These results have not been confirmed by other ice cores, notably the nearby GISP2 core.
the potential for rapid climate change during interglacial periods remains one of the most intriguing gaps in our understanding of the nature of major Quaternary climate change.
In other words, this is a one off and not supported by other relevant data.
Lithium is completely recyclable. Economically its not viable currently compared with mining new, but keeping the oceans from consuming NYC, Miami and a host of other coastal mega-cities will more than offset this cost; i.e. everything has cost. Still entirely possible and not technically difficult.
Solar panels are likewise almost entirely recyclable.
Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand. Definitely a niche requirement, but it simply can't scale globally.
Still on the the fucking trees. Google it. It doesn't work.
Nuclear isn't viable. Nobody has figured out how to deal with the waste. Hence it piling up in 'storage ponds'. The folly that we can predict it won't be disturbed for 1000x the length our modern society has existed is laughable. (all that said, nuclear is totally required for the next 50-100 years to deal with climate change)
On that front, my favorite, actually realistic, plan to deal with nuclear waste is to launch it into the sun. Seriously. The entire earth could, err will, be consumed by the Sun and it won't so much as burp. We can totally just throw all of our waste into it with literally zero downsides.
Just a bit economically unfeasible though, at least for now. The real fun fact is it's 'cheaper' to launch that waste out to Pluto and then send it into the Sun. I blame physics;-)
Actually, in the long run that will be necessary anyway, because the Earth's climate has significant natural variation, enough that for most of the planet's life-bearing history it's had a climate that we wouldn't like very much.
Since we're still in the infancy of climate understanding; i.e. we can read it and make predictions that generally come true. That's a far far way from being able to engineer it to our desires.
And so dealing with something within 100 years outweighs the planning for dealing with the next ice age in 10,000....
. There's also evidence from both Greenland and Antarctic ice core records that the planet occasionally undergoes very rapid spontaneous (i.e. not driven by obvious causes like large volcanic event) climate changes -- faster than the current anthropogenic change.
Source required for this.
Reducing our "accidental" impact will make the job of engineering appropriate deliberate impacts easier, of course.
Agreed with the caveat that our impact is far from accidental.
You've provided no solutions beyond ones clearly not feasible.
No one said mining materials was emission free. Even if it's 10% of current coal emissions...um, that's a bad thing?
required real estate? you mean rooftops? or road ways? or just panes of glass? Anything that is hit by sunlight can potentially be power generating, drastically reducing the need to centralized, real estate gobbling power plants.
Nothing says you can't recycle the materials in the panels when they are broken. And the batteries required for grid scale solar are similar. We already recycle lead to the point that it's no longer present in the environment beyond normal background levels. And that was just in 2-3 decades after massive pollution.
You seem to bent on perfect when good will do just fine.
Actually the kinetic studies on the atmosphere show that we are already turning over the CO2 surprisingly fast.
Define turning over? CO2 levels are rising unabated currently.
we won't be able to double the atmospheric CO2 levels given some decent management of the land and water.
We've already doubled the natural swing from low to high and we're 50% higher than the highest highs in the last 1/2 million years.
linky
we seem to probably be sliding toward a Maunder type minimum for the next 30 - 200 years
again, any links supporting this? I won't argue that perhaps that would be the normal pattern of the climate, but no models show this even remotely starting right now.
As for ice ages. Those take 1000s of years to even begin to start affecting the world. The 1970s were correct in that given our orbit wobbling we should be starting to enter into the next glacial period. Instead temps have gone up drastically rather than being relatively static and trending slightly down.
Not sure which argument you're making because it's the exact one I'm making. We can be CO2 neutral and still have billions of people. What are you trying to say?
You'd have to plant trees in an area the size of basically Texas...every single year and never let that CO2 go back into the atmosphere. That's just to keep up with current status quo. More if you want to start cutting into what we've already released.
Trees is not even a fraction the answer we need. Of course not cutting down the trees we still have is prudent.
Clean energy solved? Show me this mythical source please. And nuclear isn't clean.
You even agree with me. Reducing polution and waste. We can massively reduce our CO2 footprint. Recycling of batteries and solar panels already exists.
Yes we're still burning coal. But a whole lot less of it. Something like a ten percent drop in a single year. Steps in a process. You don't get to perfect overnight.
China going to be greener than the US in under a decade. They aren't hung up on making g solar power a political issue. It's already cheaper than coal.
In 30 years when they have a fraction of our fuel costs, they will be eating our lunch
If you have a better way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, please do provide it. the charcoal is because it doesn't release it's CO2 like the wood itself eventually does within a decade or two.
linky just one idea that's a net CO2 in the air reducing process.
To be fair, it isn't North American, European, Australian or Japanese scientists who are contributing to overpopulation.
To be fair, we're telling the rest of the world you can't be like us because we aren't sustainable. Sorry, we used up the resources, you don't get modern life.
The problem is not over population. It's the pollution that comes from the energy they need. You can have 2 people and still produce too much CO2 for the earth to handle or 10 billion and not produce any above the natural norm. Same for waste and trash. It's not the number of people, it's the amount of output.
You simply aren't going to have modern society without billions of people.
And you simply aren't going to revert 7 billion people back to an agrarian economy.
So working to reduce our waste volume is the only realistic plan.
Indeed. However this seemingly doesn't apply to the average 9-5, err 10-4?, Day. For A 24/7 shift cycle certainly makes sense, but not when you have just one shift. How do you divide this across 5 8 hour days?
Physics doesn't care about politics. It also doesn't much care about economicsâ. Norway produces the vast majority of the energy it uses. That the EU buys 'credit' for it is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
From the VERY FIRST LINK:
These results have not been confirmed by other ice cores, notably the nearby GISP2 core.
the potential for rapid climate change during interglacial periods remains one of the most intriguing gaps in our understanding of the nature of major Quaternary climate change.
In other words, this is a one off and not supported by other relevant data.
Lithium is completely recyclable. Economically its not viable currently compared with mining new, but keeping the oceans from consuming NYC, Miami and a host of other coastal mega-cities will more than offset this cost; i.e. everything has cost. Still entirely possible and not technically difficult.
Solar panels are likewise almost entirely recyclable.
Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand. Definitely a niche requirement, but it simply can't scale globally.
Still on the the fucking trees. Google it. It doesn't work.
Nuclear isn't viable. Nobody has figured out how to deal with the waste. Hence it piling up in 'storage ponds'. The folly that we can predict it won't be disturbed for 1000x the length our modern society has existed is laughable. (all that said, nuclear is totally required for the next 50-100 years to deal with climate change)
;-)
On that front, my favorite, actually realistic, plan to deal with nuclear waste is to launch it into the sun. Seriously. The entire earth could, err will, be consumed by the Sun and it won't so much as burp. We can totally just throw all of our waste into it with literally zero downsides.
Just a bit economically unfeasible though, at least for now. The real fun fact is it's 'cheaper' to launch that waste out to Pluto and then send it into the Sun. I blame physics
you heat it in an oxygen starved environment. That heat is easily provided by solar power. So no burning involved at all.
But even if you would use combustion to get the heat...read the link. It's still a net negative CO2 release process.
Actually, in the long run that will be necessary anyway, because the Earth's climate has significant natural variation, enough that for most of the planet's life-bearing history it's had a climate that we wouldn't like very much.
Since we're still in the infancy of climate understanding; i.e. we can read it and make predictions that generally come true. That's a far far way from being able to engineer it to our desires.
And so dealing with something within 100 years outweighs the planning for dealing with the next ice age in 10,000....
. There's also evidence from both Greenland and Antarctic ice core records that the planet occasionally undergoes very rapid spontaneous (i.e. not driven by obvious causes like large volcanic event) climate changes -- faster than the current anthropogenic change.
Source required for this.
Reducing our "accidental" impact will make the job of engineering appropriate deliberate impacts easier, of course.
Agreed with the caveat that our impact is far from accidental.
Sigh indeed.
You've provided no solutions beyond ones clearly not feasible.
No one said mining materials was emission free. Even if it's 10% of current coal emissions...um, that's a bad thing?
required real estate? you mean rooftops? or road ways? or just panes of glass? Anything that is hit by sunlight can potentially be power generating, drastically reducing the need to centralized, real estate gobbling power plants.
Nothing says you can't recycle the materials in the panels when they are broken. And the batteries required for grid scale solar are similar. We already recycle lead to the point that it's no longer present in the environment beyond normal background levels. And that was just in 2-3 decades after massive pollution.
You seem to bent on perfect when good will do just fine.
So what exactly do we do with the 8 billion people who will be living here within 50 years?
Actually the kinetic studies on the atmosphere show that we are already turning over the CO2 surprisingly fast.
Define turning over? CO2 levels are rising unabated currently.
we won't be able to double the atmospheric CO2 levels given some decent management of the land and water.
We've already doubled the natural swing from low to high and we're 50% higher than the highest highs in the last 1/2 million years. linky
we seem to probably be sliding toward a Maunder type minimum for the next 30 - 200 years
again, any links supporting this? I won't argue that perhaps that would be the normal pattern of the climate, but no models show this even remotely starting right now.
As for ice ages. Those take 1000s of years to even begin to start affecting the world. The 1970s were correct in that given our orbit wobbling we should be starting to enter into the next glacial period. Instead temps have gone up drastically rather than being relatively static and trending slightly down.
Not sure which argument you're making because it's the exact one I'm making. We can be CO2 neutral and still have billions of people. What are you trying to say?
the conservation of energy. indeed. Solar provides energy that's is entirely free for every relevant scenario we'd be dealing with.
regarding trees: linky
You'd have to plant trees in an area the size of basically Texas...every single year and never let that CO2 go back into the atmosphere. That's just to keep up with current status quo. More if you want to start cutting into what we've already released.
Trees is not even a fraction the answer we need. Of course not cutting down the trees we still have is prudent.
Clean energy solved? Show me this mythical source please. And nuclear isn't clean. You even agree with me. Reducing polution and waste. We can massively reduce our CO2 footprint. Recycling of batteries and solar panels already exists.
Yes we're still burning coal. But a whole lot less of it. Something like a ten percent drop in a single year. Steps in a process. You don't get to perfect overnight.
Read the link. You don't burn the wood to create the charcoal
China going to be greener than the US in under a decade. They aren't hung up on making g solar power a political issue. It's already cheaper than coal. In 30 years when they have a fraction of our fuel costs, they will be eating our lunch
Hmm? what specifically aren't you understanding about CO2 sequestration. Whether buried as coal or charcoal it nets the same result.
Obviously you don't keep burning coal.
If you have a better way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, please do provide it. the charcoal is because it doesn't release it's CO2 like the wood itself eventually does within a decade or two.
linky just one idea that's a net CO2 in the air reducing process.
It isn't actually. The amount of CO2 being released makes the number of trees required basically impossible.
And then at some point within 100 years or less you aren't saving any CO2 anymore because the trees die and release their CO2 again.
Growing, turning to charcoal and burying is slightly better and the best bet of all is simply not producing so much CO2 in the first place.
you realize you're arguing with an honest to goodness RIGHTWINGNUTJOB right? ;-)
It's been pretty much settled since the 70s. When EXXON figured it out. linky
Big Oil knew this 40 years ago and has been lying about it ever since to protect their profits.
just on the back of an envelope I can get a pretty good idea of how hard you'll hit the ground.
I disagree. I demand he demonstrate! ;-)
ArsTechnica: once-more-with-feeling-climate-models-dont-exaggerate-warming
Do you prefer a particular brand?
To be fair, it isn't North American, European, Australian or Japanese scientists who are contributing to overpopulation.
To be fair, we're telling the rest of the world you can't be like us because we aren't sustainable. Sorry, we used up the resources, you don't get modern life.
The problem is not over population. It's the pollution that comes from the energy they need. You can have 2 people and still produce too much CO2 for the earth to handle or 10 billion and not produce any above the natural norm. Same for waste and trash. It's not the number of people, it's the amount of output.
You simply aren't going to have modern society without billions of people.
And you simply aren't going to revert 7 billion people back to an agrarian economy.
So working to reduce our waste volume is the only realistic plan.
Indeed. However this seemingly doesn't apply to the average 9-5, err 10-4?, Day. For A 24/7 shift cycle certainly makes sense, but not when you have just one shift. How do you divide this across 5 8 hour days?
Physics doesn't care about politics. It also doesn't much care about economicsâ. Norway produces the vast majority of the energy it uses. That the EU buys 'credit' for it is irrelevant.