Significantly Large New Emissions From Banned CFCs Traced To China, Say Scientists (bbc.com) 310
Solandri writes: In 2014, scientists began detecting plumes of CFC-11 in the atmosphere. The compound had been banned in the 1987 Montreal Protocol after it was discovered that it was contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer that protects life on Earth from ultraviolet radiation. Unfortunately, the releases were detected using global monitoring equipment, so the origin could not be determined. Using data from measuring stations in Korea and Japan, and computer modeling of atmospheric patterns, researchers have now pinned down the source of the emissions to eastern China. They also determined that the emissions were too large to be releases from foam which had been produced before the ban (CFCs were a common aerosol and foaming agent). And that the amounts most likely indicate new illegal production. The paper is published in the latest issue of Nature.
dryriver shares an excerpt from the BBC: CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010 [to allow the Ozone layer to heal]. CFC-11 was the second most abundant CFCs and was initially seen to be declining as expected. However in 2018 a team of researchers monitoring the atmosphere found that the rate of decline had slowed by about 50% after 2012. That team reasoned that they were seeing new production of the gas, coming from East Asia. The authors of that paper argued that if the sources of new production weren't shut down, it could delay the healing of the ozone layer by a decade.
Further detective work in China by the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018 seemed to indicate that the country was indeed the source. They found that the illegal chemical was used in the majority of the polyurethane insulation produced by firms they contacted. One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China's domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason was quite simple -- CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives. This new paper seems to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that some 40-60% of the increase in emissions is coming from provinces in north eastern China. The authors also say that these CFCs are also very potent greenhouse gases. One ton of CFC-11 is equivalent to around 5,000 tons of CO2. "If we look at these extra emissions that we've identified from eastern China, it equates to about 35 million tons of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere every year, that's equivalent to about 10% of UK emissions, or similar to the whole of London."
Further detective work in China by the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018 seemed to indicate that the country was indeed the source. They found that the illegal chemical was used in the majority of the polyurethane insulation produced by firms they contacted. One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China's domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason was quite simple -- CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives. This new paper seems to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that some 40-60% of the increase in emissions is coming from provinces in north eastern China. The authors also say that these CFCs are also very potent greenhouse gases. One ton of CFC-11 is equivalent to around 5,000 tons of CO2. "If we look at these extra emissions that we've identified from eastern China, it equates to about 35 million tons of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere every year, that's equivalent to about 10% of UK emissions, or similar to the whole of London."
Chinese Immorality (Score:4, Informative)
According to a report [bbc.com] by the BBC, "They calculated that there was a 110% rise in [CFC-11] emissions from these parts of China for the years 2014-2017 compared to the period between 2008-2012."
In other words, Chinese morality rapes Western notions of human decency.
Get more info [blogspot.com] about this issue.
Re:Chinese Immorality (Score:5, Interesting)
"According to a report [bbc.com] by the BBC, "They calculated that there was a 110% rise in [CFC-11] emissions from these parts of China for the years 2014-2017 compared to the period between 2008-2012."
In other words, Chinese morality rapes Western notions of human decency.
Get more info [blogspot.com] about this issue."
Reposted, the Chinese seem to have a lot of mod points.
Re: Chinese Immorality (Score:2)
Bad name, good comment
it could delay the healing of the ozone layer (Score:4, Informative)
" it could delay the healing of the ozone layer by a decade."
yet the hole in the ozone layer is almost closed;
https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-... [newsweek.com]
though, that doesn't mean the chinese should just pump massive amounts of cfc in the atmosphere.
Re:it could delay the healing of the ozone layer (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
" Just like how letters in a bottle can be released in the Atlantic and end up in the Pacific "
Your analogy is not very good at explaining why CFC's don't cause holes or thinning in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the CFC's are consumed.
So what percentage of bottles released in the Atlantic end up in the Pacific? Is it more than 90%? More likely it will be less than 0.00001%. Most of the bottles tossed into the Atlantic, stay in the Atlantic.
So, most of the CFC's in the world are released in the Nort
Re: (Score:2)
"If your statement took into account the effect of temperature on formation of the hole, then it would have been worth reading."
In fact, temperature does explain why the stratospheric polar vortexes occur only in the fall, winter and spring, because the Sun is lower in the sky and tends to heat the stratosphere but not the troposphere. This creates a vertical temperature gradient, which when coupled with the Coriolis effect, creates a thermal wind ("polar vortex") high in the stratosphere, at about 300 hPa
Re: (Score:2)
The hole is not the only problem, the thickness is a problem, too.
that doesn't mean the chinese should just pump massive amounts of cfc in the atmosphere.
Perhaps they are exercising for the terraforming of Mars?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And the apologists are already out... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tariffs are passed directly on to consumers in the form of higher costs."
That is a nice flip around of the usual left/right economic arguments with the right usually claiming costs get passed to consumers anyway and the left normally arguing to raise them. The reality is of course somewhere in the middle and more complicated. Existing goods and services can't take another 15% price increase or 25% price increase from new tariffs. Costs would only be fully passed to consumers for newly introduced goods and services. Businesses will actually have to eat part of these hikes from profits.
But that is a very short term outlook. Obviously whether US businesses or consumers eat the costs or some combination of the two 25% is a lot and the chinese sources simply aren't 25% cheaper than the competition in a lot of areas. That leads to sourcing things from elsewhere instead of China including more being sourced from the US (which is why US mining is up 38%, it isn't like we have a shortage of natural resources or labor in the US). We actually have a great source of cheap labor in Mexico for example to go along with plentiful raw materials right in the US. The result would be more of our wealth staying in the US and more of what we spend going to Mexico. Enriching Mexico helps kill a number of birds with one stone, not to mention being good for good people.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't conflate Sanders with Clinton. There is a viable (in terms of economics and math) path of socialism and Sanders was proposing the kind of sweeping change it would require to actually work. You can argue which is better but there are ups and downs to either. What doesn't work is the sort of half-assed measures Clinton and the DNC in general push. That path essentially amounts to government granted private grabs of public funds that neither realize the cost savings of single payer nor allow the competit
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what strange definition you have wherein everyone who would prefer a different economic system must die a bloody death or balance sheets won't work. Most likely you are using a wrong definition which sees socialism as communism.
Socialism already exists in the United States in form of the USPS and the Federal Reserve. If extended to healthcare in order to see the benefits the manufacture of medicines/devices would need to regulated in a manner that eliminates all profits (basically setting cost
Shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CFC-11 has other uses (Score:3)
R-11 or Freon-11 is used in low pressure, low temperature applications in refrigeration and large building chillers. The low pressures required to work the gas makes for a less demanding system compared to the high-pressure mixes used today, including R-290 (propane).
Buy The Good Stuff From China. (Score:2)
Maybe we wouldn't have lost Challanger if we had not been using inferior Green Technology foam.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Columbia... Challenger was an SRB O-Ring failure.
And the shedding occurred even with the original CFC-based foam.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a myth anyway that a piece of foam can damage the heat shield.
How many kg hat that pice of foam? 20? 40?
Re: (Score:2)
Learn physics please. Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared, or K.E. = 1/2 m v2. A lightweight chunk of foam going hundreds of MPH has more than enough kinetic energy to damage fragile thermal foam tiles.
You may now return to your flat Earth existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. NASA should have listened to you instead of, you know, actually testing it by firing the foam at an RCC panel and seeing what happened.
Huh... (Score:2)
...it's almost like they're bad actors.
Too bad that the West for the last 40 years has been too busy courting them to hold them to civilized standards of behavior.
Nuclear Fuel Enrichment (Score:2)
Centrifuge Nuclear fuel enrichment is notoriously hard to achieve. I wonder if China is enriching fuel the same way Paducah used to using CFC114?
It would be large enough to detect, especially if they have been gradually increasing their production capacity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reduction is still reduction. This is a global problem and it doesn't matter much where the reduction comes from.
And if Trump wasn't busy running US-China relations into the ground like everything else he's ever done, we could have been putting pressure on China to prevent this.
And if people like you had been helping instead of fighting for the past 40+ years the US could have been in a position to be selling these countries green tech, working the problem and making a profit in the process. Instead we're p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a troll again?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. How do you meta-mod?
My karma says it is excellent, yet I can find no way to meta-mod.
Re: (Score:2)
The "AGW movement" is post-cleanup environmentalism.
Well; now the environmentalists have something SERIOUS to worry about again.
If Chinese industry is breaking the law now causing the rate of decrease in CFCs to drop by half....
that means as the industry grows, then the rate of decrease in CFCs could stop altogether and then
start ramping up again --- causing dissipation of the Ozone layer, and ultimately causing an end to
terrestrial life on earth (Anything living not deep in the sea or underground an
Re: (Score:2)
apologist faggot
a whiny faggot who needs to die in a twisted flaming metal wreck.
deplorables like yourself?
kill yourself with booze, faggot.
I'll cut your faggot excuse making face off
Truly Nietzsche was a genius when he said “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” . Take a good look at what you wrote, AC. Then maybe you can figure out which side of right and wrong you are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reduction is still reduction. This is a global problem and it doesn't matter much where the reduction comes from.
Forget climate change. Apparently reading comprehension is the larger issue here.
Since you failed, let me clarify. The parent was referring to the event ongoing, in which is the world is flattening (Friedman, not those flat-earth nutters). You have failed to grasp the fact that even if America lowers their carbon footprint by 50%, the other 30-40 emerging countries will easily consume that savings. And that's before we count China or India (also known as 35% of the human population)
THAT is why American
Re: (Score:3)
I propose a system based on random chance. All humans are added to a list at birth and every 6 months a random government position comes up for 're-election'. A random number is generated and that person fills that role until their position is randomly selected for replacement. This system is of course open source.
Can't be any worse than letting people vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians would be greatly opposed to this, as you are now putting ordinary people in charge, and they worry the most that these people will be intelligent and look out for the legitimate interests of the common citizens -- instead of protecting the existing power structures and deals they have made with the special interests.
Kind of destroys the power structure of the current noblemen.
Re: (Score:2)
the US could have been in a position to be selling these countries green tech, working the problem and making a profit in the process. Instead we're playing third fiddle to China and Europe. So thanks for that...
=Smidge=
Nope, sorry, you missed the key point, right there in the summary:
The reason was quite simple -- CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives
It takes a tremendous ethical effort to force the use of the alternatives which you have thanks to the wealth generated by decades of using the higher quality, cheaper solutions. China is just starting on those.
Re: (Score:2)
> It takes a tremendous ethical effort to force the use of the alternatives which you have thanks to the wealth generated by decades of using the higher quality, cheaper solutions.
I didn't realize "Don't make the same mistakes I made, you'll get caught in the same trap. Here's a better way" was considered tremendous ethical effort.
But we missed our chance to set that example, and to develop the alternatives, because of myopic and selfish worldview such as yours.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
China is a Tyrant nation. Good to see that you don't give a crap about what they are doing to their own population. The draconian social credit system, imprisonment of the families of the people they hate.
Wouldn't it be nice for you to be sitting in jail for something a family member or friend did? You seem to be okay with that since you are bitching about the US-China relationship.
China's government needs to be over thrown, not given more power by morons like you!
Re: (Score:3)
"Reduction is still reduction."
Not when what you reduce is outpaced by other outputs. Example, all of the solar on the planet? Fucking useless because bitcoin's network alone eats up way more than what all the solar on the planet right now can possibly produce.
Re: (Score:3)
we could have been putting pressure on China to prevent this.
This isn't on the US to do. This release harms citizens of every country: including the Chinese.
The government of China ought to be very interested in putting a stop to this, as should EVERY government worldwide.
Frankly; what we need is an international body with inspection, audit, and safe passage rights to every country and every industrial facility that can survey and tally environmental violations against any individual country and ass
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Gotta love that 2% unemployment rate and the associated increase in take-home pay because wages are finally rising after almost a decade of Obama stagnation."
Guess what? On average, it usually takes around 8 years for an administration's actions to actually begin to show effects. What you're seeing NOW is a result of Obama's policies. What we'll see in about 8 years from now is the failure of Trump's bullshit. And then I get to rag on your dumb ass even more then.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what? On average, it usually takes around 8 years for an administration's actions to actually begin to show effects. What you're seeing NOW is a result of Obama's policies. What we'll see in about 8 years from now is the failure of Trump's bullshit. And then I get to rag on your dumb ass even more then.
Normally, you are correct. That is why Reagan's economic policies in the late '80s' led to one of the greatest economic turn around in the 90's the country has ever known. This economic power house was so strong is took a tax and spend democrat and a poorly managed republican administrations to destroy it.
Then we got Obama. Who's administration so mismanaged the economy making any kind of recovery anything but impossible. Any kind of economic recovery under Obama was in-spite of the administration
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry child, you have that backwards. The deficit was doubled under the Obama. He put more on the deficit than all other presidents before him combine.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to have an actual JOB if you want your wages to increase.
Pay gains during Trump’s first year in office best since the Great Recession
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/3... [cnbc.com]
Re:hence why no matter.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how much the US spends to "lower the carbon footprint" and push the liberals climate change agenda
The best way to "push an agenda" is to lead by example.
Nobody will take you seriously if you try to "push an agenda" while you're doing the complete opposite yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't give 2 shiats about anything except making their country the richest and most powerful in the world to point no one could stand up to them. They don't care how much of world they destroy as long as they win.
A bit like the USA them? Showing the Euopeans how tough they are by refusing to sign up to the Paris agreement, etc.
Kinda like Daenery's in ep 4 of GoT.
Maybe you meant episode 5? It was eleven days ago, I know... and you might want to check how her name is spelled.
Re:hence why no matter.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US didn't sign the Paris agreement to show how tough we are, it was because it was a pointless money grab. We would have been on the hook to send money to India and China while they wouldn't have been on the hook for showing any results. It was a no win. If we opted to not fund we would be the bad guy and India and China would say "we can't fix our problems because we didn't get enough money". If we did fund it, it would be embezzled by the people who received it and then they'd say "we tried to reduce pollution but didn't succeed" or they'd just lie and claim they did reduce pollution.
Seriously, have you never done business with India and China? They are probably the best examples of "buyer beware". Christ, China is so shady they were putting melamine in their baby formula. Seriously, how depraved do you have to be to put something that toxic in a product explicitly targeted at babies?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how depraved do you have to be to put something that toxic in a product explicitly targeted at babies?
To China's credit, they did execute the persons involved in the melamine baby formula scandal. Meanwhile, pet food products originating in China do have a high likelihood of causing your pet a miserable death through kidney failure.
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't give 2 shiats about anything except making their country the richest and most powerful in the world to point no one could stand up to them. They don't care how much of world they destroy as long as they win..
But...but...but...Only white people can be racist and imperialist and colonialist! I'm sure that China will placidly allow its universities to be taken over by SJW twittermobs who will then fan out and invade every government office and corporate HR department they can get their greasy little hands on.
Re: (Score:2)
>The best way to "push an agenda" is to lead by example.
You are a bloody imbecile.
The best way to push an agenda is by force. Next to that is relentless brainwashing propaganda.
You and 4 morons who upvoted you are brainless old fart hopeless hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
In what universe did you think a third world totalitarian dictatorship with a well advertised public policy of conquering the US and taking over the world was going to cripple their economy because their enemys nation (the US, dumbass) whine n mewl
Like Trump does every single day?
Re: (Score:2)
If we pick a country, like China, and nuke the sh*t out of it, all other countries will see how serious we are about the agenda.
From what planet are you, you moron?
If you put a nuke on China ... most likely the US is gone.
You seem not to be informed: they have nukes, too!
What would stop them using them if you use one or more on them? Hu?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The plus side is, two of the biggest polluters on the planet will be gone. Climate change problem solved!
Re:hence why no matter.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how much the US spends to "lower the carbon footprint" and push the liberals climate change agenda it will be all for not
Except for getting an important head start on implementing infrastructure and technology that no longer depends on fossil fuels, which are going to run out. Not only is it cheaper to start early, it also puts you in a position to sell the technology to other countries.
Re: hence why no matter.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should drop some god rods on them from orbit
Or a bunch of viagara.
Once that figure out the blue stuff really works the african wildlife will be safe and they'll be a whole lot less likely to go out and pollute.
Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
The same people who think China would toe the Global Warming mitigation line are surprised they ignore the ban of CFC-11.
You are all fucking idiots if you think China will put itself at a disadvantage for any cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While carbon is emitted as a side effect of major industrial operations, like energy production, CFCs have specialized industrial uses. When we found that CFC was eating atmospheric ozone, the fix was to mandate switching to different compounds for these specific uses. These Chinese users are cheaping out by using the old compounds. This is not something a usage tax can fix.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the "think globally, act locally" bumper stickers that presumed those morons were capable of thinking.
So far, reality about matches predictions (Score:5, Informative)
If the predictions of climate "scientists" from the 1980s had come true, your grandchildren would have been able to do that back in 2000.
Anonymous cowards always post this garbage, but never happen to post a link to any predictions purportedly made in the 1980s that Florida would be underwater by 2019. That's because these purported predictions don't exist. Ppedictions made in the 1980s were that if the current trend in carbon dioxide continued, sea level rise could be between 50cm to 1.5 meters by 2100.
Look, posting all made-up junk isn't helping. All it's doing is convincing people who actually do have a clue that the people who claim to be skeptical about climate science are ignorant.
It would be useful, perhaps, if you posted actual facts based on reputable references, and not shit you found on a blog somewhere and believed uncritically. If you want to practice skepticism, practice it also on those blogs where you get your bad information from.
If the predictions of climate "scientists" from the 1970s had come true, your grandchildren would be skiing in Florida instead!
Again: fake. There was no prediction of an ice age in the 1970s. Try this one: https://journals.ametsoc.org/d... [ametsoc.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Will these work liar? I mean seriously, why is it our responsibility to provide links to your own bullshit claims? You folks are liars ignoring the facts when you get proven wrong! Everytime your predictions fail you immediately backpeddle and say "hey umm... we didn't make those... and we have new information..." or some other dismissive pile of shit!
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the "cause" of GW is what you claim it to be.
https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd. None of the links you gave actually listed global warming predictions except the first one (and maybe the one behind the paywall, which I couldn't read).
In the one that did quote an actual prediction, the prediction (from 1988) was:
“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050."
I don't know how you can say whether this is wrong or right without a time machine.
So I'd say you su
Re:So far, reality about matches predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
All it's doing is convincing people who actually do have a clue that the people who claim to be skeptical about climate science are ignorant.
Ignorance is something that everybody has to deal with because you can't be intimately familiar with every issue. I guarantee that the vast majority of people who support action on climate change are just as ignorant as people who are against it. You're picking one side as "ignorant" because you're focusing on the outcome, not how they got there.
Everybody is ignorant about most things in life, we function mostly based on trust. The problem then is mistrust of public facing scientific authorities and those who represent them or make decisions based on their work. While you're asking for citations and giving links to journals, AOC is saying the world is going to end in 12 years. And the problem is major scientists aren't coming out against that because they don't want to muddy the waters. They don't want infighting in what is supposed to be complete consensus on the issue. That doesn't increase trust among the public.
If scientists had an organization that really represented them, apolitically, it would be a much better situation. When people are introduced to climate change via politicians, and the message is "We need to raise taxes and sacrifice American industry because scientists say the world is getting warmer" many people will reject the whole message.
Of course the other problem is decades of anti-intellectualism in this country, so nobody would bother listening to such an organization even if it were trying to communicate to the general public. They only care when it comes time to make decisions that affect them, which is through the politicians.
Re: So far, reality about matches predictions (Score:2)
I guarantee that the vast majority of people who support action on climate change are just as ignorant as people who are against it.
Holy shit, someone who's not stupid... you're not from around here, are you??
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fair point, but it is not equally true of both sides of the climate debate.
In order to consistently deny climate change, people have to also willfully ignore a lot of common sense observations. For example, many farmers around me (WI) have noticed that the seasons have been a lot wetter as of late, and they are talking about changing trends in weather, while doubling down that climate change isn't real. If you
Choose the side without ignorance (Score:2)
Not equal: some of us choose to listen to expert backed facts, their interpretation and their educated guesses...
AOC wasn't saying the world will end literally. The point of no return. There are optimistic scientists on that position and then there are the non-optimists who proved to be more accurate in their past predictions and they say it is worse.
Science is ALWAYS political! Unless there is only 1 scientist left on earth, there will be politics involved. Opposition to truth makes FACTUAL DATA into s
Re: (Score:2)
All it's doing is convincing people who actually do have a clue that the people who claim to be skeptical about climate science are ignorant.
Ignorance is something that everybody has to deal with because you can't be intimately familiar with every issue. I guarantee that the vast majority of people who support action on climate change are just as ignorant as people who are against it. You're picking one side as "ignorant" because you're focusing on the outcome, not how they got there.
True, but irrelevant.
Ignore what the people with "sides" have to say, and just pay attention to the science. Regardless of what you think the effects are, or what you think it would cost to implement a solution (or even whether we should implement a solution), the science is what it is without caring what you think.
And, yes, I am old enough to remember the Reagan years, when conservatives were loudly and proudly on the side of science (well, except for the creationists and the tobacco companies). Which side
Re: (Score:2)
True, but irrelevant.
The relevance is that I think you were using "ignorant" as a pejorative applied to only one side of the issue. It may be irrelevant to the larger issue, but I was replying to your post in particular.
Regardless of what you think the effects are, or what you think it would cost to implement a solution (or even whether we should implement a solution), the science is what it is without caring what you think.
I agree with that, however there needs to be more science and more public discussion about the costs and consequences because that is actually the part that matters. Years ago it was slightly more common to see articles about the pros and cons of global warming. But even back then they didn't get much press. Fro
Re: (Score:2)
AOC is saying the world is going to end in 12 years. And the problem is major scientists aren't coming out against that because they don't want to muddy the waters.
Sure they do:
https://thebulletin.org/2019/0... [thebulletin.org]
https://www.axios.com/climate-... [axios.com]
https://andthentheresphysics.w... [wordpress.com]
https://variable-variability.b... [blogspot.com]
https://patricktbrown.org/2019... [patricktbrown.org]
https://twitter.com/bverheggen... [twitter.com]
For example.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're right of course and I wasn't clear in what I meant by major scientists. I meant scientists with major popular recognition and a platform to get their word out. There aren't many to be honest, but think of someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson or even someone like Bill Nye (I know he's not a "real" scientist but he represents one to many people). I didn't see them immediately come out and say "AOC is crazy and doesn't know what she's talking about."
I'm actually curious if you really read the links y
Re: (Score:2)
Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent isn't a scientist and is bound to have her back. The scientist quoted in the Axiom article said: "12 years isn't a deadline, and climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down," said Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA. "We don't have 12 years to prevent climate change — we have no time. It's already here. And even under a business-as-usual scenario, the world isn't going to end in exactly twelve years."
ATTP on the other hand is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Al Gore In 2005: "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." Photo of Kilimanjaro In 2015 [magaimg.net].
Here's Michael Mann's (The Hockey Stick guy) prediction that the West Side Highway would be under water by now: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2... [salon.com]
He also said that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, "Water by request only." He is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Former NOAA Scientist Co [house.gov]
Re: So far, reality about matches predictions (Score:2)
Al Gore in 2005
I certainly wasn't paying any attention to him; not then or at any other point. Why the fuck were you??
Re: (Score:2)
Failing accurate predictions does not alter underlining realities. Writers for Back to the Future predicted hoverboards by 2015. There are no hoverboards. Has technology advanced since 1985?
Turns out cause-and-effect for the planet's systems of heat distribution and oceanic currents is a bit too complicated for back-of-the-napkin predictions. It's illogical to ignore baseline facts, such as worldwide consumption of crude oil alone is over 80 million barrels per day. The equation must be balanced, that much
Re: (Score:2)
The DEFINITON of science is making a prediction, testing it and CHANGING your theory if it doesn't match. You are telling us to ignore failed predictions and keep original theory. You just argued for the DEFINITION of anti-science.
Wow, good job, you've identified the very part of scientific method that you've been conveniently ignoring. You're claiming that because initial predictions were not completely accurate, that there is no actual phenomenon to be observed even though some of the variables involved are absolutely known and quantifiable. OR you are claiming there is a phenomenon to be observed, but said variables have no effect on that phenomenon despite the results of other experimentation that proves there should be. Either w
Re: (Score:2)
That's because these purported predictions don't exist.
Apocalyptic predictions were made in the popular press all the time, like Oprah looking into the camera and telling us we'd all be dead by 2000, believe her.
I was there, and they were.
Re: (Score:3)
We've given your type evidence in the past. Your kind then cry about how it's not from what your kind call "reputable sources" like Vice and HuffPo.
How about Forbes?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/ [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you read the rest of it or just the headline. Conveniently, here is one sentence from the article:
But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald.
Of course, if you go into the scientific source itself, it isn't even a climate model. It's only, and only claims to be, a model of CO2 greenhouse effect. That's it. Nothing else. No weather patterns. No wind. No water. No oceanic cycles. No water temperature. Not even methane. Only CO2.
This is how you make deniers out of educated people. You lie. You show your ignorance. You talk like Elon Musk and PT Barn
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm very familiar with that paper.
It makes a prediction in the form of the amount of warming as a function of the amount of added carbon dioxide. If you compare this prediction with measurements, it is very accurate.
A well done piece of work.
Re: There is a solution: a carbon tax (Score:2)
If the predictions of climate "scientists" from the 1980s had come true, your grandchildren would have been able to do that back in 2000.
Nice made-up claim, you dumb shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they are PREDICTIONS not FACTS. The model used to make them are revised when new data is available, thus revising the prediction. This is how science advances, how we become more certain of what we know. But you know nothing, AnonymousCoward.
Ah, OK, so there were such predictions. The person he was responding to said there weren't any.
Re: (Score:2)
That's odd. Basic economics says that when something costs more, people, for the most part, use less.
On a macroeconomic level, this is called "resource substitution". Industry finds ways to make stuff that uses cheaper resources in place of more expensive resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon taxes seem to work perfectly well in Germany and the rest of the EU.
And on one gets rich by them, except "the state". Who else could profit from them?
Or do you mix taxes up with certificates?
Re: (Score:2)
What you are missing is that in order for either of our sacrifices to have mattered we actually would have needed to sequester those values and that if we don't putting out 3 tons vs 6 tons is of little value and simply serves to make you who put out more CO2 far more competitive and provide a huge advantage vs me in our global trade war.
Now big picture, we do need those negative numbers and frankly we are very fast approaching the point where we need to destroy you before you destroy the world. A little hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This and "not free press" are just excuses for making another Cold War...
Re: (Score:2)
This and "not free press" are just excuses for making another Cold War...
You obviously know nothing about the situation. It's not the Cold War at all. The Cold War was an arms race. Each side was fearful of the other having military dominance due to mass production of nuclear weapons and being willing to exercise that dominance. In this case, it's an economic problem and the damage is clear. China has made it's position very clear at the negotiation table and their behavior for at least 20 years that they can't be trusted, they will never follow through on their word and th
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading here...
Re:Damn communists! (Score:5, Interesting)
New cold war: USA vs China
Nope, not new. Been going on for a while but we, as a nation, are too cowed, too "civil" to do anything about it.
But instead of blaming China, I would love to see Wal Mart taken to task for having been the most salient example of why everything says "Made in China" now and I can't even get towels made in USA anymore.
Why? Because in the 90's and 00's, we, as a country, kept demanding cheaper and cheaper shit. We put pressure on Walmart to do that, and they pressured their suppliers, who then went turncoat and sold this nation out to Chinese manufacturing.
In essense, it's truly us, the "consumer's" fault.
And it's still happening. I refuse to buy Georgia Pacific paper because what few mills they had here, they've taken them down and sent production to China. One less thing you can buy made here, because people want cheapness over what is Right.
Hammermill still makes papers here, with US pulp, in US factories, and is damn fine paper, so that's what I feed my printer for the past 5 years.
Still, I want to see mainstream full-scale walmart-and-amazon-flooding manufacturing of things as mundane as pencils to towels to notebooks to paper to tires, hangers, etc come back to the USA, with USA materiels. All the little stuff you need to live your day with. Pots, pans, utensils, etc. For fuck's sake, even Oneida cutlery left the US!
It'll never happen, though. We're too entrenched in "cheap cheap cheeep!" and "I don't want my kids to be lowly factory workers" to turn this ship around. We'll be China's bitch forever, and when they get to where we are now, then it'll be Malaysia, India and who knows where making our cheap shit.
Good job, America, you broke yourself.
Still, china needs a real hard slap in the face. People play the whataboutism game "Oh look at USA and the atrocities they do!!" To that crowd, fuuuuuuck you, hard and long, with a splintered phone pole. I find it hard to believe how much vitriol is being hurled at the US and how much mollycoddling of China is goign on in this site. We don't engage in wholesale tech thievery. We don't have reeducation camps. We're horrible, terrible people, to be sure, but there's always one worse than you. Then again, I get it, /. is not strictly usa-only, it's a "global" community, but I do wonder how much pro-china paid trolling is going on, either directly or as part of a broader campaign.
Bring it. Come November, I will double-down on showing China their thieving ways are not appreciated. Fuck being polite, fuck being subservient and docile. What has it gotten us? Ridicule, disadvantage, being used as a carpet. That's what being PC and docile has gotten us.
And America? Shame on you for being so fucking greedy that we sold out the country in the 90's (Clinton) and 00's (Bush the 2nd)
*stirs his coffee with an old American Airlines spoon made by Oneida in New York, not in fucking China*
Re: (Score:2)
* the Chinese Panda diplomacy [wikipedia.org] are already been used, as response to Trump administration acts: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ne... [nbcsandiego.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
*stirs his coffee with an old American Airlines spoon made by Oneida in New York, not in fucking China*
Styxhexenhammer666 is that you?!?
Re: (Score:2)
In will be extremely cold in some places. This is why it is called climate change and not global warming. The net result could be a new ice age. Of course our estimation of solar activity suggests that the sun is going to send us down a path of global cooling reasonably soon in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that, technically, we're still in an Ice Age (and have been for all of history). Right now, we're in an Interglacial period, which will, at some point, end, leaving us with mile-thick ice sheets over most of the north.
Note that the Ice Age is a side-effect of the position(s) of North America and Eurasia. When the continents move enough to allow more water fl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, someone can not read.
The CFC China is emitting is also a greenhouse gas, aka like CO2.
The equivalent of Chinas CFC emissions is 10% of UKs CO2 emissions, as a greenhouse gas.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt anyone ever had a patent on CFCs ... it is not really possible to patent a chemical substance aka a molecule. Especially if it as simple as a CFC. (Yes, you can patent medicals ... which are also only simple chemicals ... but here you basically honour the complicated/expensive/long running research of the _effect_ aka the solution the chemical provides)
Re: (Score:2)
DuPont held the patent for *producing* R-12. You can't patent chemicals, but you *can* a process that has an economical advantage over other processes.