I have seen values for Germany up to 13 t CO2 per capita. While this sucks big time, one third is produced by traffic, another third is from heating
So what? France doesn't have road traffic and heating?
Furthermore, we have many lignite coal power plants which are actually obsolete and could be shutdown without any trouble. It would even improve grid stability, as we would have less excess capacity (http://www.dw.com/en/the-end-of-lignite-coal-for-power-in-germany/a-18806081).
So do it already.
France has been generating 80-90% of it's electricity from low carbon sources since the 1990's and you expect kudos for thinking about maybe closing down some fucking lignite burning power plants at some undefined time between now and 2020.
Saturday's agreement on closing 2.7 GW of German lignite power plants will reduce electricity from lignite there by 13%
Oh, fucking great, you're proud that they're going to close 13% of the lignite burning plants. Yipee!. And no mention of the hard coal burning plants.
Just look at the stats from https://www.energy-charts.de/p.... Germany's electricity in January 2016 was 7.5GW biomass constant (PM10/PM25 hell), 10GW nuclear constant, around 12GW brown coal, hard coal varying between 0 and 20GW, Gas between 0 and 12GW and renewables for the rest.
It's filthy.
Are we going to have more high particulate pollution days this summer when the wind happens to be blowing from Germany? How many people are being killed every year by the air pollution from your biomass and coal plants? 10's of Chernobyl's a year? 100's? 1000's?
Look, I know this is slashdot, so what I'm proposing may seem radical, but RTFA.
The new proposal echoes a bill from January 2016 that would have mandated “backdoors” into encryption in France. That backdoor bill, championed by Conservatives in the French legislature, was defeated and criticized by the current government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls.
The new punitive legislation, which is also being criticized by the Valls government, is an amendment to a larger penal reform bill. Like its predecessor, it's unclear that this amendment will make it through to law.
This is an amendment proposed by "Les Republicans", the opposition party, and will be rejected by the majority socialist group in the assembly. The government is against this amendment.
You mean the so-called "cubs of the caliphate", the ones who shoot bound and prostrate prisoners in the back of the head? Good riddance to the lot of them, the human race is better off without them.
Of course you didn't read any of the material that shows that the postulations that the climate models that are driving the climate change hysteria are built upon are wrong,
Citation? To peer reviewed science, not some "auditor" or blog?
You also are not aware that the IPCC reports consistently say that we just don't know and that it's all speculation,
You want to brush up on your reading skills, what the IPCC actually says is:
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
No, there is no "debate" about models or measurements or history. Science doesn't work by "debate". All those people who persist on denying the science are just masturbating.
You've clearly never seen science in action then, or paid any attention to the details of climate science. There's always been, and always will be, debate in science, including climate science. If the answers were cut and dry the science would be easy. It isn't.
No. "Debate" is just arguing about things. In order to do science you need evidence. You need to do experiments, write papers, show the flaws in other theories. You don't just blather on about international conspiracies and "follow the money" and other irrelevant shit.
You cite a paper that says "This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability." but dismiss multiple papers that showed that there is little or no difference when internal climate variability was compensated for.
I know what I don't find convincing and that's the single paper effect.
Yes there is. It's just that some would like to shut it down and claim "the science is settled". There are debates regarding models, measurements, history, and policy, just off the top of my head.
No, there is no "debate" about models or measurements or history. Science doesn't work by "debate". All those people who persist on denying the science are just masturbating.
There can and should be debate about policy. Unfortunately the very people who should be involved in this debate spend all their time trying to pretend that the science doesn't exist.
About 99% of everyone else has to drive, or ride in a car driven by someone else, to get where they need to go.
Really? You think everyone in the world has access to a car?
And you're not going to be doing farming without fossil fuels, you're not going to be transporting the food without fossil fuels, and you that think you're existence is fossil-fuel-free are going to arrive at your Starbucks and there's going to be no coffee, no food at the grocery, and so forth.
Whether it's hard or not has exactly no influence on whether it's necessary.
Virtually 100% of the current warming trend is caused by humans.
Yes, I misspoke, the AR5 attribution statement is:
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
(my emphasis).
I was only including the effect of human GHG emissions, which is probably more than 100% of current warming (offset by "other anthropogenic" effects and what seems to be a small natural cooling trend).
By the way, I have seen a claim of 97% of it being attributable to human activity
From everything I've seen the error bars are too big to be that precise.
Are you the AC above? I was replying to it. It seems to think there have been record cold global anomalies recently, it's of course right if by recently it means 1893.
Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.
Have we now??? Well, feel free to believe that, I will continue to KNOW that whatever small effect we have on this chunk of rock and water, there will be counter effects built in the natural feed back loop.
How do you "know" this? My belief is based on science. Yours, not so much.
When in doubt...follow the money on global warming scaremongering... who exactly IS profiting.
Who is profiting from the denial of science? I'd guess it's the people who are funding it, you know, fossil fuel extraction companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen values for Germany up to 13 t CO2 per capita. While this sucks big time, one third is produced by traffic, another third is from heating
So what? France doesn't have road traffic and heating?
Furthermore, we have many lignite coal power plants which are actually obsolete and could be shutdown without any trouble. It would even improve grid stability, as we would have less excess capacity (http://www.dw.com/en/the-end-of-lignite-coal-for-power-in-germany/a-18806081).
So do it already.
France has been generating 80-90% of it's electricity from low carbon sources since the 1990's and you expect kudos for thinking about maybe closing down some fucking lignite burning power plants at some undefined time between now and 2020.
Oh, fucking great, you're proud that they're going to close 13% of the lignite burning plants. Yipee!. And no mention of the hard coal burning plants.
Just look at the stats from https://www.energy-charts.de/p.... Germany's electricity in January 2016 was 7.5GW biomass constant (PM10/PM25 hell), 10GW nuclear constant, around 12GW brown coal, hard coal varying between 0 and 20GW, Gas between 0 and 12GW and renewables for the rest.
It's filthy.
Are we going to have more high particulate pollution days this summer when the wind happens to be blowing from Germany? How many people are being killed every year by the air pollution from your biomass and coal plants? 10's of Chernobyl's a year? 100's? 1000's?
prefec2:
They will not build a new one.
prefec2:
Oh indeed they are building one
So you say something you know is wrong, I correct you, and you go off into various unsubstantiated nonsense.
Explains the absurd state of the German energy industry completely.
Germany, CO2 emisions per capita: 9.3 tonnes.
France, CO2 emissions per capita: 5 tonnes.
You mean SHIFT-8?
Shift-P on an ASR33.
"1" is 061. shift 1 is "!", 041, shift is done by XOR with 020.
"P" is 0120, 0120 XOR 020 == 0100, "@".
Also, "O" is 0117, 0117 XOR 020 == 0137, backarrow (or, later, underscore).
There were no tablet based software keyboards then, so the @ symbol was as accessible as 2 - just use the shift key.
Whoops, on an ASR33 shift/2 was ", not @.
('cos ASCII 1, 2, 3, 4... maps to !, ", #, $... when you flip the bits).
Only thing I wish he had done - make the thing case SENSITIVE. Like Foo@Bar.com would have been different from foo@bar.com or FOO@BAR.COM.
Jesus fucking Christ am I glad that they didn't do that.
So France subsidies nuclear power and meanwhile purchases electricity from Germany?
Not quite. Sometimes France imports from Germany, sometimes it exports. At the moment (14:00 CET, 7/3/2016) France is exporting around 2GW to Germany.
Also, not all French electricity is nuclear, at this moment it's 73% nuke, 13% hydro, 8% gas and 3% coal.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
They will not build a new one.[...]
Therefore, it is not very plausible that they will build a new reactor anywhere.
Uh, they are already building a new one. Fessenhiem can be closed because it will be replaced by Flamanville.
Wow. Re-write history much? I'm not going to argue that going in to Iraq wasn't a mistake -- it was. But that's based on hindsight.
You are re-writing history. Many people said it was a mistake before the war. Hindsight wad not needed.
I am french.
Okay, this article makes no sense.
None at all. The article says:
Then goes on to show 3 amendments:
Amendment #533 -- Retired
Amendment #221 -- Rejected
Amendment #532 -- Retired
So what were the parliament supposed to have voted for?
slow your roll, my friend. i would never be so callous as to assume the words of a government critter
What "government critter"? The Republicans are the opposition party.
This amendment has no chance of being passed -- if you'd bothered to RTFA you'd see that the government, not being insane, is going to reject it.
Look, I know this is slashdot, so what I'm proposing may seem radical, but RTFA.
This is an amendment proposed by "Les Republicans", the opposition party, and will be rejected by the majority socialist group in the assembly. The government is against this amendment.
Who is the fool who should be fucked?
Great posting sabotaged by Slashdot's 1990's level unicode support.
But think about all the children!
You mean the so-called "cubs of the caliphate", the ones who shoot bound and prostrate prisoners in the back of the head? Good riddance to the lot of them, the human race is better off without them.
In what way are you different from them?
graph
Yes, vindicated. For those of you who didn't click on link it shows the "enviro-left" IPCC predictions vs actual temperature measurements.
Oh, cute, an unsourced graph that stops in 2012 and uses dodgy frequently "adjusted" UAH satellite data.
Why not try it with actual temperature data and include recent measurements? Oh, because it doesn't tell the same story.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_1997-2015.jpg
Of course you didn't read any of the material that shows that the postulations that the climate models that are driving the climate change hysteria are built upon are wrong,
Citation? To peer reviewed science, not some "auditor" or blog?
You also are not aware that the IPCC reports consistently say that we just don't know and that it's all speculation,
You want to brush up on your reading skills, what the IPCC actually says is:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Obama is a Democrat president, and one that has been aggressive in using recess appointments to evade confirmation in the Senate.
Aggressive? Making fewer recess appointments than his predecessors? That's aggressive?
No, there is no "debate" about models or measurements or history. Science doesn't work by "debate". All those people who persist on denying the science are just masturbating.
You've clearly never seen science in action then, or paid any attention to the details of climate science. There's always been, and always will be, debate in science, including climate science. If the answers were cut and dry the science would be easy. It isn't.
No. "Debate" is just arguing about things. In order to do science you need evidence. You need to do experiments, write papers, show the flaws in other theories. You don't just blather on about international conspiracies and "follow the money" and other irrelevant shit.
You cite a paper that says "This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability." but dismiss multiple papers that showed that there is little or no difference when internal climate variability was compensated for.
I know what I don't find convincing and that's the single paper effect.
1. There is no "debate"
Yes there is. It's just that some would like to shut it down and claim "the science is settled". There are debates regarding models, measurements, history, and policy, just off the top of my head.
No, there is no "debate" about models or measurements or history. Science doesn't work by "debate". All those people who persist on denying the science are just masturbating.
There can and should be debate about policy. Unfortunately the very people who should be involved in this debate spend all their time trying to pretend that the science doesn't exist.
About 99% of everyone else has to drive, or ride in a car driven by someone else, to get where they need to go.
Really? You think everyone in the world has access to a car?
And you're not going to be doing farming without fossil fuels, you're not going to be transporting the food without fossil fuels, and you that think you're existence is fossil-fuel-free are going to arrive at your Starbucks and there's going to be no coffee, no food at the grocery, and so forth.
Whether it's hard or not has exactly no influence on whether it's necessary.
I don't drink Starbucks -- I like coffee.
Virtually 100% of the current warming trend is caused by humans.
Yes, I misspoke, the AR5 attribution statement is:
(my emphasis).
I was only including the effect of human GHG emissions, which is probably more than 100% of current warming (offset by "other anthropogenic" effects and what seems to be a small natural cooling trend).
By the way, I have seen a claim of 97% of it being attributable to human activity
From everything I've seen the error bars are too big to be that precise.
Want to see you achieve this. We absolutely have to drive cars to get to and from work, recreation, etc.
We do? How odd, I don't own a car, I wonder how I do these things?
Who ever said that getting over this problem would be easy?
That's not even saying that humans aren't to blame for some of the change.
Slightly over 100% by current estimates.
Are you the AC above? I was replying to it. It seems to think there have been record cold global anomalies recently, it's of course right if by recently it means 1893.
Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.
Have we now??? Well, feel free to believe that, I will continue to KNOW that whatever small effect we have on this chunk of rock and water, there will be counter effects built in the natural feed back loop.
How do you "know" this? My belief is based on science. Yours, not so much.
When in doubt...follow the money on global warming scaremongering... who exactly IS profiting.
Who is profiting from the denial of science? I'd guess it's the people who are funding it, you know, fossil fuel extraction companies.
Having the coldest and warmest months so close together proves climate change.
Well, if you consider that 1893 is close to 2016...