Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Antarctica has lost more ice in four years than the Arctic has in 34 years
Comments
-
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.HustlinOwl said:
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.salemcoog said:
What a retarded article.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 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. -
Ice is unsafe. Think about all the accidents you've had while slipping on ice. I am FOR melting the ice.
-
I blame the Paris Climate Accord. It was signed at the end of 2015 and ice levels suddenly dropped afterwards. Trump announced in June of 2016 that the US was withdrawing and the ice levels started going up again (as they did from 1979-2015.)
Much better correlation than to CO2... -
Yes, and polar land mass disqualifies all scientific data. Dumbfuck.salemcoog said:
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.HustlinOwl said:
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.salemcoog said:
What a retarded article.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 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. -
Agree on gas. I'm not sure we need a replacement so much as we need to "budget in" its emissions until that new tech is found.RedRocket said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.RedRocket said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
So you are on board with nuclear then yes?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
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.
I wouldn't really build "new" nuke stations. We've been actively decommissioning here in CA.
You mean like the subsidies we've been spending on Solar? Again, I'm speaking from a CA perspective. I'm not a fan of carbon pricing in any proposal I have heard so far in that most of them require formations of large government bodies to handle and lots of policing, enforcement, etc. of a commonly found gas. I'm happy to hear what you have to propose though and think on it. It's really a question of how to calculate in external costs and whether you want to do that through stick or carrot.
I regularly advocate for government money for further R&D into energy and other sectors. It's the type of thing that separates me from @MikeDamone and makes me not a real classic lib. -
Wait...the left wants to ban ICE but complains about the lack of ice.
-
Sea ice and Ice caps aren't mutually exclusive sheeple.HustlinOwl said:
Yes, and polar land mass disqualifies all scientific data. Dumbfuck.salemcoog said:
You're dog whistling by conflating these issues will not stand.HustlinOwl said:
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.salemcoog said:
What a retarded article.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 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. -
The government subsidy for nukes would be to commit to a standard design and permitting process. When we build a new nuclear navy ship we don’t custom design a new nuclear engine. All the over budget nuclear plants are custom non-standardized plants that then are delayed while engineering problems are dealt with during the construction process instead of before the construction process. Then toss in a massively inefficient permitting process.
If combined cycle natural gas plants remain cheaper than nukes, then let the state public utility commissions and state legislatures decide what they want to replace base load coal plants with. If Cali wants base load electricity then they can figure out what they want to buy. Nukes should be a lot cheaper than batteries. If it is cloudy and the wind doesn’t blow for a week, that is a sh*t load of back up batteries that you will need. Either that or freeze in the dark.
-
Holy fuck you are lying your ass off. Show where Gore said they'd be melted. And it's bullshit that 2014 was a record rear for ice coverage. Use your brain.HoustonHusky said: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...
-
Here is what he said:2001400ex said:
Holy fuck you are lying your ass off. Show where Gore said they'd be melted. And it's bullshit that 2014 was a record rear for ice coverage. Use your brain.HoustonHusky said: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...
“Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Antarctic ice looks to have been a record.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014
Arctic ice decreased.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
