Startling New Research Finds Large Buildup of Heat in the Oceans, Suggesting a Faster Rate of Global Warming [Update] (washingtonpost.com) 407
The world's oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.
From a report: Over the past quarter-century, the Earth's oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth's atmosphere -- more than 8 times the world's energy consumption, year after year.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
"we didn't sample it right" (Score:5, Insightful)
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"we didn't sample it right" (Score:5, Insightful)
Science isn't about *truth*, it is about *evidence*. But in all the mandatory science classes most people take there is always an oracle that has (in fact gets to *define*) the "right" answer: the teacher. Those classes are all about regurgitating static knowledge and performing rote procedures; the complexity of evidence seldom comes into them.
The effect you can see above, with the assumption that changing your opinion is somehow dishonest. If science claimed to have direct access to truth, the shift in the scientific consensus from global cooling to global warming would necessarily mean scientists were lying, either before or after.
But since science is about evidence, then changing your mind is often the more honest thing to do.
The conflation of "truth" and "evidence" is also evident in the poster's obvious resentment of "settled science". "Settled science" isn't "gospel truth"; it simply identifies where the burden of proof lies. Settled science is challenged all the time, because a successful assault on settled science is a career-making achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell it to the hordes of journos and "progressives" who keep saying that the science is settled. Though my jab is not only at them but at members of the scientific community who went out of bounds of science and decided not only that the model is most probably true despite being the least verifiable major model in the history of science, but also they know what the best *policy* for all of us should be.
Had this thing been approached with more modesty and humility it might have earned some goodwill from the
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't finish reading before responding. The science *is* settled.
Re:"we didn't sample it right" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that part *is* settled.
"least verifiable major model in the history of science"
BS.
Scientists had modesty and humility and worked very hard through observations and theory since the 1950's. They had a result. They earnestly told the world about it in the early 1990's. The world told them to fuck off.
Now it's worse, and they were right. The observations and the facts are alarming so scientists are rightfully "alarmist".
Re:"we didn't sample it right" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the part conspiracy theorists never grasp. There isn't any benefit to scientists for promoting a massive global conspiracy, but the benefits from puncturing such a conspiracy would be enormous.
Every adjunct professor in the world is waiting for an opportunity like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Put more bluntly. If it's 'settled' it's not science.
Ship has sailed (Score:2)
Elvis has left the building.
Looks like we're pretty much fucked.
Stil looking for solutions (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet another article on how doomed we all are. How about some solutions? Here's one we should embrace, nuclear power. If nuclear power isn't in a national energy policy, along with wind and hydro, then I believe the policy makers don't believe what they are shoveling or have an unrealistic belief on the threats nuclear power pose. Much like how people choose to drive instead of fly because they saw a news report on a plane crash.
I've heard this term before, "global lukewarming". Perhaps this is how I should describe myself, a "global lukewarmer". This is the idea that global warming is happening, it's man made, but it will be mild enough that we have plenty of time to resolve the problem. If I'm right then we need nuclear power. If I'm wrong then we need nuclear power right now. There is no long term energy policy that does not include nuclear power any more. Hoping and wishing for wind, water, and solar power to save us is not an energy policy. That's just waiting at the port for a ship that might not come.
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more. I'm guessing it's a bit of both.
Re:Stil looking for solutions (Score:5, Informative)
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more.
It IS news. Here's the thing about science: it doesn't work like in the movies. It's not some genius in isolation who disappears into a chalkboard montage and emerges with infallible truth. It's somebody who makes a claim and supplies their evidence, and then somebody else comes out and challenges it, and then a third group comes out with some additions to the first claim that addresses inaccuracies and suggests a more accurate methodology, and then the original researcher publishes a followup with more recent data, etc, etc. It's iterative, so if it sounds repetitive, it's because this knowledge is built up one small step at a time. Our sensors are constantly improving, our data processing is constantly getting more sophisticated, our models are continually being refined - so our picture will get more and more accurate with time. Predicting the future is hard, but we're getting better and better at it, one small step at a time.
The thing is, our entire society is built upon this basic process of iterative discovery. It's allowed us to produce the most prosperous, populous, and technologically advanced civilization in history. When the foremost experts at this process tell us they are worried about what their data suggest, we should pay attention.
It doesn't mean that their predictions are infallible, or that they won't be updated or improved - it means that this is the best knowledge we have, today. We should make decisions based on the most accurate information available to us at any given time. It's absurd to me that so many people will happily enjoy the abundance of a scientific society, but the moment scientists suggest action that requires personal inconvenience, those same people will attack scientists ruthlessly. Biting the hand that feeds you, and is trying to pull you away from a crumbling cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
It's absurd to me that so many people will happily enjoy the abundance of a scientific society, but the moment scientists suggest action that requires personal inconvenience, those same people will attack scientists ruthlessly.
That's just it, it's not the scientists that are calling for any kind of personal inconvenience.
The people calling for this inconvenience are the science "deniers" in groups like Greenpeace. There's plenty of evidence that nuclear power is safe, plentiful, environmentally friendly, and as "zero carbon" as wind or solar. If these people were scientific in their suggestions for action then we'd hear as much about nuclear power as we do wind, water, and sun.
Personally I believe solar power is so expensive, r
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is not renewable, and has its own pretty serious drawbacks. Solar power has been steadily dropping in cost for decades. There's also geothermal, tidal, various kinds of stored energy storage. Nuclear has its place, but sorry, fusion reactors are not the sole answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is not renewable, and has its own pretty serious drawbacks.
Global warming has serious drawbacks too. As does solar power, windmills, geothermal, hydro, everything has problems and nothing is perfect.
If nuclear power concerns you more than global warming then just how much of a threat does global warming pose?
I don't care if nuclear power is not "renewable", in the end nothing really is. Nuclear power, even with the worst outlook on known reserves, will still last decades. That's a lot of coal that we wouldn't have to burn. More optimistic estimates on nuclear p
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you are after is the silver bullet, easy button where *YOU* don't have to do anything. Sorry but time to sack up and do some heavy lifting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yo ass-hole - solutions a plenty but you are not interested in pursuing them.
I'm interested in pursuing solutions that will actually solve the problem. I've seen the math and wind, water, and sun is insufficient to solve the problem. We need all the above, and "all the above" includes nuclear power.
I think what you are after is the silver bullet, easy button where *YOU* don't have to do anything. Sorry but time to sack up and do some heavy lifting.
What do you expect me, a disabled veteran and code monkey, to "heavy lift"? I'm not going to be climbing up on rooftops to install solar panels. I do what I can. I had an energy assessment done on my house, and the guy was nice enough to "give" me some LED lights (which I'm sure I pa
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Try thousands of years... (Score:2)
"Green house gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, from months to millennia, and affect the climate on very different timescales."
"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed
Re: (Score:2)
Is this simple as, planet warms up, crops cannot grow, animal stock starve, people starve, and people die. If enough people die, this reduces the amount of pollutants and eventually the temperature cools down. It might be a rocky few centuries for humanity, but I expect a few will survive in pockets on basic food like rodents and bugs.
Basically, yes. A lot of hippies think that we're destroying "Mother Earth" with Climate Change. No, the planet doesn't care, and it will recover from it just fine. Humans are the ones that are going to be completely fucked. We don't need to fix the problem to save the planet, we need to fix the problem to save our own asses.
Clathrate gun ready to blow? (Score:2)
Didn't sample it right (Score:2)
Re:This basically tells you all you need to know (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This basically tells you all you need to know about climate "science". The "scientific consensus" did not notice until now that one of the main things influencing climate, the oceans, absorbs _60%_ more energy. So in essence all the previous climate models will need to be thrown out because they can't possibly be anywhere near correct at predicting the future. The world's politicians, however, are already ready and willing to commit trillions of dollars of somebody else's money on the predictions made by the old models.
The models indicated that there was hidden heat energy somewhere, which is why they went looking for it. If anything it vindicates the overall nature of the models in terms of the atmospheric element, but that there needs to be more work, perhaps, in GCMs for the ocean-atmosphere bounday, but that was already recognised.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have known for several years that the oceans had a pretty vast capacity to absorb heat, and it's been the explanation for why atmospheric and land temperatures have risen as quickly as early models would have suggested. So no, no surprise. This study simply does a better job of quantifying what that thermal capacity is. Of course, while that may be saving our skins so far as atmospheric and land temperatures go (for now), heating oceans has its own set of serious consequences. Thermodynamics is n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, what I'd like to ask is how many years do "science slashdotters" expect it to take before slowing down the increase of whatnots into the atmosphere is supposed to do anything on the order of slowing down climate change.
It's a very simple question. Don't try to overthink it; just put out a number. I have a rough guess. Let's compare.
Re: (Score:2)
A simpler thought experiment is to consider a cessation of emissions (which is what we ultimately need to achieve). If you're curious then you should read this paper: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
It includes this quote on thermal inertia: "A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, i
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that you're running a scam here.
If you marched your secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions, how long will that take? No one wants to give out a number.
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants to give out a number.
There are model calculations for that. Go look them up if you're interested. Of course, it's not a very plausible scenario, so I can imagine that there's only limited interest in exploring it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No one wants to give out a number.
There are model calculations for that. Go look them up if you're interested. Of course, it's not a very plausible scenario, so I can imagine that there's only limited interest in exploring it.
....there are model calculations for marching the secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions?!?!?!
Re:Cue the science deniers in ... (Score:4, Informative)
So the answer above is, if ALL emissions are ceased, the climate impacts will cease
No. "approximately cancelling" is referring to warming in the pipeline.
The call is coming from inside the house (Score:2, Interesting)
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
The story just does not add up, except to basically scream to us we should be worried. Why should we trust someone with such an obvious fear based agenda
Re:The call is coming from inside the house (Score:5, Insightful)
why do you think it mitigates the issue? My reading is that one of the biggest heat sinks we have is filling faster than we thought, reducing future ability to absorb heat.
Re:The article refutes that we know the limits (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing known is that the ocean is acting to absorb a lot more heat than they thought before, so presumably it will for some time to come as well.
The models had indicated that there had to be some missing heat, and since it wasn't in the atmosphere it was suspected it was in the oceans. The issue was that without sufficient monitoring of the deep ocean (which is expensive) it couldn't be confirmed.
The concerns that scientists have are two fold, though. First, that a warmer ocean is a less good sink for CO2, so CO2 in the atmosphere may rise more quickly that anticipated, causing faster warming. The second is that it is not known what will happen if ocean currents change and there is an exchange of the heat back from the ocean. The historical record suggests this does indeed happen (MWP being one such possible period, although the MWP was cooler than today), and palentological also. ENSO is also a potential method of temperature exchange.
Re: (Score:3)
all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
The models all had quite wide error bars. Increased understanding of ocean heat transfer will make the error bars slightly smaller, but most likely still contained within the old ones.
Re: (Score:3)
And in any case, the latest research is showing two distinct data analyses giving commensurate, and worrisome, results.
Re:The call is coming from inside the house (Score:5, Insightful)
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
How is that denying science? Taking on board new evidence is how science is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you don't understand. The limiting factor isn't the transfer rate of heat into the ocean---the Sun shines 12 hours a day onto it. What's under question here is the actual input.
Finding more heat means that the climate sensitivity of 'heat
Re: (Score:2)
and could eventually boil the oceans when our shields fail completely.
That didn't happen during previous magnetic pole reversals, of which there have been many. Why might it happen this time?
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't happen during previous magnetic pole reversals, of which there have been many. Why might it happen this time?
One could ask the same about "runaway warming"........
Re: (Score:3)
We've known the radiation absorption properties of CO2 since the 19th century, and we have in fact known since then that increasing CO2 PPM in the atmosphere inevitably leads to more solar radiation being captured. It's thermodynamics. You can't escape, the universe well and truly doesn't give a flying fuck about how you're going to be inconvenienced. Get over it. Thermodynamics is an immutable property of the univers.e
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what you write is true.
But only tells a fraction of the story.
We know the radiation absorption properties of CO2, and we know it's not a problem by itself. For CO2 to be a problem, there needs to be a positive feedback between CO2 levels and water vapor levels and there needs to be no significant negative feedback from increased cloud cover.
Those two coefficients are simply pulled from dark places and can get you any answer you want from the models.
Re: (Score:2)
Even without any other system in place, increasing CO2 increases the absorption of heat (think Venus). Adding CO2 will increase the amount of energy trapped. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and while historical cloud cover is not known, it seems improbable that we will see such a large increase in cloud cover that albedo will be raised enough to effectively block solar radiation to the level to mitigate.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think 'venus'. CO2 isn't enough. It's a small fraction of total greenhouse effect.
The question is: 'Will the increase in water vapor cause more greenhouse effect or more increase in albedo?' The answer to that question is 'faith based'.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese... [nasa.gov]
In other words, clouds are not the problem for climate modeling that you seem to think they are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ad hominem in the first one already? No, that's not how it's played. First you have to make up some argument. Whether it's for or against climate change doesn't really matter, nobody's gonna read it anyway. Then you'll have someone react to it, then two or three more before someone derails it and goes of on a completely irrelevant tangent, and THEN you can come in with the ad hominems.
Stick to the script, please.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have to do that.
There. Argument started, emacs user.
Re:Popcorn's ready (Score:5, Informative)
Now my counter argument. I happen to live in the Alps. They were always famous vacation resorts, and here, skiing and bobsleigh were invented. We have thus hundreds of printed pictures of well known regions like St. Moritz or Bad Ischgl dating back 250 years and photographs dating back 150 years and more, and we have the touristic and sport infrastructure built during the decades.
Thus we can tell from the pictures, from the buildings and the natural features like moraines, how far snow and ice have been in the 1700ies, the 1800ies, the 1900ies and today. And they all tell a consistent picture: Temperatures in the Alps have risen about 2.5 degrees Celsius since the 1700ies, and the end of the glaciers have retreated 750 height meters. Oetzi, the Similaun Man, an ice mummy more than 5000 years old, was only found recently, because the glacier on the Timmelsjoch, which covered the corpse, has tawed to a point where the mummy came back to the surface.
At least for the Alps, the climate development is definitely consistent with what the computer models tell us. Actually, it's more the reverse. The computer models are gauged with what we see in temperature sensitive regions like the mountaintops, where the extension of the glaciers is directly dependent on the recent average temperatures.
(And of course, daily temperature measurements started in the Early modern period, and thus, we have continuous climate protocols dating back until the first half of the 18th century. And of course, some of those early temperature stations were too close to buildings or inside towns, giving too high readouts for the local temperature. Later the stations were moved to more appropriate places, giving slightly lower readouts. And sometimes, the towns have grown around climate stations, making it necessary to move the stations.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you had two working brain cells, you'd have replaced yourself with a really stupid bot by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, that's how it's done. Pointless argument, ridiculous counter argument, derailing, ad hominem... classic progress maintained.
I'm proud of you, guys.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 emissions over time aren't a secret. Check your facts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like temperature measurements like at airports that have experienced large growth the past few decades? In high school, I helped maintain the weather station at my local airport. There was one runway, a tiny terminal, and no other buildings for over half a mile from the airport at that time. Now, there's three runways, two much larger terminals, and growth all around the airport on all sides. It's not shocking to see that there's been an almost half a degree rise in measured temperatures.
I woul
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the science is settled, I guess it's time to stop all funding into it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
They also used atmospheric CO2 and O2 measurements at a high precision and by physical chemistry means could estimate the heat because of the known change of solubility with temperature. The estimates from the methods matched. This is entirely different and physically integrates over the planet.
It's hard to get temperature measurements of an ocean because it's very large and deep and there are no human install
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit bac
Re:Popcorn's ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well let's take that bull by the horns. In 100 years we will push back from the oceans. Meanwhile technology will be unrecognizable and none of this will be any matter either way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have a feeling you and I agree on many salient issues, but this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to Trump in office. You could change a few words in your rant and, frankly, it wouldn't sound any different than what spews forth from the mouths of white supremacists. There's no better way to drive conservatives to the polls en masse then by wrapping your political opinions in such vitriol. People like you did more to swing the votes away from your own cause than you'
Re: (Score:2)
No, and fuck you. This has been how Trumpist jackoffs have been spinning anything they don't like: "This is how Trump got elected". It's all horseshit and you should not believe it.
Trump got in office by lighting up the lizard brains of racists, nazis and the most fucked up 20% of our society who respond to authoritarians and bullies. He got in office through voter suppression. He got in office because 304 members of the electoral c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the full name of my costume is, "Sexy Angry Leftist Mob Coming to Drink Your Milkshake" because it shows off my ample bosom.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Halloween parties. This is my day to shed my usual genteel and civil manner with others and let my Id take over.
Re: (Score:2)
He also promised jobs
Breathing (Score:2)
We're fucked no matter what the Repulicans or anybody else does. Human breathing creates 0.9kg per day. The population of the earth is 7.7 billion, so just the lot of us stupid hairless monkeys running around breathing the air contributes 2.53 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This is the equivalent of about 1/4 of all of China's emissions (and they are the top emitter by far).
And this is before you think about having those 7.7 billion stupid humans eat stuff, heat their homes, fart, ma
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't essentially all human breathing CO2 from molecules that were recently pulled from the atmosphere?
It seems that human breathing can't possibly have a huge impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the Wikipedia article on breathing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
"The gas exhaled is 4% to 5% by volume of carbon dioxide, about a 100 fold increase over the inhaled amount."
So we effectively expel 100x the amount of CO2 we take in.
Here is a really good breakdown of the math which lines up with Wikipedia:
https://www.globe.gov/explore-... [globe.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
They don't parrot anything. They tell their parrots what to squawk, and that's in general whatever lines their pockets best. And since not dumping your waste but actually having to clean it up cuts into your profits, it's BAD.
Now tell your sheep to repeat that and you're golden.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not opposed to nuclear power. In fact, you will find more nuclear power plants in Democratic states than in red states.
We're just opposed to letting the same jackoffs who befouled the world with their fossil fuel effluvia be the ones to run those nuclear power plants. Because they cannot be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
As to letting jackoffs off the hook, im making sure that BOTH the far right/left are blamed correctly since 1 of them denies that it is happening, while the other blocks the main solution for it. This is just insane.
Re: (Score:2)
how does responding to a plural statement with a plural response indicate cowardice?
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. I have no kids and the maybe 30ish years I have left on this planet it's gonna last.
I used to think that I should probably leave the planet in a better state than what I got it in, but, ya know, as you grow older, less idealistic and more jaded, you notice that even those that have a reason to do so, because they have kids and will maybe one day have to explain to them why they fucked up the world, don't, so why should I?
Re: (Score:2)
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do, but plenty of people are still denying it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you will NEVER get 100% of any large population that will agree on something.
I have no doubt that If we were invaded by aliens today, a number of religious fanatics would scream that it is god/allah/buddha/etc come back to take us to
Re: (Score:2)
it is accepted that it is occurring and that we MUST do something about it.
Really ? According to this recent interview, Trump doesn't think it's urgent at all. He wants to wait until it swings back again. In that case, we don't need nukes.
President Donald Trump is backing off his claim that climate change is a hoax but says he doesn’t know if it’s manmade and suggests that the climate will “change back again.”
In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said he doesn’t want to put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to climate change.
“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this is insane. We are losing the battle with AGW not because of far right extremists, but BOTH far left/right extremists. Far righties, even in Eastern Europe, along with Trump combine with far left like CHina, and those claiming that China can continue to grow their coal emissions faster than what the west is cutting, are the ones to blame.
Just because a small group of idiots claim that it is not real, it not that big of an issue. America continues down the right path (so far).
The one path we need desperately is to restart out nuke industry. Trump is doing as little for it as O/W did (clinton was a disaster to nuke energy).
Re: (Score:2)
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
To agree on a solution does not mean all must agree on the problem. Nuclear power is a solution to a lot of problems.
You want to get rid of all that dangerous plutonium we've piled up from the Cold War? Megatons to Megawatts isn't just a good idea to get rid of old Soviet weapons, it's a good idea to get rid of our own.
You want to see the USA be more energy independent? As a nation we import a lot of natural gas for electricity and heating, if we had more nuclear power then we wouldn't have to import so
Re: (Score:2)
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China...
Coal consumption in China has declined during the 2010s with its percentage in the energy mix falling from 80% in 2010 to 60% in 2017. Looks like they are on the right path. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I agree that nukes need to be a big part of the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistical liar!
% of total is a stupid metric. China went from 3,200 TWh to to 3900 TWh from coal in that period.
Chinese self reported numbers so take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the spirit! Who needs boring stuff like a planet to live on?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have kids?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that if one were to audit the data and the process involved in coming to their conclusions, it would be found wanting at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very impressive.
And yes, there are samples of the atmosphere going back many years stored in sealed tanks. I've seen them personally. This mean
Re:Here come the republicans to deny science exist (Score:5, Informative)
Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it.
The all powerful hippies are still crushing corporate America under their dirty Birkenstocks! Will hundred billion dollar energy companies never catch a break? Oh the humanity!
This is a fantasy that never dies, since it floats around without the least bit of evidence to support it (notice that Windbourne offers none).
The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment for capitalists, and without a lot of orders the industry has shriveled and become unreliable for those who do place orders. If you consult this handy industry webpage [world-nuclear.org] you will see that no fewer than eleven construction and operating licences for units have been approved since 2007, but of these seven have been withdrawn/cancelled, only two are still under constructions (the two Vogtle units) but which are way over budget (and in imminent danger of cancellation), and two more have yet to break ground. The DOE shares the costs of these license applications, and the U.S. government provides loan guarantees, as well as free insurance, yet no plants are being completed.
It isn't lawsuits, or protests, or public opinion, or "government regulations", bringing these projects down, it is hard-nose corporate bean counters pulling the plugs.
Nuclear power is not successful, overall. (Score:3, Informative)
Humans have shown that they cannot manage nuclear power in a safe manner. One example: Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds [japantimes.co.jp] (March 29, 2018)
Solar far more deadly than Nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone falls of a roof that is not called a solar death.
I think confirmed deaths from Fukushimas is about 1. Plus maybe a dozen more statistical deaths. The tsunami killed thousands.
And that is the point. Nobody talks about the tsunami. The reactor is considered to have been far more dangerous than the ocean, even though the facts are quite different.
This makes nuclear untenable. Safety issues are over blown. Nobody is going to shut down the solar industry because someone falls off a roof. But think about what happens to nuclear investment if even one person dies.
Likewise the nuclear waste. It is a major issue precisely because it contains those two words, "nuclear" and "waste". Perceptions are reality.
So let's hope the price of solar falls before the globe cooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Fully capitalist private utilities turned them off because they didn't want to pay for the maintenance, and their parent companies make money from natural gas pipelines and generation.
Germany's a different story perhaps, and completely wrong.
Climate scientists aren't uniformly against nuclear power either, and mostly support it as an interim necessity to make through the next 100 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
Burning wood is a carbon neutral activity as long as you plant new trees to replace the ones you burn because that is a closed cycle. Pumping up billions of tons of sequestered carbon and releasing them into the atmosphere is not a closed cycle and if you are de-sequestering carbon at a scale that is on par with the carbon release that caused the great permian extinction you have a really serious problem. As for: "Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petrol
Re: (Score:2)
...when they say their findings were flawed.
This $hit is ridiculous.
It's normal for findings to be flawed. In fact, there's always flaws.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you can believe what you want and most people do, very few actually dig through the numbers themselves.
Of course you can believe what you want, but personally I'd like anthropogenic warming to be wrong. Unfortunately, it's the best-supported position at present.
I have seen more scientists of late who early on said climate change was real are now very skeptical if not completely convinced its not a issue.
Oh, really? Who?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)