New Study Confirms the Oceans Are Warming Rapidly (theguardian.com) 332
An anonymous reader shares a report from The Guardian, written by John Abraham, who discusses the rising ocean temperatures and the important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy: The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, "global warming" is really "ocean warming." If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established. These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming. In the paper, we describe perhaps the three most important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy. First, sensors can have biases (they can be "hot" or "cold"), and these biases can change over time. Another source of uncertainty is related to the fact that we just don't have sensors at all ocean locations and at all times. Some sensors, which are dropped from cargo ships, are densely located along major shipping routes. Other sensors, dropped from research vessels, are also confined to specific locations across the globe. Finally, temperatures are usually referenced to a baseline "climatology." So, when we say temperatures have increased by 1 degree, it is important to say what the baseline climatology is. Have temperatures increased by 1 degree since the year 1990? Since the year 1970? Since 1900? The choice of baseline climatology really matters.
Good! (Score:5, Funny)
If we can get it warm enough the oceans will start to evaporate, countering global warming's rising sea level.
Re: (Score:3)
Give this guy a Nobel peace prize!
Re: (Score:2)
Boiling temperature, May be.
I'm pretty sure that water doesn't need to be boiling to evaporate. However, warm water evaporates at a faster rate than cold water.
Re: (Score:3)
Evaporate - water vapor is not gaseous water (steam). It is liquid water suspended in air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" fortunately it may actually work."
That's great news! Let's see your math.
bit of maths (Score:3, Insightful)
change in heat content since 1970=3 e23 J (from TFA)
SHC of water =4e3 J/kg/deg C
mass of oceans = 1.4e21 kg
temperature rise is 3e23/1.4e21/4e3, about 0.05 deg C
Hmm, in 50 years? Colour me unexcited.
Re:bit of maths (Score:5, Interesting)
The temperature effects are not distributed equally across the entire water column. Most of the warming is in the upper ocean, which is most relevant for us, because it's the layer where the energy is quickly transported back to the atmosphere.
The relatively small increase in temperature should make you excited, because it's means that the ocean isn't anywhere near equilibrium, so it will keep absorbing energy from the atmosphere at increasing rates, causing sea level rise through thermal expansion, and come back to us in bursts during the El-Nino season.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it will keep absorbing energy from the atmosphere at DECREASING rates. As the delta-T between them diminishes, the rate of heat flow decreases.
Besides, most of the heat trapped by the upper ocean is radiative, not conductive. The oceanic albedo has a mean of approximately 0.06, which means the ocean absorbs approximately 94% of the solar radiation incident upon it, and almost all of that energy is dissipated in the top few feet of oceanic depth.
The trend of decreasing oceanic cloud cover over the
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it will keep absorbing energy from the atmosphere at DECREASING rates. As the delta-T between them diminishes, the rate of heat flow decreases.
Ultimately yes, but right now, the upper layers are still warming faster so the delta T is still increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much unusual going on with sea levels either.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/0... [notrickszone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think it's a good idea to cherry pick tide gauges, instead of taking the average of all of them ?
https://skepticalscience.com/s... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Aye, but the whole ocean doesn't change temperature at the same rate you dickhead. The top, where shit actually lives, heats up faster.
Fuck me, you are thick.
Re:bit of maths (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bit of maths (Score:4, Informative)
I refute your calculations with a single word: thermocline [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument. To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action"
“Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, [...] as scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such compariso
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The current rate of extinction.. (Score:4, Informative)
Your quote is from November 28, 2006
Mine is from June 13, 2017
Apparently Doug has had the scientific decency to change his views on new data. Or, to use his words:
Surely we’ve earned our place in the pantheon next to the greatest ecological catastrophes of all time: the so-called Big Five mass extinctions of earth history. Surely our Anthropocene extinction can confidently take its place next to the juggernauts of deep time—the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions.
Erwin says no. He thinks it’s junk science.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine is from June 13, 2017
If his power-grid analogy is correct, then trying to stop a mass extinction after it’s started would be a little like calling for a building’s preservation while it’s imploding.
“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin - June 13, 2017 [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to contrast with the parent post I replied to:
"The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history"
That's the kind of fear mongering junk science statements Doug is complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Fair point. Hopefully you are also willing to concede that, contrary to your post @01:44PM (#54697987), Doug's views from 2006 ("There is no reason to think that mass extinctions will not happen in the future") are consistent with his views from 2017 (“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction")
The good news (according to Doug) is that it's not too late. We still have time to avoid rapid collapse of the ecosystem. He does caution that we'll only know i
Re:The current rate of extinction.. (Score:4, Informative)
Lack of data worrisome (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting read but I have to admit I'm skeptical. I work in the field and its common knowledge that sensors are few and far between outside of normal travel lanes/coast lines. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov] is the site I most often use and its quite lacking all things considered. From TFA (I know, I know) "Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used, for instance high-resolution model outputs, sea level data, etc." While these models are decent, they won't perform t
Wow confirmation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the polar ice caps melting were not enough observable evidence?
Short answer: no.
Somewhat longer answer: in a complex system, the precise details of what is going on are never completely settled. There's always loose threads somewhere to be tugged at. In principle the whole fabric of scientific consensus can be unravelled this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... the article is linked in the summary?
Re:Then where's the proof? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok.
It doesn't show an "increaase" in much of anything. It shows an increase in heat content, i.e., a quantity of energy per unit area as defined in equation 1, when integrated over an area. You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2). You're correct that the number is based upon temperature, but then you go off the rails...
BZZT. The figure 1 data is not an average. It's a quantity integrated over depth (equation 1), then over the area of the ocean basin (figure 1), to give you a change in the quantity of thermal energy versus a comparison point -- modern day . You'll notice that the units on the Y axis are Joules, not degrees F or C.
Somehow a TOTAL of an ADDITIVE quantity (increase of thermal energy in each of four oceans making up the "global" ocean) of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.6 added up to 1.8 -- x10^23 Joules. As everyone would expect.
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Maybe your children are immensely smart because I looked at the graph and found it confusing and misleading.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The title is "Area Integrated OHC [Ocean Heat Content]."
The Y axis is "OHC [Ocean Heat Content] *10^23 J [Joules]."
The X axis is Year.
If you interpreted any of that to mean that Fig. 1 plots an average temperature, then you've failed a task that average 4th-5th graders have mastered.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet those same people, who don't understand the difference, feel totally qualified to shit all over a study done by people for whom understanding such things part of their day to day job.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a small nitpick here. The units are energy/area, as in J/(m^2) not energy/(area^2), which would translate to energy/((m^2)^2). I'm not sure just what that would be, but it's clearly not what you intended.
Re:Sounds scary (Score:5, Insightful)
"...it does seem to me that the world has become more verdant over the past several decades..."
You do realize that as you age, your spectral sensitivities deteriorate? Specifically loss of sensitivity towards purple and yellow-green confusion. In other words, as you get older, the world simply appears greener:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220102614.htm
"... I have become immune to scary reports and will simply ignore this one."
Oh, that's something entirely different. This means that you are an idiot. This may be age related, but it is entirely possible that you have always been an idiot.
"But after 20+ years of exaggerations, and occasional falsification..."
Oh dear, you aren't only an idiot, you are a liar as well. What occasional falsification?
Just for your amusement, you may want to look into the Ocean Warming Studies of Richard Muller, funded by the Kochs. He started out as a "Sceptic"; he felt that not enough rigor had been applied. He came to the conclusion that the situation was worse than first appeared. The Kochs paid for it because they had long-term planning to do; they're continuing to deny Warming is but PR gibberish for Koch Suckers like you.
"Am I imagining this, or are increasing temperatures and CO2 levels causing plant life to flourish?"
Which is it, no Warming or only Good Warming? You really should make up your mind. That is, if you ever had one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I think it is a misunderstanding of biology that forests and grasslands are a carbon sink. Forests just rot and release carbon in a state of equilibrium.
In a state of equilibrium, yes. If high CO2 levels cause vegetation to get more extensive, thicker, etc., it creates a new equilibrium with more gigatons of carbon tied up in living plants, thus removing those gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere. This obviously cannot lower atmospheric carbon concentrations back to pre-industrial levels, because assuming it can drop CO2 levels signficantly, as soon as they drop to the point that the vegetation level starts to die back, the carbon tied up in the dead plan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, falsification to "hide the decline" isnt fraud.
Exactly why would you argue there was falsification or fraud involved in that case ? Do you even know what "hide the decline" referred to ?
Re: (Score:2)
And you are just a communist, nigger loving ape-eh-shit, so go die in a fucking fire fucktard.
Ah, I see you've been forced to play your trump card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a person who has lived his whole life in Arctic I can tell you that the thousands of years old permafrost is melting. Biologists are fighting against time to preserve mammoth DNA because the carcasses are finally rotting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I spent more than a few of my childhood & adolescent years in tropical regions. It's all lovely, until you meet the critters.
Centipedes that can kill snakes, swarms of flying cockroaches, GAAAHHH, and bugs that get under your skin - ever have scabies?
I did and it sucks, a lot.
I'll gladly suffer through winter as long as it means never having to face those critters again.
Re: (Score:2)
So because it has gone well so far, just keep doing it? How does that theory work for playing Russian Roulette?
I didn't see the article you refer to, so I'll take the numbers at face value. That sounds great.
But what if the next degree hotter means 3% more arid areas and 4% more forest, then the next one is 7% more arid and 1% more forest ...
Can we at least agree that at some point, the heat across the globe - if it continues to go up and only up - will cause more arid areas than vegetative ones?
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Informative)
The priesthood has spoken. AGW acolytes will be along shortly to mod anyone to -1 who dares question the IPCC Assessment Report holy book. The unadjusted data will be kept under lock and key while everyone is instructed to accept based on faith that the oceans are warming rapidly. The AGW cult is even more profitable than the LDS cult, and this will no doubt be used to justify even more wealth redistribution.
Richard Muller & his team looked at a truckload of "unadjusted data" in his examination of the surface temp record & came to the same conclusions & roughly the same trends as NOAA et al. Looks like the raw data lies as much as the adjusted.
As for wealth redistribution, Trumpcare is trying to fix that by giving an $800 billion tax cut to the 1% & will deprive about 20 million Americans of their healthcare
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must protest. Trump has no idea what's in that bill. It runs several pages long, which is several pages - one of attention span he doesn't have. His support is merely because he's trying to pee in all the corners Obama visited before him. He has no bright ideas of his own.
Re: (Score:2)
you have to pass the bill to read what's in it.
we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,
Please explain the major differences between the meanings of those two statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the novel. Now please give me an answer to my actual request.
Re: (Score:2)
"Me? I'm winning"
Nah, you're not. I know it, you know it, we all know it. You're just trying to psych yourself up so you don't collapse in tears.
Re: The priesthood has spoken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To this Anonymous Coward: Wow - You must really hate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (its official name) to turn a climate change article into an anti-LDS blast. Being Mormon, and knowing how angry, belligerent, and willing to spread misinformation and half-truths solely to tear down a sect/philosophy, I can understand how you can be so capable of closing your eyes on hard climate change numbers.
To all other Slashdot readers (atheist, religious, or somewhere inbetween): While there are some
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and by the time you figure out that the climatic momentum is poised to wipe out entire ecosystems with 100 years, you will be knee deep migrants from climate change at your doorstep.
But don't worry with regard to wealth distribution as regardless of how much wealth is redistributed, we are all about to bake ever and ever so slowly bake until we are done.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.Nuclear baseload. We've known how to do it for half a century. That alone would resolve most of the CO2 issues.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
As is, looks more like an attempt at social engineering (lowering everyone's standard of living except for the "Right People")
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seconded, and double that down when - not if - we have to resort to such things as seeding the oceans with iron-sulfur nutrients to grow carbon-gobbling algae.
If you really want to make an AGW priest squirm, mention the success of the Haida experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a huge fan of turning our oceans and atmosphere into a 100% man-managed ecosystem
I'm a huge fan of exactly that. Further, I think that it is necessary in the long term. I think we're very, very far from knowing how to do it, but that we should start learning. Now. We've already unintentionally altered the planetary environment, now we should learn to do it on purpose and in the way we want.
[Haida is] a promising result.
I don't know about that. It wasn't a well-conducted scientific experiment. We can, and should, do much better. Still, the basic concept is good.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Informative)
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
Here I am! I find man-made global warming to be very obviously real, and feel that some fourth generation nuclear plants would an excellent addition to our energy supply. You may now take the problem more seriously!
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Informative)
And here's another. Man-made global warming is real, 90-something percent of scientists and 99ish percent of climatologists agree. Nuclear baseload is where it's at. Gen IV reactors, especially MSRs could mitigate much of the problems of current reactor technology if the NIMBYs would let the technology progress.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
You've always got excuses, but the fact is that mining is shitty, and uranium mining is extra-shitty. Uranium is the least concentrated ore we mine, and we never seem to actually bother to clean up the toxic mine tailings adequately. Nuclear advocates also never seem to account for the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and making waste safe. Even if we were to reprocess the waste, the cost would be beyond astronomical, which is why that's a non-starter. Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic, so you've built yourself a position which doesn't require you to change your lifestyle. That's very convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
And the other two who responded refute your statement stereotyping leftists/liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
If they support open pit mining and toxic waste, which is what you do when you support nuclear power, then they're centrists. I realize that the Democratic party has confused a lot of people as to what the left actually looks like, but raping the biosphere ain't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! How the fuck can someone be so confused to think "left" mean not (ab-)using natural resources? IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LEFT OR RIGHT - MANY EXTREME RIGHT GROUPS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS A GOAL!!!!!! (repeat)
Do us all a favor and at least read wikipedia about political views and their meaning before writing such a load of stinking crap! Better yet read some literature (scientific or at least factual) about the history and use of ideological terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! How the fuck can someone be so confused to think "left" mean not (ab-)using natural resources? IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LEFT OR RIGHT - MANY EXTREME RIGHT GROUPS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS A GOAL!!!!!! (repeat)
No matter how many times you repeat that, it will still be wrong. If you support the destruction of a common resource by corporate interests then you are not a liberal, who wants to see corporations controlled for the good of others — by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear reactors are generally not economical and (safe) mining or reprocessing is hard to do.
But having some view on how viable nuclear (fission) reactors are and how the impact mining can be allowed to have have nothing to do with the left-right spectra. It doesn't generally have anything to do with an environmentalist view either - nuclear reactors have several advantages and realistic alternatives aren't free from environmental impact. Renewable resources also require mining (often open-pit), also requi
Re: (Score:2)
We mine a lot more coal than uranium, and we mine various other things.
Which is an argument for better regulation of uranium mining, not an argument directly against nuclear power.
As a fan of civilization, I have to endorse mi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
People here seem to identify me as left leaning. I certainly support a strong regulatory framework, higher taxes than we have now, socialised healthcare and a strong welfare state. Do I classify as an AGW zealot? Dunno, but if you think global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by the CO2 we're releasing then I think you're a fucking moron. Does that make me a Zealot? You decide.
And I regula
Re: (Score:2)
And according to drinkypoo, you are a centrist based on that one criteria alone.
Re: (Score:2)
But, looking at the history of Plant Vogtle and screwed up its construction is, I am left wondering what exactly China is doing to build as many as they are "on schedule."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for responsible use of nuclear energy, and it should definitely be a part of the solution. The biggest problem for nuclear is costs, but increased activity in the sector could get the costs down to manageable levels.
Nuclear is however not *the* solution. Short term we need to put money into othe
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that, I have some property at Chernobyl and Fukushima I would like to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl isn't going to happen again. Fukushima might, but it's really not that bad compared to what harm other power sources have caused.
Re: (Score:2)
[Waves hand in the air] "Me! Call on me, teacher!"
Re: (Score:3)
You are so correct. The cost of wind and solar are now a small fraction of the cost of nuclear when all costs are considered. Given the very real prospect of radioactive contamination that may persist for tens of thousands of years, nuclear fission holds no commercial promise. Nonetheless support for research for containable fusion reactors should be sustained..
Re: (Score:2)
You also are not a liberal, according to drinkypoo's statements above.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of pumped storage goes underground. This has most of the drawbacks of fracking, but there's a lot of underground rock out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative). "Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this". The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it. (And, yes, I understand the concept of using government m
Re: (Score:2)
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it
A big problem is that the environmental cost of fossil fuels is not included in the market price.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative).
Sure man, what are you then, a full-on reactionary?
"Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this".
That's the right-wing soundbite, actually. They scream it all the time. Attacking leftists, and meanwhile, they throw government money at EVERYTHING they want.
The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
You mean a company that the right-wing dogmatically lies about, claims they don't even have a working product, and fails to admit that the reason for their failure was simply due to dropping solar prices, which was itself a result of MASSIVE Chinese subsidies?
Most can't even remember that it was par
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
You don't... In fact, MANY on the right support "green" energy development where it makes sense both for the environment and economically. The *problem* is though, most of these "green energy" initiatives require massive subsidies and regulations to make financial sense, and this means bigger more intrusive government.
In general, the "left" is obsessed with bigger more expensive government and higher taxes while the "right" is obsessed with smaller government and lower taxes. Then you have the political t
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why political preferences have a big impact on policy of energy generation. That makes total sense.
Denying basic science behind AGW, based on political preference makes no sense.
The debate over policy would be much improved if we start with accepting the objective facts.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Informative)
Many believe the "It's settled science" party line, but there are quite a few people in the field of climate studies who don't.
Less than 1%, if you're talking about actual climate scientists.
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
Yes, everybody involved in climate studies knows this. They are also quite sure that man is responsible for this one. The science behind CO2 is well understood. CO2 has actually been responsible for quite a few climatic changes in the past (although on a much slower timescale)
2. How much actual harm does climate change actually represent? There are lots of theories about this, but the past predictions of catastrophic events have mysteriously not proven accurate (Al Gore, I'm looking at your "Inconvenient truth").
Al Gore is not a scientist. Real scientists are generally much more conservatives in their prediction. A few exceptions get a lot of press, because scary predictions sell papers. The real harm starts slow, and gets gradually worse over centuries. The problem is that the reverse is equally slow. So when we do get catastrophic events, it will be too late to stop them.
How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested?
Thank you for proving my point. You're debating policy again. A disease doesn't go away just because you don't like the cure.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the cure is worse than the sickness, do you still do the cure?
I don't think your average person has any clue what war actually is or how many of the suggested "climate change" solutions will drag us closer to war. Hunger, sickness and a world run amok because there is no sane capitalistic economy with overwhelming military power to check the historically cyclic chaos that is obviously coming if the USA willingly and unilaterally gives up it's economic and political power. We don't remember WW1, WW2
Re: (Score:3)
It's not solar panels, which I am absolutely not opposed to in any way, by all means, put them up where they make financial sense.... However, I do believe that unilaterally giving up economic advantage by regulating cheaper power sources out of use when our world competitors are not IS the issue. First, it doesn't actually succeed in reducing emissions (countries like China are not going to stop any time soon) and second it weakens our economy and thus our ability to protect ourselves which is stupid fr
Re: (Score:3)
So... What kinds of subsidies do you think fossil fuels are getting?
I'm given to believe that this is actually a damnable lie which being often repeated is blindly accepted as truth by some. Every time I get someone to actually try to detail what these things might be, I find that the are either non-existent (and the poster is mistaken) or they are not unique to fossil fuel producers (such as the ability of a company to deduct the cost of capital equipment as an expense.) About the only thing I can come
Re: (Score:2)
As for specifics, subsidies range from depletion allowances, energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances, exploration and development expensing, credit for production of nonconventional fuels, reduced government take from federal oil and gas leasing, etc.
Depletion Allowances: Is basically the way you treat the loss in the asset value (the oil well) as you produce oil. It's exactly like how you treat a mine when you produce ore. So it is not a "subsidy" for the oil industry, but the rules used to determine the tax treatment of oil production.
Energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances: Are again, just tax rules used to govern how the industry can take depreciation deductions. They don't afford any novel or unique benefit to the oil industry and a
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them.
Sure, this sounds pretty cool.
This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
As long as it actually makes fiscal sense, then sure.
But if you want to crony things up and waste tax payer money (i.e. Solyndra) then no.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm... what am I? I think social services, taxes and government spending are a good idea. but I also like guns and think that using them isn't outright wrong as long as the reason is right.
Care to point me to my pigeon-hole?
Re: (Score:2)
Leftwingers think that gun control means you get a gun if the reason is right.
I'm a far left winger, and I think you can be deprived of a gun if the reason is right, but that you should otherwise be permitted to own one. I don't think that pretending guns don't exist is a liberal value.
Re: (Score:2)
Left != liberal. One can be a liberal right-wing or a liberal left-wing. One can also be a liberal authoritarian (!) just as one can be something like a humanistic fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
Left != liberal.
What? Who told you that? That's exactly what left means. Left is liberal, right is conservative. The other primary pole is anarchist/authoritarian. The so-called "leftist" party in America, the Democrats, is completely centrist; they are center left/right, and they are center up/down (for lack of a better frame of reference.) The republican party is also relatively centrist, but upper-right of center; they believe that government should have a right to tell you what you can do in your bedroom, but they also
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should be allowed to have a gun unless there's a reason you shouldn't. Sounds similar, I know, but I want the burden of proof on the one trying to take it away, not the one trying to get it. You needn't prove that you should have one, I need to prove that you shouldn't.
Aside of that, please just say what you want to say. It's kinda tedious trying to guess what someone implies. It's usually used by people who try to hedge their bets, because you guess what they meant, refute it, only to get "Oh,
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen many examples of people wishing to be attacked so that they can use their "right" to shoot people. No - not "I'll use my gun if I need to defend me/my family/other people" but "I hope those * comes into my property so I can shoot them". Most of the time supported by other keyboard warriors. In most cases his isn't a one-time thing but something that is aggressively repeated and clearly not intended as being ironic or just joking around.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
It probably doesn't care as you or I care. But certain political ideologies are more aligned with physics than others. It's like the old canard about information wanting to be free. Information behaves that way, so you should take that into account when building societies. What other aspects of human nature should similarly be accounted for when assembling political ideologies?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
As far as AGW is concerned, while the universe is telling us what is happening, what to do about it falls squarely in the political realm. That's because all the solutions harm one group instead of another. Urban dwellers are fine with solutions like eliminating fossil fuels but rural folks don't have electric tractors and long-haul trucks. Poor people in northern climates want to keep their natural gas furnaces, and well-off elites want to keep their commercial air flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now. It's not fantasy and fakery. It's religi... ok, it's fantasy and fakery.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A good example of the Salem Hypothesis in action.
Re: (Score:2)
More shitty moderation. How is this trolling. The parent tried to assert that he and his family's expertise in IT and engineering gives him some special ability to assess a fairly complex and interrelated set of scientific disciplines. The Salem Hypothesis, specifically, deals with the tendency of engineers to conflate their training and skill set with science, and more specifically this applies to the propensity for people who claim to be scientists who reject biological evolution to actually be engineers.
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't the one pretending that money is the motivation behind publishing such findings. I was actually responding to someone claiming that these scientists publish results that support global warming with the sole intent to make money that way.
My rebuttal was that if the goal is money, there was more to be had by pretending that global warming is a myth and becoming the "science" mouthpiece of some corporations that have a vested interest in fossil fuels and heavy industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright AC, if you're an oceanographer, what do you call 1 million cubic meters of water per second? Name a prominent oceanographer who never received a PhD. What keeps London warmer than Newfoundland even though it's further north?
Re:As an *actual* oceanographer (Score:4, Insightful)
As an _actual_ oceanographer
[Citation needed]
I did a quick search for work published by someone named "Anonymous Coward", but came up empty. The search just came back with a mountain of useless Slashdot comments.
Re: (Score:2)
In this context "confirm" simply means that additional evidence was found to validate or corroborate something that was seen before. It's not a claim of infallible truth. The word "suggests" would be wrong, because that would typically indicate a novel finding.
Re: (Score:3)