linked to must be stupid. Even just a glance at the picture shows those aren't "window units". They aren't even in the windows, but hanging off the walls as they are split systems. You can clearly see the pipes running in through the walls.
Must you lie about China at every opportunity?
Must you always try to hide your lies with even more lies, blaming other people for your own shortcomings?
You should focus on having honour instead of worrying about how to spell it.
Oh, perhaps because I use the "old interface".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Such "hypermarkets" are actually very common in France.
They have a "zone comercial" or "zone industrial" and there are often 5 or 6 supermarkets on one spot. But one of them might be a Decathlon (sports wear and gear, boats, trecking, hunting etc.) or a home depot or market with only plants. They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yea, I've lost track of which interface I'm using, it works well with only allowing a minimum number of scripts. Lots of variables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Unless you don't have a car or are no longer fit to drive. Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation (such as the elderly) to depending on other people to buy their groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation
In theory yes. In practice Franc and Spain found a very good balance between both.
groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
The mini markets are the same brand, and have hence the same price like the super/hypermarches outside of the town.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You would need to shut down all coal to get to those percentages, not just the 20+ year old ones. Coal is less than gas with are both way less than transport.
https://theconversation.com/ca...
America is predicted to increase in 2018, but the EU will still decrease...
Per person America is still double China, even if China increases in 2018.