.Nuclear baseload. We've known how to do it for half a century. That alone would resolve most of the CO2 issues.
I don't think that it would resolve most of them. There's a hell of a lot of issues with CO2 currently in the atmosphere and oceans now.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
You can count me as one of the several you have just found.
Now that you're starting to take the problem more seriously, what are you doing about it?
As is, looks more like an attempt at social engineering (lowering everyone's standard of living except for the "Right People")
This is an example of the fossil fuel industry's PR groups propaganda. Not only does lowering greenhouse emissions raise everyones standard of living, compared to paying for adaptation, but there's no plausible reason for such a social experiment.
"Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.
Which working group and year of IPCC report are you quoting?
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
Bullshit.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
That translation is pretty poor, and lends itself to the interpretation that you've given it. But Edenhofer is merely discussing the difficulties in negotiating climate response, because sufficient actions have a large effect on the world's wealth distribution. Consider the effect on Saudi Arabia or Russia if we require a halt to the extraction of fossil fuels that are likely to be used by burning them. The basis of their economy suddenly disappears.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
This is not about "redistribution of wealth". It is merely saying that economic development used to go through a fossil fuel phase, and we have to transform it so that it doesn't.
“This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
This is not about "redistribution of wealth". It is about the fact that we have to come up with a global mechanism for enacting policy for the planet. Unless you're very lucky democracy does not produce polices that cost in the current term, but don't have benefits until later terms, or worse, don't have benefits primarily for the country in question.
Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."
I'm having trouble finding the context of this quote. Where did he say or write that? In particular, who is "we", and what has this to do with climate science? Did you know this quote is also attributed to Prince Phillip?
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Again, I'm having trouble finding the source of that quote. Was it in one of his books? Which one?
In an era when nearly every print media organisation have replaced their science staff with generic reporters, the Guardian still maintains a science team, and produce a science podcast.
Are you sure the differences in their logic and yours are due to faults on their part?
The headline is from Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year, which in turn is from the abstract of the paper.
So you can't get a much better source of scientific information than Nature Publishing Group.
What part of the article do you think is unscientific?
It's Trillions less than WWI, WWII, or any number of volcanic eruptions *alone*
And here we see an example of complete bullshit.
Human emissions are 120 times volcanic eruptions.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. - Scientific American.
Paid for by the people that profit from the fear mongering.
The IPCC is funded by the World Meteorological Organisation and by the United Nations Environment Programme.
But the reports are written by scientist volunteers.
How do you claim "fear mongering" is monetized bu these bodies?
Bunch of chicken little politicians making money.
The political review waters down the results. This is because a democracy doesn't want to spend any money now to counter a problem what will fall in someone else's term.
There's no money in it for politicians, just cost.
News flash, the Earth changes, and always will.
Nevertheless, if you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science.
The old timers will tell you.
Plenty of old timers will tell you that the weather is warming unlike anything before. But it is the measurements that make evidence, not anecdotes.
I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.
The river in the article changed course the lake that used to be its source emptied in another direction that was previously blocked by ice.
The precipitating event for all of this happened in summer 2016, when meltwater from the retreating Kaskawulsh glacier burst through a channel of ice, suddenly draining a glacial lake that had fed Slims river and directing waters into a different river that ultimately heads south toward the Gulf of Alaska. Previously, these waters had ultimately fed into the vast Yukon river, which empties on Alaska’s west coast. - The fucking article.
What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source.
The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net carbon sinks. They have sunk 55-60% of the carbon emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels and land use change. All the increase is due to human activity. Natural systems are balancing some of it. (Hence ocean acidification and CO2 fertilization).
With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.
No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.
"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.
And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
As of 2000 it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.
I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.
The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.
Well:
1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing, you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.
A lot of projects left sourceforge when they started bundling malware with downloads.
At some point climate science denial became vogue in here, complete with links to Forbes... and removal of modding from people like myself who tried to keep that one scientific.
There's a lot of goodwill to win back for a couple of environments that have to compete for users.
The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry.
In Dr Goldacre's talk at nerdstock 2009, he mentions a study in which there were measurable physiological changes. Particularly in the non-placebo group those that were given a muscle relaxant had high muscle relaxant levels in their blood plasma than those who were given the muscle relaxant and were told it was a placebo.
Mike Strizki says he’s figured out how to store solar energy in a way that could provide the world with an infinite source of year-round, emissions-free power...
I think he must mean a continuous source. An infinite source of power is a pretty big claim.
That's All the energy in the universe, plus a great deal more.
Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.
It's not unknowable, unless you're working with some really weird idea of "truth" such that it is all in one piece, and the fact that you know that there's a coffee cup sitting on your desk isn't known because you don't know what dark matter is.
An important thing to recognize about post-modernism is that its complete bullshit.
So you've changed your objection from "the models don't work at all".
Good. Models aren't going to be perfect ever, but they're very useful for investigating systems like the climate.
Your objection has become: "The message is one of doom"
This is a common pitfall in thinking. It's called the argument from final consequences. It turns out that the quality of science is not determined by what the final consequences are, but by the rigor and reproducibility of the work.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that it would resolve most of them. There's a hell of a lot of issues with CO2 currently in the atmosphere and oceans now.
You can count me as one of the several you have just found.
Now that you're starting to take the problem more seriously, what are you doing about it?
This is an example of the fossil fuel industry's PR groups propaganda. Not only does lowering greenhouse emissions raise everyones standard of living, compared to paying for adaptation, but there's no plausible reason for such a social experiment.
I think you're misunderstanding, it's the other way around.
Solving climate change redistributes wealth.
For example, there's 200 billion barrels of oil that are under Saudi Arabia, and therefore not under any other country.
Which working group and year of IPCC report are you quoting?
Bullshit.
That translation is pretty poor, and lends itself to the interpretation that you've given it. But Edenhofer is merely discussing the difficulties in negotiating climate response, because sufficient actions have a large effect on the world's wealth distribution. Consider the effect on Saudi Arabia or Russia if we require a halt to the extraction of fossil fuels that are likely to be used by burning them. The basis of their economy suddenly disappears.
This is not about "redistribution of wealth". It is merely saying that economic development used to go through a fossil fuel phase, and we have to transform it so that it doesn't.
This is not about "redistribution of wealth". It is about the fact that we have to come up with a global mechanism for enacting policy for the planet. Unless you're very lucky democracy does not produce polices that cost in the current term, but don't have benefits until later terms, or worse, don't have benefits primarily for the country in question.
I'm having trouble finding the context of this quote. Where did he say or write that? In particular, who is "we", and what has this to do with climate science? Did you know this quote is also attributed to Prince Phillip?
Again, I'm having trouble finding the source of that quote. Was it in one of his books? Which one?
Funny looking cycle.
Aren't cycles supposed to follow a repeating pattern, rather than starting in a repeating pattern then suddenly take off?
In an era when nearly every print media organisation have replaced their science staff with generic reporters, the Guardian still maintains a science team, and produce a science podcast.
Are you sure the differences in their logic and yours are due to faults on their part?
The headline is from Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year, which in turn is from the abstract of the paper.
So you can't get a much better source of scientific information than Nature Publishing Group.
What part of the article do you think is unscientific?
And here we see an example of complete bullshit.
Human emissions are 120 times volcanic eruptions.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. - Scientific American.
The IPCC is funded by the World Meteorological Organisation and by the United Nations Environment Programme.
But the reports are written by scientist volunteers.
How do you claim "fear mongering" is monetized bu these bodies?
The political review waters down the results. This is because a democracy doesn't want to spend any money now to counter a problem what will fall in someone else's term.
There's no money in it for politicians, just cost.
Nevertheless, if you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science.
Plenty of old timers will tell you that the weather is warming unlike anything before. But it is the measurements that make evidence, not anecdotes.
Because the current climate change is anthropogenic.
The river in the article changed course the lake that used to be its source emptied in another direction that was previously blocked by ice.
The precipitating event for all of this happened in summer 2016, when meltwater from the retreating Kaskawulsh glacier burst through a channel of ice, suddenly draining a glacial lake that had fed Slims river and directing waters into a different river that ultimately heads south toward the Gulf of Alaska. Previously, these waters had ultimately fed into the vast Yukon river, which empties on Alaska’s west coast. - The fucking article.
The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net carbon sinks. They have sunk 55-60% of the carbon emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels and land use change.
All the increase is due to human activity. Natural systems are balancing some of it. (Hence ocean acidification and CO2 fertilization).
In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.
With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.
No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.
"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.
And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
As of 2000 it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.
I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.
The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.
Well:
1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing, you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.
2) There have been papers that split the warming into the warming that would have happened from natural forcing, and that which would have happened from anthropogenic forcing. ((paper). Satisfyingly, the warming that has happened from the sum of the forcings, is approximately the sum of the warmings from each forcing. So it's nice and additive, therefore statements like "x% of the warming of the past y years is anthropogenic" are meaningful. Such as "80% of the warming of the past 100 years is anthropogenic" or "110% of the warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic".
I'm fine with that too, but given that this isn't victimless there should be criminal prosecutions against individuals as well.
The other aspect of the dishonesty was that they gave themselves an advantage over their competitors.
A lot of projects left sourceforge when they started bundling malware with downloads.
... and removal of modding from people like myself who tried to keep that one scientific.
At some point climate science denial became vogue in here, complete with links to Forbes
There's a lot of goodwill to win back for a couple of environments that have to compete for users.
Good Luck.
The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry.
(See paragraph 10 on page 3 of the ministry of Justice's briefing on the bill).
Here's some examples.
and we should thank the Liberals for such a _marvelous_ performance !
Not being up on American Politics, what is the link here?
I thought that theory was out of favor.
Less "out of favour" and more "never had any scientific attention or merit", also "lacking any archeological or fossil evidence".
See Space Ape!
In Dr Goldacre's talk at nerdstock 2009, he mentions a study in which there were measurable physiological changes. Particularly in the non-placebo group those that were given a muscle relaxant had high muscle relaxant levels in their blood plasma than those who were given the muscle relaxant and were told it was a placebo.
The reality is that the cost of reducing emissions is an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of mitigation of the consequences of climate change.
So the sacrifice turns out to be a BENEFIT. Assuming you can get Australia, China and Saudi Arabia to join the party.
Mike Strizki says he’s figured out how to store solar energy in a way that could provide the world with an infinite source of year-round, emissions-free power ...
I think he must mean a continuous source. An infinite source of power is a pretty big claim.
That's All the energy in the universe, plus a great deal more.
Objective Truth may exist elsewhere, but it is unknowable.
It's not unknowable, unless you're working with some really weird idea of "truth" such that it is all in one piece, and the fact that you know that there's a coffee cup sitting on your desk isn't known because you don't know what dark matter is.
An important thing to recognize about post-modernism is that its complete bullshit.
So you've changed your objection from "the models don't work at all".
Good. Models aren't going to be perfect ever, but they're very useful for investigating systems like the climate.
Your objection has become: "The message is one of doom"
This is a common pitfall in thinking. It's called the argument from final consequences. It turns out that the quality of science is not determined by what the final consequences are, but by the rigor and reproducibility of the work.