Between 2003-2009, the region released 0.59 million metric tons of it into the atmosphere
While interesting to understand where it is coming from, that's still a tiny amount. For comparison, total human production of CO2 is 29000 million tons per year.
We can start performing some experiments on Earth first. Drop a few people in the middle of Antarctica with a few tonnes of supplies,and let them build an airtight habitat while never taking off their space suits.
Where I live (in Europe), the government has very little to do with providing internet. The infrastructure is all privately owned. The only trick is that owners of the infrastructure are required to lease bandwidth to their competitors, and charge a reasonable fee for it. That means that a new competitor doesn't need a large amount of capital to invest in huge amounts of infrastructure, instead they can lease a bit of capacity at wholesale prices, and set up their own internet business.
The sun has been (very slowly) getting hotter, due to H being converted to denser He. The CO2 levels have dropped at the same time, because whenever the temperature on Earth goes up, this causes a speed-up in the chemical reactions that bind CO2 into carbonate rocks, lowering atmospheric CO2, and causing temperatures to go back down.
Of course, solar in its current state is not a solution to get rid of coal. But it's still a solution to use less coal. So, as long as you have positive EROEI it makes sense to add it to the energy mix. And solar itself is not 100% stable and reliable, but we can work on energy storage systems.
It's also not fair to compare 4th generation nuclear with solar technology your hippie friends were using tens of years ago. If you want to do a fair analysis, you should compare technology from the same year.
That plot shows the current year, and it doesn't tell you anything about the last 10 years. Here is a better graph of the long term trend:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
As you can see, the trend is solidly down, with a bit more variance in the last couple of years (as the ice gets thinner, it makes sense that the area/extent has more variability)
Precisely my thought. And even in the few cases that I'm actually looking for a product that I wouldn't mind getting some ads for, it's only for a short time (until I buy it, or lose interest), and usually not something that is related to my on-line behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Between 2003-2009, the region released 0.59 million metric tons of it into the atmosphere
While interesting to understand where it is coming from, that's still a tiny amount. For comparison, total human production of CO2 is 29000 million tons per year.
we already have an Antarctic research colony
Yes, but they get all their supplies brought in. Trying to build a self-sufficient Antarctic research colony would be a lot more fun.
and there would be negligible benefits
Pretty much the same as a colony on Mars.
Maybe putting a bomb under the whole project is the best use of time and money there is.
The total lack of design details should give you a hint.
We can start performing some experiments on Earth first. Drop a few people in the middle of Antarctica with a few tonnes of supplies,and let them build an airtight habitat while never taking off their space suits.
You can stop right there. A project like this needs a lot more of the details to be filled before we can even start to take it seriously.
So, why doesn't the government fix things then ?
So, compare the US to all of Europe.
Where I live (in Europe), the government has very little to do with providing internet. The infrastructure is all privately owned. The only trick is that owners of the infrastructure are required to lease bandwidth to their competitors, and charge a reasonable fee for it. That means that a new competitor doesn't need a large amount of capital to invest in huge amounts of infrastructure, instead they can lease a bit of capacity at wholesale prices, and set up their own internet business.
What you might not know is another double of CO2 is exactly what we need to grow the food to feed the growing population we have.
Plant yield is usually not CO2 limited. I'd worry more about water, nitrogen and phosphorous.
You do realize that carbon dioxide is quite literally PLANT FOOD, don't you?
Water is also plant food, so by the same logic, you wouldn't mind if your house was flooded ?
Can you compare US metro areas to Sweden, then ?
The sun has been (very slowly) getting hotter, due to H being converted to denser He. The CO2 levels have dropped at the same time, because whenever the temperature on Earth goes up, this causes a speed-up in the chemical reactions that bind CO2 into carbonate rocks, lowering atmospheric CO2, and causing temperatures to go back down.
The sun is a factor when you look over hundreds of millions of years. The sun is not a factor when you look at the past century.
Of course, solar in its current state is not a solution to get rid of coal. But it's still a solution to use less coal. So, as long as you have positive EROEI it makes sense to add it to the energy mix. And solar itself is not 100% stable and reliable, but we can work on energy storage systems. It's also not fair to compare 4th generation nuclear with solar technology your hippie friends were using tens of years ago. If you want to do a fair analysis, you should compare technology from the same year.
That plot shows the current year, and it doesn't tell you anything about the last 10 years. Here is a better graph of the long term trend: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... As you can see, the trend is solidly down, with a bit more variance in the last couple of years (as the ice gets thinner, it makes sense that the area/extent has more variability)
As long as the right technologies and locations are used, there's no reason to stop using wind or solar. Especially solar has a lot of potential.
I don't know where you get your data, but both ice caps are still on a negative trend.
When comparing CO2 levels between Cretaceous of years ago and current, you should also keep in mind that the Sun has been gradually getting hotter.
Yesterday it was about the top layer, today about the deeper layers. Oceans are big and varied, you know.
Well, apparently NASA is not part of the global science conspiracy to lie about the climate so they can rake in the subsidies.
Careful what you say, or they'll terminate your slashdot account.
Precisely my thought. And even in the few cases that I'm actually looking for a product that I wouldn't mind getting some ads for, it's only for a short time (until I buy it, or lose interest), and usually not something that is related to my on-line behaviour.
If somebody is or has been subjected to certain context (cultural or otherwise), why wouldn't you want to include that in a test ?
Obviously, difference in lifestyle plays a part, but keep in mind that the lifestyle in turn is partly determined by genes of the parents.