Is for people to turn over the exclusive status of all their personal data to a non-profit personal data representative, who will then seek payment or punative damanges from any other entity corporate or individual that seeks to use such personal information without first paying for the privilege or first paying for the information they have already obtained without having yet paid for it. The payment would then be sent to the people who provided the non-profit personal data representative with their personal information, minus a small transaction fee to the non-profit to cover the cost of collecting the money and suing for damages or enforcing a cease and desist order as required.
There is no reasons the googles, apples, of the world etc. should get this kind of information for free, since it is not theirs to begin with.
A serious problem with nuclear aside from the expense of accidents, potential terrorism, and construction is that a nuclear plant takes about 10-20 years to build. They also take up a huge amount of water and building on the coastline or major rivers is going to be just about impossible considering the cost and the opposition via NIMBY. We no longer have 10-20 years. Nuclear had its shot and it turned out to be a bust. The industry just can't survive on a scale without massive subsidies that the US al least no longer has.
"The problem is (a) you are no-where near proving we'll see that kind of temperature rise,"
If that is true why do the oceanic climate models so accurately predict the record high ocean temperature in the Western North Atlantic this year?
SuperKendall always eager to spread doubt about the results of the scientific process, but never able to provide any evidence to the contrary of his own. Some might begin to suspect that this isn't coincidental.
Thank you. Maybe there is hope yet. Step 4 might just be another in the right direction.
All that is likely needed for step 4 is a few more very hot summers, intense floods, and a few more Sandy-like superstorms and the deniers will be about as popular as members of the Westboro Baptist Church at a military funeral.
"And there's a lot more to be really concerned about which is far worse than the small CO2 contribution humanity adds by burning fossil fuels."
You really don't have much of a clue do you? Do you have any idea just how much carbon dioxide people are putting into the atmosphere on an annual basis?
Do you really have any idea of just how fast the Earth is heating?
You make a good point about eating meat, but it still doesn't address the problem caused primarily by the use of fossil fuels in transportation and in the generation of electricity.
That and the stranglehold of big carbon on way too many democrats as well.
The average guy is just going to have to invest in electric cars and solar power and do what they can individually to remove the economic viability of fossil fuels, while there is still time. Yes, there will be many determined to try to cause global warming all by themselves, just as there are sociopaths everywhere. However, over time selection does work in the favor of the rational, we just have to apply more selection and work a lot harder than we otherwise would.
I am always asking those who don't believe in the theory of global warming to explain how if its not warming:
1) all the world's glaciers are receding?
2) why has 85% of the permanent ice in the Arctic Ocean disappeared?
3) why did we have more than 36,000 record daily high temperatures across the US in 2012 as opposed to only about 6,000 new record daily lows?
4) why has the past 20 years seen 11 of the warmest years on record?
5) why is the jet stream slowing down?
One could go on asking for some other data that would actually support a theory OTHER THAN forcing that results from the burning of fossil fuels (AGW), but one never gets an answer. Only some vague hand-waving and assertions that scientists don't seem to know how to do science.
However, now that we have before us SuperKendal, who only accepts big and strong PROOF, I will finally get my answer.
Lets all take a close look at what SuperKendall has to say in answering these questions. If its not carbon dioxide, just how do you explain what looks like to most thermometers at least and the vast majority of scientists, who have looked closely at these issues that its global warming that results of burning fossil fuels?
With presumably a few good hackers here, shouldn't it be possible to better characterize the source of all the denialism? I've notice that on many other sites, where now there is active talk concerning the issue of global warming there seems to be a feverish attempt by the denialists to out shout and out insult everyone and anyone, with the hope of keeping reasoned and legitimate thought and conversation as crowded out as possible.
If Slashdot is going to be something other than a place for technophiles to vent their spleens and demonstrate the reality of the Dunning-Kruger effect, then some thought needs to to be given to how a more effective and positive community can develop here or perhaps elsewhere with more rigorous moderation.
It will be a problem in many areas because the elevation profiles are very nearly flat in many areas, such as Bangladesh and much of Oceania. The problem with the climate models is the assumption that 3-4 degrees C is what we are going to get by 2100. Newer data suggest that the sensitivity is much higher because the models do not account for the highly non-linear response to the loss of Arctic ice. Thus what may be 1-2 meters of sea level rise in 100-200 years, we may be looking at closer to 3-8 m or possibly higher in some places. Because the bulk of human population is in coastal areas, that is a huge number of people and an incredible amount of infrastructure that will have to be moved, abandoned, or rebuilt, all of which is likely to require tremendous amounts of new CO2 to accomplish.
What people like these don't realize is that one Solydra failure here and we stop investing in solar technology. In the meantime China ramps up its production to double our own, is more than happy to subsidize 10 firrms the size of Solydra for every success and is rapidly taking over the lead in solar investments and technology. This year the Chinese spent twice what we spent on solar power. Next year they will double that again and are planning an increase of 5 times next years output the following year.
In the meantime, Tea Partiers here are tyring to take food out of the mouths of old women and children to avoid paying a dollar more in tax, much less invest in anything as a nation that might allow us to even stay competitive. We are literally walking away from technological leadership so essential to addressing global warming that its hard to imagine how we are going to survive as a nation, much less compete in such an every warming world, particularly one in which foreign markets will soon impose carbon tariffs on our products.
Don't worry about Goldman Sachs. It seems the Chinese have set up their own carbon trading market and will probably eventually start using it as muscle in trade talks. Why let any American companies get in on the action, when we can turn the entire market over to the Chinese like we have done with manufacturing and increasingly with solar production?
Your right. Its just like the speed of that locomotive that is about 100 feet down the tracks bearing down on your vehicle parked on the tracks with the doors locked and the windows rolled up, while you try to figure out where you put your keys. Of course,when that number reaches a certain threshold, its just a matter of "emotional investment" so why bother to start the car?
The problem with hoping that new areas will be available to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is that it assumes that the location where you put the chair will be as hospitable as the last. For organisms that have extremely specific biological requirements and that evolved essentially within narrow habitats over the course of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, the probability of that happening rapidly approaches zero for all but the already most widely ranging species. Often, just getting to the new favorable site should there be one, will be next to impossible given the organisms dispersal capacity. Also keep in mind that seeds and larvae may themselves have very special requirements that make it extremely difficult for them to make it, even when conditions are optimum, much less highly dynamic and erratic.
You seem to have the erroneous idea that because there is a lot of land at high latitude its going to be suitable for growing plants, when things begin to warm up. As I posted above this is sort of Simple Simon thinking with respect to the bilogy of the organisms involved. There are many, many reasons why it will be difficult to grow corn on Baffin Island in 2100 even if the ground isn't covered by ice.
Over time the capture of carbon in limestone removes it from the atmosphere. However, the rate is miniscule and the processes take hundreds of thousands and millions of years to effect. Consequently, we can't expect to rely on these natural processes to remove carbon dioxide for us. We will probably have to rapidly cut back on fossil fuel use to close to zero use to survive as a species as we move into the next couple of hundred years.
This kind of mindless simplicity won't go too far as global warming is far more likely to produce more violent extreme weather, not some for of Goldilocks like conditions where everything is "just right".
People who think this way only really show a remarkable lack of knowledge about biology and biological systems.
"There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive."
Sure bacteria and microorganisms will make it in very harsh environments, some can live in near boiling mud pots or in Atacama desert sands, where it hasn't rained in 100 years. However, its not going to be the same species of vertebrate organisms that we tend to think of. So knowledge of this fact doesn't exactly get us out of the predicament we are in.
If higher life forms are to be saved several things must be accomplished within the next 50-100 years.
First you have to educate the deniers and those who can't be educated probably have to be locked away in a fashion where they can do less harm or perhaps sent to a moon base, where they can either better appreciate Earth or feel free to ravage the lunar atmosphere to their hearts content.
We then need to move toward massive solar energy projects, as well as wind, hydrothermal and tidal. Some shift through natural gas and nuclear are probably unavoidable from oil and coal will probably be unavoidable, but we will need to move away from all fossil fuels quickly, except perhaps for tasks that can not yet be accomplished otherwise and as necessary for emergency situations. Fossil fuels will need to be banned for all other purposes. This will require a total transformation of cities and transportation of all kinds.
It will be essential to figure out ways to get people and nations to work together collectively rather than individually so that maximum results can be achieved quickly with minimal waste and contention for resources. That may be the biggest hurdle along with the unavoidable displacement and disruption that is now almost certain to be massive.
Actually it is already happening. Its just that we tend to take so many things for granted we don't notice the small, almost imperceptible changes until the trends are very far along. Take a look at all the new tropical diseases that are now found in the US in the past 10-15 years. Until you get one, who pays attention. Generally speaking, people's knowledge of biology is incredibly low. Even for people who have studied biology their entire lives and have advanced degrees in the subject the level of knowledge is still pretty low. Life is complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Is for people to turn over the exclusive status of all their personal data to a non-profit personal data representative, who will then seek payment or punative damanges from any other entity corporate or individual that seeks to use such personal information without first paying for the privilege or first paying for the information they have already obtained without having yet paid for it. The payment would then be sent to the people who provided the non-profit personal data representative with their personal information, minus a small transaction fee to the non-profit to cover the cost of collecting the money and suing for damages or enforcing a cease and desist order as required.
There is no reasons the googles, apples, of the world etc. should get this kind of information for free, since it is not theirs to begin with.
Terrorists are no doubt happy to hear this as now they don't have to smuggle guns into the US, they can just print them as needed.
A serious problem with nuclear aside from the expense of accidents, potential terrorism, and construction is that a nuclear plant takes about 10-20 years to build. They also take up a huge amount of water and building on the coastline or major rivers is going to be just about impossible considering the cost and the opposition via NIMBY. We no longer have 10-20 years. Nuclear had its shot and it turned out to be a bust. The industry just can't survive on a scale without massive subsidies that the US al least no longer has.
"The problem is (a) you are no-where near proving we'll see that kind of temperature rise,"
If that is true why do the oceanic climate models so accurately predict the record high ocean temperature in the Western North Atlantic this year?
SuperKendall always eager to spread doubt about the results of the scientific process, but never able to provide any evidence to the contrary of his own. Some might begin to suspect that this isn't coincidental.
Thank you. Maybe there is hope yet. Step 4 might just be another in the right direction.
All that is likely needed for step 4 is a few more very hot summers, intense floods, and a few more Sandy-like superstorms and the deniers will be about as popular as members of the Westboro Baptist Church at a military funeral.
"And some are coming to different conclusions."
Who, where, and such as might we ask?
Now that we have the unshakable opinion of an amoeba, I guess I can feel releived.
"And there's a lot more to be really concerned about which is far worse than the small CO2 contribution humanity adds by burning fossil fuels."
You really don't have much of a clue do you? Do you have any idea just how much carbon dioxide people are putting into the atmosphere on an annual basis?
Do you really have any idea of just how fast the Earth is heating?
You make a good point about eating meat, but it still doesn't address the problem caused primarily by the use of fossil fuels in transportation and in the generation of electricity.
Thank you for giving me hope. Clearly a sign of progress! Yes we can!
That and the stranglehold of big carbon on way too many democrats as well.
The average guy is just going to have to invest in electric cars and solar power and do what they can individually to remove the economic viability of fossil fuels, while there is still time. Yes, there will be many determined to try to cause global warming all by themselves, just as there are sociopaths everywhere. However, over time selection does work in the favor of the rational, we just have to apply more selection and work a lot harder than we otherwise would.
So where is YOUR data?
I am always asking those who don't believe in the theory of global warming to explain how if its not warming:
1) all the world's glaciers are receding?
2) why has 85% of the permanent ice in the Arctic Ocean disappeared?
3) why did we have more than 36,000 record daily high temperatures across the US in 2012 as opposed to only about 6,000 new record daily lows?
4) why has the past 20 years seen 11 of the warmest years on record?
5) why is the jet stream slowing down?
One could go on asking for some other data that would actually support a theory OTHER THAN forcing that results from the burning of fossil fuels (AGW), but one never gets an answer. Only some vague hand-waving and assertions that scientists don't seem to know how to do science.
However, now that we have before us SuperKendal, who only accepts big and strong PROOF, I will finally get my answer.
Lets all take a close look at what SuperKendall has to say in answering these questions. If its not carbon dioxide, just how do you explain what looks like to most thermometers at least and the vast majority of scientists, who have looked closely at these issues that its global warming that results of burning fossil fuels?
With presumably a few good hackers here, shouldn't it be possible to better characterize the source of all the denialism? I've notice that on many other sites, where now there is active talk concerning the issue of global warming there seems to be a feverish attempt by the denialists to out shout and out insult everyone and anyone, with the hope of keeping reasoned and legitimate thought and conversation as crowded out as possible.
If Slashdot is going to be something other than a place for technophiles to vent their spleens and demonstrate the reality of the Dunning-Kruger effect, then some thought needs to to be given to how a more effective and positive community can develop here or perhaps elsewhere with more rigorous moderation.
It will be a problem in many areas because the elevation profiles are very nearly flat in many areas, such as Bangladesh and much of Oceania. The problem with the climate models is the assumption that 3-4 degrees C is what we are going to get by 2100. Newer data suggest that the sensitivity is much higher because the models do not account for the highly non-linear response to the loss of Arctic ice. Thus what may be 1-2 meters of sea level rise in 100-200 years, we may be looking at closer to 3-8 m or possibly higher in some places. Because the bulk of human population is in coastal areas, that is a huge number of people and an incredible amount of infrastructure that will have to be moved, abandoned, or rebuilt, all of which is likely to require tremendous amounts of new CO2 to accomplish.
What people like these don't realize is that one Solydra failure here and we stop investing in solar technology. In the meantime China ramps up its production to double our own, is more than happy to subsidize 10 firrms the size of Solydra for every success and is rapidly taking over the lead in solar investments and technology. This year the Chinese spent twice what we spent on solar power. Next year they will double that again and are planning an increase of 5 times next years output the following year.
In the meantime, Tea Partiers here are tyring to take food out of the mouths of old women and children to avoid paying a dollar more in tax, much less invest in anything as a nation that might allow us to even stay competitive. We are literally walking away from technological leadership so essential to addressing global warming that its hard to imagine how we are going to survive as a nation, much less compete in such an every warming world, particularly one in which foreign markets will soon impose carbon tariffs on our products.
Don't worry about Goldman Sachs. It seems the Chinese have set up their own carbon trading market and will probably eventually start using it as muscle in trade talks. Why let any American companies get in on the action, when we can turn the entire market over to the Chinese like we have done with manufacturing and increasingly with solar production?
"400 is just a number."
Your right. Its just like the speed of that locomotive that is about 100 feet down the tracks bearing down on your vehicle parked on the tracks with the doors locked and the windows rolled up, while you try to figure out where you put your keys. Of course,when that number reaches a certain threshold, its just a matter of "emotional investment" so why bother to start the car?
The problem with hoping that new areas will be available to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is that it assumes that the location where you put the chair will be as hospitable as the last. For organisms that have extremely specific biological requirements and that evolved essentially within narrow habitats over the course of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, the probability of that happening rapidly approaches zero for all but the already most widely ranging species. Often, just getting to the new favorable site should there be one, will be next to impossible given the organisms dispersal capacity. Also keep in mind that seeds and larvae may themselves have very special requirements that make it extremely difficult for them to make it, even when conditions are optimum, much less highly dynamic and erratic.
There are some people with obviously zero knowledge of biology, who all of a sudden become experts in agronomy.
If there is any place on the web where the Dunning-Kruger effect can observed in full glory and with incredible frequency, it is /.
Perhaps, but still during only half the year.
You seem to have the erroneous idea that because there is a lot of land at high latitude its going to be suitable for growing plants, when things begin to warm up. As I posted above this is sort of Simple Simon thinking with respect to the bilogy of the organisms involved. There are many, many reasons why it will be difficult to grow corn on Baffin Island in 2100 even if the ground isn't covered by ice.
Over time the capture of carbon in limestone removes it from the atmosphere. However, the rate is miniscule and the processes take hundreds of thousands and millions of years to effect. Consequently, we can't expect to rely on these natural processes to remove carbon dioxide for us. We will probably have to rapidly cut back on fossil fuel use to close to zero use to survive as a species as we move into the next couple of hundred years.
This kind of mindless simplicity won't go too far as global warming is far more likely to produce more violent extreme weather, not some for of Goldilocks like conditions where everything is "just right".
People who think this way only really show a remarkable lack of knowledge about biology and biological systems.
"There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive."
Sure bacteria and microorganisms will make it in very harsh environments, some can live in near boiling mud pots or in Atacama desert sands, where it hasn't rained in 100 years. However, its not going to be the same species of vertebrate organisms that we tend to think of. So knowledge of this fact doesn't exactly get us out of the predicament we are in.
If higher life forms are to be saved several things must be accomplished within the next 50-100 years.
First you have to educate the deniers and those who can't be educated probably have to be locked away in a fashion where they can do less harm or perhaps sent to a moon base, where they can either better appreciate Earth or feel free to ravage the lunar atmosphere to their hearts content.
We then need to move toward massive solar energy projects, as well as wind, hydrothermal and tidal. Some shift through natural gas and nuclear are probably unavoidable from oil and coal will probably be unavoidable, but we will need to move away from all fossil fuels quickly, except perhaps for tasks that can not yet be accomplished otherwise and as necessary for emergency situations. Fossil fuels will need to be banned for all other purposes. This will require a total transformation of cities and transportation of all kinds.
It will be essential to figure out ways to get people and nations to work together collectively rather than individually so that maximum results can be achieved quickly with minimal waste and contention for resources. That may be the biggest hurdle along with the unavoidable displacement and disruption that is now almost certain to be massive.
Actually it is already happening. Its just that we tend to take so many things for granted we don't notice the small, almost imperceptible changes until the trends are very far along. Take a look at all the new tropical diseases that are now found in the US in the past 10-15 years. Until you get one, who pays attention. Generally speaking, people's knowledge of biology is incredibly low. Even for people who have studied biology their entire lives and have advanced degrees in the subject the level of knowledge is still pretty low. Life is complicated.
The GOP would never go for it, especially with even more people pouring over the border from the South.