We're still getting peak oil. In fact, we're already past peak conventional oil. The shale oil bubble was unexpected, and is providing some temporary relief, but that doesn't mean the peak oil theory is wrong. Shale oil will also peak.
I'm sure Yahoo understands this. But who wants to go through the hassle of two factors of authentication (including using a unique and difficult password) every time they want to read an e-mail ?
What they trying to do is find a way to provide good enough security that people will actually use.
One has to keep in mind that rate of planetary warming is accelerating with increased CO2 accumulation and the rate is exponential
While I agree that the earth is warming, the curve is not "exponential". It's fairly linear right now. Ultimately, temperature goes up with log(CO2), so a constant increase in temperature (estimated to be about +3 deg C) for every doubling of CO2.
Does Mr. Persechino not understand what the word "copy" means? Perhaps he's never met twins?
Perhaps he understands that the "copy" you get from cloning is not a perfect copy, but a degraded version of the original. There's good reason to complain if clones are traded as if they were originals.
On the other hand, we could give him a painless drug that puts him to sleep and then have him only breathe nitrogen. However, those "revenge elements" start objecting to his peaceful demise
So, first beat him up until the revenge elements are satisfied, and then give him the painless drug.
Your points 1-3 agree with the notion that AGW is proven. Your points 5-6 talk about something else. Your point 4 is simply not true. The models are pretty good, it's just that there's plenty of short term noise due to weather that you can't expect a perfect match on decade long timescales. On longer timescales, the models are quite consistent with the observed data, not just this century, but also when looking at ice ages and other historic events. Furthermore, even without having the models, the trend over the last 50 years is quite obvious. As far as "something else causing it".... nobody can think of any other plausible explanation.
And as far as your point 6, yes, fixing is going to be expensive, but it needs to be done anyway. Carbon based fuels are running low..
Using a method that does not differentiate between CO2 and anything else that might absorb IR (except by using a cold trap to remove water.)
Do you really think these scientists need you to explain how to do their job ? What else could be in there to absorb IR that's not covered by the reference gas method, and that's being overlooked by these people who have been measuring CO2 for decades ?
Yes, there are highly accurate ways to measure CO2. Unless you want to argue that ALL of the ways used to measure it are as accurate, then you need to accept that there is an error in measuring it.
A very small error, yes. And there are multiple other stations around the world measuring CO2, and the results are consistent.
And again, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a direct measurement of emission, which is what the article talks about
I never said it was. I think they just add up the production of fossil fuels and calculate the CO2. However, I'm sure people also look at the concentration in the atmosphere, and correlate the results to make sure they didn't forget to account for some things.
It was one trivial example of how tallying up the sales of fuels does not yield an accurate calculation of CO2 emission worldwide.
Look at the numbers. They are talking about 32.3 billion metric tons of CO2. This is huge. You'd have to burn a billion trees to make a significant error in that number.
Ironing the oceans might help eat some CO2, but even if all CO2 was converted into Cx + O2 the O2 level would not even increas by half a percent.
And the CO2 reduction mechanism is actually conversion of CO2 to carbonate shells that sink to the ocean floor, so it wouldn't even have any effect on O2 levels. Any CO2 that's converted to organic forms of carbon would be quickly eaten by other ocean life and converted back into CO2.
No idea why people think, kilimg some people might help. The surviving people, especially if they survive a war, will likely produce more CO2 per capita then before.
Not if you kill all the coal miners and oil rig workers:)
This [google.com] study shows the best sensor tested had an accuracy of 30ppm plus 2% of the reading.
Atmospheric CO2 measurements do not use simple commercial CO2 sensors like this. Here's a description of the process used in the Mauna Loa observatory.
A much bigger problem with fracking is the quick depletion rates of wells, both for oil and gas. It's normal for a well to decline to 50% or even 25% of the production rate after one year of production, and continue declining afterwards.
This just in, Carbon Dioxide still lags temperature.
Sometimes CO2 lags temperature, but even then it still leads additional temperature at the same time. Right now, it's only leading it. The oceans are still net sinks, taking up about 45% of the produced CO2.
Seriously though, this appears to be implied CO2, rather than measured.
According to wikipedia, nuclear is only responsible for 2% of the Chinese electricity right now, and most of that was already operational in 2013. They are fast-tracking new plants, but it'll take a while before these are on-line. They are aiming to get 6% of their electricity from nuclear in 2020.
"The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons". Note that this is at best a semi-scientific *guess* at the level of emissions.
There's pretty good accounting of fossil fuel production/trade/usage, so not really a guess.
Once the subsidies dry up and they're forced to compete on their own economic merits, their growth rate is going to plummet, or even start shrinking.
Their own economic merits will improve with economies of scale, especially for solar. And coal and gas will find it harder to compete when the price of resources goes up.
And don't forget the hidden subsidy on coal because we aren't charging it with the cost of climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a very good answer, though. The internal combustion engine is very wasteful, throwing out 3/4 of the energy in the fuel as heat.
Well, the uncertainty of the quoted range is something that could be improved with a software update.
We're still getting peak oil. In fact, we're already past peak conventional oil. The shale oil bubble was unexpected, and is providing some temporary relief, but that doesn't mean the peak oil theory is wrong. Shale oil will also peak.
If the phone number is exchanged on a compromised channel, it can still be attacked by a man in the middle.
Wouldn't this ideally be presented as a choice to users?
Except for option 2, Yahoo offers those choices.
I'm sure Yahoo understands this. But who wants to go through the hassle of two factors of authentication (including using a unique and difficult password) every time they want to read an e-mail ?
What they trying to do is find a way to provide good enough security that people will actually use.
One has to keep in mind that rate of planetary warming is accelerating with increased CO2 accumulation and the rate is exponential
While I agree that the earth is warming, the curve is not "exponential". It's fairly linear right now. Ultimately, temperature goes up with log(CO2), so a constant increase in temperature (estimated to be about +3 deg C) for every doubling of CO2.
Does Mr. Persechino not understand what the word "copy" means? Perhaps he's never met twins?
Perhaps he understands that the "copy" you get from cloning is not a perfect copy, but a degraded version of the original. There's good reason to complain if clones are traded as if they were originals.
On the other hand, we could give him a painless drug that puts him to sleep and then have him only breathe nitrogen. However, those "revenge elements" start objecting to his peaceful demise
So, first beat him up until the revenge elements are satisfied, and then give him the painless drug.
And why don't we give people who are serving life imprisonment a choice of various painless suicide methods ?
Your points 1-3 agree with the notion that AGW is proven. Your points 5-6 talk about something else. Your point 4 is simply not true. The models are pretty good, it's just that there's plenty of short term noise due to weather that you can't expect a perfect match on decade long timescales. On longer timescales, the models are quite consistent with the observed data, not just this century, but also when looking at ice ages and other historic events. Furthermore, even without having the models, the trend over the last 50 years is quite obvious. As far as "something else causing it".... nobody can think of any other plausible explanation.
And as far as your point 6, yes, fixing is going to be expensive, but it needs to be done anyway. Carbon based fuels are running low..
Using a method that does not differentiate between CO2 and anything else that might absorb IR (except by using a cold trap to remove water.)
Do you really think these scientists need you to explain how to do their job ? What else could be in there to absorb IR that's not covered by the reference gas method, and that's being overlooked by these people who have been measuring CO2 for decades ?
Yes, there are highly accurate ways to measure CO2. Unless you want to argue that ALL of the ways used to measure it are as accurate, then you need to accept that there is an error in measuring it.
A very small error, yes. And there are multiple other stations around the world measuring CO2, and the results are consistent.
And again, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a direct measurement of emission, which is what the article talks about
I never said it was. I think they just add up the production of fossil fuels and calculate the CO2. However, I'm sure people also look at the concentration in the atmosphere, and correlate the results to make sure they didn't forget to account for some things.
It was one trivial example of how tallying up the sales of fuels does not yield an accurate calculation of CO2 emission worldwide.
Look at the numbers. They are talking about 32.3 billion metric tons of CO2. This is huge. You'd have to burn a billion trees to make a significant error in that number.
Ironing the oceans might help eat some CO2, but even if all CO2 was converted into Cx + O2 the O2 level would not even increas by half a percent.
And the CO2 reduction mechanism is actually conversion of CO2 to carbonate shells that sink to the ocean floor, so it wouldn't even have any effect on O2 levels. Any CO2 that's converted to organic forms of carbon would be quickly eaten by other ocean life and converted back into CO2.
No idea why people think, kilimg some people might help. The surviving people, especially if they survive a war, will likely produce more CO2 per capita then before.
Not if you kill all the coal miners and oil rig workers :)
This [google.com] study shows the best sensor tested had an accuracy of 30ppm plus 2% of the reading.
Atmospheric CO2 measurements do not use simple commercial CO2 sensors like this. Here's a description of the process used in the Mauna Loa observatory.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Accuracy is typically better than 0.2 ppm.
Nobody asked me how many trees I cut down to feed the fireplace this winter.
Compared to massive production of coal, oil and gas, a few trees aren't going to make a noticeable difference.
I could fix the whole CO2 thing easily by seeding the oceans with iron powder, that would increase O2 to dangerous levels
Why ? Where would this O2 be coming from ?
Immigration will help somewhat
Only if the immigrants are willing to work hard. That's not true for quite a few of immigrants we see in Europe.
A much bigger problem with fracking is the quick depletion rates of wells, both for oil and gas. It's normal for a well to decline to 50% or even 25% of the production rate after one year of production, and continue declining afterwards.
The oceans are still net sinks, taking up about 45% of the produced CO2.
Correcting myself here: 45% is the percentage that stays in the atmosphere. About 26% is taken up by the oceans.
This just in, Carbon Dioxide still lags temperature.
Sometimes CO2 lags temperature, but even then it still leads additional temperature at the same time. Right now, it's only leading it. The oceans are still net sinks, taking up about 45% of the produced CO2.
Seriously though, this appears to be implied CO2, rather than measured.
They do both.
According to wikipedia, nuclear is only responsible for 2% of the Chinese electricity right now, and most of that was already operational in 2013. They are fast-tracking new plants, but it'll take a while before these are on-line. They are aiming to get 6% of their electricity from nuclear in 2020.
"The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons". Note that this is at best a semi-scientific *guess* at the level of emissions.
There's pretty good accounting of fossil fuel production/trade/usage, so not really a guess.
And even if CO2 stopped increasing, global temperature would continue to increase for several decades.
Once the subsidies dry up and they're forced to compete on their own economic merits, their growth rate is going to plummet, or even start shrinking.
Their own economic merits will improve with economies of scale, especially for solar. And coal and gas will find it harder to compete when the price of resources goes up.
And don't forget the hidden subsidy on coal because we aren't charging it with the cost of climate change.
Destruction of the pharmaceutical industry......what could possibly be bad about that?
I'm sure you can figure it out if you think about it a little longer.