Climate Crisis May Be Increasing Jet Stream Turbulence, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 185
The climate crisis could be making transatlantic flights more bumpy, according to research into the impact of global heating on the jet stream. From a report: Jet streams are powerful currents of air at the altitudes which planes fly. They result from the air temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics, and reach speeds of up to 250mph (400kmph). They also sometimes meander. Researchers say previous studies of the speed and location of the fastest part of the north Atlantic jet stream have found only small changes over time, although there are signs it is slowly shifting northward. Experts say the lack of dramatic alterations is because climate change produces competing effects at different altitudes. The latest study, however, took a different approach. "Just because the speed isn't changing, doesn't mean the jet stream isn't changing in other ways," said Prof Paul Williams of the University of Reading, the lead author of the research.
His study, published in the journal Nature, looked at the change in wind speed with height, known as vertical shear. "The higher up you go, the windier it gets," he said. Using three different datasets based on satellite observations, the team say they identified a 15% increase in vertical shear between 1979 and 2017, consistent with what would be expected from climate change. "The winds and the temperatures are in a certain kind of balance in the atmosphere," said Williams. "The consequence is that it is impossible to change the temperature patterns without having an effect on the wind patterns."
His study, published in the journal Nature, looked at the change in wind speed with height, known as vertical shear. "The higher up you go, the windier it gets," he said. Using three different datasets based on satellite observations, the team say they identified a 15% increase in vertical shear between 1979 and 2017, consistent with what would be expected from climate change. "The winds and the temperatures are in a certain kind of balance in the atmosphere," said Williams. "The consequence is that it is impossible to change the temperature patterns without having an effect on the wind patterns."
Bbbbbut... (Score:1, Insightful)
Climate Crisis May Be Increasing Jet Stream Turbulence, Study Finds
Bbbbbut... the all knowing super stable orange genius says it's all a Chinese hoax??? Trumpkin confused now ....
Re: (Score:1)
Also maybe providing more arable land, better crops etc.
Please someone write a paper on the 21 benefits of global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
21 benefits of global warming, for GOP operatives (Score:1)
1. Owning the libs, of course!
2. Al Gore can suck it!
3. FUCK SCIENTISTS ALREADY, we're devolving.
4. Uneducation and lazy illiteracy vindicated
5. See above, it's easier = more time for napping
6. No hard realizations, no worldview shifting
7. Republican talking points galore for distracto-FUD, on any article
8. Lying has no cost now! LIE AWAY!
9. Staring at the sun is now allowed.
10. Opine given equal footing with reality, we're KINGS!
11. Poor people suffer first, always a GOP priority regardless
12. Cl
Re: (Score:3)
Also maybe providing more arable land
Where? I've heard that and no one gives any really good destination. Some will say, further north and that won't help. The further from the equator you go, the less annual sunlight a plant gets. Yeah, the water might be right and the temperature might be right, but if the plant isn't getting enough sunlight, it's not going to yield in qualities that effectively compete with prior yields, unless growing at lower latitudes becomes too expensive. Then it's just a matter of quantity of which growing at hig
Re: (Score:1)
The further from the equator you go, the less annual sunlight a plant gets.
Absolute rubbish. In fact the northern arctic circle gets MORE annual sunlight than the equator. Look it up.
Re:Bbbbbut... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't [geography.name]. The midsummer peak irradiance at the poles is slightly higher than the equator, but the annual total is well under half.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's also one other aspect that most people are seemingly ignorant: plants have have a huge tolerance for being transported over changes in longitude. But dramatic latitude changes result in detrimental impacts on yield and even survivability. It's not purely the amount of irradiation received, but the time in their growth cycle that they receive it.
In Guns, Germs, and Steel [amazon.com], Jared M. Diamond weaves this concept into others to demonstrate ho
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also maybe providing more arable land
Where?
Deciding to see if it followed the money, I did a search on climate change effects on crop yields, and just looked at images. Perhaps unsurprisingly, North America is one of the few places that is expected to come out ahead in the future. Also a little bit of Europe. Thus, possibly confirming that governmental climate deniers in the US actually know it is happening but expect to come out ahead in global markets because of it. Because if playing Civilization has taught me anything, it's that food production
Re: (Score:2)
providing more arable land
false. IT's drying up more land, and much of the land thawing thing isn't arable.
better crops
Also false.
If the grass cattle feed on is an indicator(and it likely is) addition COs will cause more growth, but fewer nutrients per pound.
SO if cattle need to eat 1 pound of grass to get the nutrients they needed 20 year ago.
Both are silly premises anyway, because it's not like it will stop if nothing is done.
Re: (Score:3)
So funny. Climate Crisis may be ....
Also maybe providing more arable land, better crops etc.
Please someone write a paper on the 21 benefits of global warming.
Bullshit also provides more arable land and better crops. Trouble is that the areas most effected by climate change are not about to become arable as quickly as wind erosion, lack of water and a whole host of other constrains are mitigated by an expansion of the biosphere. So in reality you sir are full of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
12 years, enough for Republicans to learn reading? (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/tipping-elements/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming
Or is that against their religion of being retarded head-in-ass lying traitors leaping headlong for the dustbin?
*whoosh*
There goes another one, godspeed. You were useless and dishonest in life, perhaps an eternity in a lake of fire "makes the man" really. We'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
It's uncanny how "tipping elements" played such a crucial role in the dire 2014 IPCC report (https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/), as predicted in the 2009 Wired article.
...
Not.
If these people can't even predict the outcomes of their own meeting, exactly why do we think they can predict the climate?
Re:12 years, enough for Republicans to learn readi (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you talking about wired? Magazine are shit for science information to the general public.
Man made global warming is real, and trivial to prove. Can be done i any college science class.
Predicting the impact on the climate in specificity is harder, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I'm going out on a limb and saying you believe in gravity.
The existence of gravity is pretty simple to prove, would you agree?*
Now, If I drop a water glass on the concrete and it shatters, there is no model in the world that can tell you were every shard is going to go, exactly.
Now imagine that because the model can't forecast were every shard goes I say that means gravity isn't real. That would be crazy, right?
Yeah, that's how you sound.
*if you don't then you are an idiot that should be shunned everywhere you go.
Re:12 years, enough for Republicans to learn readi (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's anger inducing. Please try to not go off. I know it's hard and I have fallen into the trap myself.
What I do is list the most base science for global warming. Something that can be tested by every college, energy company, government, right wing lunatic in the world.
Or an example of how that just because models don't forecast the climate exactly correct, doesn't men Global Warming isn't real.
Also, I'll let you in on a secret. While it would be great if the person I reply to actually begins some rational thought in this area; the people I am really communicating to are the other readers.
Here are two examples. These are the more basic facts that if they can't falsify in repeatable tests, then they have to acknowledge.
Global Warming:
~~~~
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strikes an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other greenhouse gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
~~~~~
Climate Models:
~~~~~
I'm going out on a limb and saying you believe in gravity.
The existence of gravity is pretty simple to prove, would you agree?
Now, If I drop a water glass on the concrete and it shatters, there is no model in the world that can tell you were every shard is going to go, exactly.
Now imagine that because the model can't forecast were every shard goes I say that means gravity isn't real. That would be crazy, right?
Yeah, that's how you sound.
~~~~~~
Feel free to use if you like.
It's crazy shit right now, and it's more important then ever you find your calm in this matter.
Peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really like your examples. I did my PhD in a project related to the impacts of climate change on agriculture. I try to stay out of climate change conversation on Slashdot because the deniers are so vocal and so many. It's nice to see someone representing reason here in such a clear way.
Well played
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think any sane person is denying that we're:
pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere
CO2 is a green house gas (not anywhere near as potent as others, but still)
experiencing a general increase in temperatures
But the advice coming down from on high about what to do almost invariably involves imposing a level of control over what should be personal choices.
what to drive
where to live
what to eat
family size.. and the list goes on.
Environmentalists need to realize that telling someone "you must ride the bus
Re:12 years, enough for Republicans to learn readi (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty disingenuous. Sure, there are some extreme environmentalists who may say those things. They're crazy. There are some extreme deniers who absolutely do argue that the human CO2 contribution is negligible. Yes, that's clearly false. They're crazy.
Ultimately, technology will get us out of our mess, but some people don't even like that! Windmills kill birds! Solar can't possibly replace fossil fuels! Electric cars suck! I couldn't possibly use only 50% more electricity than the average German!
This is why a carbon tax is a good idea. Go ahead and make all the personal choices you want, all we ask is that everyone pays a fare price for them. But nobody likes doing that. It's such a persistent human trait it has a name: tragedy of the commons. The traditional solution is to wall off the resources and hang anybody trying to climb over.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon Tax and credits was a way to try to guide people to sustainability via free market and economic forces rather than a top-down list of government mandates (like making it illegal to have more than one child).
Another way of explaining would be "if making the earth as livable and sustainable as it was costs money, then the money should be paid by those contributing to the problem." Thus, if carbon emissions are a problem, then they should be taxed. Just like companies are required to pay for the cleanup
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only explanation around this is that the atmospheric system is more complex than the simple "more CO2 leads to more heat in, less heat out" reasoning you gave. That there are some natural moderating processes which cause more heat to someh
Re: (Score:3)
I had to pick on this one. The details of how best to accomplish a mission is a military decision. Deciding what the mission is (how to use military power) is a political one. In a democracy, every citizen shares responsibility for political decisions. So it is absolutely the responsibility of every citizen in a democracy to be involved in deciding how military power is to be used.
Re:There sure is a lot about climate on slashdot.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is climate change every day really news for nerds?
I believe it would be if we were discussing solutions instead of just more nuance on the problem.
Solutions like this one.
https://insights.globalspec.co... [globalspec.com]
This looks interesting, they are turning plastic into electricity and hydrogen gas. They seem to think hydrogen would make a good transportation fuel but it doesn't.
Or maybe we could have news on where people running for POTUS in the next election stand on energy policy to address global warming, that might make for a good discussion.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Let's see more news on solutions instead of just more of the same on how we are all screwed. This is very important because all this talk of a problem with seemingly no solution is making people contemplate suicide.
https://therising.co/2019/07/1... [therising.co]
How about that kind of news? All this talk of doom and no talk of solutions is actually leading to people KILLING THEMSELVES!
I would like to talk about solutions, if only so the people reading this site have some hope of a future. A future other than global warming causing them to burst into flames or drowning in the rising seas, or bursting into flames AND then drowning.
Re: (Score:2)
Is climate change every day really news for nerds?
I believe it would be if we were discussing solutions instead of just more nuance on the problem.
Solutions like this one. https://insights.globalspec.co... [globalspec.com]
This looks interesting, they are turning plastic into electricity and hydrogen gas. They seem to think hydrogen would make a good transportation fuel but it doesn't.
Or maybe we could have news on where people running for POTUS in the next election stand on energy policy to address global warming, that might make for a good discussion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Let's see more news on solutions instead of just more of the same on how we are all screwed. This is very important because all this talk of a problem with seemingly no solution is making people contemplate suicide. https://therising.co/2019/07/1... [therising.co]
How about that kind of news? All this talk of doom and no talk of solutions is actually leading to people KILLING THEMSELVES!
I would like to talk about solutions, if only so the people reading this site have some hope of a future. A future other than global warming causing them to burst into flames or drowning in the rising seas, or bursting into flames AND then drowning.
Finally someone who gets the crux of the issues. Until we make environmental maintenance activities like stream keeping, habitat maintenance and most importantly the exploration of new and feasible ways to use our shared resources without fucking up the planet the situation for human kind will become dangerous. Until the human race wakes up and realizes that our fundamental reason for being on this planet is to help all life within the biosphere. Adam and Eve got their ass kicked out of the garden for inten
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot is not an ideal venue for discussions on climate change. First you get a barrage of deniers, and then the nuke fans/shills jump in to moan about not building enough of those. Then you get the ones who just hate the Democrats and AOC in particular so won't do anything one of them has suggested. Bringing up the rear are the lumbersexuals who need to drive a 1930s era diesel engine around for some very specific reason.
Crisis? (Score:3, Insightful)
Next level: Catastrophe!
Re: (Score:2)
You're at risk of going extinct
No, he's not. Global warming is a huge problem but *you* are part of the reason why it's so hard to make any headway. For an extreme example/thought experiment, the coal plants are not going to keep pumping out CO2 by themselves after humanity has fled to Alaska and Greenland and Siberia and Antarctica. Stop saying dumb exaggerated bullshit and maybe this will look less like a politicized religion... thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not. I'll be long dead of old age before AGW can do anything to "make me extinct".
My kids likewise.
And probably their kids.
Now, if you want to discuss what AGW will bring in a century or two, go to town. Of course, that's a lot like Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin discussing where the US would be in the late 20th Century....
Re: (Score:2)
If only. If our emissions keep growing at historical rates, 2050 could be pretty dicey, and 2100 catastrophic. Your kids might not expect to make it to 2100, but lots of peoples' should come close.
Global warming won't make the human race extinct of course. But it could seriously mess up civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I didn't say anything I don't absolutely stand by.
Said the Anonymous Coward...
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, because something that will likely affect your children and grandchildren only is not really important and we should do nothing about it, right ?
It's because most people think like you do, unfortunately, that there is no hope for this suicidal species of ours.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, I see the logic: You've been driving drunk for years and never had an accident, therefore you will never have an accident caused by drunk driving. And people who get killed while being drunk behind the wheel didn't really die because they were drunk. That's just liberal propaganda and a governement plot to make more laws and have more control over its ctizens.
What a nice little ostrich you make.
People like you don't change my mind: Humans are a suicidal species. When they see a lion in the tall gras
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They apparently have a solution -- plant trees. Which may bring other problems downstream but at least the place will look nicer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, feeding cattle seaweed(a chemical there in) reduce methane burps by 90%
Meat grown from animal cells is another.
Everyone going pant-based will not happen. That's literally generation of work, and in some areas that the best calorie dense option.
We need less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but we re also looking at removal as well.
The realities of the situation require many different approaches.
If you are on a plant based only diet, good for you, well done. I'm moving to a less meat diet*. I've
Re: (Score:2)
We have to stop producing greenhouse gases and change to a plant-based diet, and do it now.
Yes on reducing CO2 output. No on eating a plant only diet.
Plants take CO2 out of the air and lock it into the soil, but they need animals to optimize this. This was discovered after someone thinned a herd of elephants to "save" the grasslands. It didn't work.
https://www.ted.com/talks/alla... [ted.com]
The plants on this planet evolved in concert with the megafauna that feed on it. When one does well then so does the other. Us humans are part of this cycle by eating the meat from these animals. If we want a gree
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. We have to reduce our emissions. The required reduction is actually fairly reasonable, and is expected to happen. The only problem is *when* it happens. Sooner is much better.
We have all sorts of ways of reducing emissions. We just have to actually do them. One way would be eating less meat. But if you think the efficiency of the plant->meat conversion is low, you should take a look at the sunlight-
Re: (Score:2)
There is no 'A solution'.
There are thousands of issues that will require thousands of solutions.
Re:*Sigh* We get it already... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear people who use the term "mainstream media",
How about you quit shooting the messenger and start contributing to that solution yourselves, instead of getting in the way.
Consider this the climate alarm clock. It's not going to stop just because you don't like hearing it. It's only going to get louder, until you pull your head out from under the covers and act, instead of complaining about the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*Sigh* We get it already... (Score:5, Insightful)
But holy shit... can you stop with the incessant fear-mongering?!
Let me ask you a question. If a meteor was coming to hit the Earth and we knew that this was going to be a continent leveler. What do you think the correct way to explain that to people would be? Let's say we identify that meteor way ahead of time. We've got 40 years to figure out what to do about the problem. We know, some continent on this planet is going to be wiped from existence and those that survive will have a hard time living. However, we've got four decades to figure out what to do. What do you think should be the way we should convey that message? How urgent do you think we should talk about it? How absolute should we make the dire ramifications should we fail to act?
Now I ask that because here's the thing. We've not really been here before. Typically some humanity wiping challenge appears and smart people show up and attempt to defuse the situation. Atom bomb? Covered. Hole in ozone? Check. But when it comes to climate change, there's this persistent not going to do anything about it that keeps happening from the world's leaders. And that's troublesome, because we know what's going to happen, we can see it off in the distance like that meteor. But day comes, day goes, and nothing is done. And there's beginning to become an air that nothing will be done in time for it. Yes, yes, we've still got decades to go, but... Does anyone think it's a great idea that our governments are just sitting on their hands?
So giving all that. What do you think people should do? What do you think people should say? How do you think people should induce governments around the world to do something? I'm just curious how you feel people should react to this meteor that's everyday inching closer to us? Hell, maybe fear-mongering isn't the trick. But I'm just curious what do you think people should do when they're staring at a distant doom that's everyday slowly inching towards us and everyone who's in charge idly stands by?
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm just curious what do you think people should do when they're staring at a distant doom that's everyday slowly inching towards us and everyone who's in charge idly stands by?
This talk of a climate crisis is having an effect on people's mental health.
https://therising.co/2019/07/1... [therising.co]
Here's an idea. Let's maybe take a scientific approach to the problem and find the best energy sources to reduce our CO2, and then, you know, actually use them?
I did that kind of a look at the problem and I found that the best means to reduce CO2 is to use onshore wind, hydro, nuclear, and some natural gas to ease the transition. Let's get more natural gas trucks, trains, and ships to replace the d
Re: (Score:2)
"Here's an idea. Let's maybe take a scientific approach to the problem and find the best energy sources to reduce our CO2, and then, you know, actually use them?"
great.
But we have a active fight against that. Right wind propaganda constantly denies it.
This is a tech site, and we have deniers on every god damn climate post.
Those suicide? they are blood on the GOP and other deniers hands.
GOP came out tomorrow and said, OK, we're done denying, lets do something.
Then we would be hearing more and more stories of
Re: (Score:2)
But we have a active fight against that. Right wind propaganda constantly denies it.
This is a tech site, and we have deniers on every god damn climate post.
How do you get a Republican to agree with a Democrat on energy policy? By not making it about global warming. The Right doesn't have to agree with the Left on the problem, they only need agree on the solution.
Those suicide? they are blood on the GOP and other deniers hands.
How does that work? Is it the Republicans that are literally scaring these people to death? Doesn't look like it to me. The Republicans are telling people everything is fine, which is quite likely what they need to hear in order to reduce their stress and depression.
GOP came out tomorrow and said, OK, we're done denying, lets do something.
Trump did more to reduce CO2 th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy to back an international project to design a safe, reliable fission reactor, and the procedures for building and operating it and disposing safely of the waste. It's within our engineering capabilities to do so. It's in our interest to make the design freely available as it doesn't help if other countries build dangerous reactors.
However, this is a multi-decade project and we need to start curbing CO2 emissions now.
So, I'm willing to work with you on tomorrow, what are you prepared to do
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a multidecade project. We have designs that work right now. Hitachi has them. Westinghouse has them. Kepco has them.
These have been licensed for operation. We could build dozens if not hundreds in a decade if we were so inclined. If we all believe this climate change issue is an emergency, then we should treat it as such, rather than wait for perfect solutions.
If we are content to wait for perfect solutions and to develop unproven solutions, then maybe, just maybe, the people shouting loudest ab
Re: (Score:2)
1) You don't have an active fight against right wing propaganda. What the fight is against is that the left unleashes "the sky is falling" tirades (taking the extreme case of the warming projections, and the most catastrophic outcomes), Then claims that nothing is being done, and we all need to go organic and stop using fossil fuels "right now", and similar absolutely impossible (if you want to keep a functioning society, where people don't starve and die by the very large population percentages). This of
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point (Score:2)
And here you go quoting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The United States is the problem. Yeah, sorry, I know, it's AmiMoJo bashing the United States again.
Specifically it's the political system that is massively corrupt. Too many politicians are controlled by big business interests who see climate change as a threat to their profits, so would rather ignore it.
If the US pivoted and really pushed to fix this then the rest of the world would accelerate its efforts too. The old "but China" argument is actually "but the US" for us, because unfortunately we have to c
Re: (Score:2)
But holy shit... can you stop with the incessant fear-mongering?!
Let me ask you a question. If a meteor was coming to hit the Earth and we knew that this was going to be a continent leveler. What do you think the correct way to explain that to people would be? Let's say we identify that meteor way ahead of time. We've got 40 years to figure out what to do about the problem. We know, some continent on this planet is going to be wiped from existence and those that survive will have a hard time living. However, we've got four decades to figure out what to do. What do you think should be the way we should convey that message? How urgent do you think we should talk about it? How absolute should we make the dire ramifications should we fail to act?
The problem is, that if we were to take your analogy and apply it to climate change, then as soon as the asteroid was detected, we have people claiming that it will hit within 5 years because they want people to act now, and not in 20 years.
And for the entire 40 years before it hits, people keep claiming that it will hit within 3-5 years(often disagreeing with each other as to the exact time).
As such, even when the activist in year 35 who is claiming the asteroid will hit in 5 more years happens to be corre
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like every day I read a new article about how the climate crisis is linked to every bad thing that has happened 2019.
Could it be because every day we discover bad things happening in 2019 are actually linked to climate change? I mean closing your eyes, covering your ears and shouting la la la won't make it go away.
No, we should not be stopping reporting on these issues. Quite clearly we have a long way to go to get people to actually give a shit as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more convinced if there was occasional positive news about global warming.
Positive news: Tourism on Alaskan beaches will improve.
Scientists aren't looking for bad stuff to happen. Scientists just see what is.
If you go to the doctor you may want him to tell you that you have cancer, rather than spin it as: "I have good news AC, 2 years from now you won't ever have to come into this office again!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's because they are impacting everything.
"climate theories"
please make an effort to understand what a theory is.
So here is how it works (Score:1)
Activists have been trying to end fossil fuel production and combustion for decades. Just telling people about global warming was not enough. CO2 is in the parts per million and people don't feel affected by it in their day to day lives. But tell people that storms will get worse, there will be more flooding, their jet travel will be more turbulent, that natural gas is somehow causing them health issues (go check out the Wawayanda plant for the hyperbole there) and voila you get people scared of shadows
Oh, it's a crisis now? (Score:2)
They're comparing modern satellite data to what we had in 1979.
They aren't seeing the effects they expected. The speed and location of the jet stream isn't changing like it should, according to their models, so they had to scramble to find something. What did they find? Maybe a 15% increase in turbulence over 40 years.
That's not scary. But they want to make things seem scary, so they have to slap the word "crisis" on it.
I call BS.
That's ok, transatlantic flight is increasing AGW (Score:2)
The fun part is that flying in jets is increasing Climate Change too, so it's a feedback loop.
Build and use more high speed trains.
And maybe consider a hyperloop.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a transatlantic "hyper loop". If maintaining a vacuum in a huge tube at near to sea level is challenging, it's going to be even more interesting at an average of 3km below sea level. OK, 2.85km - I just plotted up a route from New York to Galicia. Maximum depth is 5.04km. Each 0.01km of water depth adds another 100kPa to the collapsing pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the ocean isn't empty, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about at great depth. You do know there used to be a land bridge between Asia and North America, right?
There were plans to bridge that back in the 1950s, using technology that is far behind that used in Northern Europe today. They've even done submerged tunnels there that cross water, for certain gaps.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the ocean between ASIA and NORTH AMERICA is called the P_A_C_I_F_I_C O_C_E_A_N, and the topic is "That's ok, transatlantic flight is increasing" (my emphasis).
That aside, a trans-Bering tunnel (using the same sources) averages 45m depth and peaks (sumps) at 55m. That's for the shortest route of 80-some km, skirting the Diomede islands (one Russian, one American, 4km apart). Taking the shallowest route, fr
Re: (Score:2)
A straight line is not always the fastest route. In fact, most airplane flights from Seattle/Vancouver go over the pole to get to Europe.
Last time I checked, they had working trains in Canada powered by wind and solar, using hydrogen fuel, and were on their way to converting to that method, as is much of Europe.
Working bridges exist right now between nations. China cranks out these things in weeks, and they work fine, as do most First World nations.
Adapt. The world cares nothing for excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what the difference between a great circle and a "straight line" (in latitude/ longitude coordinates) is. Of course I used the "great circle" options in my route choices.
If you have an island surrounded by a moat whose shallowest point is 600m deep, then anything you put onto the seabed is going to have to cope with the pressures of 600m depth at some point. Pick a different route if you want, but you're going to have to pay something for every metre
Re: (Score:1)
Oh joy, a troll and he's been modded up. So much for this being a "techincal website".
s were into "global warming."
Yeah, the global temperature goes up. That's why it's called "global" bacause whole world average and "warming" because it's getting hotter.
, it turned into "climate change."
It didn't turn into anything. Upping the temperature makes the climate change. It's not hard to understand.
during the warming pause that of course never happened,
Yeah that's right, Ivan, it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
False. The petroleum companion are a 20 trillion dollar global industry, and the even agree it's real. You think they could do some more test if it wasn't.
These are the most base tests. If you can't create a repeatable test that shows them to be incorrect, then your denial is a none starter.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently the "climate crisis" is the one now.
It's such a crisis that changing to carbon neutral energy is not enough. We must now change the way we eat.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
This paragraph is especially nonsensical.
There also needs to be a big change in how land is used, it adds. Policies need to include âoeimproved access to markets, empowering women farmers, expanding access to agricultural services and strengthening land tenure securityâ, it states. âoeEarly warning systems for weather, crop yields, and seasonal climate events are also critical.â
Why the fuck should I care if the food I eat was planted and harvested by a man or woman when there is a climate crisis?
Never mind the scientists that have studied this phenomenon for decades and found that megafauna are vital to creating and maintaining grasslands, and keeping deserts from taking over the landscape.
https://www. [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is a nonstarter, time to move on.
A few people fuck up, and giant areas of land becomes uninhabitable by humans.
Plus, waste issue, plus time.
Before you say it, I initially studied to be a nuclear engineer, you aren't likely to tell me anything I don't know.
40 years ago, I was right there with you. fact of the matter s, we don't really need it, and it's really fucking dangerous. I really suggest you read the after report to TMI incident. It pretty much came done to a flip of a coin. Had air got
Re: (Score:2)
Before you say it, I initially studied to be a nuclear engineer, you aren't likely to tell me anything I don't know.
40 years ago, I was right there with you. fact of the matter s, we don't really need it, and it's really fucking dangerous.
Apparently you don't know that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have available to us right now. Safer than wind or solar.
If you believe nuclear power to be too dangerous that we can't use this low CO2 energy source to stop global warming then I have to wonder just how much of a threat global warming poses. I nuclear power actually more dangerous to us than global warming? Can you provide any kind of numbers or statistics to support this claim?
You may have studied to be a nuclear engineer 40 y
Re: (Score:1)
Investment in renewables grows 50% year over year.
You do realize that growth like that cannot continue for very long, don't you?
This growth is already becoming a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Solar provides a lot of energy during the midday hours and then nothing through the night. This means needing storage for the predawn and postdusk peaks. A lot of storage. Storage that doesn't yet exist and for which we may not have the industrial capacity to produce at a rate even close to what we need.
The market has spoken.
Yes, it has. Just because something can speak does
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the "climate crisis" is the one now.
It's such a crisis that changing to carbon neutral energy is not enough. We must now change the way we eat.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
This paragraph is especially nonsensical.
There also needs to be a big change in how land is used, it adds. Policies need to include âoeimproved access to markets, empowering women farmers, expanding access to agricultural services and strengthening land tenure securityâ, it states. âoeEarly warning systems for weather, crop yields, and seasonal climate events are also critical.â
Why the fuck should I care if the food I eat was planted and harvested by a man or woman when there is a climate crisis?
Never mind the scientists that have studied this phenomenon for decades and found that megafauna are vital to creating and maintaining grasslands, and keeping deserts from taking over the landscape.
https://www [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is the guy who mixes bleach and ammonia together when left unsupervised.
Jokes about household cleaner chemistry that is killing the planet is no joke. Hope you're happy with the sixteen-point-seven polar bears my UN-approved carbon videogame says you killed because of the coal-plant powering this comment server having to spool up for your pointless spam. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think its coal fired? for example, My electricity come from green sources.
Re: (Score:2)
I should be ashamed that you're considered part of my genome... I am.
Should've had you pegged as a racist. White supremacists say that to me all the time.