SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Buried below the ice sheet that covers most of Greenland, there's an abandoned U.S. Army base. Camp Century had trucks, tunnels, even a nuclear reactor. Advertised as a research station, it was also a test site for deploying nuclear missiles.
The camp was abandoned almost 50 years ago, completely buried below the surface. But serious pollutants were left behind. Now a team of scientists says that as climate warming melts the ice sheet, those pollutants could spread.
When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built Camp Century in 1959, an Army film touted it as an engineering marvel — a cavernous home dug into the ice sheet, big enough for up to 200 people. Some sections were more than 100 feet deep. "On the top of the world," the film's narrator intoned, "below the surface of a giant ice cap, a city is buried. Today on the island of Greenland, as part of man's continuing efforts to master the secrets of survival in the Arctic, the United States Army has established an unprecedented nuclear powered Arctic research center."
[...] The climate computer models say the camp could be uncovered by the end of this century.
Now, that's a worst-case scenario, based on an assumption that the world's governments won't do much to further reduce greenhouse gases that cause warming. But other things are happening that could spread that waste sooner.
Source: NPR
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Monday August 08 2016, @03:18PM
Collectively, the chance that the world's governments will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions is approximately zero. Even if the US and Europe significantly reduce their emissions, what will happen is that India and China and other developing nations will increase their emissions (possibly lying about it, as China is almost certainly doing). In other words, we're collectively screwed.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by schad on Monday August 08 2016, @03:38PM
If you want something to hope for, hope that the West decreases CO2 emissions faster than the East increases them; and hope that before the East "catches up," clean energy is cheaper than dirty. Basically, hope that we're able to buy enough time for technological advancements to save us.
It's not a terribly realistic hope, because the West isn't actually decreasing CO2 production. We're just outsourcing it to the East. And because we have stronger environmental protections, I suspect that every 1 kg of CO2 eliminated here results in more than 1 kg of CO2 created in the East. (Plus a bit extra to ship the goods literally halfway around the world!)
Maybe you can just hope that climate change is all a lie spread by "climate scientists" bought and paid for by radical leftist environmentalist whackadoodles. I can't really think of any other internally-consistent explanation for how we'd be able to avert disaster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 08 2016, @03:56PM
I'll put it this way: I'm basing my decisions about basic stuff like where I live on the assumption that we're basically screwed, because global warming is slow-moving enough that by the time anybody really cares it will be too late to fix the problem.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @05:08PM
It is so sad to see how fervent religious belief takes over otherwise rational people.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @06:02PM
Tell me about it. 1.6 billion Muslims, at least 2.2 billion Christians of various stri--oh, wait, you're conflating climate change acceptance, which has actual evidence for it, with religion, which has much AGAINST it. Stop that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:58PM
What do you mean by "climate change acceptance"? There is evidence for the existence of climate change?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @07:09PM
Ye ken well what I mean, lad. Dinnae play the fool wi' me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:00PM
No, I really don't know if what you are referring to is well defined enough to beany more testable than various religious beliefs.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @08:14PM
You choose not to. In this era of the internet, with information widely available, there is no excuse. Bloody well go look up the archives of any university's climatology department you care to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:41PM
Wow... pointless to continue then.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @09:09PM
And that just proves my point. You never had any intention to educate yourself. Short of someone tying you down Clockwork-Orange-style and figuring out a way to make your brain speak TCP/IP, that information is not getting in there. Because you don't WANT it to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:22PM
You sure seem to be fond of initiating violence against other people. "You don't believe [subject]? Well, there's information about [subject] on the internets! Go read! What, me, provide any assertions or links to try to back up what I say? No! Also, someone should tie you down, brainwash you, kidnap you, and/or kill you."
Or, in your own words:
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @08:41PM
Right, a good example is the science paper [wiley.com] this NPR article is based on, which says:
The [Greenland ice sheet] lost 75 ± 29 Gt a−1 of mass between 1900 and 1983, and recent anthropogenic climate change has accelerated this mass loss, especially since circa 1990 [Kjeldsen et al., 2015]. The ice sheet lost 262 ± 21 Gt a−1 between 2007 and 2011, with the majority of this ice loss due to declining surface mass balance (SMB), meaning enhanced melt and runoff, rather than increased iceberg discharge [Andersen et al., 2015]. Ice loss due to recent climate change is readily observable in northwestern Greenland. The ice drainage system downslope of Camp Century (“Basin 8.2”) lost 14 ± 2 Gt a−1 of ice between 2007 and 2011, and the majority (80%) of this ice loss was due to decreasing SMB [Andersen et al., 2015].
So the claim is that more ice was lost between 2007 and 2011 than between 1900 and 1983. Because we can't travel back in time to take measurements, it's not testable.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 08 2016, @10:12PM
Unless, of course, some people in 1900 and 1983 had thought to draw maps [davidrumsey.com] that included where the ice was. Which would be those measurements you claim couldn't possibly exist.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:38AM
Thank you for clarifying. Now that we agree that "climate change acceptance" means believing that "more ice was lost between 2007 and 2011 than between 1900 and 1983", something which was apparently not established until this paper was published, it is sure that continuing the conversation will be productive.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:03AM
Thank you for clarifying. Now that we agree that "climate change acceptance" means [...]
I don't, of course, speak for the other posters.
[...] "more ice was lost between 2007 and 2011 than between 1900 and 1983", something which was apparently not established until this paper was published [...]
That paragraph summarises other people's work, not their own.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 08 2016, @05:20PM
Even if the US and Europe significantly reduce their emissions, what will happen is that India and China and other developing nations will increase their emissions
Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world [bbc.com]
It's not all doom and gloom. Those Commies are allowed to think more than 1 quarter in advance.
For the first time, emerging economies spent more than the rich on renewable power and fuels.
I actually think it's the opposite. It's the US with our anti-intellectualism and short-term thinking that will cause us to drag our feet on this issue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Monday August 08 2016, @07:50PM
It's not all doom and gloom. Those Commies are allowed to think more than 1 quarter in advance.
As the Chinese invest and develop the green technology to take them into the 22nd century, the US will likely still be squabbling about getting access to more fossil fuels and trying to put up barriers to adoption of green tech, thus insuring that the Chinese beat our pants off in another area.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @09:14PM
It's not all doom and gloom.
The 147 GW mentioned in the article you linked works out to around 21 W per person. However that, I'm assuming, is peak capacity, so actual output will be markedly less.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:18AM
Countries like China and India, as well as African countries and other developing nations, have only begun their significant investments in renewables, and those investments are rapidly increasing every year. Meanwhile, there are millions of households in those countries where they use almost zero electricity. It's 21W per person right now. Within ten years, or even five years, it will be much higher.
I don't believe you've made a supportable point. Every year that goes by you will find it more difficult to be so dismissive of the advancement of renewables, even here in the US where we are dragging our feet and each household uses as much as eight times what a European household uses.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @07:44PM
Meanwhile, there are millions of households in those countries where they use almost zero electricity.
Those people are going to want electricity. A great deal of it will be needed if electricity is to replace fossil fuels and wood that those people--and the rest of us--use for cooking, heating, and transportation. Wood is often harvested in an unsustainable manner, so it may be inaccurate to call it "renewable."
The world's population is still increasing, so new housing will be needed; the manufacture of cement emits a great deal of carbon dioxide.
A U.S. government report (which only considers forms of energy that are bought and sold, and excludes cement) predicts rapid growth in renewable energy production globally through 2040. However, it also predicts increasing demand for energy. The rates at which oil and gas, and coal are burned are predicted to increase from their current levels.
https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/images/2016_01_figure2.png [eia.gov]
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table9-1.cfm [eia.gov]
Because of that, the rate at which carbon dioxide is emitted is expected to increase:
World energy-related CO2 emissions rise from 32.2 billion metric tons in 2012 to 35.6 billion metric tons in 2020 and to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2040 in the IEO2016 Reference case–an increase of 34% over the projection period. Much of the growth in emissions is attributed to developing non-OECD nations, many of which continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels to meet the fast-paced growth of energy demand.
--https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/exec_summ.cfm [eia.gov]
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/ [eia.gov]