3 Degrees Warmer, with Twice as Many 100-Degree Days: How Climate Change Will Affect Texas (texastribune.org) 218
The Texas Tribune (an Austin-based non-profit digital news site) reports that climate change "has made the Texas heat worse, with less relief as nighttime temperatures warm, a report from the state's climatologist published Thursday found."
Climate data also show that the state is experiencing extreme rainfall — especially in eastern Texas — bigger storm surges as seas rise along the Gulf Coast and more flooding from hurricanes strengthened by a warming ocean, the report says. Those trends are expected to accelerate in the next 15 years, according to the report, which analyzes extreme weather risks for the state and was last updated in 2019. The report was funded in part by Texas 2036, a nonpartisan economic policy nonprofit group named for the state's upcoming bicentennial.
The average annual temperature in Texas is expected to be 3 degrees warmer by 2036 than the average of the 1950s, the report found. The number of 100-degree days is expected to nearly double compared with 2000-2018, especially in urban areas. "From here on out, it's going to be very unusual that we ever have a year as mild as a typical year during the 20th century," said John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist who authored the report. "Just about all of them are going to be warmer."
A hotter Texas will threaten public health, squeeze the state's water supply, strain the electric grid and push more species toward extinction, experts told The Texas Tribune...
The entire baseline of temperatures in the state has shifted upward — a trend that is likely to continue to cause problems for the state's aging infrastructure, experts said. "I was surprised at how strong the upward trend was in the coldest temperatures of the summer," Nielsen-Gammon said. While global temperature analysis had already shown that trend, he said, it is now very clearly happening on the local level in Texas. Even this year, which was considered a mild year because Texas didn't see temperatures above 100 degrees in much of the state, Nielsen-Gammon said nighttime temperatures stayed warm enough to put 2021 in the top 20% of years with the hottest summer nights on record.
The average annual temperature in Texas is expected to be 3 degrees warmer by 2036 than the average of the 1950s, the report found. The number of 100-degree days is expected to nearly double compared with 2000-2018, especially in urban areas. "From here on out, it's going to be very unusual that we ever have a year as mild as a typical year during the 20th century," said John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist who authored the report. "Just about all of them are going to be warmer."
A hotter Texas will threaten public health, squeeze the state's water supply, strain the electric grid and push more species toward extinction, experts told The Texas Tribune...
The entire baseline of temperatures in the state has shifted upward — a trend that is likely to continue to cause problems for the state's aging infrastructure, experts said. "I was surprised at how strong the upward trend was in the coldest temperatures of the summer," Nielsen-Gammon said. While global temperature analysis had already shown that trend, he said, it is now very clearly happening on the local level in Texas. Even this year, which was considered a mild year because Texas didn't see temperatures above 100 degrees in much of the state, Nielsen-Gammon said nighttime temperatures stayed warm enough to put 2021 in the top 20% of years with the hottest summer nights on record.
Any reason to trust such predictions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, the batting average of such predictions is not great.
Re:Any reason to trust such predictions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, things are worse than they were guessed they'd be by this point
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's likely to be just as effective as what we are seeing from the Democrat controlled federal government.
I'll believe Democrats take global warming seriously when they can mention nuclear power without spitting on the ground.
You mean like the 2012 funding of circa $200 million brought in by the Democrats and championed by Obama for small, modular reactors? Seems like you should be taking the Democrats seriously, then.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the 2012 funding of circa $200 million brought in by the Democrats and championed by Obama for small, modular reactors? Seems like you should be taking the Democrats seriously, then.
Wow. A whole $200 million. How many nuclear power plants were built while Obama was in office? During the 1970s we saw dozens of nuclear power plants under construction at a time, and we'd see them go from breaking ground to putting electricity on the grid in less than 8 years. I'll remind you what my condition was to be convinced that Democrats were taking global warming seriously...
I'll believe Democrats take global warming seriously when they can mention nuclear power without spitting on the ground.
As it is now Democrats can't even say the word nuclear, by not saying the word no spitting on the ground in disgust is re
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. A whole $200 million.
That's more than under Trump,more than twice as much. But then amounts vary per administration.
How many nuclear power plants were built while Obama was in office?
How many under Bush? It's not a good metric if 0 applies to various administrations. And it's worth noting that at various points over the last 40 years both elements of the legislature have either been entirely Republican or Democrat, which are the engines for actually passing funding bills, not the Presidential office holder.
I'll remind you what my condition was to be convinced that Democrats were taking global warming seriously...
Your personal criteria are not relevant. And anyway there is more than one way to tackle
Re: (Score:2)
That's more than under Trump,more than twice as much. But then amounts vary per administration.
Which only shows that Republicans are not taking global warming seriously either, but we knew that already.
How many under Bush? It's not a good metric if 0 applies to various administrations. And it's worth noting that at various points over the last 40 years both elements of the legislature have either been entirely Republican or Democrat, which are the engines for actually passing funding bills, not the Presidential office holder.
The claim made was that the Republican majority government in Texas was not taking global warming seriously, I countered to show Democrats are not serious either. Democrats had a majority or the filibuster in the US Senate since the Carter administration. The Democrats prevented new nuclear power as best it could all the time since, and was quite capable of doing this because of their ability to hold
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that Democrats can't agree on nuclear power with Republicans?
Because it is not an D versus R thing?
Or because it is an D versus R thing?
Sorry, a country in which politics is defined by "we against them", obviously can not make politics.
I never heard that "Democrats" are against nuclear power. Except from people like yu on /.
What actually if someone in the US would make a poll and, figure who is for it and who is against it?
That probably would finish this childish democrats versus republicans thi
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, the batting average of such predictions is not great.
So you intend business as normal, until the facts like your home being flooded or your crops failing provide sufficient evidence. But by then, it is too late.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a binary right/wrong, it's really just a question of what degree of warming Texas is going to experience.
Even the most optimistic predictions suggest that it's going to be pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this accurate article? They said a conservative estimate was 1-7 degrees, and the actual increase was 0.7. Yeah REALLY accurate.
Let me be the snarky cynic. Do you know why we talk about 3 and these low numbers? Because the folks in 1980 used the numbers that even on a conservative scale did not happen. Ergo they rejigged their numbers to make it fit the data.
https://apnews.com/article/bd4... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,"
I wonder how accurate that analysis turned out to be.
The reason that didn't (Score:2)
It's like going to McDonald's everyday and ordering One Big Mac instead of two Big Macs. You're still going to die of a heart attack, it's just going to take a little longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah, Blah, Blah. (Score:2)
nm
You better believe it (Score:2)
Because if you do not believe it Google abs Youtube will take all your money and stop paying you.
This seems unlikely (Score:3)
Here is the data for DFW over the past 100 years. There just isn't an upward trend that I can see: https://www.weather.gov/fwd/d1... [weather.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about the climate you can't use just one geographical location to draw any conclusions. It's like looking through a small hole in a wall and then declare there is no people on the other side because you couldn't see anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about the climate you can't use just one geographical location to draw any conclusions.
Why not? The authors of this study just did.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the scientist obviously didn't equate the temperature at one specific spot to the average temperature of the whole state...
Or perhaps you are suggesting that Texas has an uniform temperature that's the same regardless where you measure it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see it, are you even looking? It's not as graphically obvious as it would be if it were a graph rather than a list, but even in this form you can plainly see the 12-year streak of double-digit numbers of 100-degree days that just finished; the previous record was 6 years. Single-digit years have gone from being a common occurrence to a rarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course I was looking. Here, run the numbers for yourself.
This is the number of 100 degree days each year for the past 100 years as measured in DFW, TX in reverse year order: 9, 14, 23, 10, 18, 15, 15, 28, 34, 71, 29, 21, 30, 5, 43, 18, 1, 19, 1, 8, 46, 33, 56, 2, 13, 11, 8, 24, 1, 4, 18, 6, 25, 19, 13, 29, 19, 5, 10, 12, 69, 7, 36, 25, 5, 3, 12, 0, 13, 11, 18, 27, 3, 12, 2, 15, 27, 38, 17, 2, 12, 4, 13, 20, 48, 8, 52, 29, 44, 40, 3, 11, 21, 18, 22, 5, 22, 34, 21, 16, 5, 21, 4, 17, 19, 11, 34, 11, 12
Re: (Score:2)
I will say one thing that is curious about these numbers, and that is I don't see any record of the temperatures which produced the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. I've seen the pictures from West Texas and read the news accounts, and it was an enormously dire situation. I don't know enough to understand how one can get a record nationwide drought without corresponding record high temperatures, it would be interesting to find that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not temperature that caused the dust bowl it's farming methods and rainfall amount.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say there's a clear trend up or down, actually.
Because your numbers make no sense?
What do they mean?
Re: (Score:2)
I just did this in Excel (each number is the total 100+ degree days in a decade).
2010s 257
2000s 192
1990s 170
1980s 207
1970s 130
1960s 155
1960s 261
1940s 175
1930s 161
1920s 140
1910s 129
1900s 63
Here's the graph [imgur.com] - it shows a trend of increase, but not an "accelerating" one...
Hard to avoid feeling despair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think global warming affecting "red" states first and hardest would break the denialism and give us a shot at staving off the worst effects.
The effects are too small to convince anyone to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hard to avoid feeling despair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, they actually tend to be MORE law-abiding than the native population.
This topic is frequently discussed in Europe, where a high percentage of immigrants are come from poor Muslim countries, and supposedly have a propensity toward crime, intolerance, and terror.
What the statistics I have seen show is that immigrants themselves are more law-abiding than the native population, but the children of immigrants are less law-abiding...
Re: (Score:2)
The bread basket's days were numbered anyway. We are drawing down aquifers faster than they are replenished. Same for the soil nutrients because we've opened the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Eventually that land has to go back to being prairie.
Re: (Score:2)
Were not gonna do anything until entire breadbasket regions turn into deserts, whole cities have to be abandoned, or heat waves get so bad they collapse entire power grids and 10s of thousands of people cook to death.
You're being sarcastic, but yeah, that's true.
Re: Hard to avoid feeling despair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If taking up smoking resulted in lung cancer within 6mos less people would smoke. When covid only kills 2% even before vaccinations, its like smoking. When the feedback is not instant, people grow complacent.
Exactly this. If exactly the same number of people died, but instead the cigarette exploded and blew their head off, there would be no smokers.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. If exactly the same number of people died, but instead the cigarette exploded and blew their head off, there would be no smokers.
So kind of like how cars work?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is an alternative: stop thinking emotionally about it. By that I mean disconnect your feelings from the situation and consider things in a detached, cool manner. Then you could ask yourself questions such as the following without feelings of dread, panic, and despair:
- How much information do we really have about the situation?
- Are we really seeing things that have never happened before?
- How effective are the proposed mitigations?
- Are they feasible? What would we give up in their place?
In the
Global Warming is an opportunity (Score:2)
Places like Siberia, Greenland, Antarctica and Canada will become livable
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should google for animated maps that show how devastating the sea level rises will be.
Siberia will never be "habitable" - you are just an idiot. The 3 month polar night is not going away, just because the summer is 15 degrees C warmer (it is already 35C - you might not even survive the summer there in a warmed up world).
3C warmer means: on average - over the planet - over all seasons.
3C warmer is a catastrophe - and yes it could be the end of man kind.
Places like the Sahara, the Outback, Arabia,
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this about a single state? (Score:2)
The Texas Tribune, hates the state being red.
This is Texas, (Score:2)
they'll just pray it away and bam! it will be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they'll just pray it away and bam! it will be gone.
Could be an interesting experiment, but as far as I know, there is no atheist state to use as a control. It would be interesting to get stats on the probability of suffering the effects of bad weather, given a strong conservative Christian belief system. Yes, I know correlation does not imply causation, but maybe God is not entirely happy with how His name is taken in vain, so there might be a bit of selective smiting going on.
Good news for Texas (Score:2)
As the planet warms it will be less likely their fossil fuel electrical generation plants will freeze and seize up and result in 200 or more deaths as people freeze to death.
Bad news for Texas, Raphael Cruz won't be able to blame his daughter for him fleeing the country.
Hello? Reality here. (Score:2)
We need nuclear power. We will get nuclear power. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any politician that is serious about global warming will mention nuclear power every time global warming comes up. We will need nuclear power to lower CO2 emissions. Because of the benefits of nuclear power we will get more nuclear power. Even the "deniers" that are not concerned about CO2 emissions should be advocating for nuclear power.
One reason why I believe there will be more nuclear power used all over the world is because of videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There are more and more videos from popular science based YouTube channels talking about how safe, low in CO2 emissions, and reliable nuclear power is today and will be in the future. This is a sign of changing attitudes on nuclear power, and will change more minds on nuclear power. This is a positive feedback loop, and it will spread.
Then there's the morons with their "What about?" idiocy. What about the cost? We can fix the high current costs of nuclear power with development. Given the high costs of global warming it is difficult to imagine nuclear power costs more. To refuse to use nuclear power is saying that nuclear power is more dangerous than global warming. We can't know just how dangerous global warming will be but we can compare nuclear power to all other forms of energy. Nuclear power is very safe, and can be made to be safer.
We will get more nuclear power in the USA and around the world. This is because we are running out of options. Once we get the ball rolling on nuclear power adoption then we will be on the path to actually solve problems of CO2 emissions and energy poverty. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here but the inevitability of more nuclear power in our future.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany are taking the opposite attitude. They are phasing out nuclear, and investing heavily in wind power, photovoltaic, etc. I trust the German government to do the best for their citizens. They do seem to govern their country without to much loony ideology or party political game playing. I think they might have special experience in this regard, having fallen to the rule of the Nazis, then after that, having half their country occupied by Stalinists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. Already projects equal to nuclear reactors at LESS money and with NO waste disposal issue for 96000 years exist. THOSE will proliferate.
Industrial solar will more than fill the gap
Then we solved the problem of global warming from human activity.
I'll make the claim that we won't solve our problem of CO2 emissions until we start building nuclear power plants by the dozens then someone will reply that we don't have to build nuclear power plants because we already solved the problem. So, why are we even talking about global warming any more? If solar power is cheaper than natural gas, another common reply when the need for nuclear power is brought up, then we solved the problem because
Re: (Score:3)
I have a couple questions. First, where did you get that number? I'm not seeing anything close to $80 billion per year on nuclear power subsides from a few minutes searching the internet. Second, why would we need to subsidize solar + batteries? I'm getting "reminded" often by people posting on Slashdot that solar + batteries are already lower cost than nuclear power.
On a per MWh basis the US federal subsidies on solar power is just huge. Nuclear power plants provide 20% of the electricity in the USA,
Re: (Score:2)
France is subsidesing its nuclear power plants with 2x the amount of civilian enduser prices.
Scaling that up planet wise makes $80 billion look like an huge underestimation.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally Id like to see tank-farm-size redox flow batteries as a stopgap measure, allowing renewable energy around the clock. But I suspect we will be burning fossil fuels for a long time. As a species we wi
See? Asolutely no reason for you to move to Texas! (Score:3, Insightful)
Pack your bags Mr. Gammon (Score:2)
Here's your pink slip John. Please have the office cleared out and be off the premises by COB today. Pick up your final paycheck at the door on the way out.
Project fear (Score:2)
There is a problem selling an expensive program of renewable energy, recycling, and so on, based on what might happen some time in the future, if this is not done. Basically, you are asking people to pay for something without any obvious benefit. Not much of a vote winner.
I think there is a perception that there are organisations that stand to gain, if people are persuaded that there will be dire consequences if appropriate action is not taken. Based on that theory, the risks will be talked up, hence my tit
In celsius (Score:2)
Wake me, shake me... (Score:2)
Wake me after an independent group makes verifiable on the ground measurements for 100 years and shows these conjectures to be either true or false.
Right now, untested hypotheses are being treated as scientific fact.
Re:All fake news (Score:5, Informative)
We're royally fucked because a solvable crisis has turned into a divisive political tool by spin doctors.
Re: All fake news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: All fake news (Score:3)
So build nuclear carbon sequestoring plants in the middle of nowhere.
The only people stopping you are the same environment cry babies. They don't want to solve the problem, they want to cry.
Nuclear plants are having a tough time (Score:2)
Carbon capture is one of those ideas that gets floated to make it look like somebody's going to address the problem without ever actually addressing the problem so
Re: All fake news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically nuclear power needs a heat sink, not specifically water. You could technically use the ocean, with all its saltwater as a heat sink; Just like naval nuclear vessels.
Using saltwater isn't ideal, as it's more corrosive, so the solution would be more expensive. That's not such an issue or the USN.
It could be done on a floating platform if you needed that much power density. It also solves the middle-of-nowhere aspect.
It might simplify or complicate security.
I am, however, in favor of OTEC for ocean energy generation. You could have a 20mw OTEC power plant just doing capture. The fact that it already sucks water from 3000ft gives you a good sink for deep carbon storage.
I remember reading about those 40 years ago!
Re: (Score:3)
mmm, not sure if this is just clumsy irony or severe brain damage ...
Re:All fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeppers. And such a simple solution - replace every coal plant with a nuclear reactor. Then do the same for oil-burning power plants. And then repeat one last time for gas-fired power plants.
At that point, you've pretty much got it licked. Of course, by inserting the word "nuclear" into the discussion, I've convinced at least half the population I'm an utter madman.
Which same half would rather have AGW than nuclear, since "nuclear" is even scarier than "AGW" - note that, to date, nuclear power plants, in all of history, have killed fewer people than died on US highways yesterday morning....
Re: (Score:2)
And such a simple solution - replace every coal plant with a nuclear reactor. Then do the same for oil-burning power plants. And then repeat one last time for gas-fired power plants.
Even better, a quick Google search said a typical nuclear power plant generates 1.5-3 times that of a fossil-fuel plant, so you could theoretically also have fewer power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
a quick Google search said a typical nuclear power plant generates 1.5-3 times that of a fossil-fuel plant, so you could theoretically also have fewer power plants.
Then you have a different google than I have.
A nuclear plant usually consists of _several_ reactors. How big you make a single reactor is up to you. Same: for a coal plant. Bottom line it is easy to make them produce the same power. You just need more rector fuel or more coal. And place is most certainly not the issue for either of them. Both: ar
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, you've pretty much got it licked. Of course, by inserting the word "nuclear" into the discussion, I've convinced at least half the population I'm an utter madman.
They will not only call you a madman but also a "climate change denier". Disagreement on the solution is considered disagreement on the problem to these people.
Which same half would rather have AGW than nuclear, since "nuclear" is even scarier than "AGW" - note that, to date, nuclear power plants, in all of history, have killed fewer people than died on US highways yesterday morning....
I saw a rather precious reply to this on a YouTube video I saw recently. The guy said something like, "But you won't see a meltdown with solar power!" So, it sounds like the fear is about how nuclear power can hurt them personally. Fewer deaths don't mean anything to them because if someone else falls off a windmill or gets electrocuted with a so
Re: (Score:2)
have killed fewer people than died on US highways yesterday morning.... ...
Tell that the survivors of the 600k "regulators" from Chernobyl and they probably hang you
I know we're not supposed to complain about mods (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
spin doctors, political division and pollution are just different symptoms of the same crisis, our inability as a civilization to coexist peacefully and in harmony with each other and our environment, bumping into natural limits.
otherwise nobody would listen to spin doctors, we wouldn't need neither tyrants nor mediocre celebrities to rule, and we wouldn't have thrashed the planet.
It's not just that (Score:2)
Before you can fight climate change you need a federal jobs guarantee with good enough wages for people to feel safe
Re:Climate change is about money (Score:5, Informative)
Let's count the problems with this statement:
#1 - Project Veritas, an outfit run by a scam artist and convicted felon, whose "expose" claims have never failed to completely fall apart when the un-edited video emerges. [niemanlab.org] Their entire process relies on gullible right-wing fools who will latch onto the initial false claims and try to make a furor in the right-wing fraud ecosystem, and then try to spread it (like tsilvergun the known alt-right fraudster above) into more mainstream websites and social media.
#2 - In this case, the supposed "expose of Pfizer scientists" by Project FakeItAsses was just another one of their fake-edit video scams. [washingtonpost.com] A widely shared video by the group Project Veritas has led to a false claim online that purported emails among Pfizer officials show that the pharmaceutical company’s COVID-19 vaccine contains aborted fetal cells. But the video — an interview between Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and a self-identified Pfizer employee who claims to show internal emails from the company — does not support that erroneous conclusion.
#3 - The same applies to so called climate scientists. There are literally trillions of taxpayer money at stake and they all want a piece. - If you think that the scientists researching climate are getting "trillions of taxpayer money"[sic] into their pockets, you're delusional. "The salaries of Climate Scientists in the US range from $66,010 to $99,016 , with a median salary of $82,513 . The middle 67% of Climate Scientists makes $82,513, with the top 67% making $99,016" [comparably.com].
#4 - And yes, climate change is real, but just like covid it has been overblown for financial gain and politicized. - Ahh, the walkback. After lying out his alt-right ass, tsilvergun has to hedge his bets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real rsilvergun here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate change is about money (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another rsilvergun spoof account. What's funny is you guys walk around with red flags like this making it clear your disinformation engines.
Btw, here is a summary of your argument: "I once knew a guy who lied for money -- therefore all guys are liars because there is money in the world."
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, here is a summary of your argument: "I once knew a guy who lied for money -- therefore all guys are liars because there is money in the world."
He would know, wouldn't he. At least, one supposes he knows himself. He believes everyone else is just like him.
Re:Climate change is about money (Score:4, Insightful)
There are literally trillions of taxpayer money at stake and they all want a piece.
Yes, those evil scientists are oppressing those poor international corporations...
And yes, climate change is real, but just like covid it has been overblown for financial gain and politicized.
Twenty years ago: Climate change doesn't exist.
Twenty years from now: Climate change is real, and it wasn't overblown for financial gain or politicized, but now you can't do anything against it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
tbh it's already too late, my impression is that despite all the recent noise in front of cameras and hemicycles, the real conversation is not that much about how to combat global warning but about how to live with the fallout and eventually how to profit from it. the world isn't going to end, it's just going to stink terribly, in time many will die and many more will be impoverished. human business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia.org
Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
That Project Veritas? And where are all these super-rich scientists of which you speak? The 75% of faculty who are untenured (i.e. are precariously employed & shockingly under-paid), many of whom are eligible for welfare?
Re: (Score:3)
There seems to be a lot of money in electric cars, solar power, wind power, and more.
Given how much natural gas is needed for backup to wind and solar there has been a lot of money from the natural gas industry in support of wind and solar power, as well in closing nuclear power plants. Follow the money and you see the trail end at natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's definitely something of "big gas" in this thread ...
Re: (Score:2)
How much back up is needed for wind and solar?
I only hear on /. about such things. In Germany we have no gas back up for wind and solar. Solar is not used at night, and at night power consumption is roughly 50% of day time. For what would we need back up then?
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney. No scientist is looking to trip up other scientists in order to gain funding.
...because research money is an unlimited resource and scientist are not only completely unscrupulous, but also not at all competitive. I see. Of course, the theoretical basis of global warming was laid down by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, and the first solid quantitive analysis was by Svante Arrhenius around 1900. I'm sure all later scientists have only confirmed and refined their results to get more funding?!?
Every scientist is trying to trip up every other o (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is why we remember Bohr and have forgotten.... I don't remember... Others.
Yes, Bohr "overturned" (or rather refined) Rutherford. And Bohrs model is still valid and used to explain a lot of the behaviour of atoms. The later orbital model is based on Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Dirac, who are also not exactly forgotten in science, and who also all got a Nobel Award in physics.
Re: Climate change is about money (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow! A conspiracy spanning 60 years and untold thousands of scientists. You should be on FOX, they go for that sort of thing.
It's amazing that one wanker on Slashdot is somehow smarter than the scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)