TV Coverage of Cycling Races Can Help Document the Effects of Climate Change (phys.org) 171
Researchers from Ghent University were able to detect climate change impacts on trees in Belgium by analyzing nearly four decades of archive footage from the Tour of Flanders. The findings were published in the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Phys.Org reports: Focusing on trees and shrubs growing around recognizable climbs and other 'landmarks' along the route of this major annual road cycling race in Belgium, the team looked at video footage from 1981 to 2016 obtained by Flemish broadcaster VRT. They visually estimated how many leaves and flowers were present on the day of the course (usually in early April) and linked their scores to climate data. The ecologists found that the trees had advanced the timing of leafing and flowering in response to recent temperature changes. Before 1990, almost no trees had grown leaves at the time of the spring race. After that year, more and more trees visible in the television footage -- in particular magnolia, hawthorn, hornbeam and birch trees -- were already in full leaf. These shifts were most strongly related to warmer average temperatures in the area, which have increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since 1980.
Stupid Flanders (Score:1)
SSIA
Should have used Gent-Wevelgem (Score:1)
Possible solutions? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they could spray those trees with something to prevent this problem.
Blah blah blah (Score:1, Troll)
Yet another story about how the world is getting warmer. I'll get excited when I see the federal government start building nuclear reactors to replace the coal power we have now.
Nothing is safer than nuclear. Nothing has a lower CO2 footprint than nuclear. If it wasn't for the government bureaucracy holding up the issuance of licenses then we'd be seeing new nuclear reactors going online at a rate of about one per month.
Here's my conspiracy theory. I am admitting up front that this is approaching tin fo
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
The government doesn't want to actually solve the problem of global warming, they just want to be able to use the threat of global warming as an excuse for what they want to do.
Funny how all the governments in the world want the same thing, supported by all their scientists.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny how all the governments in the world want the same thing, supported by all their scientists.
Here, let me fix that for you...
Funny how all the dictatorships in the world want to take America's wealth, supported by all their government employed scientists.
We have the UN IPCC issue reports periodically on how the world will be uninhabitable in 100 years unless the USA hands out money to all the poor nations of the world. They aren't demanding the USA stop burning oil, in fact if the USA stopped burning oil then many of these dictatorships would collapse as they have nothing else of value to offer in
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how all the dictatorships in the world want to take America's wealth, supported by all their government employed scientists.
Most climate scientists are in the US and Europe. When is the last time you counted dictatorships in those places ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Using natural gas in cars would cut CO2 production per mile traveled in half compared to diesel fuel or gasoline, ... certainly not halved.
Cut down by a 1/3rd perhaps, probably less
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah blah blah yet another post where you ignore reality in order to jerk off nuclear power. All anyone has to know to understand that nuclear is a boondoggle is that it is absolutely slaughtered by basically everything else at cost per watt. Even if there were not lots of other good reasons why nuclear is crap, that would be sufficient.
P.S. We have a solution for long haul freight using electricity, it's called rail.
Re: (Score:2)
All anyone has to know to understand that nuclear is a boondoggle is that it is absolutely slaughtered by basically everything else at cost per watt.
Maybe that's true in whatever nation you are from but here in the USA nuclear is quite inexpensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Before you say that solar and wind will get cheaper and beat nuclear, consider what the price of nuclear can do in the mean time. That's right, nuclear can get cheaper too. Of course there is a limit on what the bottom can be because of the prices of materials and such. I have a pretty good idea on where that bottom lies, and it doesn't look good for solar. Wind might stay
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 ye
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.
It's safe...
https://ourworldindata.org/wha... [ourworldindata.org]
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... [nextbigfuture.com]
It's inexpensive...
https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov]
https://insideclimatenews.org/... [insideclimatenews.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.
That's just a lie. The Forbes article above explicitly point out that decommissioning costs are included in the price. They also point out that past cost overruns in nuclear power were often the result of poor money management, not any flaws in the technology or construction.
Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.
Prove it.
Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say.
* This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.
The risks are large. That's
Re: (Score:2)
"The Forbes article above explicitly point out that decommissioning costs are included in the price." since when is the price agreed on the initial contract the actual price at the end of the build? They are always massively under quoted to try and make it seem a reasonable venture. it doesn;t matter what the reasons are for cost/time overrun, its the reality. "They also point out that past cost overruns in nuclear power were often the result of poor m
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, the nuclear power industry got about one billion dollars year after year for 50 years in government subsidy. Nuclear power also provides 20% of the electricity generated in the USA. Compare this to what wind and solar get in subsidies. I did some searching on this and I've been getting some conflicting numbers, they vary from 7 billion dollars to 15 billion dollars based on who is providing the number and which year is being discussed. That alone is disproportionate subsidies. Consider that wind and solar combined provide less than 10% of our electricity that is very disproportionate. That's something like a 20 times difference in subsidies, based on money spent and energy produced.
How many have actually been built on time/cost, I couldn't find any, all i can find is massive cost and time overruns.
Probably because being on time and on budget isn't newsworthy.
I'll hear people complain about the money spent on Yucca Mountain. A nuclear waste site that's been a money pit for years and still has not been declared fit for disposing of waste. Well, that's what you get with a government run project that's so politically charged. We had US senators approve funds for the building of the site, because that's federal money spent in states where senators can buy a lot of votes. When it comes to funding the inspections and licensing for declaring it suitable for nuclear waste these same senators deny the funds. Now they can play the hero to their voters because dangerous nuclear waste won't be traveling on the roads through the neighborhoods where their kids play. There is no technical reason we can't put waste in this site, it's been held up only by politics. I imagine this money pit is included in the "nuclear industry subsidy" column when it contains no nuclear material, and may never contain nuclear material if it's not maintained. Maintaining it costs money, even if it's just a security detail to keep homeless and pot smoking teens out of it.
You are living in the land of unicorns
Yep, and it seems you are as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a long established fact that Yucca Mountain is not suited as a nuclear waste deposit.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwast... [state.nv.us]
http://www.sciencemag.org/news... [sciencemag.org]
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
Why don't you just change flags and advocate for Solar and Wind and Pumped Storage?
Nuclear power only viable path forward on climate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can build in your country as much nuclear power as you want.
I don't support nuclear power in Germany or the EU, it is to dangerous. And to expensive.
And we don't need it.
Why do you care how we make our power as long as it is without producing CO2?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the reason why nuclear is so "inexpensive":
The demolition of a nuclear power plant is a technically complicated undertaking that can take between 15 and 20 years to complete. In the case of Obrigheim, dismantling the power plant will cost energy utility company EnBW, which owns the facility, an estimated â500 million ($684 million). Compared to other plants in Germany, this pressurized-water reactor is relatively small. The dismantling of larger plants like Gundremmingen B or Isar 2 in the state of Bavaria are estimated to cost as much as â1 billion each.
Most Germans have assumed that these costs will be picked up by the energy utility companies, which have gleaned billions of euros in profits from these plants. Besides, why should different rules apply to nuclear plant operators than to normal car owners, who have to pay to scrap their car when it's no longer fit for the road?
But the heads of Germany's three major electric utility companies -- E.On CEO Johannes Teyssen, RWE chief Peter Terium and EnBW head Frank Mastiaux -- have come up with what they think is a brilliant plan to transfer the billions in risks related to dismantling nuclear plants. They want to punt responsibility to the state and taxpayers.
Article: Utility companies want public trust for winding down nuclear plants [spiegel.de]
1. Make big $$$ while plants operate.
2. When it's time to shut down, involve taxpayer
3. Profit!
Re: (Score:1)
Oh come on. That's obviously underbid amounts even now.
Decommissioning costs are 10%-15% of construction costs and rising.
Companies have repeatedly not set aside the money to decommission and so the it will fall on the citizens.
We need clawback provisions on nuclear industry executives pension and savings if we want the money set aside.
Humans always become careless, sloppy, and cut corners for everything. Nuclear power is no different in that regard.
I don't think your information is very realistic.
As you'
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think your information is very realistic.
I noticed you offered no links for me to see where you got your information.
Re: (Score:2)
You could cover millions of roof with solar panels (and provide battery storage) / create wind farms by the time you've built a nuclear power station a
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Interesting)
I noticed a lack of citations on your claims. Here's mine:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... [nextbigfuture.com]
Nuclear power is in fact the safest source of energy we have today.
The claim on nuclear power being a prime target in war is cute. Have you seen a modern nuclear power plant? Did you notice something? A big concrete dome perhaps? I'm sure if someone dropped a big enough bomb on the dome it would break open but if that's your standard then consider this, how well protected are windmills from an attack in a time of war? What of solar panels? You want to put windmills off shore too? I wonder how well protected those would be from an attack, or a drunken container ship captain.
If you want to talk about making land unusable then consider how much land would have to be plastered over with solar collectors. We can't grow crops in the shade. Oh, we put the solar panels on the roof you say? That doubles or triples the cost. When prodded on price solar power advocates talk of the price on utility scale solar, which by some estimates is as cheap as coal. When prodded on the enormous amounts of land use it suddenly and magically becomes far more expensive rooftop solar. Well, make up your mind. Do we get cheap solar and make that land unavailable for crops or housing, or do we get expensive solar and put it on our rooftops? You get one or the other to make your case, you can't have both.
Oh, another argument I hear often is that solar will get cheaper in the future. Well, nuclear will get cheaper in the future. We've been subsidizing solar for decades now with the promise that someday, with enough research and development, it will be cheaper than coal. Well, why not subsidize nuclear too to make it cheaper than coal, safer than wind, and lower CO2 output than solar? Oh, wait, we don't have to do that because nuclear is already there. You think that's "bollox"? Show me your numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, it made me wonder whether this incredible fact distracts everyone involved from the fact that nuclear plants create permanent (for all intents and purposes) poison as a waste by-product
Indeed it does, but we have already had proposals to reduce the waste through reprocessing, but for reasons unknown the American government just hates to do it.
Because they aren't ignoring all the problems that have come up at nuclear reprocessing plants?
Re: (Score:2)
We can't grow crops in the shade. ... plenty of plants don't like direct sunlight, and you can cover a field in a way that at any time only 1/3rd is in shadows.
Of course we can
BTW: the amount of space to power the whole world with solar alone is astonishing small.
Re: (Score:2)
I point out that nuclear is cheaper than coal, safer than wind, and lower CO2 output than solar and you come back with a comment on how if we space out the solar panels enough we might be able to grow handpicked strawberries in between? That's telling me that you have nothing to counter the safety, cost, and CO2 output of nuclear.
I will concede some points about solar power. It is possible to make solar as cheap as coal, quite safe (though perhaps still not safer than nuclear), low CO2, with storage, and
Re: (Score:2)
I point out that nuclear is cheaper than coal, safer than wind, and lower CO2 output than solar ...
You claim that. But your claims are wrong. No one ever died to wind power
and you come back with a comment on how if we space
Because you claimed, there would not be enough space to power everything with solar.
If competition from natural gas doesn't kill it then something else will. Har Har Har, natural gas is only cheap in the states. And as most nations are phasing out CO2 producing power plants, gas plants ca
Re: (Score:2)
The claim on nuclear power being a prime target in war is cute. Have you seen a modern nuclear power plant? Did you notice something? A big concrete dome perhaps? I'm sure if someone dropped a big enough bomb on the dome it would break open but if that's your standard then consider this, how well protected are windmills from an attack in a time of war?
Israel proved you don't even have to hit the dome to destroy a nuclear plant. Bomb the control center and turbines next door, and the best case scenario is a pristine reactor dome that won't produce power for many months and that's with a super fail safe design. Fukushima had less damage and resulted in core melt.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that's right, it's those wicked Democrats who are the problem. If it were up to the Republicans we'd all be living in endless free energy nirvana by now.
Grow up already.
That's Kinda Clever (Score:1)
Very clever idea.
Ferret
Climate change is real... And it doesn't matter. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a faint idea how much carbon we pull out of the ground in form of oil and coal every year? To sequester this in plants, we'd need to grow another amazon forest. And those plants better never die and release that carbon again.
Correlation causation and all that (Score:1)
Maybe stuff is greener because we fixed acid rain..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cycling is one of the most polluting ways of transportation once you take into account just what's required to fuel the muscles of the person riding the bike. That's a bit like saying electricity is a clean energy source because it doesn't pollute (other than heat), but you have to generate electricity from other sources of energy first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's popcorn time! (Score:2)
Crack out the popcorn, it's yet another climate change article. People from both sides of the fence will throw various more or less sensible arguments at each other, not even remotely interested in listening.
Personally, I don't care anymore. I have no kids. I'll be dead in 50 years. Yes, I know the planet is going to hell, but why bother trying to educate the stupid? You want your kids to live in a hellhole, so who am I to keep you from being eventually cursed and wished to hell or worse by your descendants
Re: Climate change (Score:4, Insightful)
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Please explain how temperatures are rising at unprecedented levels then, oh genius
Re: (Score:1)
Yours is pretty obvious though.
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
According to satellite data,
First of all: You do know that this doesn't actually measure temperature, but determines a temperature value for some atmosphere layer above a point on Earth by calculating together different microwave emission bands measurements from different angles and taken at different times.
If "satellite data" didn't (supposedly) show what you want, you'd deride it as unscientific without thinking about it (which you don't do anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
According to satellite data...
-geekpoet
Satellite data is consistent with land measurements [woodfortrees.org]
Trend for the NASA GISTEMP surface station record: 0.1732 per decade.
Trend for RSS remote sensing satellite record: 0.1948 per decade
Satellite shows a higher rate of warming, but roughly consistent with surface station record.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on theories and models that serve the globalist agenda. Those CO2 numbers are not written down in plain site, they are inferred from ice core samples or some made up BS.
Even a complete moron like you could measure CO2 levels - but you are afraid of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapour is the number one cause of heat retention, not of rising temperatures. Also, cattle don't dig up buried carbon.
Re: Climate change (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's test your "it's been warming since the end of the last ice age" hypothesis. The global land-ocean index has risen by about 1 C in the past 50 years, and it's forecast to warm another 2 C in the 21st Century. At that rate, the planet will be uninhabitable in only several centuries. So I think we can safely conclude that normal climate cycles aren't responsible.
Oh, fuck it. Let's put it a different way. Imagine that the planet is a fishbowl and the fish have a nasty habit of chain smoking. They've noticed that the water is getting cloudy and their gills are having to work harder to breathe, but they're convinced it must be due to silt from the bottom, not from their dim-witted behaviour in a closed system.
Why this has to be a political issue is beyond me. It's only a matter of time before the raging masses start challenging the existence of gravity and the laws of physics. Faith based engineering is just around the corner...
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The problem is that the data doesn't match the models [drroyspencer.com], and it's those models that say it is supposed to be 2 deg C warmer. The data doesn't support the models' claims. Science says that when data and theory/model conflict, the theory/model is wrong.
Additionally, the theory is that a warming world should have more and stronger hurricanes, yet the trendline since 1992 is down [notrickszone.com] and this year is forecast to be lower still [wattsupwiththat.com]. More data and theory conflicting...
Furthermore, look at the GISS temperature record fro [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cherry picking links?
What the funk is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, just your analysis of it. Also posting the data out of context is intentional dishonesty. 30 seconds on Google will tell you exactly why and how GISS data was adjusted. Now go on and refute the actual adjustment itself. We're all waiting to hear your big conspiracy on an adjustment that was completely independent of time itself or temperature measured at the the time, and everything to do with the source of the measurement itself.
Re: (Score:1)
He posted a link comparing 1988 data with 2018 data and showed a difference. However, no evidence was supplied to indicate that the 1988 data was actually superior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just download the data that you are interested in and check yourself?
denialist links to denialist sites (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present.
So that's how the trees in the TV recordings extended their growing season ? Because NASA adjusted the thermometers ?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be stupid, we're talking NASA. They adjusted the seasons. Think about it, they have space craft up there, they use them to adjust the orbital tilt of the Earth and get thousands of extra dollars in funding, some even say the funding dollars are even higher, and they all come out of your taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even your own carefully cherry-picked GISS temperature record shows a "cooling" of 0.1 degrees compared to a warming of 1.5 degrees since 1880.
Here's a better graph based on Nasa data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As you can see there is a very clear trend, excepting the spike for WW2 and subsequent reduction in emissions as industry recovered.
Re: Climate change tracking projections (Score:2)
The problem is that the data doesn't match the models
IPCC projected warming of about 0.2C/decade. The trend on the satellite record is 0.19C/decade. Pretty damn good. [woodfortrees.org]
Look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005.
The trend from 1895-1943 was somewhere between 0.045 C/decade and 0.109 C/decade (2).
The trend since 1957 was somewhere between 0.112 C/decade and 0.154 C/decade.
They're not really close - there's not even overlap in the uncertainty - and possibly the current trend is over three times greater than that of the early 1900s.
Nonetheless, if you want to understand this period you shoudl read th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's the fault of stupid, short-sighted hippies like Greenpeace that we are stuck on fossil fuels instead of atomic energy.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Greenpeace is working against CO2 and pro solar and pro wind since they are founded, moron.
Re: Climate change (Score:1)
Renewable energiy isnât a toy, but a reality:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=26
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Here in Germany weâ(TM)re close to producing 50% of all electricity from renewable sources. And thereâ(TM)s a lot of free roof space to add more solar panels. What these production charts donâ(TM)t show is that we are currently producing much more energy than we consume because the coal and nuclear plants canâ(TM)t
Re: Climate change (Score:1)
Are you telling me that it is 2018 and this site is still not getting character encoding right? :-(
Re: (Score:1)
When you cut and paste, Slashdot fails.
When you make a mistake or your phone autocorrects badly, Slashdot fails because you can't fix it.
I've been using slashdot less over the last year and can see a time when I'll just drop it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd lay the blame on companies like Exxon for funding those hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace's latest stunt was to crash a drone into a nuclear power plant containment structure. They did this to prove that a terrorist could crash a drone into a nuclear power plant containment structure. In other words they proved themselves to be terrorists.
I was going to say that no damage was done but that's not quite true. Go do a search for Greenpeace and find a news site that allows for people to comment. The drone didn't even leave a mark on the concrete wall but Greenpeace is just looking lik
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Greenpeace favour 100% renewable energy: https://www.greenpeace.org/arc... [greenpeace.org]
Nuclear is too expensive, has too many problems and doesn't even cut CO2 emissions that much. The economics are steadily getting worse and the timescales involved in building it make any investment extremely risky and uncertain.
Climate change is the fault of stupid, short-sighted fanboys like you who are stuck on nuclear instead of renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Europe just have two weeks where wind power produced 0 energy? Yes, pretty sure it did. Didn't Ontario have the same thing happen? Yes it did. Didn't multiple US states have the same thing happen? Why yes it did. All during a heat wave no less. Ah yes, total capacity of 4300MW and producing 30MW...so great. Guess it's a good thing we can buy from Quebec and Michigan, otherwise there'd have been rolling blackouts.
Greenpeace is very happy with expensive electricity, which makes people poorer. Nuc
Re: (Score:2)
Er... Nope.
Zero days this year of no wind power in the UK: http://www.ref.org.uk/fuel/ind... [ref.org.uk]
Zero days of no wind power last month and last year in the UK: http://gridwatch.co.uk/Renewab... [gridwatch.co.uk]
That's just the UK, the wider EU is even larger. Where do you read this nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
But you had 7 ZERO COAL days ;D hurray!
Where do you read this nonsense? ...
There was a bloomber article a few days ago, proclaiming that we had a heat wave in Europe (especially UK) and no wind at the same tim, oh shudder, I'm so scared now
Re: (Score:1)
Ah right, I've noticed that Bloomberg prints a lot of bullshit about renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the UK, the wider EU is even larger. Where do you read this nonsense?
In actual publications that have a good reputation? [bloomberg.com] What have you been looking at, the BBC telling you that NG Plant emissions are the source of wind power? Looking at the site you've listed, I can see multiple days with 1% generation across just the UK. Yeah that's sure paying for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.K. is not Europe retard.
Are you pretending the Brexit has already been completed? Or are you just what you call others?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Europe just have two weeks where wind power produced 0 energy? Yes, pretty sure it did.
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Nuclear power is among the cheapest solutions
That is just nonsense, regardless of your "unless" points.
Re: (Score:2)
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
So the article which provided stats was made up. Gotcha.
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Europe is tiny. I can drive across it in a day, it takes me 7-9 days to drive across Canada, if I drive 14hrs/day. Ontario is roughly the size of UK, Spain, France, Germany, NL, and Italy, and we've just had 11 days with pretty much zero wind.
That is just nonsense, regardless of your "unless" points.
It is the cheapest, unless you live in some backwards country that thinks nuclear is dangerous because of 40 years of environmentalist bullshit. Which you seem to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is tiny.
It is bigger than a dozen "no wind cells", so it is to big to have no wind at all, that was the point.
I can drive across it in a day ... Europe is bigger than that in every direction. And If I pick you a worst case route you drive 4 days, good luck.
No you can't. If you drive 100mph for 24h you manage 2400miles, obviously
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: Europe is big. It is impossible to have no wind all over Europe at the same time.
Europe is tiny. I can drive across it in a day, it takes me 7-9 days to drive across Canada, if I drive 14hrs/day. Ontario is roughly the size of UK, Spain, France, Germany, NL, and Italy, and we've just had 11 days with pretty much zero wind.
Europe is bigger than Canada, by slightly less than 2%.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I checked your claim about Ontario. It's about half the size you said.
Re: (Score:2)
No it had not. If you refer to that stupid bloomberg article, it was completely made up.
So the article which provided stats was made up. Gotcha.
If the stats are clearly wrong, chances are that article was made up. There is of course always the possibility it was written by a complete moron, or a faulty AI. Are you the author?.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it's a good thing we can buy from Quebec...
Yeah, thank goodness for Quebec: Quebec generated 99.8% of its electricity from renewable sources [neb-one.gc.ca] in 2016, and had the highest percentage of renewable generation in Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models.
And a variable never accounted for by armchair climate scientists: plants don't live forever, and when they die and decay the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Net result: nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
But even if we covered the earth with plants, it's under 1/20th of the problem. It would consume about 3 gigatons of carbon per year assuming we perfectly sequestered all of it.
Last I saw was we release 37 gigatons of carbon per year. That's down from 50gigatons a couple decades ago but we only have about 115 gigatons before we pass 2 degrees celsius. And the easy carbon reductions are mostly all gon
Re: (Score:2)
You can sequester that by burying them or making protected objects out of them (like tables and chairs).
Only if you do it a couple hundred feet down, and never ever throw away those chairs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I can't tell if this is satire or not.
Well poe'd
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
Except, of course, it is accounted for in the models. If only those climate modellers didn't have a better idea of climate modelling than the general public. Then you might have been right.
More interestingly, in the late 80's and early 90's there was a 'missing sink' in that atmospheric CO2 wasn't increasing as much as the emissions models suggested it would. It turned out that the estimates of increased plant C sequestration were higher than originally thought and the oceans were absorbing more than originally thought (thereby acidifying and damaging corals and molluscs etc.). Of course that was more than 20 years ago now.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that was more than 20 years ago now.
That is why the armchair scientists have forgotten it already.
And after you pointed it out to them, they will forget it again next week.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models.
This is called "making shit up to support your beliefs".
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models. Not only do plants grow faster with elevated levels of CO2, they also grow for time each year when the average temperature increases.
You can also add that changing the color (brown to green in this case) will change the albedo of the earth, which is another factor estimated by the climate modelers.
Re: (Score:2)