Earth Had Its 6th-Hottest July and Year To Date On Record (noaa.gov) 180
July 2022 was the world's sixth-hottest July on record, according to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. Last month also saw Earth's sixth-hottest year to date on record as Antarctic sea ice coverage plunged to a record low for a second consecutive month. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports: The July 2022 land and ocean-surface temperature for the globe was 1.57 degrees F (0.87 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.8 degrees C). This made it the sixth-hottest July in the 143-year global climate record. July marked the 46th-consecutive July and the 451st-consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th-century average. The five warmest Julys on record have all occurred since 2016. Regionally, July 2022 was among the top-10 warmest Julys on record for several continents. North America saw its second-hottest July on record, Asia had its third hottest, South America had its fourth hottest and Europe had its sixth hottest.
The average global land and ocean-surface temperature was the sixth-warmest year to date on record, at 1.55 degrees F (0.86 of a degree C) above average. Asia had its second-hottest such YTD on record with Europe seeing its fifth hottest. Africa, North America and South America all had an above-average YTD, though it did not rank among their top-10 warmest on record. According to NCEI's Global Annual Temperature Rankings Outlook, there is a greater than 99% chance 2022 will rank among the 10-warmest years on record but an 11% chance the year will rank among the top five.
The average global land and ocean-surface temperature was the sixth-warmest year to date on record, at 1.55 degrees F (0.86 of a degree C) above average. Asia had its second-hottest such YTD on record with Europe seeing its fifth hottest. Africa, North America and South America all had an above-average YTD, though it did not rank among their top-10 warmest on record. According to NCEI's Global Annual Temperature Rankings Outlook, there is a greater than 99% chance 2022 will rank among the 10-warmest years on record but an 11% chance the year will rank among the top five.
"You're the 6th hottest girl I've met, to date" (Score:3, Funny)
Not the most impressive (head) line.
Re: "You're the 6th hottest girl I've met, to dat (Score:3)
Obligatory xkcd.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This take always makes me laugh: "The earth has had far, far warmer Julys". Yeah no crap, surface temps were 400 deg C in the planet's early days. What are you even trying to imply with that take? That things will be fine when it gets warmer?
Re: "You're the 6th hottest girl I've met, to dat (Score:2)
Re: "You're the 6th hottest girl I've met, to dat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly feel sorry for those who ended up with shit luck in the lottery that is genetics but not only have I posted a reliably sourced definition of the word that does not corroborate what you're saying but I've never heard of the term being used as you describe.
That doesnt necessarily mean you're wrong as words do change meaning but if you're correct you should be able to cite some sort of source as I have done.
Depends on the data... (Score:2, Insightful)
Some years ago, back in 2009, Anthony Watts made a splash by pointing out how many surface weather stations were in the middle of parking lots, on roofs, next to vents from air conditioners, or in a whole host of other unsuitable places. Given the embarrassment that caused, one might think that the official weather stations would have been cleaned up.
Apparently not. He just published the results of a 2022 review of the surface station network. [heartland.org] His conclusion: "After surveying a comprehensive and represent
Re: Depends on the data... (Score:2, Informative)
Watts has been debunked over and over again. Heâ(TM)s a crank. Keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Watts has been debunked over and over again."
Reference? I have never seen a debunking of his climate station survey.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Watts has been debunked over and over again."
Reference? I have never seen a debunking of his climate station survey.
Two minutes googling shows up https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
From the conclusion
Given the now extensive documentation by surfacestations.org [Watts, 2009] that the exposure characteristics of many USHCN stations are far from ideal, it is reasonable to question the role that poor exposure may have played in biasing CONUS temperature trends. However, our analysis and the earlier study by Peterson [2006] illustrate the need for data analysis in establishing the role of station exposure characteristics on
Re:Depends on the data... (Score:4, Insightful)
Literally none of that matters. At all. For comparisons.
If you have a value of X in a biased location now, and you have a value of Y in the same biased location 10 years later, then the difference between those values is unbiased.
This is basic high school science.
So Mr Anthony Watts is disingenuous and almost certainly has an agenda. I don't know, I didn't look him up, but just from what little you posted, it seems extremely obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"If you have a value of X in a biased location now, and you have a value of Y in the same biased location 10 years later"
Um, no. Because if you had a station next to an air conditioner 10 years ago, and 5 years ago someone put a parking lot next to it... Cities grow and develop. A lot of these stations are in cities, or airports, or other locations that need weather data - but are unsuitable to collect climate data. Also, many stations have been moved due to development, and the new stations are in diffe
Re:Depends on the data... (Score:5, Informative)
"The same biased location".
You do know that biased data is completely normal in all scientific research right? And there have been ways of dealing with that for literally 100's of years?
If you collect "weather data" from all over the planet, you have a pretty good idea about "climate data"
These are all known and solved problems. Discarding an analysis because you think the measurements are wrong, without even bothering to see how those measurements are used, is just disingenuous.
Mind you, not attacking you or anything, just (now that I've looked into this Watts person a little) pointing out that the person you keep quoting is.. Unreliable, to put it nicely. And almost certainly willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
However, any "correction" is going to be arbitrary.
wat
That, sir, is bollocks. In fact, such corrections are based on a system, e.g. Quality control and correction method for air temperature data from a citizen science weather station network in Leuven, Belgium [copernicus.org] (top result for my search "system for correcting for local variance in weather stations" — learn to internet, pal.)
Just because you can't imagine a useful system for correcti
Re: (Score:2)
Debunked. [wiley.com]
Re:Depends on the data... (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly.
The "Heartland Institute" is a public policy think tank, not a scientific institution. They don't care about science one way or another, and will say anything they think will affect public policy, regardless of accuracy. They are entirely about the solution, and more to the point, entirely about making sure that the solution is not "let's burn less oil."
Because they are funded by the oil companies. Who have a trillion dollars at stake in making sure people keep burning oil.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know, the Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair...there IS a sno-ball stand just down the block from it.
If that won't do it for you, t
Re:Depends on the data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some years ago, back in 2009, Anthony Watts made a splash by pointing out how many surface weather stations were in the middle of parking lots, on roofs, next to vents from air conditioners, or in a whole host of other unsuitable places.
It's almost as if you fail to understand that it's the change over time that matters, not the absolute values.
Given the embarrassment that caused, one might think that the official weather stations would have been cleaned up.
Huh?
When we say it's "the hottest day since records began" we have to use the same thermometers and locations as before. We wouldn't have valid data if we used different thermometers or moved them somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
During the US eastern heat wave a week back, one of the local neighboring weather underground sensors was reading 120+ F. It was clearly wrong. Hopefully things like that are kicked out of the data pool, or at least things like weather underground are not used for anything serious - there is apparently no way to report a bad weather station to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to move a sensor for it to become inaccurate because someone built a parking lot upwind of it or a city has grown up around it over that time.
True, but what's the alternative? Start from zero somewhere else?
It's a strawman argument though.
a) Car parks aren't being built downwind at anything like the rate that the temperature records are being broken.
b) Climate science isn't based on local thermometers, we've been using satellites to measure global temperatures for decades now and they're all seeing global average temperature rises, not just local rises.
Re: Depends on the data... (Score:2)
Seriously? Have you never heard of UHI? You put a thermometer in a built-up area, and the situation only gets worse. First, the station was next to one building, then it is on asphalt and surrounded by structures.
You cannot trust data from these stations. At all. Climate data should only be taken from stations that meet the government's own - published - standards.
It's not that hard to site stations correctly. Why has this not been done, over the last few decades??
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago, back in 2009, Anthony Watts made a splash by pointing out how many surface weather stations were in the middle of parking lots, on roofs, next to vents from air conditioners, or in a whole host of other unsuitable places. Given the embarrassment that caused, one might think that the official weather stations would have been cleaned up.
Climatology isn't the only purpose of weather stations.
For instance, people often live in cities, and they want to know the weather.
Apparently not. He just published the results of a 2022 review of the surface station network. [heartland.org] His conclusion: "After surveying
a comprehensive and representative sample of stations, 96 percent were found to be biased in some way by the
heat sink effect, or other heat sources."
Heh, nothing says "unbiased" like a guy whose entire career is based on global warming denialism.
The whole article is based on the false premise that climatologists are somehow unaware of the urban heat island effect and/or are unable to compensate for it.
In reality they are aware, and know how to either correct or ignore bad data. It doesn't matter if 99% of sensors were compl
Re: (Score:2)
One you posted something from the Heartland Institute which is backed by companies that are specifically responsible for climate change. I mean seriously look over their 990 [heartland.org] and let me know if you feel they are "unbiased". My favorite part is:
Stopping Socialism: Stopping Socialism is a project launched in 2018. Owned by Justin Haskins, co-director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute and the Author of the Amazon bestseller "Socialism is Evil: The moral case against Marx's radical dream."
Which Justin Haskins is a really "FUN" guy, and has one of my favorite books: "The American Book of Prayer: Expanded and Revised", which is a book covering what basically amounts to "Why Christianity rocks and other religions are shit, oh and here's some historical
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this "today is hottest" blah blah isn't much but a slow news day. The great part about data is you can OMIT bad items - okay, New Orleans, great. The polar bears aren't messing with the weather stations . . . and other "areas that shouldn't have bias" don't.
His point is actually a very good case for making a study of where hot spots are and what effect they have on neighboring areas.
We're behind the curve because the argument that we
July is always hot (Score:3, Interesting)
Nearly every year for as far back as I can remember July is very hot with temperatures in the mid to high 90's for weeks. It's great because it heats up my swimming pool nicely, and it's less great because it increases my energy cost for air conditioning. Then around mid-August the temperature breaks and drops into the high 70's-low 80's, and the trend continues as Labor day approaches. I close my swimming pool Labor day weekend because nobody wants to swim after that.
This year has gone exactly the same. I just turned off the house a/c and opened the windows because the outside temperature dropped to 60 at nights.
Sure, I know that's anecdotal. Just saying for this casual observer nothing has changed in decades except now I have a/c to make the summer comfortable where when I was a kid we just had windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be nice...what part of the US do you live?
Down here in New Orleans...my AC kicks on pretty much full time about early April and doesn't really shut off till maybe early to mid November.
I won't see a 60F day till maybe near December most years.
But we do start to get our first breaks in the heat mid Oct...some days in the mid to upper 70's and the humidity starts to drop a bit (for here).
I do enjoy sitting outside with t-shirt and shorts tending my rotisserie standing rib-roast on the grill for Thanksgiving, while trading pics with friends all bundled up and cold in other parts of the US.
I've heard it about it recently, but I still have a hard time imagining places with modern houses with no central A/C?!?!?
I mean, even in old houses, every where I've ever lived they at least had window units...multiples of them.
I'm in central New Jersey. We have a nice balance of the 4 seasons. Hot summer, cold winter, nice spring and fall. 130 miles of very nice beaches that I can get to easily and visit often. An hour to Manhattan or Philadelphia. The costs suck but I don't know anyplace else.
Certainly most modern houses generally are built with central HVAC, but there are a lot of older houses. My parent's place in NYC was an 1890 brownstone with oil generated steam heat. Eventually my mom got a window A/C unit.
Re: (Score:2)
And still, plenty of places around the world this summer with record heat waves that had no A/C, because it's never been that hot before in recorded history.
Here in Calfornia, most places I lived after leaving the parent's place had no central A/C. It's still considered a luxury. Usually it's apartments or attached condos that don't have them, especially in a place known for a good climate (ie, San Diego, Bay Area). Window units are often banned by an HOA or the landlord. Window units kind of suck anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying for this casual observer nothing has changed in decades except now I have a/c to make the summer comfortable ...
wat.
Nothing has changed except it got hotter.
Like... that's the main thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying for this casual observer nothing has changed in decades except now I have a/c to make the summer comfortable ...
wat.
Nothing has changed except it got hotter.
Like... that's the main thing...
Not to me. This year feels like every other year I have experienced for decades.
It's been a really nice summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to me. This year feels like every other year I have experienced for decades.
Except for needing A/C to feel comfortable unlike before.
IOW there's no difference and it feels like every other year except hotter.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, this average was calculated frm readings around the globe, including where it is winter in July. To have a global average that's 1.57F above the average for the 20th century is a lot. While temperature in your area varies a lot, average temperature around the globe is relatively stable. So when scientists say that 1 degree is lot of change that will cause tremendous effects, it's not like the difference between 2pm and 3pm in your backyard and you can't even tell there was a change, instead it's
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, this average was calculated frm readings around the globe, including where it is winter in July. To have a global average that's 1.57F above the average for the 20th century is a lot. While temperature in your area varies a lot, average temperature around the globe is relatively stable. So when scientists say that 1 degree is lot of change that will cause tremendous effects, it's not like the difference between 2pm and 3pm in your backyard and you can't even tell there was a change, instead it's 1 degree everywhere on average which greatly affects the weather, wind patterns, and so on. Which means more hurricanes, more droughts in places unused to droughts, oceans are warmer so more ice is melting, etc. Climate change isn't about someone's backyard.
In the last three decade there have been huge changes if you paid attention. Even just the last decade.
I'm sure there have been many regional changes. But if people don't feel personally negatively affected by them they aren't likely to get worked up about them. I don't know if most people's experience is like mine. I can only say this year to me has so far followed the same pattern as the years preceding. Summer is hot. If anything the occasional cool summer is annoying because it wrecks the beach season. It does extend the riding season though, so it's not all bad.
How has it felt to you? Does it feel
Re: (Score:2)
What about England and parts of Europe? Severely unusual drought and heat wave. Pacific Northwest had unusual heat waves this summer, a record breaking year in the US and not in a good way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_heat_waves_in_2022). If you don't feel any different, then you are lucky. Climate change is real, not a point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
What about England and parts of Europe? Severely unusual drought and heat wave. Pacific Northwest had unusual heat waves this summer, a record breaking year in the US and not in a good way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_heat_waves_in_2022). If you don't feel any different, then you are lucky. Climate change is real, not a point of view.
But what is your *personal* experience? Does it feel like a huge outlier, or business as usual?
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every year for as far back as I can remember July is very hot with temperatures in the mid to high 90's for weeks. It's great because it heats up my swimming pool nicely, and it's less great because it increases my energy cost for air conditioning. Then around mid-August the temperature breaks and drops into the high 70's-low 80's, and the trend continues as Labor day approaches. I close my swimming pool Labor day weekend because nobody wants to swim after that.
This year has gone exactly the same. I just turned off the house a/c and opened the windows because the outside temperature dropped to 60 at nights.
Sure, I know that's anecdotal. Just saying for this casual observer nothing has changed in decades except now I have a/c to make the summer comfortable where when I was a kid we just had windows.
Anecdotally, I remember summers being mid to low twenties (Celsius), high twenties being hot, and 30+ being one or two times a year.
Now, most of the summer seems to be high twenties and 30+ is fairly routine.
Of course, that's completely anecdotal and I doubt my memory is remotely sensitive enough to pick up temperature changes on the scale of climate change. In reality the average temperature would probably have to go up at least 3C for my memory of past climate to accurately say "oh, this is different". An
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, science requires a bit more of a finely tuned data set than "it's hot"
Your post isn't anecdotal as much as it is completely irrelevant and of little value to anyone.
"completely irrelevant and of no value to anyone" describes your life perfectly
143 year climate record! (Score:2, Interesting)
Every cloud... (Score:3)
...has its silver lining.
All that heat is melting Greenland, which we can now mine to get Nickel & Cobalt to make electric batteries for the green economy! [cnn.com]
Thanks, global warming!
Heat box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It dawned on me that most are now walking around with a small thing that constantly draws power, unlike ever before. That said, I still think the only solution is limiting future population numbers through fines and fees...we're hot too!
For scale, humans generate 80W [wikipedia.org] and cellphones consume 4W [slate.com] when they are being charged, so less than that averaged over the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just make vasectomies and tubal ligations free, and make sterility (natural or surgical) a disability eligible for benefits even if you continue to work. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whose emissions exactly would those be?
Like, start with 37 billion tons a year at the moment.
Who exactly do you want to reduce their emissions, and by how much?
Just give the top 5 or 10.
Be interesting to see whose emissions it is that have to be reduced. Then we could all get some idea about how to go about making that happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Who exactly do you want to reduce their emissions, and by how much? Just give the top 5 or 10.
Per capita, the US is near the top of the table at about 15 tonnes of CO2 per person each year. China lags well behind at around 11 or 12 tonnes of CO2 per capita -- as an industrialised nation with over four times the population of the US it does emit more CO2 in total but per capita, not as much.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple answer to your question is that it pretty much all needs to be reduced.
With that said your question is obviously far to complex to answer in a simple internet conversation. It would require a ton of research in regards to the amounts various industries and activities pollute, an exploration of what technologies exist to reduce it and what it might cost in the context of every single industry or activity (because all those costs will be different).
What I cant tell here is whether you're just obliv
Re: (Score:2)
No commercial reactors have been built because the designs are still being certified. They're safe, as is the new molten salt reactor design. Or, at least, no more unsafe than coal and oil.
143 years of data? (Score:2)
Re:Load of crap. (Score:4, Interesting)
It has been really cold in Australia this year... There is a southern hemisphere for those who forgot.
Perhaps you forgot that the earth is round, your seasons are reversed from the other side and that you hit a high in january last seen 62 years ago? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/1... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a discussion about "climate change", not hitting a new record high or low for a day or two out of a year. No matter where you live, I bet you break a high or low that was set decades ago at some point during this year. Trends make better arguments than individual occurrences.
No, "climate change" isn't a quote from TFA, you just made that up.
There are plenty of trends that will support your climate change hypothesis, stick to those. In 2021 we had our coldest day in 70 years, and our second coldest recorded temp ever where I live [wfaa.com]. Aberrations abound.
Again you're referring to something that isn't in my post and you just made up.
Re:What do the "deniers" think? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree with you the moment the deniers come up with solutions that fit their prerequisites that actually have a raindrop's chance in hell to work.
Because.. They don't.
We're way past the point where small non-invasive methods would have worked.
But of course, all deniers will just keep shouting "That's not true!", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Because that's all just "Fake News!".
Re:What do the "deniers" think? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need government to control everything, we need them to pass laws to force companies to change. If countries were to pass laws banning single-use plastics then companies would be forced to find and fund alternatives (plant-based biodegradable plastics for instance).Laws forcing carbon neutrality would also go a long way.
Yes, we can all do more, but it's time that companies did their fair share as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies can't force people to buy their stuff. Anyone can offer something better.
We didn't stop burning whale oil in lamps because the government banned it. We stopped that because petroleum oil and electric lights came to market. Whale oil just cost too much after that. We don't need the government for solutions. We need a free market where small companies with better options can grow into big companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but in that timeframe we hunted some species to extinction. Even just from 1900-1999 the low estimate is we killed nearly 3 million whales.
To be perfectly fair a 100 years ago we as society did not place the same value on whales or biodiversity like we do today but thing is market forces also will never account for such things either unless forced to with either regulation, laws or taxes. Companies and people that profitted massively from whaling have never had to deal with the negative externalities
Re:What do the "deniers" think? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need government to control everything, we need them to pass laws to force companies to change..
+1 skill in unintended irony.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government doesn't have to decide how the problem will be solved, or who will solve it, and shouldn't. All it has to do is prohibit the harmful behavior, and someone else will work out how to fix the problem and make a buck on it.
Unfortunately, it's more profitable for the entrenched megacorporations to lobby against fixing the problem than for someone to fix the problem, so that's where the money is, and how it's spent. This is why we fundamentally should not allow corporations to get anywhere even vag
Re: (Score:2)
70% of the world's greenhouse gas is produced by 10-12 companies
That is an extremely misleading statistic. It leads you to believe that the obvious solution is to just shut those 12 companies down.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop fear mongering over lower standards of living. To fix climate change we need BETTER homes and cars. Homes that are more comfortable because they don't experience huge swings in temperate, to despite being no smaller.
This is our opportunity to clean up the pollution. It damages your health if you spend any time in cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speak for the UK, but there are two basic issues.
1. Developers build crap because that's what sells. McMansions and lots of superficial features in houses that are otherwise badly designed. Or rather not designed at all, they don't use architects. They lie about the efficiency ratings too, their houses often use double or even more energy than they are supposed to on paper.
2. Developers want to maximise profits. The houses cost far less to build than they sell for, but they still won't install an
Re:What do the "deniers" think? (Score:5, Informative)
We heard exactly the same complaints 40+ years ago when California started implementing strict emissions standards, including requiring catalytic converters, higher mileage, and lower emissions. "Let the market decide! People will buy cleaner cars if they want to! You can't force people to buy more expensive cars!" Meanwhile, the number of Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Quality days in the Los Angeles Basin was in triple-digits every year of the 1980s, peaking at 160 days in 1981. That's 44% of the entire year where the air was dangerous to breathe for the entire population. The number of Good Quality Air days was in the single digits for all but three years (11 in 1983 and 10 in 1985 and 1989).
I grew up in the LA Basin in those years. It sucked getting told all the time that the smog was too much to go outside and play or to do PE. It was by far the exception where we could see the mountains that were less than 40 miles away.
These days, the number of Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Quality days is mostly measured in single digits or even zero. While 2020 saw 16 such days, the last year with double digits before that was 2006. The number of Unhealthy and Unhealthy for Sensitive People days has been declining. The number of Good Quality Air days has been 20+ for most years since 1992 (1999 and 2011 missed), and the last three years were 40+ such days.
The Los Angeles Basin, while still not the cleanest air (owing in part to geography that made it a bit smoky even before Europeans arrived), is so much cleaner than it was when I grew up there. None of that would have come about based on people making individual decisions on a laissez-faire market. Car companies wouldn't have put catalytic converters on, fitted emissions gear, or improved mileage nearly as much as they have. They would have installed larger gas tanks before they improved mileage.
I'm a moderate conservative who is skeptical of many regulations, but I will still be glad when January 1, 2035 arrives, and every new passenger vehicle sold is zero-emission. That's cleaner air and a more beautiful sky for everyone. And it lessens our ties to oil and all the international problems they bring.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot to include the data source for the Air Quality Days [laalmanac.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I remember when LA was considered to have the dirtiest air anywhere, while probably not true it was quite noticeable when you drove through it. Smog was bad enough that you really didn't want to go there. Now it's pretty nice there.
The attitudes in the 60s and 70s were just bizarre too. I knew people who'd just roll down the window while on the freeway and toss out the trash from their happy meal. Not in urban centers but in nice small towns. You'd see trash on the side of the road in rural areas.
Re: What do the "deniers" think? (Score:2)
City people's taxes subsidize rural people. Perhaps we should stop and let all the people dumb enough to live there get what they deserve.
It's almost like people who see their neighbors have more compassion than people who sit on the porch of their farm with a shotgun so they can kill anybody they don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
You want solutions? Here's one.
Step 1: Transfer all fossil fuel subsidies to building Gen4 reactors capable of burning nuclear waste, renewable energy on Earth, renewable energy in space, and fusion research.
Step 2: Expand EV power outlets considerably and switch rail to electric as far as is physically possible at this time.
Step 3: Upgrade the grid to minimise wastage and single points of failure, and to support much larger generators - to hell with what private industry thinks is economic.
Step 4: By the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism has given us better wind turbines, better solar panels, better batteries, EVs, etc.
I will challenge that statement about solar panels. This was the subject of a large government-funded R&D program, and pretty much all of the technology we now have for low cost solar arrays is the result of photovoltaic technology pioneered in this program.
The better solar panels came from government action, not capitalist.
Re: What do the "deniers" think? (Score:2)
I'm a leftie who lives close enough to LA to benefit from a high speed train to the bay, While it would be nice, that project and it's cost are a complete shit show and agree that the money should be spent on other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What do the "deniers" think? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If Pelosi is a problem then consider how she got to be Speaker of the House. People in California voted for her as their representative, then representatives in the House voted for her as Speaker. There's yet another election if there is a challenger in the primary.
Pelosi can't do what she does without the permission of the voters. She has a pattern of behavior and so there should have been no surprises here. If Pelosi is a problem then stop voting for people that keep her as Speaker.
Nobody is overlooki
Re: (Score:2)
Which I wish was a sentiment Californians shared, so they would stop trying to pick who represents me here in Georgia.
Re: (Score:2)
Living on the other side of the nation, it isn't at all up to me whether or not she represents Californians.
But you do have a role to play on if Pelosi is Speaker of the House. You know as well as I do that while members of the House could vote for anyone as Speaker after the next election the probability of Pelosi being re-elected as Speaker is near 100% if Democrats retain control of the House. If you don't care for Pelosi then don't vote for a Democrat as your Representative.
I don't know if Nancy Pelosi will run unopposed in the general election, and I suspect she's won the primary election already or will r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone stopped to think the "deniers" complaints aren't about the problem, but about the solution?
There's millions of $$$ being spent on telling them lies about they'll have to drive tiny cars and become vegans.
Re: (Score:2)
Even on ./ you assholes run articles insisting we have to eat bugs not meat. You arent helping your cause here.
I'd always assumed tha /. readers were slightly more intelligent than the guy in the street who simply isn't aware how much Big Oil is spending on keeping people using oil for as long as possible.
"Bugs" is one possible future. If it happens it won't be because anybody is "insisting", it'll be when it turns out smart people were correct about the cows and pigs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd always assumed tha /. readers were slightly more intelligent than the guy in the street...
Well there's your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG - MacMann actually said something I agree with but of course a bloody "if" at the beginning.
Hey - buddy, a simple "yes" or "no" please - is this your actual statement?
"This is a climate crisis so vote for people in government that will act like it. Vote like your life depends on it. Because it just might."
Re: (Score:2)
I put "if" because there's a lot of room between "crisis" and "denial". If everything is an emergency then nothing is, we need priorities. Perhaps keeping people from freezing and starving to death is more important than CO2 emissions. People trying to "save the planet" are going to get people killed if they don't back off a notch. Seems pointless to make a better planet for the next generation if they end up dying or driven to mental illness before they have the chance to have children of their own. I
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone stopped to think the "deniers" complaints aren't about the problem, but about the solution?
Absolutely!!!
You've nailed it. They don't like what (they think) the solution will be, so they attack the science! They don't think or care about the science one way or the other. The attacks on science are all notihng but disinformation in their campaign against possible solutions.
Solutions help the poor [Re:What do the "denie...] (Score:2)
Every suggested solution would kill millions of poor people around the world. That might have something to do with the opposition.
The most common solution proposed by the left is solar energy. Solar panels have the tremendous advantage of working well at small scales, and the third world has an advantage that most of it is very sunny. And much of the third world has underdeveloped electrical grids, or no electrical grid at all, meaning that local solar panels would be a great improvement over what they have today.
I think you may have it backwards: the solutions all benefit the third world, and the developed countries would rather mak
Re: (Score:2)
why would US senators hold up a "climate bill" for months over objections that it includes hundreds of billions of dollars in unrelated government spending? Why not remove the objectionable spending so the bill could move forward more quickly with the CO2 reduction efforts intact?
Congress can blow hot air all they want about CO2 regulations. If there isn't money to fund that hot air, that's all that it remains.
Maybe the problem is that the tax laws are so complicated that it is too easy to cheat the system.
No. Cheats, cheat the system. The complexity or simplicity of it doesn't matter. Say we had just a simple system of income based taxes and that's it. Why would a company report $14M and perhaps suffer a higher rate when they could just make tons of smaller companies that reported much lower incomes? Or why not just make everything an expense, no profit what-so-ever? We'v
Re: (Score:2)
This question has a 100,000 word answer.
No, it does not. The answer is simple. Congress does not believe global warming is a crisis. Why they might believe that could be more complicated but it is quite simple why they'd stack up so much on to a single bill to vote on. They want to use a popular issue to carry multiple unpopular issues into law. They are petty, insincere, and not acting in our best interests.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. The answer is simple. Congress does not believe global warming is a crisis
Okay, whatever.
Why they might believe that could be more complicated but it is quite simple why they'd stack up so much on to a single bill to vote on. They want to use a popular issue to carry multiple unpopular issues into law. They are petty, insincere, and not acting in our best interests
There is such a thing as over application of Occam's razor. Just something for your to consider for a second. In fact, here's a fun list [leany.com]. I wouldn't say it's a hard factoid or anything, but I always like looking at it to give me a little Devil's advocate for myself sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listened to Scott Adams lately? You might want to do that before linking to a list he created to support your argument. Pretty sure Scott Adams agrees with me more than he agrees with you, at least on how Congress is reacting to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listened to Scott Adams lately?
Yep.
You might want to do that before linking to a list he created to support your argument
Nah the list came during that period before his ego inflated to the size of Texas. Besides as I indicated, I don't hold to it like it's some kind of fact, just like to share it because it's cute.
Pretty sure Scott Adams agrees with me more than he agrees with you, at least on how Congress is reacting to global warming
Yep, more than likely. People evolve over time, strange how that works. It's like things exist in more than a binary state. Like they can be more complicated than what a surface level examination might provide.
It's funny that you mentioned the whole Scott Adams thing and the kind of reply that you did, becau
Re: (Score:2)
That something should not require handing over money
The system we live in uses money for everything. People don't work for free. Blame capitalism for everything costing money. Even piping sewage away from your home costs you money. You literally can't even take a shit without having to pay someone in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally can't even take a shit without having to pay someone in the end.
Not in the city at least. Er, well, not in many cities anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
theoretically you get a fine if you crap in the street in San Francisco. Your ability to pay that infraction is probably limited if that is what you're reduced to. So in that case it's "free" according to a lifestyle almost nobody would enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Scientist with their modest middle class life styles! Who is convinced into a life a unethical lying as part a a conspiracy that has lasted for generations dangled by the promise of a humble but manageable life and salary.
Sure if they had found solid evidence that Global Warming isn't a thing, and it isn't human caused, they would probably make millions if not billions of dollars from such a finding, and be a general hero to the world, but that is chicken scratch compared to living in a 2 or 3 bedroom
Re: (Score:2)
Because grad school is where the big bucks are!
Re: (Score:2)
how could Al Gore afford that oceanfront mansion?
Don't know much about Gore, but the picture does not show an oceanfront house, but a house on top of a hill well above the ocean. Good house for somebody worried about sea level rise.
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
The photo is of John Kerry's house on Martha's Vineyard.
Al Gore's "oceanfront" house is in Montecito, California, over a mile from the ocean. Here it is on Google Street View [virtualglobetrotting.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea all those other Vice Presidents, and other folks who have worked in high end positions in the US government are dirt poor.
He probably got the money for the mansion from his Futrarama voice work.
Al Gore was well known and wealthy before he went on his environmental push. People just happened to listen to him, because he was Well known and wealthy.
Those big Oil, Coal and Auto Execs who are pushing that Global Warming is a big scam, also have their fancy mansions too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, they assumed that since he was well known and wealthy he knew what he was talking about and never thought to question his claims.