Arctic Permafrost Melting 70 Years Sooner Than Expected, Study Finds (weather.com) 231
An anonymous reader quotes a report The Weather Channel: Scientists studying climate change expected layers of permafrost in the Canadian Arctic to melt by the year 2090. Instead, it's happening now. A new study published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters revealed that unusually warm summers in the Canadian High Arctic between 2003 and 2016 resulted in permafrost melt up to 240% higher than previous years. Louise Farquharson, a researcher at the Permafrost Laboratory at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the study's lead author, told weather.com the three areas of melting permafrost studied in remote northern Canada are believed to have been frozen for thousands of years. She noted that while scientists had predicted the permafrost wouldn't melt for another 70 years, those forecasts didn't take into account the unusually warm summers that have happened in recent years. While researchers believe all indicators point to warmer temperatures continuing, there's no way to know for sure just how quickly the permafrost will continue to melt. Not only is rapidly melting permafrost a symptom of global warming, but it accelerates climate change by exposing thawing biological material to the atmosphere where it decomposes and releases CO2, a key element in global warming.
Hey look it's really a wolf this time! (Score:1, Troll)
No really, this time we are doomed for sure! Unless we do something locally even though all human problems we claim need to be corrected to fix this are largely because of actions by other countries.
Re:Hey look it's really a wolf this time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Consequences? (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps somebody can find a way to put deniers ON RECORD for history in a public way so they know future generations will be able to see they were on the wrong side of history. So then they and their family can't hide out of shame later on like the former Nazis... or in some cases act proud of it anyway like pro-confederates (who are so ashamed of their ancestors it generates cognitive dissonance.)
Essentially a monument to idiocy; that will get more attention than their gravestone likely would ever get.
NOW
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps somebody can find a way to put deniers ON RECORD for history in a public way so they know future generations will be able to see they were on the wrong side of history.
Seems fair. Because if there is not catastrophic warming by mid century we will all know Mann and Hansen were full of shit.
Or more likely you will simply worship them for having saved us LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Not worship... but perhaps people should worship SCIENCE instead of primitive folk stories!
It's solid science, it's not even remotely full of anything but logic. Exact time prediction is not actually important but knowing that CO2 makes it hotter and knowing how tiny the atmosphere is and how much we put into it is not hard stuff; it's not rocket science even though that science is what woke us up to the problem. (see history, why Venus is so hot...)
Denying man-made global warming is as stupid as fearing di
Re: (Score:2)
It's solid science, it's not even remotely full of anything but logic. Exact time prediction is not actually important
The ability to make accurate predictions used to be an important part of science back in the day.
Re: (Score:3)
It sure is not making changes in the U.S, because the U.S. by and large has already made pretty large reduction in CO2 output over the years and realistically you will find it very hard to make any more substantial gains
The US is still the world's 2nd largest producer of CO2, and has double the CO2 output per capita of some other first world countries.
If this is the best you can do, what's your plan for when the oil runs out ?
Non-sequitor (Score:2, Insightful)
The US is still the world's 2nd largest producer of CO2, and has double the CO2 output per capita of some other first world countries.
WHOOSH
Might try reading what I wrote [worldbank.org] again champ.
what's your plan for when the oil runs out ?
Sigh. Oil will get more expensive, solar and nuclear power will get less expensive, and at some point people will stop using oil because it costs more. There is vastly more oil available to get from the Earth than we will ever run out of before alternative energy becomes cost effect
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Oil will get more expensive, solar and nuclear power will get less expensive, and at some point people will stop using oil because it costs more.
I thought you just said that it would be very hard to make any more substantial gains. Now you're saying that we have the option of stopping with oil.
The choice is between stopping with oil sooner or later. Do it sooner, and you get a headstart in technology, plus a bonus of lower CO2. It also makes it easier to convince other countries to follow your lead.
Re: (Score:2)
But really, denialism is becoming incredibly maddening
Re: (Score:2)
even though all human problems we claim need to be corrected to fix this are largely because of actions by other countries.
If every country points to all other countries, then what's your solution ?
Re: (Score:2)
If every country points to all other countries, then what's your solution ?
Destroy the human infestation. Just a single nuclear war would not only fix that, but it would cool down the warming planet with a convenient nuclear winter. We don't even have to attack another country we could aim all the missiles at ourselves and that may create enough radioactive fallout to nuclear winter the planet and kill off most radioactive sensitive life with the radiation. No matter what the question it seems like nuclear power is the answer. The power of the atom.
Re:Hey look it's really a wolf this time! (Score:5, Funny)
No really, this time we are doomed for sure!
Relax. It's not a whole wolf that crawled out of the melting permafrost . . . it's just the head:
Wolf's head preserved by permafrost found in Siberia [cbsnews.com]
MOD UP (Score:1)
That was an awesome tie-in to topical news! My hat is off to you.
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't wait until Fenrir thaws completely, Ragnarök is close enough already.
Don't you mean.....manbearpig? (Score:1)
When even the ancaps behind South Park have given up on denialism, what's keeping you going strong?
So you're just gonna ignore the fact that western countries, and the US in particular, have released most of the emissions that have brought us to this point. I'm shocked, shocked. And much of the pollution you guys complain about in India and China is used to produce products for your e
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the catastrophic stupidity of that argument for a moment, are you really going to leave all those jobs and development opportunities on the table? Cleaning up your own country is the best opportunity you've had since WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. Renewable energy is booming. Problem is they are fighting fossil fuel subsidies, which limits their growth rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look it's really a wolf this time!
Wolf? Is that from the parable that goes something like this:
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep when he saw a wolf. He cried out "wolf" and the villagers came running. But the wolf was pretty far away.
"That wolf is miles away!" said one villager. "You stopped me playing call of duty for this?". The other villagers shared the sentiment and went grumbling back down the hill.
In time, the wolf wandered closer. "
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out there was no wolf and the shepherd boy was using it as an excuse to gain some free mutton.
Oh good point. I'll add that to the story. ...ignoring and so they sent a representative to tell him to knock it off. "Knock it off", said the representative. "But there's a wolf right over there!" said the boy pointing at the wolf standing on the next hill. The villager did not take his eyes off the boy as he said "I see no wolf. I think you want free mutton and will blame the non-existent wolf when you kil
Re: (Score:2)
No really, this time we are doomed for sure!
he continues to say facetiously while ignoring the farmboy cleaning up the sheep carcass.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Madam Doctor, I know I should start exercising and lose weight. But I've been overweight for so long and my entire family overeats, its too late in the game for me to change my life-style. Just give me a prescription for those rose colored glasses, that will make me feel better.
What lies beneath? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a sci-fi plot idea, wouldn't it be interesting if there was some kind of bacteria or virus roaming around 20+K years ago that modern creatures don't have any defense against.
The mental model that people tend to have about plagues is that they are powerful destructive forces that one must build defenses against.
A more accurate model would be that plagues occupy a delicate ecological niche and must be tuned to occupy it through natural selection over time.
A plague must defeat the biological defenses of the body true - not be killed - but they must also be efficient in growing and propagating themselves and then disseminating to new hosts and this requires carefully tuning to the
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler alert:
You can check out this four-book series [rifters.com] -- what you're describing shows up in some form in the third and fourth books. A good (if gritty) read, and free in multiple formats online.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought Rifters was only three books ... I must have missed one. Thanx for the link!
Re: (Score:2)
While the webpage shows four book covers, the single Behemoth cover on the webpage is actually two dead-tree books, which is what I meant, and the Blindsight cover isn't part of the Rifters series. Glad I could provide some subtle confusion on that point.
Re:What lies beneath? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you are close. They earlier than expected melt is related to biological activity. It depends how nitrogen rich the permafrost is, the more nitrogen the more rapid the growth of methane generating organism is and a by product of that biological activity is heat. Now normally you would expect the permafrost to freeze come winter but the heat went down deep enough, in nitrogen rich soils, to really get things going and the heat generated by the biological activity, is able to sustain the melt and more biological growth. Now add in winter and a snow cover, think igloo if it helps and the now very active methane generating biology keeps ticking over and not freezing and the heat generated melts more permafrost, generating more activity and more heat. This generates what has become the now familiar methane blow outs, overnight very circular ponds.
The biological heat is enough to greatly accelerate melting even during winter, actually a little worse because the snow blanket works as insulation. It does require nitrogen rich soils to accelerate so it is not uniform but fairly diverse dependent upon, environmental conditions over the tens of thousands of years as the soils were created and deposited.
What is new is the greater heat at this time, driven by the moronic fossil fuellers, tapping into tens of thousands of years of stored biological fuel and the heat generated by the biological process to drill down into the soon to be ex-permafrost. How deep, depends on localised conditions and accessible nitrogen. Make no mistake, summer or winter, that permafrost is going to melt at all locations rich in nitrogen, once that fuel is gone the process will settle down but by then, way too late. Once the Arctic ocean heats up enough to melt the methane hydrates, well expect a short, sharp sudden sea level rise, will relatively short, it will some small number of years, but their will be a distinct, definite, ohh fuck moment when it is entirely too late.
On a side note, China and Russia win because the USA is totally fucked by a 1.5m sea level rise, which of course totally cripples the US economy, it simply can not lose the east coast in the way it will. Don't worry though, entirely too late and you should only ever worry over things you can change, with things you can't, why worry, you are fucked already and all the worry in the world will not change it one iota.
Don't buy in any location that would be impacted by a 1.5m sea level rise, it would be mind bogglingly stupid to do it at this time. Although an amphibious car and a house on stilts might well be fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I would wager that both the coasts of Russia and China are longer than the coast of USA ... a 1.5m rise is bad for nearly every nation. Obviously Switzerland and Nepal have no coasts ... so don't nitpick.
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually not SiFI but a current strong concern. E.g. regarding antrax. We already know that there are antrax infected corpses in the perma frost.
But on the bright side... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have to save for retirement anymore.
Always look on the bright side of life. *whistle*
Always look on the bright side of death. *whistle*
don't panic (Score:1)
This doesn't contradict the main predictions of The Model as such. Don't lose faith in your model. Obviously these guys are deniers getting paid by the oil industry to make these claims. Just ignore it and continue your backyard farming and vegan bicycling. Everything else The Model predicts will come true exactly when and exactly how it predicts. Do not even think of questioning The Model. The Model is science and believe me you don't want to be anti-science. Do not even let your mind stray in that directi
Re: (Score:1)
He's being paid by his own ego, he cannot and WILL NOT be wrong, because his current welfare depends on ignoring reality and his ideology cannot handle what is needed to be done.
He's paid by his ego.
Could be interesting (Score:2)
We might find some more mammoth carcasses in the thawing permafrost.
Thank you china (Score:2)
Caffeinated Bacon with no intelligence or deceny (Score:2)
Caffeinated Bacon, you remain a total dickhead for your massive lies and lack of logic.
WindBourne, /.'s most entertaining court jester (Score:2)
The fact that localized heating is occurring over alaska/western Canada should be easy proof of where the real problem is. It is not possible for it to be America.
This one quote all by itself, shows you have no clue at all how climate change works. Thanks for the laugh.
We probably deserve to go extinct (Score:2)
"creeping vegetation" (Score:3)
I like how "vegetation" used universally as positive change in any other context now is suddenly creepy, losing all the positive connotations.
Wait...I thought the entire ice cap melted in 2012 (Score:2)
Dang....
I wager you can find a study that predicts just about anything with climate...but heck, I am all for allowing gray whales to return to their north Atlantic crossings.
(and I am not a Troll, I am a Dwarf.)
Re:40 years late! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious as to this notion that physics is subordinate to political ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of morons that believe this. Also that physics is subordinate to human-made laws. Some really great failures believe this even for mathematics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They have obviously not thought any of that through, but most people are unable to think things through and are completely clueless as to how reality (physical or otherwise) works.
Re:40 years late! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious as to this notion that physics is subordinate to political ideology.
Unfortunately, that's the way things are these days.
There are two classes of science: Objective Science and Subjective Science.
Objective Science works . . . well . . . like a scientist. A scientist collects evidence, evaluates it, and then comes to a conclusion.
Subjective Science works like a lawyer. A lawyer has a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support this conclusion.
Subjective Science has many child classes, but the most commonly used in the US these days are Blue Science and Red Science. Just like there are Blue States and Red States.
This trickles down even further so you end up with Blue Economics and Red Economics . . . and Blue Physics and Red Physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And while Objective Science (or just "Science" for short) aims to give you truth and often delivers pretty good approximations to it, Subjective "Science" gives you power much more directly. Explains nicely why the second version is much more popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's the way things are these days.
No many people think it does but it doesn't. When reality and ideology collide, reality wins every time. Some people are exceptionally adept at ignoring reality because they can't cope with having been mistaken but reality is still there.
and Blue Physics and Red Physics.
There is no red and blue physics, just physics. The absorption spectra of CO2 is well characterised as is the spectrum of sunlight. There is only science and people denying science becuse
Re:40 years late! (Score:5, Informative)
Given the topic is global warming I'm going to reasonably assume it's final l global warming young referring to.
The reason the predictions are bad is that you're an anti reality idiot who is ignoring actual facts. The current temperature is well within the error bounds of the temperatures predicted in the original IPCC report in 1990.
Science works, so kindly fuck off and stop bringing partisan bullshit into it. Contrarianism for its own sake is a very stupid idea.
Re:40 years late! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if that's true or not, but I thought that global warming was caused by the greenhouse effect. In other words the increased reflection of heat by the CO2-rich atmosphere back to the Earth rather than more of that heat escaping to space as it would otherwise do. What does that have to do with the absorption spectrum of CO2?
Same thing in effect. Techncially, CO2 doesn't actually reflect infra-red (not like a metal does, or glass with total internal reflection). It absorbs infra-red then re-emits it in a random direction. This causes a lot of it to come back to Earth which has the same effect as reflection. No absorption means the radiation escapes to space, a peak in absorption means more comes back to Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Science comes to a conclusion within a margin of error. The scientists are constantly going back and re-evaluating, collecting more data, and fine tuning. Sometimes this change predictions radically, most of the time it doesn't because has gotten pretty damn good in the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Science comes to a conclusion within a margin of error.
What does it mean when reality always falls on one specific side of this margin of error?
Re: (Score:2)
Science comes to a conclusion within a margin of error.
What does it mean when reality always falls on one specific side of this margin of error?
It means of course, that the operating theory is plausible, and working toward virtual certainty.
The deniers are running out of plausible deniability.
What some are reduced to now is saying that since the model was not complete, and that the effect is worse than the model had predicted, the model is broken, therefore no AGW. That's pretty illogical at best.
The model is just having more data added, which allows for greater accuracy. It is becoming more accurate with the new data.
People should be pay
Re: (Score:2)
New York has seen 1 foot? That seems weird. Either it's 1 foot everywhere for a sufficiently connected body of water, or simply all the construction materials brought to NY made it sink by 1 foot.
Ocean levels are remarkably variable around the globe.
Also, given politics, any rise in level might be suppressed.
But remember, this is since 1900, so it's plenty plausible. Here's a site that gives some info.
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/l... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
If your "science" falls outside your margin of error, you're doing it wrong.
I see this argument all the time, and I don't know why people get this so wrong. If your data hasn't left the bounds of your margin of error, then your hypothesis can't eliminate the random noise that falls inside this margin. Simply put, if your measurement is 2 units of some value and your margin of error is +- 2 units of the same value, your hypothesis instantly becomes suspect. This is basic science. Your data must leave the boundaries of your margin of error to be valid science.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm curious as to this notion that physics is subordinate to political ideology.
Some people care about facts more. They follow the best source of facts they can find, then find political ideology to match specific facts for specific agenda.
Other people care about their tribe more. Their well-being is invested in their tribe. Fact is irrelevant. What matters is servicability. If physics serves the purposes of the tribe, great! If not, it's wrong and to be denounced.
Now, if you think I am endorsing one or the other major party, you are part of the second group.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to this notion that physics is subordinate to political ideology.
After a lot of analysis, and having to throw out stupidity a a short range cause, here's what you are up against:
A lot of the deniers are simply old cranks who like the idea of it being warmer.
Now for someone getting old and creaky, in the short term, and on a "me" only level, that kind of makes a selfish sense.
Of course, that ignores the unstable weather patterns and the incredible messes it makes for other people, and the serious problem for people of the future. Long term stupidity.
But yeah, th
Re: 40 years late! (Score:2)
I'm curious of your notion that physics (as conceptualized by human physicists, tested by human physicists, evaluated by human physicists, theorized by human physicists, collated by human physicists, published by human physicists, and finally taught to the next generation of human physicists by human physicists) is somehow immune to human mendacity and tendentiousness?
Where are these emotionless, apolitical, non human physicist robots you speak of?
The acceleration of gravity at a given place is indeed, an i
It's always been your choice to lie GOP. (Score:4, Informative)
The prediction was correct, the scale of change was a little faster than expected - the data lines right up with the most severe predictions of 2012. Google it or don't, but Republican retardation either fixes itself or, you know, it dies off.
Re: (Score:2)
The prediction was correct, the scale of change was a little faster than expected - the data lines right up with the most severe predictions of 2012. Google it or don't, but Republican retardation either fixes itself or, you know, it dies off.
You could try making your case without name calling. Seriously.
Re: It's always been your choice to lie GOP. (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate had been naturally warming for tens of thousands of years now
At what rate ? Please show your data.
Re: (Score:3)
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
That graph has a resolution of 100,000 years in a single pixel. How exactly does that support the claim that the climate has been warming for "tens of thousands of years now" ?
Try for something closer 100 years/pixel.
Re: It's always been your choice to lie GOP. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also it's a random photo from the Internet with no data or methodology. What is the right hand axis even? He could have done better with a diagonal line in MS paint.
Good point. This article shows the same graph: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... [joannenova.com.au]
And provides this reference for data: https://science.sciencemag.org... [sciencemag.org]
Re: It's always been your choice to lie GOP. (Score:4, Informative)
The hypositisis that CO2 causes a 'greenhouse effect' based on Venus's temperature differential.
Actually, it's just based on physics. CO2 absorbs part of the infrared radiation that's trying to escape from Earth into space.
Coldest winter in north America in over 100 years; this last year
Here's the global map of temperature anomalies last February.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp... [nasa.gov]
Looks like you were right. There was a big cold spot in North America. Of course, if you look at the whole map, you'll see plenty of hot spots where you didn't look out the window. Global average was 0.91 degrees C above average.
Also, compare with Dec 2018, where North America was warmer than usual, and the cold spot was over Asia. Average temperature over the whole globe was about the same.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Both of your GISS links return "Not found," but it's easy enough to reverse engineer your inputs from the URLs.
You say "Global average was 0.91 degrees C above average," but your link suggests you're comparing 2019 to the average from 1950-1980. That's quite an interesting cherrypicked baseline interval -- particularly inasmuch as it carves out the recent warmer years from the average.
I played around with baseline intervals for quite a while and couldn't find another that gave a larger anomaly than 0.91, a
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the entire planet had the coldest winter ever, having regional variations in temperature doesn't effect the mean. Jesus christ, this is basic statistics. If crime goes down in the entire Continental United States, it doesn't get disproven because some cities see an increase in crime. It's the same with AGW. Absolutely some areas of the planet will see colder than normal temperatures, but it's the global mean temperature that counts. If you're not looking at that, then you're doing is a textbook defin
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you consider weather as climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is the Average of Weather by region and season.
If you can't reliably tell me what the weather is going to be in 10 days you have zero chance of telling me what the climate for that area is going to be in 1, 10, or 100 years.
Re: Meanwhile, in the real world... (Score:2)
The average weather for the year might be a light drizzle, but that doesn't tell you if you live in a dreary coastal area or a desert that experienced one flood. Climate is in no way the average of the weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate doesn't go from coastal to desert in a day either. Climate *is* the average of Weather.
Re: Meanwhile, in the real world... (Score:2)
No, it is not. Climate deals with the dynamics of weather, not the average.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dynamics of Weather is called Meteorology.
You want to see what's destroying any serious consideration of our climate as an issue? Garbage reporting the likes of CNN in the link below. Read the whole thing through if you can stomach it. You want people to take the weather seriously, get rid of this shit tier tabloid garbage.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/0... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Does this new study not contradict predictions from The Model? So who is right? Or are you going to claim that they are both right? Are these guys just deniers being paid by the oil industry?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, generally the conspiracy theory goes is that statists (of which scientists are either members of the cabal, or minions doing what they're told) want to use AGW as a means to take away our cars and make us slaves. Oh, and hurt the rich, except for some of the rich, who will apparently make boatloads of money off of the low carbon New World Order. Since at least American conservatism has largely aligned itself around fossil fuel extractors, they're not tarred with the brush, though so far as I know, in
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does that even mean? And you're 'insightful'?
Re:40 years late! (Score:4, Informative)
This one is (still) buried under 300 FEET [popularmechanics.com] of Arctic ice that's accumulated over the last 75 years
Re: (Score:2)
Is your point that global warming isn't happening because in the Arctic ice melts uniformly over the entire arctic only from the top down?
If not then I'm confused by your point.
If so then you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The "somehow" is because there's actually a difference between permafrost (what the study is about) and a glacier (what entombed those planes). Wikipedia has rather decent articles on both, if you're interested.
Re: (Score:1)
It is summer. The arctic roads melts in summer: http://englishrussia.com/tag/russian-roads
BTW, the same happens in Canada on the Dempster highway.
PS: Don't tell the loonie global warming crowd, they won't understand.
Re:CO2 ? (Score:5, Informative)
No. The melting permafrost releases frozen organics which bacteria eat. If they eat it in an anoxic environment, say the bottom of a bog, they release methane. If they eat it on the surface they release CO2. But the gases don't come directly from the permafrost unless it's been melting and freezing repeatedly, in which case it's probably methane (CH4).
Re: (Score:2)
What do we call permafrost after it melts?
Bog
Re:Global warming is an existential threat! (Score:5, Informative)
...I know people will claim wind and solar are already cheaper than coal. If that's true then why has coal consumption increased? https://www.thegwpf.com/the-wo [thegwpf.com]... [thegwpf.com]
Its in the article you linked to, if you actually read it.
This increase is confined to Asia, which is still rapidly industrializing. But coal in the U.S. is in a death spiral that will see it disappear for power production before 2030. It has already dropped 40% from is 2009 peak [eia.gov] and the linear rate of decline has accelerated lately. The rise in Asian coal use is only temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
The rise in Asian coal use is only temporary.
But wind and solar is supposed to be cheaper than coal! There should not be any increase in coal use, not even a temporary one. That is unless coal is cheap.
The only reason coal use is falling in the USA is because natural gas is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
But wind and solar is supposed to be cheaper than coal!
Price is not the only factor. Wind and Solar are not displacing coal at the fast rate for the same reason I paid extra for DHL express shipping the other day. Wind and solar have low capacity for the installation effort, and even lower actual generation all the while providing grid stability problems if rolled out to a marginal grid that is lacking sufficient base load. To counter act that you need storage mechanism which may or may not be available to everyone or at the volume required.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you high? 2018 Availability factors put nukes at 81% mostly dragged down by a few bad actors with a large portion of the generation capacity well above 90%.
Solar would need to achieve ~200-400% availability to come close to the stability of nuclear power on account of availability and utilization factors being two very different things, and when you speak of one without taking into account the other you look like quite the fool.
Re: (Score:2)
But wind and solar is supposed to be cheaper than coal! There should not be any increase in coal use, not even a temporary one. That is unless coal is cheap.
Perhaps in Asia coal is cheaper?
Perhaps the plants going online in Asia right now and the next two or three years got planned, approved and started to built a decade ago?
But perhaps you are just an idiot, no idea.
Re: (Score:3)
It has already dropped 40% from is 2009 peak and the linear rate of decline has accelerated lately. The rise in Asian coal use is only temporary.
If only this was predictable.
One of the Presidential candidates said this:
And weâ(TM)re going to make it clear that we donâ(TM)t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now weâ(TM)ve got to move away from coal and all
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one sure way to get people off carbon based energy, give them an alternative that costs less.
An alternative that costs less isn't needed. You just need an alternative that can actually replace fossil fuels in the real world without needing to invent new technology. We have that. Nuclear power. Yes electricity will cost a bit more and poor people will be the ones paying for that, but if the majority believes in the current doomsday scenario they may be willing to support it. The reality is that warming is not the only problem with the rising CO2 levels. It's also directly harmful to us starting at l
Re: (Score:2)
Using the sun means massive energy storage problems. When people talk about solar power what they are really talking about are solar battery chargers on a massive scale. Solar = batteries. So we will need new technology to make better batteries if we want the whole planet to basically be battery powered.
If nuclear cannot power the world then we as a species are well and truly fucked and I say this as an electrical engineer. This is an engineering problem and my professional opinion is that nuclear power is
Re: (Score:2)
Make it a carbon tax and divided. If the tax is $1 per gallon of gasoline and the average person uses 500 gallons in a year, then every year mail everyone a check for $500 whether they bought any gasoline or not.
Now $500 may not sound to you or I like a lot of money, but $500 given to a poor person would be a financial windfall. Who would vote against an annual $500 divided that pays for itself?
Re: (Score:3)
That's why it's important to treat carbon taxes different from regular taxes: 100% of carbon tax income should go to research into or implementation of carbon-free alternatives (solar power, wind power, nuclear power, as well as power production from fossil fuels with carbon capture).
Have you heard of the term "greenwashing"? That's just what you described.
The idea of a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions can only work if there is no connection between who pays the tax and who receives the tax. The people that pay the tax are the utilities that burn coal for energy. The people that get the subsidy are the utilities that put up windmills. So, what happens is that if a utility wants to get some cheap coal power? They just put up some windmills at the same time. They pay the tax bu
Re: (Score:2)
So, what happens is that if a utility wants to get some cheap coal power? They just put up some windmills at the same time. They pay the tax but then they just get it back in subsidies, in the end it cost them nothing.
This is working as intended.
The utility now has windmills generating some amount of power. Thus they need to burn less coal in the future to generate whatever amount of power is needed... This cycle continues until they are generating all the power needed without burning any coal.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.thoughtco.com/fals... [thoughtco.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And you HAVE to admit: backing civilization back up 300 years will pretty much solve climate change. No cars, no power, no corresponding CO2 pollution from th
Re: (Score:2)
NO Microsoft (hey, so it's not ALL bad), NO Oracle (ditto!),
Hey, don't make it sound so good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It could be considered minor compared to the end of a multi-million year ice age in a strictly geological sense. Of course, when that happened, the population was around .07% of what it is now and the CO2 levels were only at around 250 ppm as opposed to the 400 ppm they are now. So, the event going on now potentially affects far more people and could potentially change the world massively. It's a bit ridiculous to ask why no-one is concerned about an event that's been over for at least nine thousand years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is SO FLAWED for an science-educated person it makes me laugh.
Please, enlighten me, how many "years" did it took to the Laurentide Ice Sheet to melt?
Ah! That's it! What you're disregarding (which is BTW the core of the Global Warming) is that "NATURAL CHANGING EVENTS TAKE A HELL OF A TIME (CENTURIES EVEN MILLENNIA), MEANWHILE, BECAUSE OF HUMANS, WE HAVE SPED THOSE TO JUST DECADES". There you go.
Re: (Score:3)
Melting ice-sheets only raise sea levels. Melting permafrost is an accelerator for global warming and much, much worse. You need to have some elementary reading comprehension to get that from the story though.
Re: (Score:3)
Melting ice-sheets only raise sea levels.
That depends on whether they lose thickness, or extent. If they lose thickness, that's correct. If they lose extent, that causes additional heating because of the difference in albedo between ice and seawater.
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't there as much concern about that melting incident from climate scientists?
Because it's long gone and has no ability to affect us further.
Why in the hell is this utter bullshit modded up? Why are there are so many mod points for ant science deniers of reality these days?