Antarctica has lost more ice in four years than the Arctic has in 34 years

Gwad said:

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/02/antarctica-has-lost-more-ice-in-four-years-than-the-arctic-has-in-34-years

Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.

The climate changes. Always has. HTH

I am sure you will be the first to stop driving a vehicle to help with your carbon footprint right?

CuntWaffle said:

I am sure you will be the first to stop driving a vehicle to help with your carbon footprint right?

I hear Gwad already cut off his dick to reduce rape so this makes sense.

Gwad said:

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/02/antarctica-has-lost-more-ice-in-four-years-than-the-arctic-has-in-34-years

Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.

What a retarded article.


The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.

So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RedRocket said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

allpurpleallgold said:

So you are on board with nuclear then yes?

How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.

I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.

I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.

Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.

Where do you stand on subsidies and increased grant funding for research into other clean energy? You can't replace fossil fuels until you pioneer a new source of energy. Solar, wind, and nuclear combined can't meet our transportation energy needs alone.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RedRocket said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

allpurpleallgold said:

So you are on board with nuclear then yes?

How do you plan to make nuclear price competitive with renewables and natural gas? There's a reason why you never see nukes in an IRP, it's prohibitively expensive with current technology. If you're a nuke advocate then you should also be pushing hard for a carbon price...which I've never seen you do.

I'm glad you entered the discussion. You and I both know renewables don't work for night time baseload without some other form of battery than we currently have.

I advocate subsidies for nukes, reducing red tape from the EPA, and using imminent domain around NIMBY-ism (Yuka Mountain). Those would all reduce costs.

Natural Gas has it's own issues but getting India and China off of coal and onto Natural Gas would probably reduce emissions by more than anything the US could do. Other than what we are currently doing(exporting) I'm not sure what we can do to encourage that though.

I'm not on the all renewables bandwagon. Natural gas right now is filling a need that no other resource can provide including nuclear. The debate should center on what can replace gas, and right now the answer is nothing. There is a lot of promising technology but no silver bullet.

In terms of making nukes more economical I'm skeptical of the cut red tape argument without any specifics. They are expensive to build in the US until they arent. It also doesn't really make sense to build a new conventional nuke unless it's used as replacement for an existing baseload plant since electricity demand right now is flat.

A direct federal subsidy would have to be huge...like 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a nuclear plant to make it competitive with natural gas or renewables. I would rather have a more market based incentives like carbon price or wholesale market mechanism that better values on demand dispatch...the second point is already being discussed in most regional markets.

Even if you're not a fan of a carbon price I would still argue that federal money would be better spent investing in R & D than direct funding construction of existing nuclear technology. Seems more important to figure out the technology that can actually replace natural gas before putting shovels in the ground and going hard in a certain direction.

salemcoog said:

Gwad said:

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/02/antarctica-has-lost-more-ice-in-four-years-than-the-arctic-has-in-34-years

Not sure if climate change is real. I'm gonna wait to see if food keeps showing up at my local grocery store.

What a retarded article.


The Arctic Circle has relativity little land mass compared to the Antarctic. So.... therefore there is exponentially more ice in Antarctica.

So when you have a quatrillion ice cubes stacked up and it gets above freezing, you are gonna lose a lot more ice cubes than the area that has a few billion ice cubes stacked up.

Proportion is certainly important. Like Bob's argument that there's a higher proportion of blacks in prison than whites simply because they're black.

Gore had said way back when that the ice caps were going to melt by 2014. 2014 ended up being a record year for ice coverage in Antartica.

This looks like AOC's prediction might come true? From the paper...