Nordic Countries Endure Heatwave as Lapland Records Hottest Day Since 1914 (theguardian.com) 141
Nordic countries have registered near-record temperatures over the weekend, including highs of 34C (93.2F) in some places. From a report: The latest figures came after Finland's national meteorological institute registered its hottest temperature for June since records began in 1844. Kevo, in Lapland, recorded heat of 33.6C (92.5F) on Sunday, the hottest day since 1914 when authorities registered 34.7C (94.5F), said the STT news agency. Several parts of Sweden also reported record highs for June.
The high temperatures follow the record-breaking heatwave and wildfires that have caused devastation in parts of North America. The intense heatwave has killed 95 people in the US state of Oregon alone, its governor said on Sunday. Hundreds are believed to have died from the heat in the US north-west and south-western Canada. Experts and officials fear that the catastrophic conditions, fuelled by the climate crisis, will only get worse through the coming months. Michael Reeder, a professor of meteorology in the school of Earth, atmosphere and environment at Australia's Monash University, said the events on the European and North American continents were linked.
The high temperatures follow the record-breaking heatwave and wildfires that have caused devastation in parts of North America. The intense heatwave has killed 95 people in the US state of Oregon alone, its governor said on Sunday. Hundreds are believed to have died from the heat in the US north-west and south-western Canada. Experts and officials fear that the catastrophic conditions, fuelled by the climate crisis, will only get worse through the coming months. Michael Reeder, a professor of meteorology in the school of Earth, atmosphere and environment at Australia's Monash University, said the events on the European and North American continents were linked.
Have to wonder (Score:2)
How the Arctic ice cover is doing, if the heatwave is reaching that far north.
Re: (Score:2)
How the Arctic ice cover is doing, if the heatwave is reaching that far north.
Looks like it's similar to 2012 [nsidc.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Not sea ice, gees. Only snow and ice on land, sea ice, not a problem, I will not bother to explain why.
So how much extra snow and ice is melting on land, how much have river flows changed, increased or decreased. How much permafrost is not so perma any more.
Have they checked methane levels, are they getting dangerous, is localised regions. Melting methane hydrates and activated biological agents and a whole lot of rotting compressed vegetation to consume.
You have low air movement, lots of melting and rotti
Re: (Score:2)
PS there is a trick with sea ice that make it an invalid measure of climate. The trick fresh water freezes at higher temperature than sea water. If you have a lot of rainfall over seawater, well that top layer becomes a whole lot less salty and can start freezing earlier and easier, more readily getting the salt water below to start squeezing out the salt and freeze. So you can have a lot of sea ice but not because it is extra cold but because it snowed whole damn lot and the top layer of the sea could free
Luckily colder at night.. (Score:5, Informative)
Lucky for us, it at least gets down below 20 centigrade at night unlike the previous heatwave few years back.
As a background: Very few homes in Finland have air conditioning, but tend to be well isolated.
With the cooler nights, having full ventilation at night to cool down the house and then closing up everything for the day actually helps a lot with this one.
In the previous heatwave the night time temperatures stayed high so there was no real help from such.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you needed to fix your car or whatever, you'd have the option of doing it at night instead of risking heatstroke.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was the problem in Canada - it just didn't cool down at night (the summer daytime high was supposed to be the low temperature).
Of course, after going through that nearly 50C few days, 34C seems much more pedestrian (of course, we're supposed to get a heatwave of around 34C for a few days and that's it).
Yeah yeah Finland cold. But you have to admit, 50C is in the "WTF Middle East Heat" or "Death Valley CA". 34C is so much more... average for a lot of places.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember that Finland is a lot further north than the hottest areas of Canada.
That area where the temperature was measured in Finland is about as far north as the north coast of Canada and the southernmost parts of Finland are about as far north as southenmost parts of Northwest territories/Yukon.
Is it time to talk solutions? We know the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
How about we build some nuclear fission power plants instead of keep making news reports about global warming? Oh, right, because that would solve the problem once and for all and the politicians can't scare people into voting for them instead of the other candidate.
At some point all political parties will have run out of excuses to not build nuclear power plants. It looks like the US Democrats got scared enough last summer to at least put that as an option in their platform document. Once we start build
Re: (Score:3)
Well, talking about Finland.. There is actually a large nuclear power plant under construction in Finland and another to likely start construction soon.
The one one under construction is 12+ years late from schedule, The construction started in 2005 and was supposed to be ready 2009, but is now projected to be ready next year..
So building nuclear power might not be a very quick solution.. though likely a fairly good one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because there was a massive "Russians evil" campaign at the time, so we went with the French, who promised to deliver a fixed cost station if we agree to allow them to build a prototype of their new reactor.
And then it ran into a bureaucratic incompatibility problem. In French culture, when someone responsible for delivering the goods judges them to go "good enough", they do the paperwork and pass the thing on. In Finland, it's expected that you actually deliver everything that is in the contract, so
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure that the Russian safety culture is all that much more compatible. Having talked with people who have worked there in not too far distant past have plenty of horror stories of unsafe things being seen as normal.
So I will reserve judgement until I see if same sort of delays hit the next plant once it starts to be built.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing with the way things are done in Finland, it's pretty much irrelevant what safety culture is in source country. Our bureaucracy will go through the project with a fine tooth comb and make it compatible with ours. Even if a government monopoly like Areva is on the other end, and their government spends incredible amount of diplomatic pressure to get our government to concede.
Bureaucracy in Finland is very strong and an institution all into itself that takes great pride in doing things "correctly" all th
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we will see in the coming decade about the Russian ability to do that. I am personally quite skeptical, given the differences in cultures.
As for Russians having built some of the previous reactors, but that was actually more like built together as the protective buildings around the reactors were built by Wartsila and some of the gear came from Westinghouse, instrumentation and control parts were also western.
Basically even back then the Russian design did not fill the safety requirements and the re
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to have surface knowledge of the project, but not any kind of in depth knowledge of critical details. The project flow of Loviisa reactors being talked about was actually exactly what I'm saying about Russian design culture vs French one. Russians came with a concept they used domestically. Our officials started asking them questions about design improvements, security, emergency procedures, normal running procedures, automation, etc.
Same thing that happened with French. Difference being that Rus
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting details.
I only know what I heard working with their office IT systems in 1980s. Never actually studied the things in any detail. So your knowledge seems much more in depth. I just found things interesting when working there so many things came up in the discussions and such, but of course much is forgotten since..
Re: (Score:2)
In French culture, when someone responsible for delivering the goods judges them to go "good enough", they do the paperwork and pass the thing on.
That is nonsense. Perhaps you should once go to France?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should go to Finland? Or Estonia?
Because I've seen this French cultural issue in both countries. And it was the same exact problem with two completely different companies, at two different time frames in two different industries (nuclear government monopoly formerly known as Areva in Finland, Alstom building shale rock burner plant in Estonia).
Both ended up in courts, in both cases French basically had to pay the other party off. In Finland, it looks like they'll sorta kinda get to the finishing
Re: (Score:2)
No. Pretty much no one expected that.
What no one also expected was that planned five year construction would be take over 15. Everyone expected it to go over by a few tens of percent, not several hundred. That's why Areva agreed to make it a fixed price deal, something that effectively broke the French government nuclear power monopoly corporation that is Areva in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is a dead end and that is a perfect example. Plants run double or even triple over budget and still need massive subsidies to keep operating. Renewables are getting cheaper every year and don't take decades to implement.
That's not an argument. (Score:3)
That doesn't matter. That's because there will not be enough wind and solar power to meet their needs. They can choose nuclear power or an energy shortage. Solar power projects used to run double and triple their budgets too. Did they stop trying? Did they give up? Or did they realize that with experience they will learn to be on schedule and under budget?
I don't care which nation you are referring to, if they are concerned about lowering CO2 emissions then they will at some point build nuclear fissio
Re: (Score:3)
Lol you're just regurgitating back my words. Have any links to your solar power triple budgets? Google any nuclear plant and you'll see the cost overruns.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there will not be enough wind and solar power to meet their needs.
Still lying? Why?
https://www.axionpower.com/kno... [axionpower.com]
And a laymen link about wind:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Still lying? Why?
Not a lie, you simply misunderstood the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is a 100% requirement for renewable. 100 % of essential renewable energy must be backed by nuclear power. That is because, renewable is totally exposed to the environment, not enclosed in a reinforced structure. Large hail storm could wipe out a cities solar panels and what took years to build out, can not be rebuilt in a day, take months, city no power for months, PEOPLE DIE IN LARGE NUMBERS, tens of thousands. Same with wind, exceptional storm wind farms die, lots of them and again, what too
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder what kind of medication you are taking or not taking.
Large hail storm could wipe out a cities solar panels and what took years to build out, can not be rebuilt in a day, take months, city no power for months, PEOPLE DIE IN LARGE NUMBERS, tens of thousands.
Simply speaking: hail storms only happen in developed countries. A hail storm in middle if Africa is rare.
Hence: the city is connected to the national grid. No one dies.
And why people would die in a "first world country" because electric po
Re: (Score:3)
If only there were methods of storing energy via chemical or mechanical means...
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, It would be nice if there were viable ways to store enough energy to matter with renewable power sources.
The only close to viable source is pumped water power, that is a huge dam with pumps that lift water up when there is too much and release through turbines when too little. But they require the source of water and huge land area.
The chemical thing you mention simply does not work at such scale.
Re: (Score:2)
The chemical thing you mention simply does not work at such scale. ....
Flowbatteries
Solar and wind power require grid power to operate (Score:2)
Solar and Wind, you just plug them in and they are ready to go.
Not true. The large windmills used so often today cannot be brought up to speed by the wind, they have to be spun up using grid power until the wind "catches" it and then power can be produced. There is also a lot of power used to drive lubrication pumps and the heating and cooling of the lubrication. That was a problem in Texas when that snow storm hit, the windmills lacked heaters for the lubrication and the windmills could not be spun up. Once power was lost on the grid they would have had to use pow
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile smart countries are building them fast and for less than a third the cost of USA and European ones... hmmm
Re: (Score:2)
What countries is that? And what types of safety standards do they have?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and there will be idiots that say we can't rely on building nuclear power plants as a solution until we know how to build them on time and under budget. To those idiots I have a question, just how are we supposed to learn how to build them without, you know, building them? It took a long time to learn how to build windmills right. We still haven't figured out how to build solar power right.
You're the one who keeps saying this is a proven and safe technology and now you're saying they don't know how to build a nuclear plant? It took a long time to learn how to build windmills? Are you high or something? Windmills have been in use for centuries to provide mechanical power.
There was a time before windmills. (Score:2)
Yes, we have been using windmills for power for centuries. It took a long time to figure that out, perhaps centuries.
Nuclear power is safe because we figured out how to build them in the 1950s and 1960s. We have the plans but the experienced workers are all gone. It's like we have the plans for all the old rockets but we could not build them today because there is a lot we don't know that was not written down. Without skilled workers it takes time to do it right, and that means the construction runs lon
Re: (Score:2)
Did all this skilled works vanish overnight or something? You can't tell me we have lost knowledge of nuclear power. You're just making bullshit excuses because nobody wants to pay for these billion dollar subsidized money pits.
People want to build nuclear power plants. (Score:2)
Where are you getting this idea that nobody wants to build nuclear power plants?
I can tell you that we lost knowledge on how to build nuclear power plants on time and on budget because that is what the nuclear power industry is saying. The people that built all those nuclear power plants 40 and 50 years ago are dead or senile now. We need to train a new generation of skilled laborers. That will take time. There are bills in Congress right now to get more construction permits issued. It's nearly certain
Re:Is it time to talk solutions? We know the probl (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar and wind (plus batteries to load follow) are a lot cheaper than nuclear and can be built in 1-2 years vs 10-20 years for nuclear so we should be focusing on building solar and wind.
Re:Is it time to talk solutions? We know the probl (Score:5, Informative)
The experts disagree with you. Experts like Dr. David JC MacKay. He documented his work on why wind and solar power will be insufficient. http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
There is not enough land for solar panels and onshore windmills in the UK to supply their energy needs. Offshore windmills cost more than nuclear fission. That is why the UK is working so hard on building nuclear fission power plants. They listen to the scientists, and they looked at the numbers. This is true for many other nations besides the UK but Dr. MacKay was hired by the UK government so that is where he applied his numbers. The numbers for other nations will work out much the same.
By saying that it will take 10 to 20 years to build a nuclear power plant only means we should not delay any longer. We can certainly build some wind and solar in the mean time but there is no viable energy plan for the UK, and nations like it, without nuclear fission power. Dr. MacKay left that quite clear with his notes. Other people did this same work and discovered the same thing. Where are your numbers to show otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Your experts forget about the enviorbnmental impact of:
1 Pre processing light water nuclear fuel AINT CHEAP / clean.
2.The cost of holding onto that spent nuclear fuel while the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD sits around trying to figure out "perfect" geological disposal method (while expensive waste piles up at every existing plant)
3. The cost of nuclear reprocessing is about 10x the cost of normal fuel + geo disposal (and still has waste product)
see here:
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/... [osti.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
1) Cheap: Compared to the energy you get out of it, it is actually cheap. Clean: True enough. No industrial processes are "clean" but that is not specially "unclean" compared to many other processes to extract things.
2)Well, again using Finland as example: Final disposition of the spent fuel from the nuclear plants in Finland will start within few years.
3)No need to reprocess.
Re: (Score:2)
1. if nuclear is so cheap to run, why is it still more expensive than any other renewable energy source out there?
2. I've heard this line of bull so many times before, I would rather wait for someone to actually make it happen (no "mission accomplished" sign for you until you actually overcome the political minefield of transporting spent fuel around, and then actually get it i the ground) .
3. I'm just saying that the waste built-up to 10x what it currently is will be a "big problem" that nobody here has
Re: (Score:2)
Your experts forget about the enviorbnmental impact of:...
No, they did not.
The environmental impact of solar power makes it's use instead of nuclear power an environmental disaster. Here's examples on how that conclusion was reached.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
I saw nothing in your linked article that compared nuclear power to any alternatives. You can cite how bad nuclear power would be for the environment but that doesn't mean that solar and wind power is better
Re: (Score:2)
Experts like Dr. David JC MacKay. He documented his work on why wind and solar power will be insufficient. http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com] [withouthotair.com]
And who would beleive such bullshit? Especially with a site of that name?
Especially with Scotland, Denmark and Germany, and Portugal, getting most power from wind now?
We can certainly build some wind and solar in the mean time but there is no viable energy plan for the UK UK is switching to wind, and leading in tidal power.
You have absolutely no clue, bu
Citation needed. Still not an argument. (Score:2)
And who would beleive such bullshit? Especially with a site of that name?
Maybe because he was an energy expert, someone highly regarded in the field, and he showed his work. Where is your work?
Especially with Scotland, Denmark and Germany, and Portugal, getting most power from wind now?
Citation needed.
You have absolutely no clue, but you show us that basically with every of your fanatic posts.
If so then why reply? To make a counter argument? Where is your argument?
(Oh, and AFAIK the UK is building one or two nukes atm ... so what are you ranting about?)
What are you "ranting about"? You claim that the UK is switching to wind power and then point out that they are building new nuclear power plants. That doesn't look like "switching to wind" to me. It looks like they are making desperate attempts to meet their energy demands and CO2 emission goals
Re: (Score:2)
Especially with Scotland, Denmark and Germany, and Portugal, getting most power from wind now?
Citation needed. /. nearly every week, dumbass.
There is no citation needed.
It is even on
Where is your work?
I do not work as a researcher in the energy field. Ooops!
That doesn't look like "switching to wind" to me.
Yes, we figured already that you have a mental problem, that is mostly centered around reading comprehension: UK is switching from fossil fuels to wind (Scotland did already, you know that it is a part of UK, right?). And keep (build some new) reactors - most likely for their nuclear weapon progr
no base load (Score:2)
As base load we have 1) fossi
Re: (Score:2)
Solar and wind do not provide base load power,
Perhaps you want to read up:
a) what base load is
b) why modern grids are shifting away from base load (Germany e.g. has far less base load plants than its "base load level").
hey are intermittent power.
Yes, and that is not a conflict with base load.
For load following or balancing power plants it does not matter if they are orchestrated around intermittent sources and demand changes or demand changes alone: it is the same problem.
As such , in absence of a massive
Re: no base load (Score:2)
Nuclear is completely inflexible and can't respond to demand. Demand changes all the time. Base load is a myth. Solar, wind batteries are the modern grid with perfect response to demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl is supposed to have caused about 2 million deaths, over the last 35 - 40 years.
And that are numbers from Russian scientists, not from Greenpeace.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How about we build some nuclear fission power plants instead of keep making news reports about global warming?
Because:
1: It takes about 15-20 years to go from a completed design with all approvals to a completed nuclear power plant. Note that this is all the reactors running at normal load, not the beginning of testing the new reactor. Also note that getting rid of those evil commie government regulations won't shorten that timeline, since it's after all approvals. This is also actual construction time, not the 5-year estimate that every plant starts with and then completely blows through.
2: There are two compan
Still missing the point. Not enough land. (Score:2)
For example, any electrician can learn to install photovoltaic solar in a day...if he reads slowly.
That's not helpful if there's not enough solar PV panels being built. Even then real sunny places like UAE and Indonesia are planning on nuclear fission power because they don't have enough land for solar power to meet their energy needs. This also applies to Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, and likely every nation in Europe. There is not enough land for solar power, not enough land for windmills, and if they build offshore windmills then they are spending more money than they would for nuclear fission.
Any na
Re: (Score:2)
That's not helpful if there's not enough solar PV panels being built
First, here's the definition of example. [merriam-webster.com] It turns out an example is not a complete list of options.
Second, the lithography for photovoltaic panels is far easier than the lithography for chips. Building more of those factories is much easier than going from 2 nuclear power plant builders to 1000.
Even then real sunny places like UAE and Indonesia are planning on nuclear fission power because they don't have enough land for solar power to meet their energy needs.
Math is something you should probably try to gain some familiarity with. Such as calculating the energy in the sunlight hitting the places you insist can't possibly get enough energy from sunlight.
If it takes 20 years to build a nuclear power industry then that only means they need to get started right away.
Ok, that means i
Re: (Score:2)
Ya got that backwards, champ.
Says the person that points out an example does not define all sets of options.
In the UK, Japan, and many many other nations the cost of solar and wind will become higher than that of nuclear fission as land use becomes a problem.
Math is something you should probably try to gain some familiarity with. Such as calculating the energy in the sunlight hitting the places you insist can't possibly get enough energy from sunlight.
I did see the math. Perhaps it is theoretically feasible to get enough energy from solar power the realities of land use and the effect that will have on costs make it impractical. If it's not land use that kill solar and wind practicality then it will be raw material needs. If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't point out any errors in my argument, you just don't like my attitude. That's not an argument to do anything differently.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not All Nordics" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been an abnormally, annoyingly cold summer here in Iceland. Just happens to be the summer where I have a massive experiment going on on the outdoor cultivation of warm-weather plants with the assistance of soil warming using geothermal wastewater. Soil heating is nice to try to boost growth, but when our daily highs are like 12 degrees, the air is the limiting factor :P
Re: (Score:2)
Good news! If the prediction that the Gulf Stream will break down are accurate, you'll get the opportunity to get used to cold summers!
Record Temp Anomalies Will Never Convice Deniers (Score:4, Interesting)
If the pandemic shows us anything then it is the awesome ability of many folks to deny medical science and facts.
As with the pandemic, global warming is a life and death question, and trying to convince the deniers is just a waste of time. Time that we don't have.
We can no longer afford to cater to them. They will simply have to be ignored.
Voters can't be ignored. Nuclear can't be ignored. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the pandemic shows us anything then it is the awesome ability of many folks to deny medical science and facts.
As with the pandemic, global warming is a life and death question, and trying to convince the deniers is just a waste of time. Time that we don't have.
We can no longer afford to cater to them. They will simply have to be ignored.
So long as these people vote they can't be ignored. What are you going to do? Create a dictatorship?
I have an idea, present a solution that people can agree to even if they don't agree on the problem. You want people to buy battery electric vehicles? Don't tell them they have to, because if that happens then the government that told them they have to will be replaced in the next election. Tell them how luxurious, sporty, lower cost, and/or convenient a BEV can be.
The Republicans have been trying to get the Democrats to agree to nuclear fission power for 40 years. That battle was won last summer when the Democrats agreed to put support for nuclear power as a plank in the party platform document. The Democrats changed their mind because public opinion on nuclear power was shifting. The Democrats had to choose, keep fighting Republicans on nuclear power or lose seats to them in the next election.
In spite of what the Democrats will scream the Republicans are not denying the problem of global warming, they are not seeing it as the immediate problem that we can't wait for nuclear power plants to be built to solve it. It's the Democrats that have been the deniers. They have been fighting for the immediacy of global warming for 40 years trying to get a solution now but had they only agreed with the Republicans decades ago then they'd have been part of the solution far earlier. The Democrats have been fighting the solution for so long that voters are now desperate enough for a solution that they are willing to try nuclear power. Since Democrats caved on this then any time they bring up global warming they just agreed to another nuclear power plant.
Nuclear fission as a solution cannot be ignored. If the anti-nuclear power voters are not in the minority already then I expect that they will be soon. The anti-nuclear power people can be ignored, they don't have the votes any more.
I'm not seeing anyone denying global warming. I'm seeing people with greater concerns on their mind. Things like jobs, energy costs, national security, and nuclear fission power can help with those too. Carbon taxes, expensive solar power, BEV "range anxiety" are only going to lose voters. You can't ignore this. You can't ignore nuclear power. Republicans have been supportive of nuclear power for decades, and now the Democrats agree. This is now a solved problem. It happened because Democrats stopped ignoring the science.
Re: (Score:3)
In spite of what the Democrats will scream the Republicans are not denying the problem of global warming, they are not seeing it as the immediate problem that we can't wait for nuclear power plants to be built to solve it. It's the Democrats that have been the deniers. They have been fighting for the immediacy of global warming for 40 years trying to get a solution now but had they only agreed with the Republicans decades ago then they'd have been part of the solution far earlier. The Democrats have been fighting the solution for so long that voters are now desperate enough for a solution that they are willing to try nuclear power. Since Democrats caved on this then any time they bring up global warming they just agreed to another nuclear power plant.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the Democrats are the deniers just because they didn't want to go the nuclear route 40 years ago. Guess what, if the Republicans hadn't denied climate change/global warming for the last 40 years we maybe could have solved the problem sooner and not needed to rely on nuclear power to save us now. After 40 years of Republican denial the Democrats now have no choice to see nuclear power as an option because time is running out to wait for non-nuclear options. In oth
Re: (Score:3)
From 1995-2007 the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. There was nothing stopping them at that time from implementing a nuclear power solution to climate change yet they didn't do so. You say that there was nothing stopping the Democrats from implementing climate change policies but there was also nothing stopping the Republicans from implementing a nuclear power solution (especially not during 1995-2007). From 2003-2007 the Republicans actually held all the legislative branches so why did
Re: (Score:2)
From 1995-2007 the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. There was nothing stopping them at that time from implementing a nuclear power solution to climate change yet they didn't do so.
Yes, there was. There was the Senate filibuster from Democrat senators throughout that entire period, and a Democrat president for half that time.
From 2003-2007 the Republicans actually held all the legislative branches so why didn't they implement their perfect nuclear power solution then? Surely it wasn't because the Democrats were stopping them from doing so.
It was the filibuster from Democrat senators.
How many Democrats do you see that openly deny that climate change is a problem and that we don't need to do anything about it?
None.
How many Republicans to you see saying the same thing?
None.
No Republican will openly deny global warming is a problem. They will push back on claims of DC being free from snow in 10 years, leading to the famous snowball incident. They will push back on a need for wartime levels of spending on rooftop solar and offshore windmills when the Democrats will not allow th
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky you, I've started monitoring alt-right sites to better understand the ugly underbelly of US politics, so I see them a lot.
But they are fortunately not a majority, which is why we can ignore them in a functioning democracy (albeit the US barely qualifies).
At any rate, I agree that nuclear is an important component and there's fortunately a rivaled of this sector underway, exploring sub-critical designs.
Re: (Score:2)
*revival
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky you, I've started monitoring alt-right sites to better understand the ugly underbelly of US politics, so I see them a lot.
10% to 20% of the population will agree to anything in a poll because they are ignorant, do not understand the question, or just want to mess with polls. This is not anything close to a mainstream idea. People will want to lower CO2 emissions but not at the expense of their ability to live, work, have children, and so many things we value.
The Republicans are not defined by the "alt-right", no more than the Democrats are defined by the "alt-left". From what I've seen the "alt-right" and the "alt-left" agr
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you only have actually sub-critical fuel mass, and drive the reaction via spallation neutrons. You may not like that design, but you cannot claim that it does not exist when there's an entire demonstration reactor in Belgium.
easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
change election vote to be compulsory.
No. People have the right to vote, and the right to not vote.
The problem is not the denial of the problem, it is a denial of the solution. Democrats were in denial of the solution for over 40 years, thinking we can get to zero carbon energy without nuclear power. We cannot. That changed last summer. Now that Democrats will agree with Republicans on a solution we are on the path to solving the problem.
What likely changed people's minds on nuclear power was the HBO mini-series on Chernobyl. From that ca
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming isn't the worst problem facing humanity. That is hyperbole. Growth of dictatorships with tecnological panopticons, disease, amd death remain far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't write that is is the worst, but that it is a life and death problem. It also happens to amplify all the others (increase in zoonosis, forced migration, political instability, famine etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
If the pandemic shows us anything then it is the awesome ability of many folks to deny medical science and facts.
As with the pandemic, global warming is a life and death question, and trying to convince the deniers is just a waste of time. Time that we don't have.
We can no longer afford to cater to them. They will simply have to be ignored.
It turns out that calling people "deniers" doesn't seem to be working very well. It's emotionally satisfying, sure, but it's not getting the job done.
Might need to go very nuclear in our power generation instead. And figure out large scale carbon sequestration, that kind of thing.
I mean, if solving the problem is your real goal. If the emotional satisfaction of puffing yourself up and putting others down is your real goal instead, well then, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
I really could not care less how deniers feel about the term. It's descriptive, and as I stated I ignore them. Waste of time to engage.
And yes, nuclear is important, as well as finding ways to get CO2 out of the atmosphere, preferably in a way that makes the most commercial sense. I'd like to see more along these lines:
https://www.dezeen.com/2021/06... [dezeen.com]
So.... (Score:3)
So what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then how did it get that warm? Massive burning of whale blubber?
You can read that up, e.g. the three so called medieval warms periods. (We actually don't know why/how they happened, so farm in your Nobel Prize by explaining it to us).
But I guess you are to dumb for that, as you stupid side kick (what a lot of green types blame for global warming). is indicating.
Re:This is normal (Score:4)
It's like when the imbeciles say it's cold in the winter which means there's no such thing as climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Downside is a hot lap isn't comfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
In Finland the summer is supposed to be short and not have a lot of snow..
(There is a classical description of Finnish summer in Finnish "Lyhyt mutta vÃhÃluminen" that illiterately translates to "Short but with only little snow")
Of course single events like heatwaves some year do not prove anything, but there are clear trends of higher temperatures in Finland. What causes it is can be up to debate, but not the actual fact.
Re:This is normal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
are you an exec at an oil conglomerate? if not, why do you go so out of your way to defend an industry that's harming you? it won't matter how hard you pwn the libz wit factz 'en logik if your just another corpse on the pile.
Re: This is normal (Score:2)
oh, you're a crazy person... sorry. no, I don't have any change... no no very intresting but i really need to go.. yeah ok bye bye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These warm mongers kind of have a point I think. [nasa.gov]
It's important not to cherry-pick data, looking only at the data points that please us.
Re: (Score:2)
...and is why we have more hurricanes now. Except that isn't happening either.
You should look that up again, this time go past "hurricanes that made landfall".
Re: This is normal (Score:2)
What is temperature (Score:5, Funny)
What is cold?
(note: to get the temperature into Fahrenheit: multiply by 9, divide by 5, then add 32)
+10C
The inhabitants of Helsinki (Finland) turn off their heating.
The Laps (inhabitants of Lapland) plant flowers.
+5C
The Laps take a sun-bath (if the sun gets over the horizon)
+2C
Italian cars won’t start.
0C
Pure water freezes.
-1C
Exhaled air becomes visible. Time to book some holidays around the Mediterranean. The Laps eat ice-cream & drink cold beer.
-4C
The cat wants to share my duvet.
-10C
Time to book some holidays in Africa. The Laps go for a swim.
-12C
Too cold to snow.
-15C
American cars won’t start.
-18C
Landlords in Helsinki turn on the heating.
-20C
Exhaled air becomes audible.
-22C
French cars won’t start. Too cold for skating.
-23C
Politicians start empathizing with homeless people.
-24C
German cars won’t start.
-26C
You can cut out the building material for igloos from exhaled air.
-29C
The cat wants to share my pajamas.
-30C
No proper car will start. Laps curse, kick tires and start theirs Ladas.
-31C
To cold to kiss, lips might freeze. The Lapland-soccer-team starts with their spring training.
-35C
Time to take a 2-week-hot-bath. The Laps scoop the snow from their roofs.
-39C
Mercury freezes. Too cold to even think. Laps button up their shirts.
-40C
The car wants to share my duvet. Laps put on a sweater.
-44C
My colleague from Finland considers the possibility to shut the window of our office.
-45C
The Laps shut the bathroom-window.
-50C
Sea-lions leave Greenland. Laps put on mittens instead of gloves.
-70C
Polar Bears leave the polar region. At the University of Rovaniemi (Lappland) an outing is organized.
-75C
Santa leaves the polar region. Laps put down the earflaps of their caps.
-120C
Alcohol freezes. Consequence: Laps are annoyed.
-268C
Helium fluidizes.
-270C
Hell freezes
-273,15C
Absolute zero. Zero motion of elementary particles. Laps admit: Ok, it’s a bit cool – pass me another schnaps to suck on.
Re: (Score:3)
-20C Exhaled air becomes audible.
This ACTUALLY happens at around -45C (depending on humidity). Your breath becomes ice crystals that tinkle audibly.
Re: What is temperature (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few fun parts: it's not the landlords who decide when to turn on the heating in most of Helsinki, it's the municipal remote heating that is responsible for that. Also, Finnish politicians started caring about homeless in early 1970s, when the math was done that it would be cheaper to just subsidise housing for the homeless than properly resource mitigation of problems that come from having homeless. We have almost no homeless left today, with those that remain are usually of the kind who cannot tolerate l
Re: (Score:2)
-22C
French cars won’t start.
I think listing a temperature for this entry is superfluous.
Re: (Score:2)
The really funny part for me is. I used an old(2003) french car over the last winter in Finland(Nov to Apr), and it only failed to start one morning. The only morning last winter that was colder than -20C.
So that -22C seems way too accurate to be random...
Re: (Score:2)
"Nice, but you could have given credit to the author."
It was Ugh, the caveman from Lapland.
Re: (Score:3)
President Trump was impeached. Twice.
Re: (Score:3)
A single high-temperature record day doesn't mean much. Setting more the high temperature records in the last 10 years than the previous 100 does.
Also ignore that the Central US experienced cooler than normal temperatures last week.
There's a reason that scientists call it "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming". The latter played better in the media, but scientists are aware that variability is going up too.
Re: (Score:2)
This pretty picture will help your understand. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the heat during the dust bowl, mostly localized, was caused by bad farming practices. People fuck up the weather/climate in various ways.
And the records we were breaking, set in 2010, were broken by 10C in many places here.
If it was just normal variability, we'd have record lows about as frequently, the last record lows I remember was in the early '80's and before that, the late 60's. At least hardly ever have to shovel snow lately.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about Lappland.
So your claim is most certainly wrong.
A few days ago we had a n article about regions in Canada: so your claim is for those regions also most certainly wrong.
If you know places that got a bit cooler during global warming: I suggest to buy land there and build up some resorts. That might be the future of tourism.