Climate Change Has Doubled the Frequency of Ocean Heatwaves (nature.com) 260
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Nature: Scientists analyzed satellite-based measurements of sea surface temperature from 1982 to 2016 and found that the frequency of marine heatwaves had doubled. These extreme heat events in the ocean's surface waters can last from days to months and can occur across thousands of kilometers. If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project, the frequency of ocean heatwaves could increase by a factor of 41. In other words, a one-in-one-hundred-day event at pre-industrial levels of warming could become a one-in-three-day event. The study has been published in the journal Nature.
If the powers preaching climate change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
doom really cared about it we'd have gone balls to the wall nuclear power decades ago and have safe hi tech nukepower oozing out of every orifice.
Nuclear power doesn't solve climate change, it offsets the carbon problem into a radio-isotope problem, which is worse that a carbon problem. Nuclear Energy doesn't work because it doesn't provide an energy return on the energy invested. This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel.
There are other reasons, heat load on the environment is another. Nuclear looks great until you begin to understand and analyze it, then it looks like a
Re:If the powers preaching climate change (Score:5, Informative)
So much wrong in so short a post.
Lets start
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc... [energyeducation.ca]
Thank you for being an example.
Re:If the powers preaching climate change (Score:5, Informative)
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
Agreed.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay [wikipedia.org]. Then there is the National Geographic article which took an inventory of the world nuclear waste and found that there is enough to fill a freight train that goes 1 and a half times around the equator of the earth. [nationalgeographic.com]
Since the nuclear industry do not have a solution to this issue Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the worlds energy needs. All it means is we have two problems instead of one.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ [stormsmith.nl] in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.
4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc... [energyeducation.ca]
Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel [wikipedia.org] in the once through cycle. Now the wiki article is particularly generous saying that it is 5%, which I don't agree with however it makes my point adequately.
Second I read the page you sent, thank you. The 45% you are referring to are for reactors that are not deployed and not licensed to produce electricity. Any scaling of Gen IV reactor technology will be occurring very slowly *IF* and thats a big *IF* the materials technology come through to produce them (which I hope it does come through).
So much wrong in so short a post.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
Thank you for being an example.
No, Thank you!
Re: (Score:3)
Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
That isn't an issue that's fuel, and thousand is not mega it's kilo. Do you want to throw in mine tailings for less energy dense fuels ? Or do you wish to just keep on embarrassing yourself here ?
No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ [stormsmith.nl]
Peer reviewed does not mean correct. The IAEA disagrees https://inis.iaea.org/collecti... [iaea.org]
Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel [wikipedia.org] in the once through cycle
No you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand, that was the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant. I figured you wouldn't recognize it for what it is and you didn't disappoint.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
Or do you wish to just keep on embarrassing yourself here ?
I thought not.
That isn't an issue that's fuel, and thousand is not mega it's kilo.
oh boy, here we go again with the magic breeder technology that may have worked if it wasn't lobbied out of existence by the oil and coal industry - quick b lame the nimbys and greenies for ruining the nuclear future you idealize.
Do you want to throw in mine tailings for less energy dense fuels ?
First mine tailings have to be created to extract the Uranium ore. Second a lot of CO is created in that process. Third it leaks radon gas permanently and that usually ends rolling down hill to any water source because gravity. Radon is highly water soluble.
Peer reviewed does not mean correct. The IAEA disagrees
The IAE
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I did consider the flaws of nuclear power. It's just very hard to talk to an idiot that thinks nuclear power plants don
Re: (Score:2)
While there are some interesting links in your post (though, alas, I'm not a subscriber to Nat Geo so I have no idea if that's 'useful' or not, or how the waste it apparently refers to compares with waste from, for example, mine tailings and coal ash), I'm going to have to draw your attention to something you wrote:
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay [wikipedia.org].
Excuse me for saying so, but, other than being a complete non-sequitur, this is akin to saying nuclear power is bad because we can't swim in nuclear waste cooling pools (which is what Lake Karach
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, how are you at checking and accounting for confirmation bias?
Which bias are you assuming I have?
Re: (Score:2)
This is, of course, irrelevant to nuclear power. Pu-239 is produced for use in nuclear weapons only. A standard reactor doesn't produce Pu-239 any more than a gasoline engine produces plastics as a side-effect.
Re: (Score:2)
This is, of course, irrelevant to nuclear power. Pu-239 is produced for use in nuclear weapons only. A standard reactor doesn't produce Pu-239 any more than a gasoline engine produces plastics as a side-effect.
It's a good point. Considering a reactor core is around 160 tons and IIRC a refuel is on third of the core every eighteen months * 400 reactors world wide for since the 1950s, that's a lot of spent fuel from reactors I haven't included.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Re: (Score:2)
This is, of course, irrelevant to nuclear power. Pu-239 is produced for use in nuclear weapons only. A standard reactor doesn't produce Pu-239 any more than a gasoline engine produces plastics as a side-effect.
Huh?
In any operating nuclear reactor containing U-238, some plutonium-239 will accumulate in the nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course Pu-239 is produced in a reactor, that's what's called "reactor grade plutonium".
Reactor-grade plutonium/RGPu is the isotopic grade of plutonium that is found in spent nuclear fuel after the primary fuel, that of Uranium-235 that a nuclear power reactor uses, has (burnt up/burnup).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's not "reactor grade" only because it is produced in a reactor but because it's only use is in producing power in a reactor, it's worthless for weapons because it contains too much Pu-240 and/or Pu-238.
In a 2008 paper, Kessler et al. used a thermal analysis to conclude that a hypothetical nuclear explosive device was "technically unfeasible" using reactor grade plutonium from a reactor that had a burn up value of 30 GWd/t using "low technology" designs akin to Fat Man with spherical explosive lenses, or 55 GWd/t for "medium technology" designs.
According to the Kessler et al. criteria, "high-technology" hypothetical nuclear explosive devices(HNEDs), that could be produced by the experienced nuclear weapons states(NWSs) would be technically unfeasible with reactor-grade plutonium containing more than approximately 9% of the heat generating Pu-238 isotope.
What this reactor grade plutonium is good for is jump starting fourth generation nuclear power plants.
https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-... [thmsr.nl]
Re: (Score:3)
No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ [stormsmith.nl] in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.
I don't think I'm following your reasoning here. It looks like you're referring to Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) graph in section 12, however, the graph for Nuclear EROEI seems is based on the assumption that high quality uranium to fuel nuclear power plants will run out in the year 2070. That makes the EROEI for the plants go to 0 at that point (which is worst than break even, because it represents a 100% loss of the invested energy). I looked for a better source that would give me some com
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If this wasn't posted by MrKaos, one might mistake it for satire, as every last statement within is exactly backwards. Well, except the "My ism, it's full of beliefs.", which is spot on.
Nuclear "waste" is the best kind of waste; it is small in volume, easily managed, and disappears naturally. Once the fuel is consumed completely--and this can be done in advanced reactors--almost all of the remaining fission products decay to stability after a few centuries. Even in a world powered 100% by nuclear, the amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except the "My ism, it's full of beliefs.", which is spot on.
Well at least you can admit to it.
I call it Just Right-itis (Score:3)
That's the kind of mes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning an IP is pointless. ...
My IP chanfes every few days and another one gets my old one
That is true for nearly everyone using xDSL.
I'm guessing new nuclear is still cheaper. (Score:2, Informative)
The article says that new wind and solar is cheaper than old coal and nuclear. But how does it compare to new coal and nuclear? I have a guess. My guess is that new nuclear beats them all. If new nuclear was more expensive than new wind and solar then I'm guessing they would have included that in their report. They speak quite loudly but what they don't say.
If you actually read the report upon which this articles is based then you'd see that the report points out that the price differential does not in
Re: (Score:2)
I just made a calculation for my father last weekend. ...
Rooftop solar once with battery once without.
Over the course of 20 years you gain in both cases roughly 20k in money. You EARN money.
Of course, that is partly because of subsidicing
Re: (Score:3)
It's sooo cute how you ignore words that might make a dent in your narrative. [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
Remember to logout.
Pettyfogging Suicidalist (Score:3)
SuperKendall is correct ....
Where 'correct' is newspeak for lying trough his suicidal teeth!
Instead of going dig back and digging up 2007 4th Assessment Report (the 5th AR was published in 2013, the 6th AR is due out next month), let's look at what the the IPCC Synthesis Report from 2014 has to say:
The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3C to 1.7C under RCP2.6, 1.1C to 2.6C under RCP4.5, 1.4C to 3.1C under RCP6.0 and 2.6C to 4.8C under RCP8.5 9 . The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean.
So anywhere form 0.3C under the most optimistic to 4.8C in the worst case scenario. In point of fact the target of (no more than) 2C is what humanity is currently in the process of missing.
The write-up claims
Re: (Score:2)
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
Remember to logout.
Considering that we're already about 1 degree C above pre-industrial levels then 3.5 C is only another 2.5C on top of that which is well within the range of IPCC projections for some of the scenarios.
Re:Nice Scaremongering (Score:5, Informative)
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
No, as we came out of the last glaciation temperatures hit a peak about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum [wikipedia.org] as you would expect from an examination of Milankovitch cycles. Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum. They stopped cooling when human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) increased to the point of overriding the current cooling effects of Milankovitch cycles. The increase in ocean acidification shows that the oceans are still absorbing more CO2 than they release.
Re: (Score:2)
Your parent is/was wrong, but this: ... and will be like this the next few 100,000 years. Hint: you already got it half right, Milankovitch cycles.They are not: 400,000 years cold and 15,000 years warm.
Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum
Is wrong too.
The temperature is/was stable besides human introduced global warming
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all of the records of Holocene temperatures I've see show a slight cooling trend from about 8,000 years ago. It's not a lot, less than 1 degree C but it's definitely a cooling trend.
Re: (Score:2)
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so
Actually, no. The temperature is relatively constant with 2 or 3 minimums and 2 or 3 maximums over the course of the last 10,000 years. Exception: human introduced global warming since about 100 years.
What do you idiots actually learn in school?
Re: (Score:3)
It's blips in the noise.
The rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That blip represents over 2.5 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat [skepticalscience.com] accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, It's a lot of energy.
The wide range of projections arise because warming depends on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and reduce warming. Or not. It's up to us.
emissions determine warming. (Score:3)
Climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2 with an likely range of about 30% on either side (not 100%). So probably between 2 and 4C. However, it is a "right-skewed distribution" [wikimedia.org] suggesting that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. So to the extent that there is uncertainty, it is not our friend.
Ultimately though, how much warming will depend on how much we emit. We can decide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.
It only took the very first result [google.ca] from 2018 on google scholar to give the lie to your assertion that "ECS seems to be trending downward"
mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies
Yes, but apparently excluding results that don't support the narrative. But let's go down the list of results from 2018:
The first, as we mentioned earlier, is right in line with studies from 50 years ago. Better exclude it from the ironically named "No tricks zone"..
The second [annualreviews.org] suggests that century-scale feedbacks can alter the climate sensitivity, so some lower estim
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the other end. Any chance he included this 1989 study [springer.com] showing an increase of 1.6 C for the instantaneous doubling case and 0.7C for the transient forcing case? No way. Low estimate in the past. Doesn't fit the narrative.
How about this one [ametsoc.org] from 1967 with an estimate of 2.3C for a doubling of CO2. Low estimate in the past? No good.
How about this one [pnas.org] from 1997 which suggests sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5C for a doubling of CO2, Better exclude that one!
etc etc etc. If you
Re: (Score:2)
I can see how intellectually lazy you are by calling me a lier because you dont like my argument.
I will assume the order in which papers showed up for you on the link you provided from google scholar was different then what I get when I click on it, because brushing off the 4th study would be considered ignoring contrary opinions and best, and cherry picking at worst. Lewis and Curry 2018
In any case, there are hundreds of link in that google scholar search and the results are no in any order of importance.
T
Re: (Score:2)
My point was not to include or exclude any papers, but to point out that the trend for all of them (except outliers) is a downward trend.
But only if you ignore recent high estimates and historic low estimates, and try to pass off blog posts as "scientific literature" and whatever other tricks you can expect form a place named the "no tricks zone" XD
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed papers where all over the place in the past.
However the number of papers on this subject where few and far between.
The graph shows papers starting around 2001 because:
1. Our understanding of the science, is getting better in the recent past;
2. As you can see in the graph, as years advance, there are more and more papers;
As you can observe, there are papers in 2007 and 09 included with very low ECS calculations, which would make for a better graph if where ignored, but where not.
Also, instead of makin
Re: (Score:2)
As explained, there has been no ignoring of papers at the time of compiling to make the graph. Contrary to your baseless assertion.
And we'll see at the end of 2018 if the trend persists, flatlines or changes.
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature, but only as a compilation of said literature on one specific subject. A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature (Scafetta 2017). However data ended in 2015. So it was ad
Re: (Score:2)
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature,
No, but the no tricks zone does. Some of the data points on that graph refer to blogs!
A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature
I should hope not, given that it tries to pass off blog posts as scientific literature.
Here's one from April of 2017 [nature.com] which "produces a current best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9C (1.7–7.1C, 90% confidence). " Included in the no tricks zone? Nope. Doesn't fit the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
2. As you can see in the graph, as years advance, there are more and more papers;
Not really true unless you count blog posts as literature or include pay for play journals that will publish anything for a fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Point them out.
Re: (Score:2)
As compared to pal reviewed papers?
Argue the facts and the science. Unless you have nothing left... then by all means slander at will.
Re: (Score:3)
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
SuperKendall's own reference [www.ipcc.ch] shows scenario A2 which projects ~3.5C by the end of the century. See table SPM.3: A2 scenario best estimate = 3.4, likely range = 2.0 – 5.4. The A1FI scenario has a best estimate of 4C by end of century.
How much we warm depends on how much we emit. Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C. We've warmed about 1.2C since the 1850s [woodfortrees.org]. Two thirds of that has happened in the last 50 years. A
Re: (Score:2)
This may be a valid counter-argument. The word "if" is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
I guess you could claim you meant to say "emissions from the sun cease", which would be a true fact. Warming would definitely stop if the sun shut off. I assumed you meant "emissions of CO2", so that could be my mistake.
I haven't yet had time to read the article to see what dire result will come from more "ocean heatwaves".
Re: (Score:3)
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
To clarify, I meant further warming. And yes, AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions [wordpress.com] because of terrestrial and marine syncs:
A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terre
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, I meant further warming.
No, that just muddies the water even more. By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"? Because even warming at the same rate would actually be "further warming" in English. When you say "warming" it means "getting warmer", which is "further warming" when you put it in a future context.
AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the op
Re: (Score:2)
By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"?
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the opposite view.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
In any case, the "end of the century" is not a wall which will block incoming thermal radiation and cause warming to stop.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease," but if emissions do cease we can expect that the warming will stop.
Gaia's goal of removing all life from Planet Earth, there will be animals emitting CO2.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one. That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2. AGW will
Re: (Score:2)
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
Then you were clarifying something that said exactly what it meant. Since you felt a need to clarify, I assumed it must mean something other than the obvious. But now it refers to "stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
Your link was to a blog at wordpress. The "about me" for the blog author started by saying the author is not a climate scientist. Citing a blog from a non-climate scientist because he agrees with the near-consensus is at odds with the standard
End emissions and end warming (Score:2)
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Your link was to a blog at wordpress
It's a quote from Holden et al. 2018. [nature.com]. The wordpress link is to spare you from having to buy the paper.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced.
That all makes no sense.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2,
Yes it does. Atmospheric CO2 will begin to drop when we stop burning fossil fuels. Read Holden et al. 2018 and it will become clear why. Read the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Hansen has it right that we all have to stop this by moving to nuclear. Even then he says if we move fast, we will still see 2C. Now, it is trying to stop 4C.
Re: (Score:2)
If they really wanted to use coal they should just be rich. Per person Americans use the most coal for their electricity.
Re: Nice Scaremongering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have noticed a lot of developing countries don't exactly have idle nuclear scientists hanging about waiting for reactors to be built, even if they could afford them and afford to wait to use the electricity they want now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, why should those poor third world nations be able to do what us rich first world nations already do.
Am I to take from this sarcasm that they should be able to do what "us rich first world nations do"? I thought climate science was telling us that what we were doing was a mistake. Perhaps not continuing with a life-ending, global-scale mistake is a good reason why current third world nations should not be able to do what "us rich first world nations" are being told we have to stop doing. What do we solve if the "first world" and "third world" just swap places? Then they'll be the source of CO2 causing AGW
Re: (Score:2)
We have been told to stop, but that's quite different from actually stopping. .6 to .7. All these people are aparently killing the planet according to people like him. But they never like it when you mentoin Americans are already emitting 16 tons each and barely slowing down.
Entitled asshats like Windy like to complain that a Chinese person has increased his CO2 from 6 to 6.1 or an Indian from 2 to 3 or a third worlder from
You want to cut CO2, cut it from the people who make the most, not the people who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you can read the science, esp the chemistry and physics,
Yes. You should have just stopped here.
see it demonstrated, pay attention to all the glaciers that are melting, notice that animals/birds/flauras, etc are moving towards poles, and then make an INTELLIGENT backing of science.
No.
that is just observation and correlation, it doesn't prove CO2 is the cause.
Of course the first three things prove it is, so the rest isn't necessary.
Just pointing out you don't really understand how science works and just like to spout talking points and Windy feelings (lies mostly).
Re: (Score:2)
Lets melt all the glaciers then and it will get even nicer...
You're pretty stupid, are you sure you aren't Windy?
Maybe just Windy pretending to be me again so he can correct it and pretend he's smart.
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 does NOT raise the temp. Not a SINGLE degree. What the Green House Gases do, is prevent heat from escaping the atmosphere. Normally, it is radiated outwards in the nighttime. BUT GHG traps it and prevents that radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nice Scaremongering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't something researchers have been investigating for decades, and given the youth of the proposed idea, there is very little empirical data (their model results are not data) at all.
Maybe in the future will will learn that this is valuable science. At present, it is nothing more than problematic speculation, contradicting some real science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a term coined in 2016 in a peer reviewed paper to describe a phenomenon that had been observed. You admit you have not examined this study in any detail, but dismiss it as not real science anyway... Apparently because it's a relatively new thing.
They say science advances one funeral at a time, and this seems like a perfect example.
Marine Heat Wave (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the summary, it is taken from the Nature link, which provides a source for that 3.5C figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's you who should be explaining your "reasoning" that the two are somehow linked in such a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman much? Where did I say they were linked?
Maybe your first step is to explain where you got that idea from.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't increase already 2C(compared to pre-industrial!!!) and 3,5C is just new threshold?
The current increase is already 1C. In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C. Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C. From that point on self-enforcing feedback mechanisms like melting permafrost and disappearing icesheets are going to have a domino-like effect and push it to 5C or beyond, which is nothing short of catastrophic.
Re: (Score:2)
In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C.
I'll do even better. I'll agree to limit it to 1.01C. Problem solved. Now we can move on to homelessness and solve that.
Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C.
It was a non-binding agreement to do something that cannot be directly accomplished in the first place. Anyone can say "we're going to limit warming to 2C" when they know they can't actually do that directly and there is no downside to making such a promise. You're right, nobody will give a shit if the projected increase is 2C or 3.5C. What happens is what happens, and your projections won
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more concerned about global cooling, as in solar cycles.
Every maunder and other minimum is associated with a low sun spot activity, and the next one is on its way, if it hasn't started already.
Agriculture thrives and is less water consuming with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It suffers, and with it human populations, when it's cold.
Solar output has been declining since 1950 yet the globe as a whole has been warming considerably.
I think it was James Hansen who said that solar insolation at Maunder Minimum levels would erase less than a decade of CO2 emissions.
One big uncertainty are large volcanic eruptions of which there would quite a few in the 18th and 19th centuries such as Mayon 1814 and Tambora 1815 which caused the "Year without a Summer" of 1816
Solar output down, global mean temperature up (Score:2)
Solar output has been declining since 1950 yet the globe as a whole has been warming considerably.
To illustrate, here's a plot of sun spots vs temps vs atmospheric CO2: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b... [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can we do it? Honestly, I don't much care. I'll be long gone before it matters.
Yeah, let our loser children and grandchildren deal with the shit! YEEAHH!! Those fsckers!
IPCC projections (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bunch of words strung together isn't exactly the same as a coherent thought either, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factor [skepticalscience.com]
Re:Problem solved! Move along, nothing to see. (Score:5, Informative)
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
Re:Problem solved! Move along, nothing to see. (Score:4, Informative)
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
https://www.worldatlas.com/art... [worldatlas.com]
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
No, solar panels are made of silicon and the USA produces very little of it. The kind the USA does produce is predominately low grade used in producing steel and aluminum.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/mine... [usgs.gov]
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
And with rare earth magnets on top of those steel masts.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/... [columbia.edu]
Mining rare earth metals means also digging up a lot of other nasty minerals, like thorium and uranium, that unless there is a market for them they can contaminate the environment. What on earth could we possibly do with all this uranium and thorium? I'm just tossing out an idea here, nuclear power?
The USA does not have the capacity to produce solar panels, and has limited capacity to produce windmills, without imported materials. On the other hand the USA already produces several nuclear power plants every year to supply it's nuclear powered navy. Increasing the capacity to produce nuclear power in the USA is near trivial, we need only remove the political barriers to larger production. To produce more wind and solar in the USA would take years and billions of dollars to build the plants that can turn sand into PV panels and ore into rare earth magnets.
The monopoly that China has on silicon and rare earth metals is not in the raw material in the ground, it's in the factories that turn that raw material into something valuable. Overturning that monopoly will take lots of money and time in making factories.
The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power. By destroying their ability to produce domestic nuclear power these nations place a very vital resource, energy, at the whimsy of China. Much of Europe is now reliant on Chinese solar and Russian natural gas for energy. If there is ever a trade dispute then I can expect to see Europe get real dark and cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every country can mine rare earth minerals.
And: they are not needed to make magnet. Iron is enough-
So: no, China has no monopoly.
Wow, you know that solar panels are made from silicon, but you don't know that the silicon is refined from sand?
Lucky you have fanbois who mod you up anyway.
The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power.
Nope, most wind power plants are build in USA, Denmark and Germany. China is not even making a dent.
Most Silicon as a source for
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every country can mine rare earth minerals.
Of course, but only China and Australia able to do so at a profit. They can do this because the laws there allow for the mining of uranium and thorium that are common in rare earth rich ores. In the USA the rare earth mines are limited to less profitable ores that have less uranium and thorium. So, either these nations need to be serious about competing with China on rare earth metals and change the laws, or continue to be at the whim of China for rare earth elements. It's not like these mines can just
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to it than that. They have undercut prices enough to cause other sources to close down. So they currently have an economic monopoly or duopoly on many of the minerals, but it would be possible to get these from other sources if need be.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one nuclear power plant going up and it's here in Georgia. It cost more than three times projected and it's running late. That's the norm for nuclear power. So it doesn't look like there's much will to go to the enormous expense and effort to build these plants.
The US was on the verge of being the leader in Solar Panels before China helped their companies via subsidies or buying out ours. So if we want to, we can easily support a US company to take the lead again on solar panels.
For the cost of
Re: (Score:2)
So people can talk about nuclear power, but the facts are all the growth is in solar and the numbers will only get better.
Here's some facts...
Its overall share of global power generation remains low (1.7%), but that share has more doubled in just three years.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/c... [bp.com]
All growth is not in solar.
In IEO-2017, renewable energy and natural gas are forecast to be the worldâ(TM)s fastest growing energy sources over 2015-2040. Renewables increase at 2.8%/year, and by 2040 will provide 31% of electricity generation, equal to coal; natural gas increases by 2.1%/year. Generation from nuclear is forecast to increase by 1.6% each year. The net nuclear capacity increase is all in non-OECD countries (growth in South Korea is offset by decreases in both Canada and Europe), and China accounts for 67% of the capacity growth. By 2032, the outlook sees China surprass the United States as the country with the most nuclear generating capacity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]
Is it likely that solar will play an important part in the global energy production? Yes, quite likely. What it will not do is replace nuclear power. We will need both.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar isn't limited to PV. What is wrong with people like you that cannot see beyond solar=PV?
Maybe it's because concentrated solar power is difficult to do, requires a large land area to build, and produces more CO2 per energy produced than nuclear, wind, or solar PV. Look at the chart about halfway down this page:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/so... [carbonbrief.org]
You do not need to feed the grid, you do not need to store power in batteries. Stop associating solar with PV! Pumping water into reservoirs during the day and using gravity to feed turbines is proven tech and has been in operation since the late 1800s. Again, why is it not being implemented?
Here's my guess, this is not popular because to implement it takes a place with a lot of sun, a lot of water, and a river suitable for a dam. Places with a lot of sun tend to not have a lot of water. Places with water and a river worth a dam may not ha
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try.
- Sent from my NetBSD desktop via my NetBSD router
Re: (Score:2)
5,000 ppm (0.5%) is the OSHA standard maximum TWA for an 8 hour work day and at 50,000 ppm (5%) you start getting sick in a short time. 10% is enough to easily kill you, though the issue is not choking to death: It's the feedback mechanisms in your body that use the amount of carbon dioxide in your system to regulate respiration that get screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not denialism BS. It's science. Your problem is you're looking at too small an increment of time. The variations in temperatures over time are very real. Sometimes they happen quickly and sometimes slowly. Quicker events tend to be more devastating. The change in this case is a correction off a previous deflection and not a particularly large change at that.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, there's:
* The cooling stratosphere, worldwide,
* Nights are warming faster than days,
* Polar regions are warming much faster than the rest of the globe.
So, case in point. It's not a natural oscillation in solar input. It's due to heat trapping by greenhouse gasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I believe systemic warming IS happening. ("Climate change" is a vapid, meaningless mealy-mouthed phrase.)
It happens with a startling spike in temps and CO2 about every 120-140k years. The last one was about ... 120k years ago. This is right on track with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What I dispute is the almost-Aristotlean humanicentrism insisting "well humans MUST be at fault because...we're here, OBVIOUSLY! Duh!".
To assert that today's spike in warming is largely or wholly anthropo
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation.
But it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
Re: (Score:2)
in Global Warming "Science" you can have both correlation and causation at the same time!
Duh. Of course you can. That's true of any science. The correlation comes from the data, the causation comes from the physics. The fact that the physics predicted the correlation before it was observed make the case all that much stronger.
Chateau Largo called... (Score:2)
From 850 CE to 1250 CE Vikings raised wheat, barley and cattle along the Greenland coast. In 80 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the Romans in Scotland. In 1250 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the English in Scotland.
Heatwave or not, it's still TOO cold for any of this to occur today.
Chateau Largo would beg to differ [winebusiness.com]. The fact that the Romans are no longer taxing them has more to do with politics than temperature.