Slashdot Mirror
IEA Warns of Irreversible Climate Change In 5 Years
iONiUM writes "As a follow up to the previous slashdot story, there has been a new release by the International Energy Agency indicating that within 5 years we will have irreversible climate change. According to the IEA, 'There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn).'"
As 60% of the energy usage is all the third-world countries, the answer is obvious.
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
let's see what the free market does for a change. No more corporate welfare.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Due to massive reduction programs, most of the world keeps CO2 at most slightly increasing, and in some cases lowering. Except for China who's doubling their pollution every ten years.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I don't expect changes to be made. Capitalistic culture has no thought of the future; people are selfish and will sacrifice their descendants to make things just a bit easier and more profitable to themselves.
I'm kind of curious to see how the world will end up by the time I die.
we are past the point of the last Irreversible claim... and the one before that... and the one before that...
Quick, if you're on a coal or oil payroll then discredit this as long as you need to to make some money... ...until everything goes into the shitter and you can't enjoy your money because the world is well and truly fucked.
We have international agreements banning cocaine and opium-based drugs. If some guy wants a car that goes 120 mph or a hookup that keeps his house 75 F in the winter, guess who is going to supply him with it?
And I bet that freaks THEM out. THEY are probably looking forward to the northwest passage being a new drilling/resort area. This freaks them out about as much as Occupiers do I bet.
There will be irreversible climate change. The corporate powers that profit from the status quo have more than enough money to continue confusing the issue for centuries to come. Short of a major catastrophe (i.e. millions dead in first world countries), nothing will ever break through the wall of propaganda to awaken the masses.
Cue deniers coming in to lie about how all the world's climatologists are in a conspiracy being funded by Big Solar or whatever.
this will turn into a discussion assigning political blame, and nothing but a lot of hot air will be generated (pun intended)
what should happen:
blame should be set aside, and fixing the problem should be talked about. seed the ocean with iron to create phytoplankton blooms to suck out CO2 and sink to the ocean floor? it has flaws. so strategize some other ideas. yes, some will have anxiety about doing such major ecosystem altering activity when we aren't sure of every infinitesimal outcome... missing the whole goddamn point about what is already happening to the climate. penny wise, pound foolish. it's time for dramatic action, not hand wringing
look: natural, manmade, whatever: obviously the climate is changing, only complete idiots still insist it isn't. so the most compelling, overarching argument is: we have a vested economic interest in keeping our environment the way we are used to it. so we can talk about a price point about what we are willing to invest to keep the thermostat where it should be. so find the price point and fit a plan of action. end of discussion
we are homo sapiens: we don't evolve fur, we kill animals and wear their hides. we don't look for berries, we slash and burn and make the berries grow where we want them. and we don't get used to a hotter earth with more violent storms. we put our hands on the thermostat, and put the earth in the climate zone we like
we are homo sapiens: we don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to us. we aren't fatalistic spineless scatterbrains. this whole climate change topic is really just an engineering problem, with currently not enough engineers working on it, and too many talking heads and other assorted nitwits involved. roll up the sleeves and get to work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It may be no longer possible to reverse it simply by cutting consumption, but geoengineering solutions can still work.
we'll finally get some warm weather here.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The Earth's Climate will enter stasis, and stop changing for the first time ever?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If you think China gives one rat's ass what the IEA thinks about 'climate change' you've got more lead and mercury in your brain than a resident of Shenzhen. The only way their CO2 output is going to stop growing is if we apply tariffs. We won't do that, because we like keeping the industry that makes our stuff faaar away from our precious selves.
That means that whether the IAE is right or wrong about the consequences of CO2, we're going to find out, because nothing, absolution fucking nothing, is going to stop it.
Harold Camping! Is that you?
So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?
How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.
2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.
So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?
No comment.
... why do they think we'll believe their forecast for over five years?
We've already done more damage than we can reverse. It was 71 degrees the other day on November 1st. Our atmosphere is changing probably to a configuration that is hostile to our survival. Probably the first to go will be our crop resources. I don't think our society will change. The majority of this species believes in an Earth that will exist forever because a 2500 year old anthology of books say so.
I don't believe the Earth will be like Venus because Venus is in a different orbit than Earth is. But I do think the Earth will change and probably become hostile to our species. We didn't always have the atmosphere we do now. and when our species dies off, another species will take our place. Our sun can probably support the deveopment of one more species before it perishes.
The Human species had its chance to survive and chose badly.
This is the kind of stuff I oppose when I say I'm a skeptic about global warming. The article makes clear that this is a propaganda statement focused on the upcoming climate summit. I want science, not propaganda.
Sure, I accept that CO2 affects the earth's temperature. I understand this equation, and know that it has been accepted science for a hundred years.
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Carbon emissions are a real problem. We don't need a bunch of zealots claiming the sky is falling unless we do things their way.
With the third world getting ready to ramp up energy production the idea of conservation is a pipe dream. China is already ignoring us and the rest will do the same.
We need to globally spend trillions of dollars on energy research and we need to do it yesterday. It's the only answer left.
Built a cheap portal to an alternative Earth that is 85 million years in the past, in order to colonize it.
Or wait for the rapture.
Because the above choices are more realistic than expecting the human race to put short-term greed aside to save the planet.
Ask a bunch of people if they would be willing to receive a billion dollar now, in exchange to blowing up the Earth 200 years in the future, you would be surprised how many of them would say yes. That is the problem with the human race.
Don't worry, according to Family Radio, the world will end several times before then.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I've made my background black. I've done my part. What about you?
(And what's with Firefox's background color setting? New tabs flash white before changing to the background color. It's blinding when everything else including the room is dimmed. Why isn't the background set before the tab is displayed?)
If climate change trends toward warming and the Earths atmosphere becomes to hot for global ecology to continue could we possible try to correct the issue with a nuclear winter? I realize that using explosions that output allot of ionizing radiation would be absurd but what if we where to deliver particulate matter to the atmosphere another way? Perhaps an artificially induced impact winter via a redirected celestial body? It would be a measure of last resort but would such methods even have a slight chance of helping compensate for global warming?
...there's no point in resisting but every point in positioning for survival.
This will mean competition for space in the lifeboat, so to speak. That will mean willingness to let competitors die off, to use violence to save our own countries, and do things which are unfashionable.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
We're producing too much plant food (CO2)
Who cares.
All liberal hype.
Next.
Did anyone look into the CO2 emissions from volcanos that have gone off in Siberia? I'm guessing they are having a bigger effect on the planet than human intervention.
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320906175&sr=1-5
No way to make any meaningful changes within 5 years. IEA screwed up by crying wolf with a doomsday that was too early.
...Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.
PLANT LIFE ON EARTH DEPENDS ON IT.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
No one is saying that. The "Irreversible Climate Change" in the article means the 2C warming considered unsafe will be unavoidable.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Yes, the warming is proportional to the exponential of CO2, so every doubling of C02 will give roughly the same amount of warming. This is well known.
although this depends entirely on how the term "third world" is defined. Unfortunately, you provided no citation for your claim, and the term "third world" is so ludicrously imprecise as to be meaningless, so there is no basis to even evaluate your statement.
Incidentally, this TED talk by Hans Rosling may enlighten your view of the world and its countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w
Please try to revert shutdown of atomic power stations (which don't produce CO2). They will be replaced mainly with gas power stations which produce tons of CO2.
They can warn all they like but it's pointless Emerging economies feel it's now their turn to have a go at a house, 3 kids and 2 cars. The US of A doesn't recognize the concept of climate change and quite a few of their citizens cannot be pried from their gas guzzling SUV without a big crowbar and a tow truck. Europe at least has some governments that recognize the concept and are willing to implement some half baked measures to try and slow this down but at the moment they've got their hands full with the economy. Since the whole world economy still operates on a growth is essential model I don't see this changing at all
It always amazes me that so many of the commenters on a technologically oriented board desire a pre-industrial civilization or slavery. Otherwise they would not bemoan that capitalism will never deal with this because of greed. You are a technologically obsessed group. You can see humanity lasting another billion years because of space mirrors making it so we can survive an ever growing sun. 80 years ago those technologies that we take for granted today either didn't exist at all or only the rich had them. Cars, computers, air conditioning. If the government panels who have a lot of money tied up in the carbon market are right, we have, in all likelyhood more time than they say. We'll say 100 years. In 1911 the first air conditioning was invented. Two years later Ford basically invented in assembly line. Today your cell phone has a computer thousands of times more powerful than those used to get man on the Moon. Take a collective chill pill, calm down, and let economic growth do it's thing. In 100 years, not only will technology be far, far more advanced than it is today, we'll actually have a few decades of satellite data and a much, much larger economy. If you're right, wait a bit, verify. Make sure your sources aren't vested economically in the science. There are bigger problems in the world. Massive wealth transfers are not needed at this time. Blaming capitalism is stupid- the only other system that has proven to be able to produce modern technology comes at the non-minor price of making you literal slaves of the government. You want a brighter future? all the low hanging fruit for controlling pollution and increasing efficiency are in the past, but there is room for innovative ideas. Innovative ideas require large concentrations of resources and skills. Sadly, there is no other way that works on humans besides monetary incitement. Instead of focusing on killing the economy, worry about growing it. While capitalism DOES favor using more an more resources, it also highly favors using them efficiency. Let's bring everyone up to the US's level. If you think the problems are insurmountable without basically reducing resource usage, energy usage, and economic power, basically, Jimmy Carter sweater time, then you haven't considered them with the resources of the intellects of ten billion people living in the first world. It is achievable, using the only system of greed in which everyone wins. I mean, how much would it have cost you to build that cell phone? And yet, there it is, costing far less than you could have ever managed, while the guy on the other side of the transaction made a profit.
Look the point of the post and article is that if we don't get out shit together and soon there are going to be some tipping points that are not going to be reversed (i.e. no arctic ice to support polar bears, thus the end to them). But if get away from the fossil fuel industry by investing in solar, wind and my particular favorite geothermal we might be able to stem the tide and spread those technological innovations to 3rd world countries as a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels. Are you telling me that if we didn't have the best and brightest science people on green energy technologies that we wouldn't be able to get the cost of that energy down to below how much it costs for extractive fossil fuel energy? Please anyone have an argument that's counter?
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
Because all the CO2 that is currently bound in hydrocarbons was once atmospheric CO2 before plants developed to bind it, and died to form hydrocarbon sedimentary rocks, oil and coals.
Thus it is impossible to have runaway global warming, because even if you could convert every hydrocarbon to atmospheric CO2, you would just be back to the time before plants developed. If it wasn't runaway then, it can't be runaway now.
However you are far short of that number because you would still have all that hydrocarbon rock we have now, all sedimentary rocks are dead animals and in large parts bind carbon, which originated from eating plant, which in turn was taken from the atmosphere.
Global warming is real, measurable, but the runaway scenarios, those are scaremongering tactics. Just an alarmist response to the climate change deniers to get them to take the threat seriously.
Climate change has never been reversible, and never will be. Period. All of the crud around the issue is simply because we don't want it to happen - and it is going to happen regardless of any futile (and probably horrendously expensive) measures we may take. The sooner we face the fact, the sooner we will be able to course correct and plan accordingly.
I suspect however that there is much fleecing to be done before the zeigeist becomes conscious of this fact.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
Zone refining requires huge amounts of energy but because of the large scale it ends up being not a lot of energy per unit. Thus the GP poster is correct but almost completely irrelevant unless he's addressing a completely uninformed audience that thinks the infrastructure is made from sunshine and puppies (ie. what the nuclear fanboys stuck in the 1970s think). Many heavy industries use very nasty stuff (eg. hydroflouric acid in oil refining).
Please cite your sources.
If we ended the Federal Breeding Subsidy in the U.S., we could reduce our carbon footprint as a species in very short order. Even better: $1k per child tax ($200 federal, $800 state). Would help pay for schools too.
"Rest of world" should clean up it's act -- it's using more than anybody else!
Ever lit a fire?
Starting some things can cause others to happen.
We were doing great up until now but uh oh, in exactly 5 years the earth will implode! Better get on it!
Let's face it, CO2 emissions will drop as soon as we run out of fossil fuel. And not a minute before that. There are no two ways about it. On the whole we are a greedy kind of breed and we will always rationalise reasons for doing the wrong things. So we'd better get used to this.
... Repeat until oil is finished. Expect a fluctuation in oil price in the near years to come.
Viable alternatives to fossil fuel will emerge as soon economics allow this. Remember when oil prices boomed a couple of years ago? Suddenly all kinds of research boomed as well. But the oil price all of a sudden stabilised to a level we perceive as fine and dandy.
I don't believe in a well organised conspiracy of oil producing countries as that would require much more intelligence and cooperation than portrayed by any kind of existing governing body. Instead I believe that almost everyone in the energy market is acting in the best possible interest of their limited awareness. Oil prices rise, alternative research boosts, oil prices drop, alternative research slows down,
I don't see developments going in any other significant direction in the current way the world is governed. And I don't expect world government to change any time soon. Who or what would be powerful, charming and effective enough to change mankind's nature? It would require a disproportional amount of concentrated power to achieve such a thing, which after having saved our civilisation will inevitable start at exploiting it.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
All climate change is irreversible.
Always has been. Always will.
Nature evolved us humans, to anthropomorphize the discussion, so whatever we do is perfectly in accordance with St. Darwin.
So, this means: In a couple of years, power plants for renewable energy will be a Business Hit.
Existing property (especially houses etc.) will be destroyed, opening a new market opportunity.
Demands for insurances etc. will grow.
Additional goods will be invented to help people live conveniently in the changing environment.
IT industries will benefit because virtual live becomes more important, since travelling will become unaffordable an unattractive due to drastic weather an degenerated environments.
Bottomline: The economy will benefit tremendously in 1st world countries.
And just to make this clear: Yes, this is cynic, and it's not what I feel. But it explains very well, why companies an governments don't care to much
Trolling is a art!
Besides not actually making any sense, that comment was braindead on so many levels
Dead fuel is free energy; its that simple. Chemically stored energy from the past that you only have to extract and refine for a huge gain for the effort put into it. Naturally, this costs less, its power ratio is quite high and that goes a long way for making costly production cheaper.
On the other side you have new energy production that has to PRODUCE ALL the actual energy all by itself from nothing so to speak. This is a much lower power ratio; and to compete production cost has to be extremely low--- its not really about it costing a lot: its about costing so little that total production from a weak power source can compete against "free energy" harvesting!
Energy just is going to have to cost something; remember we subsidize many aspects of traditional fuel sources and by a far greater amount than the alternatives get (even today this continues.) Alternatives already compete and beat unsubsidized traditional power systems-- that time is already here and we don't see it because the system is skewed.
Say you do invent the replacement tomorrow; its true cost will be covered up by misinformation (from the competition) and remember the "to market in 5 years" statement that was said so much that it developed an additional sarcastic meaning?? Going to production with some new tech can take a long time. So in 5 years your invention is in the market (if lucky) but by that time, you may lose against new cheaper alternatives and then its too late to fix climate change.
Energy demands will drive prices up and demands are crazy high as the population gets crazy high there are limits which we can easily hit starting in a few hundred years. Stop having kids; being so selfish.
The best and brightest are in the financial industry gambling away your pension plans (on purpose.) The almost 2 million green jobs we should have by the end of this year should out weigh the only 80,000 coal workers... but coal workers are somehow better than green jobs...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
When Europe goes down the drain a few months from now we will soon have a worldwide economic crisis of unprecedented and apocalyptical proportions, which is good for the environment and will reduce CO2 emissions well beyond what is necessary for tackling the excess greenhouse effect that we are dealing with now.
-- Cheers!
Yeahhhhh.... that's what I thought
I'm a scientist and a skeptic by nature. Not of global warming, I've read enough scientific papers myself to convince me; of the fact that humans are solely responsible.
Could someone please inform me where to look for direct access to the scientific evidence that disproves other sources of possible global warming?
Thanks sincerely.
Liberty.
The increase in CO2 is not natural, and it's not by definition irreversible.
Warning that we're about to go over the 450 ppm level isn't over hyped doomsday rhetoric. It's just simple extrapolation of current trend.
We can still argue whether 450 ppm is the correct upper limit, and scientific discussion is still ongoing. The question is: while the discussion is still going on, should we go ahead and exceed the 450 ppm level, knowing that we don't really have a way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere if we're wrong.
If any proposed measure has to do with money, it's quite clear that it's all China's fault.
Concerning the US, there is not absolutely evidence that Global Warming is something different than Alice in Wonderland. At least, the US can wait till it's proven different.
Do you realize that it's possible for what you say to be true (and I agree with the general point) AND for it to also be true that humans are capable of altering the environment? Given that, it's also possible that the natural changes wouldn't be so bad, but the human caused changes might end up being very bad for us. So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
The answer to your questions lies not in the direct answer, but the indirect one. To give the answer I have to give a little background.
The Earth's climate has always been changing and it always will. The treehugger notion we could or should stop the climate from changing is great irony - because that would be a bigger imposition on the Earth's ecology than doing nothing. It would introduce a static climate never before seen on Earth - if it were possible - with inevitable and unforeseen consequences. But there are temperature zones the Earth appears not to like, and it transitions through them swiftly - and then stays on one side or another of this zone for a longer time. There are other zones that global average temperature can vary in for a considerable period of time - until it enters this unsavory zone and then rapidly crosses over it again. I'll leave the "why" of this to some philosopher or trained scientist, but it's a useful observed fact without understanding why.
Giving the average global temperature of the 21st century as 0, we reached the peak of the current temperate zone about 5,000 years ago at a level called the Holocene Climatic Optimum at about +1C. This is about 4-8C below the maximum temperature for the last 450K years or so, and there appear to be feedback effects which prevent the temperature from going any higher than that maximum because it hasn't deviated from this pattern for 2.5 million years - longer than humans have been around. There is a climate danger zone at -0.6C and if we enter it the temperature drops quickly to a new range of -5 to -8C for a very long time. Glaciers march and scrape our cities into the sea, owning the land for a hundred thousand years.
Unfortunately for our teeming billions, up until about 300 years ago the temperature had declined from the Holocene Optimum of +1C to -0.6C and was trending down. -0.6C appears to be the upper bound of one of those unsavory zones, and the next stop is -5C which is quite a drastic change. We were on the cusp of transition into the ice, and in fact that period is called the "little ice age". Each time in the last half-million years the average temperature passed below -0.7C it skipped directly over the intervening temperatures and went directly to the lower level - resulting in the die-off of terrestrial animals including humans, glaciation, and other unpleasant effects. The duration of this cold period averages 100,000 years which is likely longer than we could bear it. If it had not been for the warming currently attributed by some to the burning of fossil fuels and its concomitant CO2 discharge, we would likely already be suffering the cold dipping to -5C or more.
Perhaps 6 billion of us would be dead already, or never born - not from the cold, but from the inevitable famine and struggling for resources that it would bring. But that's not the end. 300 years from now there would be only a few million of our seven billions left, if the resulting wars didn't leave the planet uninhabitable entirely. Our entire industrial revolution, sciences and arts these last 200 years? Lost, perhaps forever.
No matter what we do the Earth will not stay habitable to this many humans forever. In the last half-million years we've had only four such periods lasting an average 12,000 years or so. This warm period we now enjoy is not the Earth's normal temperature. And when it's over, it really and truly does appear to be over for a very long time. It will be cold sooner or later. For me and mine, I
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Upon reading the article, I realized that it referred to the lock-in effect. It refers to the long periods of time necessary for energy industry to change.
Let me start with a story. I used to live near one electric power plant. The plant itself is older than I am and it will continue to operate for some time in the future. It has an operating lifetime of 50 to 60 years.
As a comparison, for that time one could be born, have a child, and his child could be married at the end of the time. When talking about energy, few people realize the long periods of time associated with it. For example, the United States has plants having been built in the 50s and 60s operating today, which will be replaced in this decade. The technology that will replace them is projected to work until 2050-60s. That is where the lock-in effect comes in.
Once you built something monumental, it stays in place.
That is why, a lot of care has to be chosen, to pick an effective and proper replacement. I have read that 1/4 of USA's coal plants are too old to operate beyond 2015. Already natural gas is affordable and for the record, I also think solar PV/CST is going to be cost-effective in two years, per Morse's law for solar. If China builds-out too many coal plants instead of other plants, then they will be faced with an environmental disaster.
Yeah, what kind of a person would have that attitude?
Oh.
On a more serious note, I actually agree. We need to ramp up certain industries and ramp down others to make this happen, but that still requires energy, so energy investment is one of the most important.
How do we make that happen? By letting the true cost of current energy become reality. If coal, oil, etc. weren't masked by subsidies and externalities, they would be much more expensive, and we would have already been developing alternatives.
But other big changes are needed, some of which would have also been happening over time if it weren't for the masking. Things like increasing population density, development of more mass transit. And still other changes, like corporate culture changes to promote telework, reduce travel. And still others, like having a culture that values conservation and efficiency, not contests to see how many hotdogs one can eat.
That's the thing: the free marketeers are right that the market can solve the problems, but they need the right information to do so. And that information requirement is where the free marketeers come out wrong. They don't slam the corporations for lobbying in favor of masks. Instead, they blame their bogeyman: the government. Except when it comes to defense, of course, because war's always a good bet. A hedge against inflation, if you will.
The answer is, what is the cost of limiting our society to 450ppm, and what are all of the possible probabilities of either beneficial impact from 450+ppm, and negative impact from 450+ppm. The short answer to that is we have a good idea about the costs, and they would drive most of the world into poverty and a brutish existence, and we have no idea about what the real benefits/disadvantages we would experience from +450ppm.
When we began the process of agriculture and animal husbandry, someone could have argued about whether or not there was an upper limit to how much farmland we should cultivate, and how many animals we should breed. And they could have further argued that we shouldn't exceed some arbitrary limit until we had a way to quickly return land to its original, unfarmed state, and return the animals to their wild nature. The precautionary principle is a sweet siren song and a dangerous delusion.
Well consider this.. The "estimates" vary wildly about tons of Co2 emissions for the United States.. Some rate in tons, some metric tons, some teragrams and some in units of measure that seem to have been created out of thin air to represent Co2 type damage.. But here's the jist.. In the US in 2007 we emitted 7,150,100,000 metric tons of Co2, which is 23.7 tons per capita. 2007 numbers.. Now.. They want to reduce our emissions to 1997 levels by 2020 and then an additional 80% by 2050. Keep in mind.. they're talking about TOTAL emissions.. Not per cap. If you have 1 person emitting 10 tons per year and reduce that number by 50%.. but then ADD 2 more people per yea the net change is 5 MORE tons per year.. You need to reduce the total amount of emissions to stop global warming. Nothing else will do. What does that mean? Lets look at how the numbers play out.. So 1997 levels by 2020.. According to the census bureau the population will be 341,386,665.. And in 1997 we emitted 4,900,000,000 metric tons.. So the goal is to reduce our emissions to 14.3 tons per cap.. When was the last time our emissions were at 14.3 tons per capita? That was back in the early '40's. According to Earthtrends Co2 presentation the per capita Co2 emissions per US citizen was 16 tons. And then reduce our emissions 80% of the 1997 levels by 2050.. More math there.. soo.. 980,000,000 tons for 439,010,253 people.. or.. 2.2 tons per capita.. When was the last time we were at that level? That was in the mid 1800's or right around the START of the industrial revolution. Well lets look at today's standard of living shall we? 2.2 tons per capita puts us right about the levels of Pakistan and Nigeria and the rest of the undeveloped regions of Africa.. 2.2 metric tons per cap. We exhale .33 tons per year. So the simple act of breathing takes us down to 1.9 tons per year.. Drive a Prius? Gas electric hybrid.. OOps.. No can do.. A Prius driven 15,000 miles per year emits 4.0 tons of Co2.. So you can't do that.
Want to burn that 60w light bulb? Well if your energy comes from coal, as most global energy does, that works out to 1.78lb of Co2 per hour.. If you make the mistake of having that one 60w light bulb on every day that's 7 tons of Co2 and some change..
DOH!! No light for you what don't come from the sun..
So without doing anything else to meet that 2.2 tons per cap we will be able to breathe and have a single light bulb on for 4 hrs per day (1.1 tons per year) and that will give us .8 tons of Co2 to use for EVERYTHING else we do in life. Hope you don't need food or water, have to go to work, or do anything else ever..
To wrap all this nonsense up.. We've been at 20-ish metric tons per capita since the 60's. And with the absolute boom in electronics and electronic saturation of our population, more people than ever having cars and even multiple vehicles instead of one vehicle per family, larger homes, Cell phones and all the associated towers and switches, and everything else.. Consider what we have today vs. the 60's.. TV's per home, radios, cars, phones, computers, laptops, wireless communication, DVD players, rentals, dining out and fast food, everything that's different between now and the 60's and then remember to ADD all the associated equipment.. Manufacturing, transportation, equipment and services which all use power to make them work.. All the electricity that goes into making a single DVD and getting it to your house BEFORE you ever power on your DVD player and tv to watch it..
With ALL of that in mind remember that we've only increased our per capita output from 20 tons to 24 tons. And now.. they want us to get down to 14 tons in 10 years.. then 30 years after that down to TWO tons per capita.
Now. We all know that won't be possible. But what should interest us is that there will be fines and taxes for not meeting those goals.. And that money will go to the government of our country and then be shipped off to "developing nations" to assist them..
But you won't have to pay that tax if you remember that you can purchase "offsets" from people like AlGore to help you..
Getting the picture yet?
The same thing will happen if we just continue to burn fossil fuels. We can't keep producing them at current rate for much longer. The peak oil problem is likely more urgent than global warming, so an aggressive plan for transition would benefit us either way.
Sure, we have plenty of ideas.
But I see your point. Short term benefits outweigh long term doubts. Since, long term, we're all dead anyway, I can't argue with that.
No, we're not. No one's talking about that apart from you. Worst strawman ever?
"the fact that humans are solely responsible."
Have you EVER bothered to look at the IPCC reports? EVER. EVEN ONCE?
Beause there's a chapter in there (Chapter 7, IIRC), titled "Attribution of climate change forcings". There's even a little bar graph showing the forcings on climate and do you know what, man's influence is ONLY ONE OF THEM.
It's the biggest single forcing changing today and it's one we can do something about.
So I would suggest rather than pretend you're a scientist, you put the straw away and go to the IPCC website and find out what the scientists say, not what the shock jocks say.
M'kay?
This is really just writing on the wall that the world is screwed because people won't change especially if it impacts their wallets. By the time they realize they should have it will be too late. Hell when you got countries like China threatening to throw more garbage in the air if they don't get their way you know there isn't much you can do.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-threatens-massive-venting-of-super-greenhouse-gases-in-attempt-to-extort-billions-as-unfccc-meeting-approaches-2011-11-08
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
The EU is already doing a lot stuff... Setting serious goals, and making commitments... But where's the US?
- do they have any sense of responsibility...
Adaptation is far more expensive btw, and you can see why using a modicum of logical thought.
Australia's emission may be insignificant now but Australia is 14th (out of 200) in the total accumulated emissions since the start of the industrial revolution.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So, we are posting onion stories in slashdot now?
My fellow Americans, we are screwed, blued, and tattooed.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Earth's climate has been MUCH warmer in the past than it is today, and it has been MUCH colder. Also, the concentration of CO2 has been MUCH higher, and a SMALL amount lower, throughout history.
Throughout the earth's geologic history it has been must colder than now at times and much warmer and had more oxygen and less oxygen and life went on. Climate doesn't happen in a few years. Just because you anecdotally had an extra hot day or an extra cold day means absolutely squat. If you look at historical and gelogic records you will find we aren't suddenly turning into a worldwide sulfur pit. for example, an ice free north pole happened about 80 years ago. How much manmade greenhouse gases are actually contributing to global warming is debatable. Each side brings on their own so-called experts and their own so-called scientific evidence to support their contention. And climategate didn't help. What will probably happen if/when the seas rise is that the major cities will follow the dutch example and the rest will move or be moved to higher ground. To handle the floods and droughts we could build an interstate aqueduct system from rivers in areas that typically flood to rivers in areas that typically dry out and use pumps the size of the ones they used in the great salt lake. Or we will do some other engineering kind of solution. Life will go on, regardless, and we will adapt to the climate if we cannot adapt the climate to us.
Bob Carter in 1998 when the record 1998 temps were in said that this wasn't proof of AGW because you can't take an extreme year like 1998 and use it in any determination of the climate.
Of course, in 2007, he started off using 1998 to prove it was cooling...
n/t
Seven other verses for Whistling Past the Graveyard.
Which holds zero water, as you're too much a of coward to post non AC
They're everywhere today, and on both sides of this debate!
an oilrig isnt efficient, unless it's magically fabricating the oil it's pumping out rather than extracting it from the earth?
Yet another trollmouthed coward not prepared to use their own name, with no sensible arguments supporting their 'position'
That human activity is any more than a small push towards global climate change.
Maybe if all the plans to "correct" the global crisis were less of a way for certain persons and corporations to reap in giant profits on unproven technology, or taxes were always used for their intended purpose and not misappropriated on a regular basis I would be less skeptical.
However if this report is correct, 5 years, we have no chance. There is no way to counter the current trends and social/economic conditions in the span of 5 years.
Of course this could be very much like the mid 70's when we were told with unwavering certainty that there would be no more Crude oil on Earth in 10 to 15 years.
For the IEA to say this is rediculous. Climate change has been happening since the earth first got a climate. It ALWAYS changes, to say it is irreversible smacks of an ideological agenda rather than any scientific work. Pick any date in the last 25 thousand years, the earth has benn warmer and cooler than that date. Pick any percentage of co2 in the atmosphere in the last 25 thousand years, the atmoshpere has seen lesser and greater percentages than that. Climate change has been happening for Billions of years - we ain't gonna stop it, change it or modify it anytime soon.
Weren't these nuts spouting the exact same claim back in the 80's? And look what happened...nothing! Ill keep my gas guzzler thank you very much.
In my personal opinion:
I cannot even make our house employee correctly set a plastic bag in the recyclables bin.
Some people refuse to learn no matter what.
And some are evil to the bone, they'll keep trolling until the very world end -- spending resources at their disposal to ridicule the whole idea of restraining human action on the environment.
"Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you find money cannot be eaten."
(of unkown origin, to me, I read it's Cree).
Is the power we amassed sufficient to save us? If not, it's certainly enough to doom us.
I know there was a lot of research done about methane and greenhouse gases released by cows. As America is also #1 in Body Mass Index maybe it's not our consumption, maybe we just are releasing a lot of gas into the air ourselves.
Weren't we supposed to have reached the point of irreversible climate change 15, no, 10, no last year?
Didn't they say the same thing ten years ago.
I mean really come on these people have been signing the same tired tune since I was a kid (35 years now). A few things have changed for the better. Public trash cans, lead being removed from fuel, and the amount of smog has been reduced, and the waterways are considerably cleaner, but ever since they've gotten away from improving the public health to protecting the environment for it's own sake the only thing that has changed is how much it will cost and how much of our freedom we'll have to give up.
Just googled the news archives for 'irreversible climate change' + 'years away'. Hmmm... 50-100, 30-60, 15, 10, 5, already here -- and all those answers are from the last 5 years.
And if I'm not mistaken, sustainable nuclear fusion is STILL 20 years away (and we've be saying that for the last 30 years at least!)
The best way of sequestering carbon dioxide is for the plants to do this through photosynthesis. The only problem is that this isn't happening fast enough. If there was only some way to put all the plants in the world in giant greenhouse, with warmer temperatures, extra water, more CO2 in the air as a fertilizer and longer growing seasons. If that could happen then the problem would solve itself.
Kill all the humans. It's the only way. Then maybe, we can save the world from the sun.
Or just build lots of nuclear reactors, until wind/solar/hydro can pick up the slack. Nuclear may not be the ideal solution, but it has almost no impact on "global warming". It seems like the same people who are worried about the climate are also fighting against the only practical short/medium term solution.
We also need PRACTICAL options for EV/Hybrid cars. Telling people they need to ride a bike or grow their own food is pointless. No $60k electric sedan, $70k Hybrid SUV, or $35k "clown car" compact will do. How about a nice simple, boring Accord hybrid/electric that doesn't break the bank?
You can charge people taxes for carbon emissions and use the money to plant trees, though. Not that we would.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I fear so too. We have such fools leading our nations and large corporations. Trolls like Rupert Murdoch are deliberately confusing the public, sowing doubts about science itself, not only climate science, and telling outright lie after lie. In 1993, I personally heard a speech from the CEO of Lennox to employees in which he said that 1) he didn't believe in global warming, but 2) if global warming was real, then good, because it would be good for Lennox's business of selling more A/C's! (He also complained that he would have made more money in the stock market than he made having it all tied up in Lennox, implying that the employees didn't work hard enough or something, but for the sake of everyone's jobs, he stayed with the company. What a guy!) They ought to be our best and brightest people. They evidently believe they are, the way they carry on. But they don't seem to understand something basic that separates children from adults, which is that you can't make problems go away by ignoring them. They've done worse. They've actively worked to deny everything, actually spent money that they are so greedy to have, on propaganda dressed up as science. What the hell! We have a huge, huge leadership problem. In Lennox's case, I know that CEO inherited the company. He didn't win his position on any sort of merit at all. He was the son of the previous leader, that's all.
What a bunch of lying, smug, lazy hedonists. Every generation can use a challenge, to keep life from becoming too easy and boring. We ought to embrace this problem. We could solve it. The US didn't go AWOL for WWII, didn't chicken out and let Japan grab half the Pacific, didn't leave the Brits to the Nazis. We demonstrated to the world that democracy is superior to fascism. Now we call them the Greatest Generation. If Rupert Murdoch had been a media mogul then, I can imagine he'd have spewed ridiculous pro-Nazi propaganda, maybe suggest that the US ought to cut a deal to sell Hawaii to Japan in exchange for peace. Solving global warming doesn't require the sacrifice that war did. Yet, we're running away from it. We don't deserve to stay #1 with that attitude. Our parents would be ashamed. All the work and sacrifice they did so we'd have a better life, and this is how we repay that.
So, we won't do enough to address this problem, not until it's far too late. Greenland will melt, and maybe western Antarctica will too, most of Florida and Bangladesh will drown, and the Netherlands may find it impossible to raise the dikes high enough. Then we'll engage in recriminations as we fight over higher ground and food. There will be war, maybe even WWIII and use of nuclear weapons. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I have a couple acres, a nice house, a swimming pool.
Sorry if that doesn't suit what you think I should have. Trust me, your standard of living is worse than mine by any measure. By ANY measure.
Bacteria cultures propagate until they exhaust all their resources. The the populations collapses. Humans are smarter that this... but they are also arrogant. IMO, the 2 will cancel each other out, and we'll end up at the same destination. North America, AUS & NZ will be fine, as we have an abundance of food & water resources.
Perhaps most scientists agree, but the historians disagree. The historical evidence for a warmer MWP is overwhelming.
Where shall we start? The fact that there was increased agriculture? The fact that Greenland had arable farming settlements on what is permafrost today? The fact that vineyards in Eastern Europe were found at higher altitudes and latitudes than is possible today?
Or how about the hundreds of peer-reviewed proxy studies from the time that show a temperature ranging from .5 to 2 degrees higher than today? A database of those can be found at the Medieval Warm Period Project at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
The truth of the matter is that we are right on schedule for a warm period - they happen about once every thousand years. The last one, the MWP, was about .5-2 degrees warmer than today. The one before that, the Roman Warm Period, was about 2-4 degrees higher than today (and during that time, there were passes through the Alps that haven't been usable in close to two millennia). The idea that we're about to enter a climate apocalypse is fear-mongering.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
CO2 is expelled by living organism, human beings! CO2 is absolutely necessary for plants to grow. Increasing CO2 increased plant grow. CO2 increases will be necessary to feed the people of the earth. There has been no global warming over the last 10 years as shown by the BEST study while CO2 increased. None of the climate models created by the alarmist community work! NONE WORK! None of the models have predicted anything close to reality. The man-made global warming fraudsters are simply socialist out to kill people in the third world countries!
US have a population of 312 million in a world with 7 billion people, thats about 4.5 percent of the world population - and that small percentage consume is:
Fuel type 2006 US consumption in PWh 2006 World consumption in PWh
Oil 11.71 50.33
Gas 6.50 31.65
Coal 6.60 37.38
So 24% of all oil, 20% of all gas, 18% of all coal. in the world in 2006.
So yes, the answer for who got to do something is very obvious...
Where you get paid hundreds of dollars per month to have a kid, and many generous benefits are heaped on in addition.
I already put 35 solar panels on my house, switched to 100% wind for when I have to buy, and I drive a hybrid (maybe soon an electric). Quite frankly, my family has a CYA on this one. Do your part!
about this and I can have some peace and quiet?
I don't believe it.
so we can put this issue to rest? Let's try for 2 years, please. Crank up the coal fires and smoke out the believers. We can't hear 'em bitch if they're below the water level.
Actually, I just checked that, and you're correct - there is nascent farming again around the vicinity of what was once both Viking settlements. Nice catch, and I stand corrected.
That said, you are wrong about the permafrost being long gone - this appears to be a development in the last five years or so (compared to the centuries of permafrost). Considering the Vikings were farming there for about 500 years before the settlements were confirmed abandoned, what we have here remains evidence of the commencement of a warm period - which, as I mentioned, is right on schedule.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
"has a serious problem with logic."
I think the word you were looking for is faith .
Harold Camping makes predictions based on his perceived trends. When those predictions fail to materialize, he has a credibility issue that only the faithful are willing to overlook.
"Climate Science" is the same thing. Many predictions, little credibility, a faithful following.
So you see, it has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with a religious cult. It may take you 20yrs or so to wake up to it but one day you will and you will look back on this with shame as I laugh in your face and mock your offspring.
This "scam" continues. In the history of the world, it has been MUCH warmer & MUCH cooler than it has been recently. This is just more scare tactics, to get the big economies to pony up money to the "poor" countries.
...I thought we passed the "irreversible" point back in 1999? At least that's what Hadley Centre said back in 2000:
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/climatechange-11.12.00.htm
Oh wait...maybe I'm confusing this with the 2009 "it's now irreversible" proclamation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7852628.stm
That one came from NOAA.
Or maybe it was all the "this is *absolutely* our LAST CHANCE to do something!" declarations at the last couple of IPC meetings (each of each have experienced record cold/snow/rain)?
All of these "sky is falling" cries are getting a bit hard to believe....especially when there's no evidence for the claims.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
umm hello! USSR == Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
while both experience(d) elements of corruption and those corrupted elements are indeed similar, it is an absolute mistake to equate the underlying framework. Corruption == Corruption; Capitalism != Socialism etc.
now stop drinking the mindless drivel of the ows protesters.
Dec 21st 2012 says it all. Can we wait till then. If we are still here then lets talk.
My brain hurts a lot
thanks but I will leave the conspiracy theories to the warmists lying about big oil funding this and that.
the science the warmists put forward sucks. full of holes and uncertainty. what the fuck is so hard to understand about that?
Bonus question: What is the proven co2 ppm we need to be at right now that would save the world?
if you cant answer that - you are just another religious follower that does not know shit.
CO2 isn't a simple count of parts per million; it's got a sustained impact. The forests that died due to beetles swarming outside of their usual range won't come back right away, and the soil there will not just stay put waiting for them to come back. The methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean that are melting and multiplying the greenhouse effect won't re-freeze. We're looking at positive feedback loops here.
Rises and falls of CO2 in the geological timeline take place over thousands of years and give some species a chance to adapt in time to survive the mass extinction events that usually go along with it. The only sign we have of something this drastic was a meteor impact in Siberia where large coal reserves once were; we have the evidence now that resulting volcanic activity burned that coal and released its carbon into the atmosphere. That's the only natural analogue I can think of for the massive industrial extraction of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon dioxide and releasing it into the atmosphere, and while it was natural, the result was the Permian/Triassic extinction which killed over 90% of the extent species worldwide. The ecosystems took millenia to recover.
We have to change course soon. The previous recovery was from a natural disaster, not an industrial civilization that stops at nothing to fuel its growth and destroys habitat and releases large amounts of pollution while doing it. This is unprecedented. Y2K had the IT industry hauling ass to prevent serious problems, but this requires an unprecedented effort; otherwise, our generation will see the end of great many beautiful things, and most of us will perish for the lack of healthy ecosystems that we didn't assign a dollar value to.
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
How many times have we heard this before? From the same people who push electric cars.
I guess they dont see how many oil/coal/nuke plants would have to be built to match the draw on the grid(s) from the masses charging their cars..
But hey, what the hell; facts no longer matter.
For the last 13 years the Earths temperature has dropped and it looks like the planet continues to cool.
CO2 continues to raise.
I think this whole article is stupid. Irreversable? Please. The Earth's climate has been in flux for thousands of years. If the planet wanted to stay at one temperature it would be ice-age like temperatures.
And what period are we in anyways? An Iceage!! Does the IEA want the planet to be in an iceage forever?
This is another example of climate change hysteria and Slashdot, again, has taken the walk down the Primerose path to Alarmism when there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Wouldn't this lead to Americans consuming much less (goal), which would then lead to even worse worldwide economic turmoil? So are we drawing a line between economy vs. climate now?
You're confusing consuming less energy or other resources with consuming fewer goods and services. A CO2 tax can lead to an outcome where Americans consume the same amount of goods and services, but in a more energy- and resource-efficient manner. (Though yes, it can also lead to an outcome where technology and production doesn't catch up, and the economy suffers from it.)
Are you adequate?
Windmills and carbon taxes are obviously working as world temp's have dropped over the last decade or so.
Keep up the good work guys... ;)
IPCC's Prediction That CO2 Will Cause High Temperatures Found Wildly Wrong, Scientists Confirm 'New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of 'accelerating; global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong' http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/11/08/a-new-lower-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/
How does it feel to be the one "being deliberately confused"? they are feeding you lies dumbass and real science keeps exposing them!
want more? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-greenland-significantly-warmer-than-present-several-times-in-the-last-4000-years/
You don't need to charge people taxes to plant trees. You need to look at the processes that are cutting the trees down and businesses need to incorporate that into their cost of product.
You don't want government involved in any part of the environment because as you say, they won't do it. (Plant Trees).
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Interesting, considering how fast unwelcome news drop off the public awareness and media - why they wanted to bang the climate drum again now?
Do any of you seriously believe, that there are no methods for curbing emissions, if there is actual need for? Yes, maybe it involves a bit of flock culling but that has not hindered anyone before. It is just reasonable to keep current system as it is for as long it is tolerable - you get more usable resources from larger population base.
First they said X amount at worse in 100 years. Now they claim irreversible change in five years. This presumes first of all that there is any such thing as irreversible change in a dynamic system using any possible means including ones not yet inventent. Second of all it implies the changes are utterly horrific without sufficient evidence. Third of all it presumes there is a workable remedy within 5 years which there clearly is not. If we stopped all human CO2 producing activities, for instance, on a dime (of course we can't), it still would not reduce CO2 already in the air even a single percentage point. So this is alarmist crap - not science and sure as hell not engineering.
AllIndustrial economies are pyramid schemes. They depend on growth. First they did it with empires, then they did it with inflation. Now that growth is no longer possible the morons responsible don't seem to understand that the GFC and its ongoing consequences are simply what happens to a pyramid scheme when growth slows.
What will happen is neofeudalism. Feudalism only failed when the Black Death culled the population, making expansion possible. Now that growth is once again no longer the norm, conditions favouring feudalism are returning. The middle classes will soon be extinct.
If you want the good times to roll again, there are only two options.
Simple, we put a gas that traps heat into the atmosphere, we just need to pump a shit load of oxygen into the atmosphere to conteract the effects. Oxygen has a cooling effect when its added to atmosphere, we just need to be carefull about avoiding an ice age.
Bonus question: What is the proven co2 ppm we need to be at right now that would save the world?
Anything under 350 ppmv would probably be tolerable.
BTW, the science the deniers put forward is even more full of holes and uncertainty so why should we pay attention to that?
China also happens to be developing their long term energy solution, and it is carbon neutral. So is India, Russia, Korea, France. But not the USA, not the UK...
When the inevitable, and massive, economic collapse comes within the next few years, demand for all energy forms will drop dramatically. International trade will take the largest hit and no Smoot-Hawley will be needed this time. Along with the collapse will come sharp increases in human mortality as subsidies supporting third world development programs cease. The silly economic episode of the last several years will be remembered fondly as "the good old days." Taken together, the effects will greatly reduce "carbon" emissions and delay the "irreversible" point, if you believe such nonsense.
Not cutting down trees isn't enough, we need to plant more trees, and then cut them down, and then plant more trees, which is bad for the soil so we have to bring in some poop. When you make stuff out of trees you sequester carbon... The energy for milling the lumber needs to be carbon-neutral too of course, but that's not impossible.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Imagine you're standing on the beach, and someone's telling you that flood is coming in...
The warmist heard this and runs around frantically screaming "the world is going to end". He then comes up with a plan to equalize the ocean and starts demanding a tax. He blamed salt use then hired a bunch of NGO's to write and review "research" papers to "prove" by "consensus" salt is causing the flood. The NGO's "settled the science". Its "irrefutable", "you need only worry about paying the tax".
Unfortunately, he never bothered to investigate the person who told him about the flood. That guy just wanted to sell his new wind and solar pumps.
I loved the ending though. The NGO's, corrupt politicians and their fake scientists all went to jail! Oh - and they found out they were in a 100yr flood zone. It was all natural cycle. go figure.
It was a great story of fraud, crime, corruption and manipulation. People are so damn gullible.
Climate engineering. It's just a matter of time. And it will be a disaster. But I'll survive with or without it. As for the rest of you... good luck with that.
stop with this manmade GW hoax already!
African citizens, on the other hand, wouldn't scream bloody murder at all. Dead people don't scream. Same goes for a not-insignificant part of the human population.
What people here fail to realize is that there are plenty of places where a human cannot reasonably hope to survive without oil-based heating, or at the very least woodburning.
Despite the "cheaper" nature of renewables, most poor people do not seem able to afford them. We all know why this is, so let's PLEASE not start a trolling campaign about how it's not true.
We have change the way our economy operates to prevent climate change that will change the way our economy operates. What am I missing here?
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&feature=player_embedded
Ran one in the 1960s for 5 years so we know it works. The answer has been in front of us for 40+ years.
We sense that the public is losing faith with global warming alarmism and we need a crisis to keep the money spigots flowing. The 'consensus' is that five years is about right: short enough to cause some panic, long enough to get funding for awhile longer.
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
I mean, the earth has had several major "irreversible" climate changes, but it seemed to correct itself. I am not worried about "earth", it will be around and thriving long after mankind is gone.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
And let me guess, the IEA can fix this if we give them enough money, and their leadership gets generous bonuses and retirement plans.
Just look at all the historical examples. One of the best times to be a European peasant before the Industrial Revolution was right after the Black Death. Lots of vacant land, lots of demand for labor, etc.
5 years to irreversible change seems oddly precise, on the timescale of the global climate.
Is this like in films where the hero is asphyxiating, drowning, dying of poison or a disease, or the ship's computer is counting down to "failure of life support systems", and if they are rescued 5 seconds before the deadline they are *completely fine* but 5 seconds later they would be *completely screwed*?
'Cause like, I think that word "irreversible" is representing a continuum of changes with varying consequences, durations and costs to either returning the system to a state we like or more likely adapting ourselves to it.
Unless they mean we have 5 years left before peak oil fucks the economy so hard that all possible technological countermeasures will be out of reach, and we just have to wait a couple of centuries until the coal is gone too and half of us have starved, when things will start getting back to normal.
Yeah, fuck that.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
No developed or developing nation on earth is going to slow down and the world runs on, and will continue to run on oil and coal - period. We and out children are simply screwed. Get over it, and get used to it. Put a fork in us, we are done.
Actually, I hope we are past the point of no return. Not kidding. Search for 'ice free earth now'.
Same as tom cruise says U need here from :19 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tAFJUcLaYSg#t=20s "medication, whooo" ahahahahaha
See :19 on the YouTube player here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tAFJUcLaYSg#t=22s hahaha "Medication woohooo" hahahahaha
Why should you have an aggressive plan for a transition after peak oil? Isn't the most economically sound thing to do is make a gradual transition, so as to save opportunity costs? Wait until the market for oil becomes expensive enough to incent the pursuit of other technologies (say, nuclear), and then pay the price, and in the meantime, do the best you can to exploit all the cheap energy we have to provide for a higher quality of life for humanity.
I mean, assume 45 is "peak" age for a human - should we be preparing for our eventual decline due to aging by practicing to use a wheelchair, or walker, or trifocals at age 46? Age 35? Peak oil (or peak anything, by its definition) isn't an *urgent* problem, it's a gradual one.
Artificially increasing the price of energy only slows technological advance, and human welfare.
Really? The earth's global average temperature increased say, .8C from 1900 - 2000. We spent zero on mitigation. How much did we spend on adaptation? How much would mitigation have costed, to say, have an entirely carbon free society in 1900?
Adaptation is far less expensive, and you can see why just by looking at the past century.
Really? The earth's global average temperature increased say, .8C from 1900 - 2000. We spent zero on mitigation. How much did we spend on adaptation?
I'd estimate the cost at approximately half a trillion dollars - including a component of money not yet spent, but that would need to be spent, even if the climate did not change any further.
Adaptation is far less expensive, and you can see why just by looking at the past century.
You model assumes that the cost of adaptation increase linearly as a function of increased emissions, and that emissions themselves have increased linearly as a function of time since 1900. Neither assumption is true, so your model can be safely ignored.