|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Less people on the planet in total is one of those elements. Potentially more could be supported through whatever technology or another but it does require there to be a whole lot less people. And which regions do you think are going to lose the most people?
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
computer parts posted:And which regions do you think are going to lose the most people? No idea - in the short term the planet's most vulnerable populations (every subsistence farmer in the world) will suffer the bulk of climate change's ill effects, but I don't think that would reduce population levels to the degree I'm talking about. I sure as hell wouldn't want it to. I'm (desperately, unrealistically) imagining a gradual global decline over centuries thanks to birth control access and changing culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
ductonius posted:Supply of fuel is a material production problem and is not a limiting factor, similar to how production of enough steel is not a limiting factor. We're more than capable of making enough of both. To replace fossil fuels to the degree specified by Nice piece of fish would require, as demonstrated, around fifty times more nuclear and/or renewable capacity than we have now, which, assuming that your 440 current plants figure is correct, means that over 20,000 new nuclear plants would need to be built (and the maximum hypothetically-economically-feasible amount of hydro, and the conversion of all non-electric fossil fuel consumption to electric, and without accounting for carbon sequestration), and all this in a short enough timescale to mitigate climate change to the best extent still possible, which is definitely sub-30 years and arguably sub-20 years. We have about 80 years of uranium in conventional deposits at the current rate of consumption; if these 20,000 reactors are installed at a linear rate over 30 or so years, our conventional uranium deposits will be exhausted before they're even all in operation! (if it's even possible to extract and process the uranium fast enough - current demand is already greater than the rate of mining) So, immediately, it is NOT possible with current technology to replace fossil fuels with nuclear in the manner that I objected to. There's plenty more uranium in the sea, you say. That's nice, but no large scale extraction method yet exists, and might never exist. But what about breeder reactors? They're cool, but the rate of fuel production is so slow - currently only 10 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium per year per reactor, that they will not change the sums (a 1,000MW reactor consumes about 200 tonnes of fuel per year). What about thorium? Thorium's great in principle, but the various manufacturers predict 15-20 years before the first commercial-scale reactors might be built, which would be great if we had 15-20 years to wait and if it's not 15-20 years like fusion's perpetual "30 years in the future". "No, we can't", but your question is at least correct: "Do we want to?" The answer is no, because Nice piece of fish invented an impossible scenario which is just a distraction from things that can actually be done to reduce climate change and to adapt for the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:*~words~* I'd lay off trying to forecast the future energy use of the world until after you understand the difference between energy and electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:assuming that your 440 current plants figure is correct, means that over 20,000 new nuclear plants would need to be built ... definitely sub-30 years To get your fifty fold increase in 30 years we'd need to have 14% growth sustained for that period of time. This is a lot, like, one hell of a lot, but it's not impossible. Placid Marmot posted:if it's even possible to extract and process the uranium fast enough - current demand is already greater than the rate of mining You see, it's hard to take you seriously because of poo poo like this. Canada currently has two functioning Uranium mines. If we needed we could have five by this time next year. There are three high grade uranium deposits near Baker Lake, Nunavut. We know it's there. The price of Uranium is so low right now that it's not worth getting, but if we wanted to, it's there. Do you know how many sites there are like this? Dozens. You want to find more? Send some guy out hiking with a rock hammer and geiger counter. Your own link to "peak uranium" is hilarious because it basically details how the amount of uranium available is near limitless. You seem to know about unconventional sources, but by dismissing them singularly you miss the point. When the US needed enriched uranium for it's nuclear bombs they had several methods they could use. They asked "which one should we try", an the answer was "all of them". So, which unconventional source of Uranium will get us the material we need? All of them. Placid Marmot posted:What about thorium? Thorium's great in principle, but the various manufacturers predict 15-20 years before the first commercial-scale reactors might be built This is called a CANDU reactor. They can burn Thorium right now. Yes, this right now. They don't because the price of Uranium is so low and it's not really worth it. Guess who has and is building calandria style reactors and working with AECL on a project to fuel them with Throium? (hint: it's China). ductonius fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Is there anything to recommend to read that goes into how a technologically capable hunter-gatherer civilization of the future might look like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Dmitry Orlov has written some interesting stuff but not sure it matches up with what you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
I think despair is a good motivator for drastic action. I think we need more despair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'd lay off trying to forecast the future energy use of the world until after you understand the difference between energy and electricity. I'd lay off criticizing my posts until you've read them; I have to assume that you have not read my previous posts in this conversation, nor the ones by Nice piece of fish, who I am referencing, as I have made myself very clear:L Placid Marmot - 24 hours ago posted:...yet you believe that it is physically possible to manufacture enough nuclear and renewables in ten years to take over from fossil fuels (only in electricity generation, though, and electricity is only 15% of our current energy expenditure). Placid Marmot - 11 hours ago posted:over 20,000 new nuclear plants would need to be built (and the maximum hypothetically-economically-feasible amount of hydro, and the conversion of all non-electric fossil fuel consumption to electric, and without accounting for carbon sequestration) ductonius posted:To get your fifty fold increase in 30 years we'd need to have 14% growth sustained for that period of time. This is a lot, like, one hell of a lot, but it's not impossible. Let's do some actual calculations. Let's simplify 30 years to 25, since we are talking about a fiftyfold increase. At the end of year 1, we turn on double the existing number of reactors. At the end of year 2, we turn on the same number, and so on. One "Unit" in this table is 1x current fuel usage.  Whoa... that's weird... the table stops after nine years. Oh, it's because it takes only nine years in your scenario to burn all of the conventional reserves, including as-yet undiscovered reserves, having mined at impossible rates and built reactors at impossible rates. But it's ok, because I'm sure that in ten years the sources that are not yet even mined because it's not worthwhile will provide 19 times our current consumption, and the year after that 21 times our current consumption, and so on. ductonius posted:Canada currently has two functioning Uranium mines. If we needed we could have five by this time next year. There are three high grade uranium deposits near Baker Lake, Nunavut. We know it's there. The price of Uranium is so low right now that it's not worth getting, but if we wanted to, it's there. Do you know how many sites there are like this? Dozens. You want to find more? Send some guy out hiking with a rock hammer and geiger counter. Ok, you need to not post about mining, because you have no idea whatsoever. Quoting this so you can't edit it out. ductonius posted:Your own link to "peak uranium" is hilarious because it basically details how the amount of uranium available is near limitless. You seem to know about unconventional sources, but by dismissing them singularly you miss the point. When the US needed enriched uranium for it's nuclear bombs they had several methods they could use. They asked "which one should we try", an the answer was "all of them". So, which unconventional source of Uranium will get us the material we need? All of them. Yes, technology will save us. ductonius posted:This is called a CANDU reactor. They can burn Thorium right now. Yes, this right now. They don't because the price of Uranium is so low and it's not really worth it. I was referring to the more promising LFTR thorium reactors. You may have noticed that the thorium is numerous times cheaper than uranium, being a waste product with no current use, so "the price of Uranium is so low [$36/lb!] and it's not really worth it" is clearly not the reason that nobody currently burns thorium. Again, "working with AECL on a project to fuel them with Throium" is not good enough to satisfy this stupid, impossible idea. Tested and production ready reactors are "15-20" years away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:I think despair is a good motivator for drastic action. I think we need more despair. It's hard to have despair when you can't get past stupidity and denial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
I'm confused at this proof that there's not enough uranium because as I understand newer models burn less fuel and seawater extraction could be a thing its just not economically worthwhile right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:I think despair is a good motivator for drastic action. I think we need more despair. Based on people here it produces sad sacks who are so depressed that they can't even muster the effort to buy prepper equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:having mined at impossible rates and built reactors at impossible rates. Rates of growth and construction like this have been demonstrated in the past and are categorically not impossible. For some reason your post about plugging one's ears and going "la la la la" comes to mind. Placid Marmot posted:Quoting this so you can't edit it out. I'm left wondering what part you think I would want to delete. Placid Marmot posted:Yes, technology will save us. CANDU reactors exist right now. How does it get more promising than that? Not only can technology save us, most of the technology needed to do the job already exists. You have a preconceived idea of how the scenario would have to play out and are categorically unwilling to listen to any evidence that might contradict it. Nevvy Z posted:I'm confused at this proof that there's not enough uranium because as I understand newer models burn less fuel and seawater extraction could be a thing its just not economically worthwhile right now. If it's not a proven technology right now, Placid Marmot feels free to dismiss it as ever being viable, in fact, he also feels free to dismiss currently viable technology as viable and past achievements of production as impossible too. Astute readers might start to see a pattern here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I'd lay off criticizing my posts until you've read them; I have to assume that you have not read my previous posts in this conversation, nor the ones by Nice piece of fish, who I am referencing, as I have made myself very clear:L You've made it clear that you're just making as many assumptions and strawmen required to prove your point. How about this, if your conclusions were so easy to come to that you can "prove" it in just a few something awful posts, maybe you can find some peer reviewed research that says the same thing? Can you do that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
As much as I would love to boost CANDUs, they are now owned by notoriously corrupt corporation SNC Lavalin, and they would probably all end up being cautionary tales.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:04
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I'd lay off criticizing my posts until you've read them; I have to assume that you have not read my previous posts in this conversation, nor the ones by Nice piece of fish, who I am referencing, as I have made myself very clear:L yo bud I hate to break it to you but you're a moron if you think the human race in 2015 is incapable of building nuclear reactors on a massive scale and i read your posts, they're bad and stupid
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I'd raise a point of conjecture here that there are many more options for renewable power than the usual suspects. I'm excited about the possibilities of bioreactor technologies such as the algae curtain. Looking at how things have been trending recently, it wouldn't surprise me if the next big industry is CO2 collection and sequestration. There's a company called Global Thermostat that uses amines to collect CO2, and of course, there's Audi's "blue crude." There's also some interesting research done in restoring soil as a renewable carbon sink. If you're a DIY type, you could also build some simple algae-based home CO2 scrubbers and hand them out to friends and family. (Yes, removing 24 pounds or so of CO2 is a drop in the bucket, but it's not nothing. You could probably build enough of these to eliminate much of your own personal carbon footprint if you were of a mind to.) If we were to invest heavily as a society into atmospheric CO2 removal, which is already happening, it'd obviously be kicking the can down the road. Still, using a Global Thermostat or an algae canopy to minimize or even eliminate the CO2 output of old technologies would go a long way towards smoothing the transition towards renewables, and if you make full use of all available options, we could theoretically solve this particular part of the problem. It's going to happen eventually; it's just a question of whether we can survive whatever event provides the final bit of evidence that even the dumbest denier can't help but acknowledge. (I figure it'll be Miami drowning.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:If you're a DIY type, you could also build some simple algae-based home CO2 scrubbers and hand them out to friends and family. (Yes, removing 24 pounds or so of CO2 is a drop in the bucket, but it's not nothing. You could probably build enough of these to eliminate much of your own personal carbon footprint if you were of a mind to.) That only works if you're already a consumer of liter plastic bottles. If you buy a plastic bottle to use for that purpose you pretty much undo most of the good you could even do. The average American would need ~1,600 of those bottles to offset their annual emissions. So rather unlikely anyone could actually reduce their emissions significantly using those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
So use a small glass fish tank. It's still something, rather than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:So use a small glass fish tank. It's still something, rather than nothing. Same deal, you'd have to be using a used fish tank or else you're undoing a lot of the "gains". Someone would still need a +400 gallon tank to begin to offset their emissions. That's ignoring the reduction in recycling due to diversion and increased emissions to maintain and water your algae tank. I think it would be much more valuable to reduce your personal emission footprint by 24lbs CO2 equiv. a year rather than try to maintain an algae tank that might not be doing as much as you hope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think it would be much more valuable to reduce your personal emission footprint by 24lbs CO2 equiv. a year rather than try to maintain an algae tank that might not be doing as much as you hope. It's really not an either-or. Since you mostly just leave this thing alone after you set it up, it's basically a really hungry house plant. Think of it like planting a tree, except it's up and consuming CO2 within weeks rather than years. It's a side note anyway. Mostly I wanted to highlight some interesting research being done with algae as a power source and potential CO2 sink, but the notion of maintaining a do-it-yourself scrubber in the corner of your living room or wherever was too neat not to share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:it's basically a really hungry house plant. Think of it like planting a tree, except it's up and consuming CO2 within weeks rather than years. But here's the problem. You might actually be doing something worse for the climate than helping. You say its just a big houseplant, but it isn't. 1. It requires an always on airpump. That's a decent electricity draw to begin with, certainly more than a houseplant. My rough guess is an air pump (1.5W) would be 9.5KW/h a year. So 55% of your sequestration is used just to recoup your electricity draw to power each pump. 2. It would require considerable more water than most houseplants, another highly variable impact to climate (depending on energy for water in your locale). 3. Algae sequestration actually requires you to remove the dead algae and do something with it. It won't work if you don't remove your waste. If you want to be helpful and involve a plant, I suggest planting a tree or donating or a local organization that plants trees in deforested or at risk land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Based on people here it produces sad sacks who are so depressed that they can't even muster the effort to buy prepper equipment. Can we please start to talk about what badass post apocalyptic outfits we'll have, I'm going with a tire on the left shoulder and a breastplate with a faded nuke symbol embossed on it
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:34
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Can we please start to talk about what badass post apocalyptic outfits we'll have, I'm going with a tire on the left shoulder and a breastplate with a faded nuke symbol embossed on it just lol if you haven't already dedicated a room to stockpiling gold and other precious metals :zerohedge:
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Can we please start to talk about what badass post apocalyptic outfits we'll have, I'm going with a tire on the left shoulder and a breastplate with a faded nuke symbol embossed on it I'm going to print out and wear an outfit made of all good posts made by forums users "computer parts." I will be naked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
I've never understood the sarcastic "Yeah, technology will save us, right?   " response that a lot of people give in these discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I've never understood the sarcastic "Yeah, technology will save us, right? A lot of people think that science will solve any problem we throw at it with minimal effort. While science could solve any problem in existence if given enough time one very real problem with climate change is we may very well not have the time to come up with a solution. Climate change is terrifying because it may already be far too late to do anything about it. If the global climate collapses and our food sources gently caress up then society implodes with it. Science kind of needs an organized society to exist and Mad Max world is not a good place to do science. If the answer turns out to be "leave Earth, never look back" then even that might turn out to not be possible. Once again it may take more time to accomplish that then we have. It's also problematic because some people think we don't need to change our awful ways because gently caress it who cares technology will solve the problem, just keep throwing money at scientists. Part of the things that directly cause climate change are our attitudes towards a lot of things. Capitalism's "profit is more important than anything else, ever" attitude is probably one of the biggest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I've never understood the sarcastic "Yeah, technology will save us, right? ToxicSlurpee hit this one right on the head, but I think there's also a deeper philosophical point to be made. The current predicament we find ourselves in is a direct result of technology. One of the greatest myths humanity has ever come up with is that technology is neutral, it just depends on how you use it. That isn't true and never was. Science and technology are both ideological (despite science's claims to the contrary), and the main thrust is and always has been control and domination of nature. Climate change, resource depletion, and mass extinction are the end results of this quest for control. We are learning in a very painful manner that we actually aren't in control and can't fundamentally separate ourselves from nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:ToxicSlurpee hit this one right on the head, but I think there's also a deeper philosophical point to be made. The current predicament we find ourselves in is a direct result of technology. One of the greatest myths humanity has ever come up with is that technology is neutral, it just depends on how you use it. That isn't true and never was. Science and technology are both ideological (despite science's claims to the contrary), and the main thrust is and always has been control and domination of nature. Climate change, resource depletion, and mass extinction are the end results of this quest for control. We are learning in a very painful manner that we actually aren't in control and can't fundamentally separate ourselves from nature. Every time we solve one problem we end up creating another. I think the biggest fallacy when it comes to science is assuming that once you solve one problem that's it, you're done, move on to something else when really once you solve one thing that directly causes another. We wanted to make more stuff with less effort and as a whole seem to want to reproduce as much as we can. Now we're faced with the problems that stemmed from fixing those problems and these ones are even bigger. The biggest fallacy is assuming there's an easy answer. Maybe it's too late but if it isn't we're at a major turning point for humanity. Solving the problems is going to mean changing ourselves and our behavior. That will also mean rethinking our relationship with science.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
I don't understand that algae thing or how planting trees helps. That carbon goes back into the atmosphere when the plant dies and decomposes. How do we sequester that? Do you just bury it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:I don't understand that algae thing or how planting trees helps. That carbon goes back into the atmosphere when the plant dies and decomposes. How do we sequester that? Do you just bury it? Not all of the carbon goes back. A forest binds up a poo poo load of carbon more or less indefinitely. When a tree dies and falls over other plants go "gently caress yes, rotting tree!" and grow nearby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Not all of the carbon goes back. A forest binds up a poo poo load of carbon more or less indefinitely. When a tree dies and falls over other plants go "gently caress yes, rotting tree!" and grow nearby. Is there not a lot of carbon also left in the ground staying there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:Is there not a lot of carbon also left in the ground staying there? Yes, but even approximate numbers are uncertain. It's difficult to measure the carbon flux of a forest. A lot of dead plant matter gets converted to CO2 by bacterial decomposition. Incidentally, most earthworms in North America are invasive species imported from Europe. They churn up the soil and create conditions more suited for decomposing plant matter, and there's evidence that this really harms the carbon uptake ability of affected forests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A lot of people think that science will solve any problem we throw at it with minimal effort. While science could solve any problem in existence if given enough time one very real problem with climate change is we may very well not have the time to come up with a solution. Climate change is terrifying because it may already be far too late to do anything about it. If the global climate collapses and our food sources gently caress up then society implodes with it. Science kind of needs an organized society to exist and Mad Max world is not a good place to do science. If the answer turns out to be "leave Earth, never look back" then even that might turn out to not be possible. Once again it may take more time to accomplish that then we have. But nobody in this thread is seriously saying "Oh, it'll be fine; we'll just terraform Mars with nanobots if worst came to worst". People are suggesting what sound like perfectly reasonable and feasible changes that we can make as a society and are being blown off with "Ch'yeah, right, like technology will save us with no extra effort on our part, right? ".Edited to add: I'm not denying that we may very well be hosed. If, despite our best efforts with nuclear, renewables, changing the way our communities and economies are set up, etc. our great-grandchildren still end up eating rats while being hunted down by roving bands of marauders and super-intelligent apes, then so be it. Blue Star fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
We could solve this issue with current technology. I don't think that should be a current question. The problem is actually getting it done in the economic and societal environment we exist in. So first we must change our way of thinking before technology can save us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Whatever. I don't feel like giving you any more attention and the rest of the thread has answered you well enough. Blue Star posted:But nobody in this thread is seriously saying "Oh, it'll be fine; we'll just terraform Mars with nanobots if worst came to worst". People are suggesting what sound like perfectly reasonable and feasible changes that we can make as a society and are being blown off with "Ch'yeah, right, like technology will save us with no extra effort on our part, right? Well, to be fair it's very very hard to predict the future so most people don't do too well at it. This is partly why it's a good idea to keep predictions non-specific and with loads and loads of historical precedent, though even then things may turn out very differently from what's been imagined. What we can assert with confidence is that not only are human beings one of the most adaptable species on the planet and probably the most capable of surviving, but we aren't limited to just trying to reduce/negate or reverse the effects of climate change and global warming. We can adapt our entire societies, agriculture and industry to the changes - in fact these are a few of the things I am very confident will happen regardless. While we can't depend or guarantee new technologies that will magically save us, we have enough in the works and we know enough about general physics that there are a multitude of options and possibilites out there. As pessimistic as I am about international cooperative action and changing our societies, even I can't deny that there's a chance I'm completely wrong; maybe adversity and resource shortage will breed international solidarity on a previously unheard of scale, resulting in widespread democratic reform, abolishing consumerism and making eco-living a top priority for the world. It's impossible to predict anything with accuracy, only the possibilites and options remain. We do know that the more delayed action is, the worse the damage will be, though. This is probably the biggest cause for concern right this minute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Whatever. I don't feel like giving you any more attention and the rest of the thread has answered you well enough. Oh hai there. I had actually left our conversation be, since the agreed adequate retort to my arguments appears to be that we should just have faith that everything will work out fine. Had you bothered to do any research (a recurring theme), you would have found that your first quote was never said and is completely fabricated, and the second relates to mainframe computers, not computers in general - indeed, home computers had already existed for some years when the second quote was made. As for the third, I'm flattered by your comparison of me with Lord Kelvin, but you know that he never said that, right? Lord Kelvin, actually in 1896 posted:I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of Related to your third misquote, but also your fourth quote, take a look at what Wilbur Wright said two years before his plane flew: Wilbur Wright posted:Man will not fly for 50 years If you can't trust the inventor of the airplane on the subject of airplanes, who can you trust? Probably someone who invents zany schemes and promotes them on internet fora without even having thought whether they were possible or even worthwhile, I would imagine. Which brings us to your fifth quote (but only your fourth misquote; a 20% success rate isn't all that bad, don't worry) for which there is no evidence of it ever having been said. So, what was your point? Actually, don't answer that, because I'm sure it's not worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:(I figure it'll be Miami drowning.) Speaking of which...
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Speaking of which... That is a hell of a timescale
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
"The study—written by James Hansen" "The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed" "Hansen’s study comes via a non-traditional publishing decision by its authors. The study will be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an open-access “discussion” journal, and will not have formal peer-review prior to its appearance online later this week."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 09:41
|
|
