The Earth's CO2 Levels Are Increasing Faster Than Ever (msn.com) 168
"Atmospheric levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide aren't just on their way to yet another record high this year," reports the Washington Post.
"They're rising faster than ever, according to the latest in a 66-year-long series of observations." Carbon dioxide levels were 4.7 parts per million higher in March than they were a year earlier, the largest annual leap ever measured at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration laboratory atop a volcano on Hawaii's Big Island. And from January through April, CO2 concentrations increased faster than they have in the first four months of any other year...
For decades, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa in the month of May have broken previous records. But the recent acceleration in atmospheric CO2, surpassing a record-setting increase observed in 2016, is perhaps a more ominous signal of failing efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the damage they cause to Earth's climate. "Not only is CO2 still rising in the atmosphere — it's increasing faster and faster," said Arlyn Andrews, a climate scientist at NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. A historically strong El Niño climate pattern that developed last year is a big reason for the spike. But the weather pattern only punctuated an existing trend in which global carbon emissions are rising even as U.S. emissions have declined and the growth in global emissions has slowed. The spike is "not surprising," said Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 Program at Scripps Institution, "because we're also burning more fossil fuel than ever...."
El Niño-linked droughts in tropical areas including Indonesia and northern South America mean less carbon storage within plants, Keeling said. Land-based ecosystems around the world tend to give off more carbon dioxide during El Niño because of the changes in precipitation and temperature the weather pattern brings, Andrews added. And for CO2 concentrations to fall back below 400 parts per million, it would take more than two centuries even if emissions dropped close to zero by the end of this century, she added.
This year's reading "is more than 50 percent above preindustrial levels and the highest in at least 4.3 million years, according to NOAA."
"They're rising faster than ever, according to the latest in a 66-year-long series of observations." Carbon dioxide levels were 4.7 parts per million higher in March than they were a year earlier, the largest annual leap ever measured at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration laboratory atop a volcano on Hawaii's Big Island. And from January through April, CO2 concentrations increased faster than they have in the first four months of any other year...
For decades, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa in the month of May have broken previous records. But the recent acceleration in atmospheric CO2, surpassing a record-setting increase observed in 2016, is perhaps a more ominous signal of failing efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the damage they cause to Earth's climate. "Not only is CO2 still rising in the atmosphere — it's increasing faster and faster," said Arlyn Andrews, a climate scientist at NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. A historically strong El Niño climate pattern that developed last year is a big reason for the spike. But the weather pattern only punctuated an existing trend in which global carbon emissions are rising even as U.S. emissions have declined and the growth in global emissions has slowed. The spike is "not surprising," said Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 Program at Scripps Institution, "because we're also burning more fossil fuel than ever...."
El Niño-linked droughts in tropical areas including Indonesia and northern South America mean less carbon storage within plants, Keeling said. Land-based ecosystems around the world tend to give off more carbon dioxide during El Niño because of the changes in precipitation and temperature the weather pattern brings, Andrews added. And for CO2 concentrations to fall back below 400 parts per million, it would take more than two centuries even if emissions dropped close to zero by the end of this century, she added.
This year's reading "is more than 50 percent above preindustrial levels and the highest in at least 4.3 million years, according to NOAA."
a worthy dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear - this is what we need, it doesn't emit CO2 and it works around the clock and provides massive amounts of energy and it doesn't degrade the way solar does and it can be easily controlled and the waste is stable and becomes more and more stable over time, unlike what the detractors tell us. This is what we need, it's not what we are getting obviously.
I think there are a few stories that should be posted every day, over and over again, there are answers to these stories that should be posted over and over again, the only thing that works with people is constant repetition, you can even teach people to sympathize with terrorists, like the idiots who chant for palestine and hamas, I am always amused by women on campuses and the non binary individuals, homosexuals and trans people who rally for Islamic causes, I wish them to get what they are chanting for, I just want to be there when the Islam does to them what it is supposed to do to them.
So we can teach people to be anything, any ridiculous thing at all on Tik Tok and such, this means that it is a failure of the thinking community that there are so many ignoramuses out there preventing the obvious solutions to the most pressing problems. We have to use nuclear instead of coal, gas, oil. We have to stop terrorism, which means supporting Israel and Ukraine. We have to deal with the failing economies by shrinking down government spending and allowing people to work for living instead of relying on government hand outs. Those are clearly unpopular opinions, they are fortunately or unfortunately the correct ones.
Re:a worthy dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
(There's a lot to unpack in your post. I'm going to ignore the less valuable parts)
Nuclear - this is what we need, it doesn't emit CO2 and it works around the clock and provides massive amounts of energy and it doesn't degrade the way solar does [...]
Acting on that assumes people are ready to build out nuclear power today. The public hasn't bought into nuclear power yet, and might always be afraid of it. Some nations like China are likely to mobilize toward nuclear power as they shutter coal and gas.
The United States is culturally able to accept nuclear power in their back yard, not counting the handful of affluent people who won't even tolerate windmills or overpasses in view of their property. But the construction industry in the US isn't capable of building plants on budget, on time, nor to multiple reactors at once.
Europe doesn't make as big of a slice of the CO2 output as the US, China, and India, and while they have the technology and some of the construction capacity, it seems a lot of Europeans don't want nuclear power plants in their neighborhood. I could be wrong, and maybe some of them have changed their tune recently?
Nuclear power plants do required more maintenance than a photovoltaic solar system. And reactors are shut down on a regular schedule, meaning you do get 0 output from them during that period. So you generally want to have multiple reactors at a site. Solar can be hot swapped for maintenance, individual panels can be removed from an installation and replaced with new ones. And panels can be refurbished and used in the same installation or sold in a different market.
Some ways to even out solar would be to setup an installation ladder, where you add new panels every year and when the oldest panels have reached the end of their useful service life you replace them in batches every year with technology that is 10 years newer. There are lots of disadvantages to solar, but it initial cost is cheap and you can make use of unused urban areas to install rooftop solar.
Ignoring the limited amount of rooftop solar, Nuclear power still wins at using the least amount of area for the most power produced. I don't mind having both technologies in place when it makes sense. For example, a grocery store can run their day time lights 100% on solar. And some hospitals report that they cut their power bill by a third or more with solar. Saving money seems like a good reasons to go "green".
you can even teach people to sympathize with terrorists, like the idiots who chant for palestine and hamas,
I sympathize with children, who are in the middle of this through no fault of their own, and the parents who have lost children in a senseless war. But I condemn the use of violence against civilians for political ends (terrorism), such as kidnapping civilians and holding them for months in order to extort Israeli. Is that too nuanced? I hope not.
there are so many ignoramuses
If, for example, I am an ignoramus. Is there any way for me to know? Maybe I'm too stupid to know how stupid I am. The question is an example the Dunning–Kruger effect. Scary thing is I'm registered to vote. Imagine a millions of idiots going to the ballot box armed with whatever trash they heard on the Internet?
Re:a worthy dupe (Score:5, Informative)
Europe doesn't have an issue with people not wanting nuclear near them. It's two other things.
The first is cost. It's astronomical here, and there are cheaper options. Also takes 20 years to build, so it needs multiple governments to back it financially. It can't be built privately, only governments can finance it due to the high cost.
The second is that in some countries there is strong anti nuclear sentiment in general, particularly Germany. They don't have or want nuclear weapons either so have a choice over civilian nuclear power too.
Re: (Score:2)
UAE figured out how to build nuclear power plants on time and on budget. Are you telling me that Germany can't figure this out? I suspect that they can, they just don't yet have the political will. If they had been unable to get copious amounts of LNG shipped in from USA and Canada then I'd expect their attitudes on nuclear power would have changed very quickly. As it is now it may take another shift in energy supplies to shake some sanity into them.
UAE didn't take 20 years to build their nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
UAE uses slave labour and has a terrible safety record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a controversial topic [humanrightsresearch.org]. The poster isn't just making it up for the LuLz. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean he's trolling you.
Re: (Score:2)
The UAE is widely accepted (in the West) as using modern slavery. The victims are paid (a very small amount), but the conditions are set up to make them indentured servants. Not enough money to move out of the dormitories, which they have to pay to use. Instant arrest and deportation if they resign or even try to find better work. Poor conditions and zero rights, with no enforcement of any laws that would protect them.
It's been an issue with events held in the UAE. The facilities are all built with slave la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Nuclear - this is what we need, it doesn't emit CO2 and it works around the clock and provides massive amounts of energy and it doesn't degrade the way solar does and it can be easily controlled
Nuclear power isn't great for variable output, though it's awesome for base load. It can be the majority of your solution, but it can't be your sole solution. You have to worry about providing power to the reactor for cooling for weeks after a shutdown, so as we've seen in Ukraine... anywhere you have a neighbo
Re: (Score:2)
That is a overlapping problem with renewable though and the solution is the same, keep building more storage. Nuclear reactors can vary their output, they are just slow at it having to do it over big gradual shifts.
Have enough buffer in the grid and ability to vary your other sources and it can managed. Also pretty good idea to build energy intensive process right next to the plants which can use up the excess power. Waste incineration, fuel synthesis, desalination, even just compute projects. Extra e
Re: (Score:2)
And of course having to wildly over engineer them because failure simply isn't an option. Cost / benefit has never made sense for nuclear on the large scale. Far too much of the cost isn't included in the price.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue the lack of standardization is also a political issue. Standards have to be enforced usually, it's what France generally does with their reactors and Canada did as well the with the CANDU reactors.
There is not a technical reason not to standardize but putting private companies in competition isn't going to generally lead to a sharing of knowledge or plans by itself. At the bare minimum the US needs a "reference design" that is open to people wanting to build plants. That can also help the r
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly, in limited cases like that even oil based d
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah for sure agree there, we are behind the 8 ball but with nuclear power i often think of various versions of "the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the next best time is today"
Also I am big on it not just because of climate but just the fact that I really love the idea of a future with electricity "too cheap to meter" as it were, i don't just want to replace our existing fossil fuel based power needs, I want to exceed them, by a lot. So much energy things like hydrogen cracking becomes pretty v
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables though, I really think can. The reasoning, is there literally is no fuel cost. The number that really sold me was 8000:1. That's the amount of solar energy that hits the earth each year compared how much energy all of the planet currently uses.
in a single hour, more energy i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Got any more extreme lies to pack into that? Essentially nothing you said is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Fission Nuclear is absolutely needed for the next couple decades because it's CO2 climate change benefits outstrip its *numerous* problems.
It is, hands down, the most expensive method of power generation we have - and that doesn't even include the cost of storing that 'stable' waste for, checks notes, longer than modern society has existed.
The epitome of hubris to think th
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear - this is what we need
It might be what we need but it's not at the price tag a private nuclear industry can afford. There's is only one option that can ever make nuclear an option in the United States and that is a fully controlled government ran and funded state program. Not when we can literally build 38 x 1 GWh solar installs for the cost of a single 1 GWh electrical nuclear plant. And right now, solar is still not completely refined, it's still has massive room for increasing effectiveness and driving costs down. It woul
Dupe (Score:3)
Didn't we see this story yesterday?
Yes, carbon dioxide ppm is the highest ever measured. No, that's not news: it's a rising curve. Every year is a record high. We're adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere faster than it's being removed.
This year's rise over last year's high was slightly greater increase than usual, but the difference is well within the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dupe (Score:2)
I hope you mean plug in hybrids and not regulat hybrids. My first car was a hybrid, a 2001 Prius. Now I drive a 2015 Volt PHEV. Husband drives a 2017 Bolt. He rarely uses the whole battery. I did run it down to empty a couple weeks ago, though
Re: (Score:2)
There's another solution that can help: Slow or stop the adoption of long range EVs. Use hybrids instead. Creating the batteries creates a huge spike in carbon, even if it does play out in the long run.
I'm not sure which oil company you learned this from, but you should show data if you're going to make such assertions.
How does this compare with models? (Score:3)
Re:How does this compare with models? (Score:4, Informative)
Is the increasing derivative consistent with climate models or is it a surprise?
The increasing derivative is well within the meaurement error, but in any case, real or not, it has nothing to do with climate models. Carbon dioxide concentration is an input to the climate models, not an output.
Data for the most recent year is here: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluem... [ucsd.edu] and the full record since measurements began is here: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluem... [ucsd.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Of course that concentration doesn't change much but the rate at which it reaches some equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration should matter.
It changes [iaea.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think its that simple. CO2 is absorbed or desorbed from the oceans, and metabolized by plants. The human generated CO2 is an input to the models,
Yes, and is the vastly most important part of the input of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Really. The rise in CO2 concentration isn't an output of climate models. This is input to the model.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How does this compare with models? (Score:2)
Most models underestimate the warming, because the climate scientists assume humanity will decrease or hold constant CO2 emissions. In fact, humanity has in increased fossil fuels consumption year over year for decades.
The allure of cheap energy is strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Most models underestimate the warming,
Really? What makes you believe this? It appears to me that the models have been over estimating the warming because there's been many very widely published predictions of far more warming than we've actually seen in the last 50 years. How many times has a date been predicted for some major city to be underwater, that date passes, and not seeing any city underwater?
because the climate scientists assume humanity will decrease or hold constant CO2 emissions.
It appears to me that the models will have three lines, a "best case", a "worst case", and a line in the middle on if nothing changes. Could
Re: (Score:2)
uh, good news? this is patently false? renewables are getting cheaper literally every year. linky [nrel.gov]
It's cheaper to build an entirely 'new' solar plant than to just operate an existing coal plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar PV is cheaper at producing electricity not energy. For heating, mostly gas is cheaper. It is also dispatchable. So, solar power has only displaced gas for heating in a few places -- many of the Greek islands use Solar systems for water heating, especially in the holiday sector where the chief disadvantage of solar (winter) doesn't really matter.
Gas also has other advantages -- it's easier to move around for example on roads or water, at least till you have a functional grid.
It will be several years be
Re: (Score:2)
Human CO2 emissions are an input to the models. Some scenarios may underestimate warming due to underestimating CO2 emissions, while others (may) overestimate it. That's why, for example, the IPCC considers a bunch of scenarios.
None of the common scenarios assume we'll hold CO2 emissions constant. Most of them assume we'll continue to increase for a while, then start reducing emissions, and they consider different timelines for that happening.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a concern, because if they start to become right because of some unaccounted for variable moving- we're really fucked.
Right now, CO2 sensitivity is lower than most models think. This is scary. It can mean there's an unaccounted for sink. That sink may not have infinite capacity.
It may release its carbon atmospherically when it fails.
Being on the low side of most models is not a comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an exponential, and a remarkably consistent one:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/tren... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Just eyeballing, it appears to have about a 20 year doubling time. Maybe a little less.
Without AI (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember seeing, AI is sucking up all new power, forcing utilities to keep fossil fuel plants on-line. If not for AI, I think I read we would be on our way to removing fossil fuel for electricity.
So I guess +2.5C and probably +3.0C here we come :(
Re: (Score:2)
AI isn't a significant slice of our society's energy usage. AI, data centers, etc are bundled with the commercial sector when it comes to US DOE statistics. And Industry and Transportation and Residential all use more than the Commercial sector. [eia.gov]
So I have to ask. Is your complaint about "AI sucking up new power" based on some data, or is it an assumption on your part? And is there information showing that this forces utilities to keep fossil fuel plants online?
Re: (Score:2)
AI data centers are power hungry the same way giant bit coining mining operations are. Crypto currency mining could be using as much as 2.3% of all the electricity generated in the US https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov], give AI some time to catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes you are training AI continuously. Which isn't the case in a production system, where you are doing mainly inference. And the development clusters are much much smaller and run for short duration. So no, cryptomining and AI are not comparable. It's like trying to argue that streaming Netflix is equivalent to mining bitcoin.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember seeing, AI is sucking up all new power, forcing utilities to keep fossil fuel plants on-line. If not for AI, I think I read we would be on our way to removing fossil fuel for electricity.
So I guess +2.5C and probably +3.0C here we come :(
Well, if it makes you feel any worse, that power was likely sucked from former $hitcoin-mining operations. We may have been well on our way before AI even learned how to brain-fart.
Re: (Score:3)
So I guess +2.5C and probably +3.0C here we come :(
Unless we act decisively in the next few years, it will be a lot more. Do you see anybody about to act decisively? Because I do not.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen as these llms cause increasingly large numbers of layoffs. I know there's a bunch of old farts here on slash dot that don't believe that
Good news everyone! (Score:2)
There is a big upside to this. Plants do better, higher crop yields *and* less water required! This is huge.
Downside--rich snobs beach property is washed away. Poor people in poor countries move to higher ground. Skiing not so good. Climate Nazi's scream "I told you so!", and most people don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plants do better
Not always. Plant growth is constrained by a lack of any one of a number of critical nutrients. So you can give them all the CO2 you want and it may not help.
For one thing, we are going to have to increase the supply of atmospheric NOx which plants can use. So far, the primary source of this is lightning. But we may be able to engineer some other processes.
Stop beating the dead horse. (Score:2)
Re:Maybe we should have built Nuclear (Score:4, Interesting)
The most recent nuclear power plant units were at Vogtle, and the 2 reactors cost $34 billion and took 15 years to construct. Its easy to say that that is absurd and it *shouldn't* cost that much (I agree) but it did.
I like nuclear as a solution, especially ADS which greatly reduces the amount of nuclear waste (by 100X or more) but at the moment it's just not economically viable. If climate were an immediate emergency, we'd cut through the red tape, build 10,000 reactors and be done, but the public just isn't willing to go there yet
Re: (Score:2)
We can make nuclear power affordable, we just need people motivated to do so.
A large number of Very Smart Committed People Motivated To Do So have been trying to do exactly that for more than half a century, without success. And now my electric bills have an essentially permanent upcharge to pay for the failed nuc plants here in Ohio.
Re: (Score:2)
The people sketching blueprints and flinging shovels may have been committed. The people calling the shots never were committed.
The problem with nuclear is willpower, mostly on the political end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In practice though do you see any hope that the US (or Japan, or Germany, or the UK etc) will put in the huge investment needed to make nuclear economically viable?
I have some hope, but not a lot. I think part of the issue in the US is we tend to view it through the lens of cost/expense (it costs X to build and operate and brings in Y dollars per year) when we should look at it as basic infrastructure. Like a highway doesn't pay itself back in money, on the books it's a net loss but it's the economic activity it generates that has the value. Almost all infrastructure works like this since the governments can recoup the cost in the taxes on that economic activity.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a US thing though and a bigger problem than just nuclear, I agree. We spend just way too much and take way too long for projects. I just read something today that the Italians built a subway tunnel under the Coliseum in Rome for about $700M per mile. In NYC it was $4.1B per mile. There's so many aspects of it but it's just decades of regulation cruft, bad policies from the 70's and we are as aw hole overly litigious.
Something I have hears is that in many part of Europe and Asia is they have a "ha
Re: (Score:3)
Something I have hears is that in many part of Europe and Asia is they have a "hard out date" on environmental reviews for public projects, like here is the date and any complaints or lawsuits are just done by that date and when a decision is made it's done
How do lawyers feed their families?
Re: (Score:2)
Well now I am imagining a lawyer in Europe on the side of the road with a sight that says "will file lawsuits for a hot meal"
Re:Maybe we should have built Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are going to spend 1 trillion dollars, you will probably need a better ROI than nuclear R&D will provide. Building renewables will provide more jobs, and you can also use the cash to improve people's homes and therefore quality of life directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have a shortage of food, or educators, or clothes? Is the shortage of homes due to a lack of labour to build them?
The answer to all of those is no, we are not Labour constrained. In fact, what we need is better paid jobs.
Also, as ever, nobody gives a shit about EROEI when the "fuel" is free.
Re: (Score:2)
A new nuclear baseload is cheaper than both energy transport and energy storage. We have to quadruple the size of our grid to make solar and wind viable for a 100% solution. The amount of storage for 100% wind and solar grid is orders of magnitude greater than nuclear.
Any rational modern solution includes a combination of solar, wind, and nuclear. But only building solar and wind guarantees a spot on the grid for fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't whether global warming is cheaper but whether nuclear is the cheapest option. Its competition is Solar / wind + energy_transport + energy storage. There seems to be a lot more progress on the costs of energy storage than there is on nuclear costs, and solar in the desert is already cheaper than fossil (and much cheaper than nuclear).
Indeed and if the cheapest and fastest option is going to get us to net zero then there is no need for further discussion on the matter. I consider the problem solved and will go on about my life as always.
Re: Maybe we should have built Nuclear (Score:3)
Red tape is there for a reason usually based on experience. Your red tape is mythical beast
Re: (Score:2)
In the 49 year history of the the NRC only two reactors have gone through the regulatory gauntlet, Vogtle 3 and 4. Only 2. Every other reactor was grandfathered in from the Atomic Energy Commission. You see nuclear had always been regulated. The problem was nuclear was growing exponentially and was poised to kill coal. So the coal industry lobbied for and helped create the NRC to stop new nuclear. And it worked. The first thing the NRC did was implement automatic 4 year delays into new construction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is a viable solution to climate change. We could have prevented climate change while reducing energy costs and air pollution.
You nookyaller trolls are getting a bit redundant as well as unable to see the big picture. It's as if all of the de-sequestered carbon is from power plants. Are you going to reboot the atomic airplane and the atomic cars while you are at it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No nuclear powered airplanes required, only carbon neutral jet fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I wonder, given the amount of say jet fuel used worldwide - will this process scale?
Re:Maybe we should have built Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change would have been way cheaper to deal with 40 years ago than it will cost us today. But we'll probably wait another 20 years and then complain about how expensive it is to simultaneously cut oil production, plastic use, and build all these nuclear power plants that we need. While suffering rolling blackouts for several years while we try to bring everything online.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you mean, complaining about the ever increasing costs of cranking the AC longer and longer (and if necessary building coal plants to run them).
Re: (Score:2)
But was the manufacturing capacity there to accomplish that?
The book "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" takes a neutral look at many options and what would be involved in each. For nuclear, I remember a bottleneck in pressure vessel development.
Even if we went same road as France we'd have more work to do, on things like agriculture and cement production.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is not. End of discussion. Peddle your quasi-religion someplace else.
Re:Maybe we should have built Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Antinuclear Germany - 400 g CO2 per kWh
Nuclear France - 53 g CO2 per kWh
Its clear from the simple metric that nuclear is actual science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking of simplistic idiots...
Since turning off its last nuclear reactors in April 2023, Germany has become a net electricity importer. Since then, Germany has imported more than 1327000 MWh of electricity from nuclear reactors in France every single month. For example, in January 2024, Germany exported 86939 MWh to France while importing 1512436 MWh of nuclear power from France.
You can see the "imports from France" stats below, coming from the Statistisches Bundesamt:
Re: (Score:3)
Emissions are increasing because developing nations are... Developing.
Are your proposing we give developing nations nuclear technology? We would have to hand it over so they can build and run it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some may disagree that e.g. Iran has a right to nuclear power. And even if you trust them with it today, can you be sure they won't get a despot in some day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This all seems to be based on US roads that are massive by European standards. Our cities tend to be too cramped to allow for those huge multi-lane roads to be converted into divided cycle lanes and pedestrian areas, or have light rail retrofitted. There are places in Europe that have it, but retrofitting it to e.g. London is going to be impossible. Many of the streets are barely wide enough for modern cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions are increasing because developing nations are... Developing.
Well, that's part of it.
But it's also not like developed nations have reduced their CO2 impact. They have reduced its growth
Re: (Score:2)
It *was*- that's for certain. But that ship has sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would genuinely like (Score:5, Informative)
They appear to be a climate change denial front who lie about who they are;
https://www.verificat.cat/en/w... [verificat.cat]
=Smidge=
Re:4.3 million years? (Score:5, Informative)
yeah... nope. Ice cores are a sick joke (Score:2)
Ice is one of the least stable things there is. Put some ice cubes in your freezer for a few MONTHS (not years, or centuries, or millenia...) and watch the change. In other words, do the same sort of small-scale science experiment demos that the global climate alarmists do with jars of CO2.
Anybody who has ever played with ice in any serious way knows that not only does it sublimate, but it also can lose gasses that were trapped in it when it froze, and also gain things that were NOT in it when it initially
Re: (Score:2)
But taking a step back, we have measurements of CO2 increase over the past several decades, and those correlate with industrial output of CO2. The greenhouse effect is well understood physics. It may be possible to construct a model where CO2 levels were hither in the past, appeared to correlate with glaciation but didn't really, and where there is some temperature feedback mechanism that corrects for greenhouse effects and some feedback mec
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure you turn off the auto-defrost setting in your freezer first. Or just bury you ice cubes under a few miles of other ice to be sure...
(At least 1/2 a mile will keep it safe from onions.)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the last half billion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
(2) One of the biggest issue with climate change is not so much the new levels we are reaching, but the speed at which we are reaching them. Ice ages are extinction events because they happen very fast and large parts of the biotopes can't adopt (even those not just covered in a few hundred meters of ice in a few years).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was. I don't think you would have liked it back then though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If 0 represents an iceball earth in which only deep ocean life can survive, and 3kppm represents the Jurassic period, where there were no ice caps on the planet, and sea levels were about 230 feet higher than they are today, and much of the planet was physically unsurvivable for a human being, then we're not very close to zero at all, now are we?
Re: (Score:2)
more crops, more food, less fertiliser
Wont you need more fertilizer for the faster and bigger crops?
You're only considering one thing and ignoring all the others.
You disagree with established scientific facts? (Score:3)
More CO2 in the atmosphere does indeed green the planet. Plenty of scientists have documented this. NASA has documented it. CO2 in the atmosphere in increased concentrations does indeed benefit most plants. The previous poster was correct, and your labeling that poster "stupid" adds nothing to the discourse. If you had some ground-breaking counter-factual wherein somebody just got a Nobel prize for proving a long-standing fact (CO2 leading to more plant growth) wrong then you ought to have posted it.
Facts r
Re: (Score:2)