Slashdot Mirror
Climate Panel Says To Prepare For Weird Weather
Layzej writes "Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become 'increasingly marginal as places to live in,' the report concludes. Critics of the report note that 'Governments have in the past considerably weakened the language of IPCC summaries for policymakers,' and that the IPCC process tends to water down even the most obvious conclusions."
Never mind about what we said about the hot weather, just get your mittens and coats ready when solar magnetic decline and solar minimum freeze (y)our rears off in 2020...
The planet warming WILL result in regions cooling because it disrupts the heat transfer mechanisms. Central Europe cooling would likely be disruption to the trade winds and the Atlantic Conveyer. It is extremely naive to assume that global warming equates to local warming and the fact that your environment is the coldest in 50 years really should have tipped you off.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I totally agree! A bunch of scientists were wrong once. Sure, they got more data and reevaluated their models to be more accurate, but since they were wrong once there's no good reason to ever listen to them!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
In fact increased heat in the system has several counter intuitive effects. This is because increased heat vaporizes more water increasing the length and severity of storm events. More Cat 5 hurricanes, more snow, more floods. Conversely it means frequent and unpredictable changes in weather patterns. This has to do with greater swings in climate, increased frequency of swings. This is what thermodynamicists refer to as a system in purturbation.
Even the researchers that had objected to global warming now acknowledges its happening. The evidence in incontrovertible. They still argue to the cause, but considering that the year 2011 saw unprecedented production of greenhouse gases (far exceeding even the worst case scenarios), it should now be clear to anyone who doesn't have a personal axe to grind that the climate is in the process of extraordinary change, and that the conditions we rely on to feed 7 billion people are about to get very dicey. It is now time to begin global projects designed to move humanity off of fossil fuel. High altitude wind power, space based solar power, small thorium base reactors, high performance hydrogen fuel cells and advanced power storage technologies could easily cover our need until we perfect fusion. The fundamental impediment has been fighting a fossil fuel corporate monolith which has hijacked our government. Its time for us to take back our future.
Will it also make some places more habitable?
Who has a track record for being wrong? Can you point to even a single article published in a respectable scientific journal that claimed that?
Would becoming 'increasingly marginal as a place to live' include the Gulf of Mexico being taken over by a large, year-round, standing hurricane?
You would do well to consider that flooded server rooms may have an adverse impact on the IT infrastructure.
Same can be said for production facilities. Take the recent example of Thailand floods causing an hard drive shortage that is steadily driving prices up.
Adverse weather will only make things gradually more challenging, requiring more technical know-how and workarounds to deal with it.
Would help if there weren't so many left wing nut jobs (read: Republicans) telling the world that abortion is murder, and religious fools (read: The Vatican) that contraception is a sin.
This is the same IPCC that said we wouldn't have any glaciers by 2010, or icesheets, or that the northwest passage would be open to traffic(never mind it's been open to traffic since it was first charted). Or that there would never be snow again on various mountains, and so on and so forth. Or that we'd all be dead what was it this year? Or is it next year? I can never keep it straight with all these doomsday predictions from all these environmental groups, and government backed organizations.
Reading fail. The IPCC never said we wouldn't have glaciers or ice sheets by 2010. I'd be willing to put my whole retirement savings up to bet you can't back that statement up (and I'm 59 years old so I have some). I wouldn't call requiring a heavy duty ice breaker to get through the northwest passage in less than a couple of years "open to traffic".
Guys like you never examine the projected time frames on IPCC (and other climate scientists) statements very carefully. You think everything's going to happen in the next 5 or 10 years and if it's longer than that you don't think it's worth worrying about.
I think we've past the tipping point already. At the least, I don't think we can change our habits enough to prevent climate change at this point, so...
I think we need to start planning for the aftermath of all of this, and do as much as we can in preparation for those changes. Unfortunately I don't think we will, and all I can see is a lot of people needlessly suffering for it all.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Publicity for Ubuntu 16.04 or around.
And 10 years has what to do with climate trends? Not much. A recent paper by Santer et. al. calculated the signal (climate) to noise (weather/natural variation) ratio for climate trends. For 10 years the S/N ratio is less than 1. They found it takes 17 years to be sure the signal is greater than the noise.
We already have weird weather. It's the end of November and it's 15C outside (I can't put a degree symbol because the slashdot janitors have made an arse od input parsing). It reached a deep low of about 8C earlier in the month. During the summer, the temperature varied between -2C and 26C in July.
Yesterday I was seeing wind speeds of up to 90mph in gusts and 60mph sustained, and today it is flat calm. In January we normally see sustained 120mph winds, but this year they were only about 90mph.
Although it's flat calm and warm and sunny now, in as little as ten minutes the weather could go to a hailstorm with high winds and the cloudbase at about treetop height, then clear up just as soon as it came.
Up here, this is all perfectly normal. It's just what it's like here.
"Weird weather", is it? Well, we'll see.
Global warming is encompassed in climate change, as is weird weather. You can disbelieve all you want but the climate doesn't care.
A destroyed climate is as bad for a hundred people as it is for 7 billion, so it would matter exactly as much.
Limit you all? LIMIT? Necessity is the mother of invention. If you feel limited by a need to invent, you're on the wrong site. Besides, what are these "limits" of which you speak? You can reduce pollution by increasing efficiency. Increased efficiency means you get more out for the same amount in (since you can't violate the law of conservation of matter and energy and therefore what would be pollutants are now something useful instead). That sounds like a recipe for profits, not limits.
Moving off coal and adopting nuclear fission (for now, fusion later) doesn't LIMIT you. You get much more power on the grid for less fuel and much less pollution. The miners won't be getting lung cancer or blown up in methane explosions, so saving lives and cutting medical (and rescue) expenses, all at the same time. Those freed-up people, if educated and retrained, could be a marvelous resource to tap into. The mistake made by many shifts in industry is to neglect the fact that humans are a powerful and valuable resource. Ignoring them limits your scope for imagination, exploration and development.
And let's examine that for a moment. Here's thousands, if not tens of thousands, of opportunities to try new things, explore new ideas and grow. Who but a fool would call that a limit?
Use the potential that change brings! Ignoring it and wasting it won't stop it, but it will limit what good can come from it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Seriously, here it is.
We engage the warp drive on the hemp production. We will suck every drop of carbon out of the atmosphere with it. Seriously, we have our number one oxygen scrubber growling like a weed. Once upon a time hemp grew like a weed. It was a damn weed and it would grow out of control. It's a pain in the ass if you want to grow corn crops. It makes great rope, in fact we enacted farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. Then we said...no..no more hemp.
It seems the cotton industry hated it. Here is a WEED that people go grab for fibers then that they could weave for themselves cloths and such. Coupled with corn farmers they lobbied it as an evil South of the border thing. And they did their best to eradicate it. It also turned out that the jazz and blues musicians were smoking it in all of those wrong kind of places to be seen at as a decent Christian sort. They were able to demonize it even more with their lobbyists. Preachers thundered on about it, etc.
But lets look at the facts of the matter. This plant has some amazing qualities to it aside from deer and rabbits wanting to eat it like it's a delicacy to them. The seeds of this are from what I understand can be distilled into a petroleum. Yes, I thought that as well. Petroleum? Seriously?
Petro is a hydrocarbon. Correct? What do we have floating about fucking up our atmosphere? Carbon? What thrives on this stuff in the air? Plants? How about a plant that will chew this stuff up and store that carbon in it's seeds as energy for it's babies. Imagine harvesting those seeds for that hydrocarbon? Then you have a very strong fiber resulting from the harvest as well. There are various grades of this fiber to work with. First being very long strong straight strands, then of course pulp fiber which can be pressed into parchment paper such as what the US Constitution is wrote on. Imagine the image quality of a high quality ink printer photo on a paper that ages like our Constitution. I can't get that at Office Max, can you? Let me know if you do, I want to print off pirate maps on some. Arrgh!
Here is the solution. You legalize and authorize hemp production in the US. It has to be licensed and monitored by the Ag department, not the DEA. Don't worry, stoners will not be growing weed in it or near it. They will cry if they do because it will be allowed to massively pollinate with Midwestern native hemp, which will drop the THC levels into the ditch weed category. Not to mention it will become seedy as FUCK. Everyone hates seedy pot. If you go to smoke pot and there is a seed in the pipe or the joint, BOOM! I have seen seeds blow up in a pot pipe someone was smoking and blow all the pot out of it and give them a face full of burning weed. It wasn't like a grenade, it just startles the living crap out of them when it happens. As a kid, I would get a seed, hollow out the tobacco of a cigarette, drop a big fat juicy seed in it, then repack it. We've all sabotaged a smoker like that before, right?
As I digress...
Those same "blow the fuck up in your face, so you better clean them out, NOOB" seeds are the ones that you run through a high pressure roller press and collect the oil. We also have to do this scientifically to appease the most staunch of skeptics. First, it has to be grown by using a strong composing, we can do this by processing a lot of our waste. We can let it process a trashy swampy sewer-ed field into clay, instead of devouring crop land. You just have to engineer the fields according with EPA standards for a land fill situation. It's called, get out the bulldozers time and do some serious earth moving.
We can do some genetic experimentation with this to tweak it to grow insanely big and fast. Plants are amazingly fun to mess with on a genetic level, we have been doing it for quite a time now. We used to call it "breeding". There are an amazing variety of this plant that we can cross breed with. Take for example there is a breed of it in italy that grows 6 inches I day, I would say couple that with so
Take the Red Pill.
With seven billion people on the planet, and rapidly rising standards of living in China and other parts of Asia, with coal increasingly augmenting the petroleum plateau, I'd be shocked if every year didn't set a new record for CO2 emissions.
What would be unprecedented here is a global consensus among rich and poor, east and west in preventing business as usual from raising the bar on CO2 emissions every year for the next half century--which is exactly what would have happened had the earth's CO2 levels not been precisely balanced at a precarious tipping point as science presently tells the story. If we pull this off, we'll be manufacturing a political consensus out of whole cloth such as never before witnessed on this blue marble.
On another note, I don't get this beautification of scientific consensus as the second coming of fast food culture: science is, and always was, a slow food movement. It takes decades or centuries to reach secure conclusions concerning systems as complex as the earth's climate. I think this is a lot like a doctor who discovers a new disease model, then immediately proposes an extremely radical treatment of unknown severity and consequence.
Via Wikipedia:
Amputated at the thigh IIRC by another doctor who shows and takes responsibility. In the long run, these interventions become routine, and the consequences become understood and mitigated.
Is there any evidence that we can fundamentally shift the global economy away from fossil fuels on a radical program without incurring large and unknowable risks to geopolitical stability in doing so?
The paint is still wet on climate science. Be careful what you wish for. And don't write me off as a club foot surgery denier. The old day-glo Wired was my personal hot tub: I'm a card-carrying techno-optimist. Politically, however, I'm extremely wary about any combination of alacrity with wet paint. Apollo 13 was pretty much the historical high water mark on smooth sailing amidst a crash program instigated by handshakes among our political overlords.
Climate changes. It isn't static. Weather, even more so. To cast climate change as the villain in a scare story is the ultimate gimmick. When I was a kid (in the 1950's), we had some long dry spells in NE Pennsylvania. And there was the dust bowl. Further back, there were other notable and unusual climate events. And huge swings in temperature. Also huge swings in CO2 (although they lagged warm periods, they didn't lead them... obviously the plants making lots and lots. But this doesn't provide evidence that CO2 increases warmth, it provide evidence that CO2 correlates with decreasing warmth.) Still, no one can predict climate in the best of times, much less now. Or weather. Yet, sometimes the climate does very unfriendly things. So it's the perfect bogy-man to point at if you want to scare money out of people, or distract them.
Having said that, yes, we should reduce our CO2 emissions. And the good news is, we will -- quite naturally -- as we stop burning petroleum. And we will stop, because it's hard to get, appears to be running out, and we have to negotiate with crazy people to get enough, and alternate sources make more sense on many levels, and we'll be reducing our power consumption by increasing efficiency, a good example being by wide adoption of electric vehicles, which we'll have in great numbers very shortly -- VERY shortly if recent battery tech announcements (1,2) pan out. What we don't need to to is torque the economy (even further) out of shape to deal with an emergency that isn't here and which so far, no one has shown decisively to be incoming.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
For England, most of the heat input is via the ocean currents. The oceans are extremely large and it takes a lot of heat to make any significant difference in temperature. England will notice changes in rainfall - as indeed it has - long before any other effect becomes noticeable. The delay resulting from the ocean will mask temperature changes in Britain up until the Atlantic Conveyer fails entirely. THEN, temperatures will drop somewhere between 20'F and 40'F.yes, drop. Global temperature refers to the mean temperature of the entire planet, deserts and all. It is NOT an addition you can just make to everything. It is an average. If Billy as a car and Mandy has a car, then Grim gives Mandy Billy's car pus one more, the average number of cars has gone up even though Billy is now sulking in a corner.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes, very well said. Also, the corollary: You can believe all you want but the climate doesn't care.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Nobody makes the obvious point.
Some areas could become 'increasingly marginal as places to live in,' the report concludes.
Great. And how is this different from before ? My grandfather left north holland because it became too cold. Before that I'm told that a few dambreaks (presumably caused either by storms, rising sea level, or in the worst case incompetence) cause my family to leave a place between Amsterdam and Zeeland. That's just the last 200 years, maybe less (I only have generations to go on, not years. And there sure were a lot of dambreaks in the 19th century).
This is not an exception. Just read this : http://weburbanist.com/2008/07/06/20-abandoned-cities-and-towns/.
That's again just the last century (and not all climate related, some are though). But going further back there's plenty of stuff. 2000 years ago, the Sahara was lush green forest, filled with civilized black people (not arabs, who since exterminated them) who at one point dared attack Rome, and there was serious concern that campaign might succeed (and it did manage to cast aside 4 Roman legions, 3 in less time than it took the senate to notice their legions were gone, never mind decide what to do about it. They didn't do anything about it). The only reason there are Europeans in Europe is climate change in Eastern Asia. This is not news.
Where do we get the weird idea that climate was constant before today ? Where do we get the massive egocentric idea that it will start staying constant for us ? Gaia is a fickle godess that constantly slays things from houses, to cities, to entire states.
I am not saying that "there isn't something going on", but I do remember being taught how Darwinism categorizes species : adapt ... or die.
The whole strategy that seems to be pushed implicitly here seems to me a strategy that falls squarely in the latter category. Trying to keep things constant is not just a losing strategy, it's the way to extinction.
Your memory is too short, grasshopper: In August of 1955, hurricane Dianne dumped almost double the peak amount of rain (24 inches) on your region as compared to hurricane Irene, and the consequences were likewise notable. And no-one, not even the truest climate change believers, are blaming Hurricane Dianne on CO2. Every once in a while, it is normal for a hurricane to do exactly that -- drop a bunch of water on the NY/PA region. It doesn't mean that we're experiencing climate change. It just means a hurricane followed an inconvenient track, while doing exactly what hurricanes always do. Again.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It will also lead to additional cooling. This is also an expected result. It's a feedback loop. One of many.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We don't have a big problem with acid rain any more because of these warnings and following drastic tightening of emission regulations for power plants and other large scale emitters.
The hope is that these worst-case predictions and scenarios for the climate change lead to the required actions to limit further C02 emissions best case or at least prepare to mitigate the effects on things like food and water supply, flooding and storms.
If they were to say something like, "The earth is a big place and there's all kinds of weird weather everywhere, every year, and it's been like that since the beginning of time, and the planet goes through regular cycles of long ice ages with short warm interglacial period in between, and we really don't know when the next ice age is gonna come, but there's not much we can do about it", there wouldn't be a reason for their existence and their jobs, is there?
It wouldn't fit the science, either.
You know, they don't pull this stuff out of there arses, unlike you.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
First it was "Global Warming", then when it became obvious that wasn't happening it was "Climate Change".
No.
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
Click the little linky thing.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
People started saying climate change instead of global warming because idiots focussed on the warming bit, not the global bit. Global temperatures went up, but if the local temperature went down so people said things like this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sorry, here's a better citation. But it was not "on the level of a typographical error, not a scientific error" as you say. It was at least incompetence and at most intentionally misleading, even if well meaning.
Your "basic logic" has missed the part where being unable to formulate a trend for a 10 year period != having no access to the hundreds (ranging to millions, for some measures) of years of data that we have.
The GPs point was that while we may may need more than 10 years of data, we do have more than 10 years and we can draw trends from them.
"For the next 2 to 3 decades natural climate variations will be far more significant rather than any man made factors" - Prof Mike Hulme, CRU.
He's a credible source isn't he?
"Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
I'm not so godawful impressed with the "geopolitical stability" at the moment, so maybe it's worth a shot, huh?
If the next few years sees the development of low-cost standalone energy systems, something like super-efficient solar systems or portable cold-fusion reactors or some such, where houses and businesses could be run off the grid, and a grid is no longer needed I can see it having a salutary effect on "geopolitical stability" especially if you throw the word "economic" in the middle of that.
(Note: I'm not suggesting anything about cold-fusion reactors except as a though experiment where energy could be created without having scarce resources sucked from miles beneath the earth's surface and transported thousands of miles and then burnt in huge, polluting energy factories where it is then transmitted to my house over miles of wires, either hanging in the sky like in the US or hidden in trenches under the ground like in Europe, and then connected to each house through a meter, whereby a company can charge me for each unit of energy that I use, just so I can turn on an lamp so I can read at night or make toast in the morning.
I can see the elimination of the need for fossil fuels being a very nice thing for the fucking "geopolitical stability" thank you very much.
It amazes me that the only thing a bunch of Slashdot technophiles can imagine for the reduction of CO2 is society's return to pre-industrial revolution lifestyles. These are the same people who are all for space tourism and quantum computing.
Knuckleheads.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not really the same thing. The global cooling hypothesis was only in a couple of papers and, unlike global warming, never received wide scientific support. It was however widely (and inaccurately) reported in the popular media.
You can read about it on (where else) wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
This really comes down to the fact that you have ALL nations not wanting to make economic sacrifices while at the same time, we have China in a cold war with the west via economic means. There are 2 solutions for this:
1) accept that we will have climage change and see where we go.
2) Do something that forces ALL NATIONS TO CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME.
Now, America is NOT going to change unless we see that nations like China, India, Brazil, etc. are going to change. China has already indicated that they will not change. They keep saying that this is about output / person, which is a false measure. So, how to change this? HAVE NATIONS PUT A TAX ON ALL MANUFACTURED GOODS PREDICATED ON CO2 FROM WHERE IT (and parts) CAME from. That tax should rise steadily to give nations time to adjust. OCO2 is about to go up. This sat measures CO2 in the atmosphere. This will give us a true measure of CO2 that is flowing in/out from a nation. That will make it possible for us to have true values to work with. That will almost certainly mean that many nations and even unexpected areas are going to show up as emitting far far more than what they expected. By doing a tax on ALL goods, we will see nations change quickly. The reason is because it is economically better to do that, then not.
The one issue is how to apply it. Many will argue for CO2 per capita. That is one of the WORST measures going. The reason is that nations will cheat in their reporting. In addition, it rewards nations that have not controlled their population. In addition, CO2 output is NOT correlated with populations. Far from it.
I have argued that the fairest and sanest would be per sq km. The reason is that the size of land is fixed and can be seen from space. Likewise Ag is a major CO2 emitter. But probably the worst output is a correlation with economic output. Most of man's CO2 output is far more related to economics.
As such, it makes sense to look at it in terms of CO2 per $ of GPD or CO2 per land rather than per capitia.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're sure it wasn't just a blanket of dead moths? Those damn things pile up everywhere.
Blank until
What is new is attribution of severe weather events to human activity. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf
When heatwave deaths are your fault, it is time to take corrective action.
Also, you are incorrect that trying to keep things steady is the way to extinction. This is some Frank Herbert meme but it has no basis. Beavers keep pond water levels constant and do just fine.
Aww yes, nothing is happening and we can't do anything about it if it was happening. Same old bullshit story (or non story).
Maybe you think weather patterns are not leading indicators of climate change, but they are the canary in the coal mine as harbingers of what's to come.
Second point-no need to do anything about emissions cause the economy is just too damn scary. Here's a newsflash that you might not have completely thought through-when is it going to become too expensive to rebuild the communities that get hit by tornadoes, hurricanes, extreme snowfall, etc? Think about it, billions to rebuild entire towns/cities in this economy. Soon we will decide whether if your home is worthwhile to rebuild or just creat a greenspace.
P.S. I live in New Orleans and know of the expense and toil of what I speak.
Won't Bow.....Don't Know How
People die. We are not immortal. But to claim that we don't have to worry about a poison gas cloud coming our way because people die anyway is ludicrous. The argument that X happens naturally, therefore we need not be concerned about X, only appeals to those who want to dismiss a topic they find uncomfortable to deal with.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Everyone with half a brain knows there is climate change happening. We have significantly more data than 10 years. In fact, NASA just launch their most advanced climate satellite last week that will give us thousands of terabits of data per DAY! --- not that any of this will mean much to deniers of the scientific process such as yourself.
You mean the acid rain that was stopped by Reagan's cap and trade treaty on sulphur emissions?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I would wager that this is affected more by a greater number of people building houses in severe weather areas than an increase in the number and severity of the weather events. Yes, changes in weather will make a change here, but the number of "targets" in a given area has changed much more rapidly than the weather(climate) changes.
I find it hilarious that the press seems to focus on "most expensive [weather event] in history" as a measure of the severity of the weather event instead of a measure of population density.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
The whole "1970's ice age" thing is based on a half truth and misdirection. Before Nixon's clean air act it was a bit of a toss up between warming from GHG's and cooling from aerosols (mainly sulphur that was also causing acid rain). Regan permanently fixed the sulphur problem with a cap and trade system in the early 90's, so now it's mostly warming from GHG's but still a bit of short term cooling from smog. This graph shows the best guesstimates of various forgings.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Last time I ran the numbers on the Tesla roadster, a Tesla powered by 100% coal-derived electricity would be responsible for half the CO2 of a gasoline-powered car getting 30mpg. So, no, battery powered electric cars won't increase CO2 emissions drastically.
It was a member of the IPCC who picked up the error, a bit late maybe, but still the process caught it. The IPCC is nothing more than a giant peer-review process, the reports they write are their evidence and summaries and are generally conservative in their statements due to the difficulty of getting a large number of experts to agree.Their budget is ~$5M/yr soureced from hundreds of nations of all political colours, the money is spent mainly on conference rooms and planes, no scientist is paid a dime by the IPCC for their work on the reports. I cannot think of another scientific question that has been put to such a rigorous bullshit filter. The remarkably small number of real errors that have found their way into the final reports over the last 20yrs is a testament to their accuracy. The 90,000 review comments and answers for their last set of reports are also available somewhere on the site..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Climate changes. It isn't static. Weather, even more so. To cast climate change as the villain in a scare story is the ultimate gimmick. When I was a kid (in the 1950's), we had some long dry spells in NE Pennsylvania. And there was the dust bowl.
No climate isn't static and no scientist claims it is. However, WE have adapted to a particular climate and expect it to stay within norms to survive. Changes in the climate can have devastating effects to regions not prepared to deal with them.
As to your examples, a dry spell isn't climate change. The dust bowl wasn't climate change either. Those were both weather events.
Further back, there were other notable and unusual climate events. And huge swings in temperature. Also huge swings in CO2 (although they lagged warm periods, they didn't lead them... obviously the plants making lots and lots.
Your claim of CO2 lagging warming is nonsense and has been thoroughly debunked. Also, plants do no make CO2, they consume it. Conditions millions of years ago have jack to do with our current climate. Different albedos, land mass configurations, etc. .
But this doesn't provide evidence that CO2 increases warmth, it provide evidence that CO2 correlates with decreasing warmth.
Really? And what is your scientific research backing up such a ridiculous claim? It seems all the peer-reviewed science says the exact opposite. Let me guess, you're a conspiracy nut, right?
Still, no one can predict climate in the best of times, much less now.
Of course, since you're clearly an expert on the subject. Climate is much easier to predict than weather.
Yet, sometimes the climate does very unfriendly things.
Yes it does, usually over 100's or 1000's of years which is usually enough time for adaptation. Sudden changes have had some rather nasty side effects in the past. The changes we are seeing now are happening with a lifetime or two. At best, that should raise some concern. It wouldn't take much change to render the US into a nation full of starving people for example. Shift the jet stream north and suddenly the nations breadbasket turns into a desert.
So it's the perfect bogy-man to point at if you want to scare money out of people, or distract them.
You're confusing terrorism and climate science. Terrorism is an ill-defined nebulous threat with about as much real threat as you being struck by a bolt of lightning on any given day. Climate science is a well researched topics that has made many verifiable predictions and has a huge amount of data and research backing it up.
Having said that, yes, we should reduce our CO2 emissions. And the good news is, we will -- quite naturally -- as we stop burning petroleum. And we will stop, because it's hard to get, appears to be running out, and we have to negotiate with crazy people to get enough, and alternate sources make more sense on many levels, and we'll be reducing our power consumption by increasing efficiency, a good example being by wide adoption of electric vehicles, which we'll have in great numbers very shortly -- VERY shortly if recent battery tech announcements (1,2) pan out. What we don't need to to is torque the economy (even further) out of shape to deal with an emergency that isn't here and which so far, no one has shown decisively to be incoming.
The point is that if we keep burning fossil fuels until they get too expensive to use we will just make the situation worse. It's not just oil. It's also coal, natural gas, and any other carbon based fuel source that isn't carbon neutral. None of these are going away any time soon.
But clearly, no amount of scientific research will convince you otherwise, so we'll just wait and see what happens over the next decade or so.
~X~
I think "miles per gallon" is a clue that it is measured in fuel input per miles, not some magical fuel over time to empty calculation.
And even if it does break even, it is easier to capture the CO2 at the coal plant than it is at the tailpipe.
I have yet to see anyone propose a standard that actually doesn't use more electricity(which comes from coal) to create a cleaner future.
Everywhere else, people are moving towards electricity for a cleaner future.
There are plenty of ways of generating clean electricity: nuclear, wind, tidal, biomass, hydro, solar ... even, if they get the budgets right,
"clean" coal with carbon capture (from what i've seen, I think the tech. works, but not the finances).
Secondly, even with mainline coal-powered generation, greater generation efficiency can mean that coal-powered electrical vehicles
create less co2/km than gasoline.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
The atmosphere is much more complicated than you make it seem to be for one simple reason: the latent heat of phase changes. It takes a LOT of energy to make it rain a little more. It takes a LOT of energy to melt a glacier. When you start seeing that happen, you know there is a LOT more energy floating around in the atmosphere and getting rained down onto other places that aren't used to having that energy rained down upon them.
It isn't that Foolish Human Scientists are making it up as the go along, as the various "skeptics" imply, but that they are constantly learning and refining the models. So yes, the earth trapping more heat can mean that it is colder one place than in another. For example: you have the sun warming the ocean, evaporating water to the skies. It then travels to colder inland places and deposits that energy, warming them up. Now, add some CO2 into the atmosphere and you cause that rainstorm to have more energy wanting to escape. Instead of traveling across the continent dropping energy along its way, it rains more in the coastal areas and less inland. The coastal areas are warmer, inland areas are colder.
Ok, now you have an edge case. That moist, energetic airmass was going to make it rain in the plains. But, because the added CO2 made that airmass warmer than it would have been, it rains more in the coastal area and by the time it gets to the plains, it doesn't have enough energy to counteract the cold airmass and you get 6 inches of snow instead of an inch of rain. Now, not only is it colder in the plains, that white snow on the ground reflects heat back up into the atmosphere. Your ground is colder, delaying the planting season ever so slightly. Your atmosphere is warmer, moving up to the north pole where it melts the ice.
Prepare for weird weather?! Seriously?
Say "prepare for weird weather" at the beginning of every year for all eternity and you'd be spot-on.
Climate is always changing. Weather is always weird. We don't need a panel to tell us the obvious. Please go do something useful instead.
Canada grows a ton of wheat. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all have major wheat growing operations (other things too). Some of my cousins are indeed farmers up in Canada. Wheat isn't all that Canada grows, but it is a big crop there.
The great thing about prophecies like that is that they're vague enough to apply to any period of unusual weather you want them to.
The line about wars and rumors of wars always makes me snort. History of civilization right there.
Sorry to break it to you, but your holy books have no more predictive power than the horoscope column in a newspaper.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
I don't think you can make much of a case that it has been significantly warmer than it is now since the end of the Eemian interglacial around 115,000 years ago.
With the conference in Durban fast approaching, 20k attention whores are in full swing again, drowsing the gullible media with a hurricane of alarmism to justify their paid holiday.
I'm not a coward by any name.
But you're wrong. Most electrics will recharge at night, when most of the grid's capacity is wasted. We don't need new power plants at all. If we need anything, it'll be heavier wiring in some places, that's all, because residential areas that pull power like industrial areas aren't really part of the current design.
No, they won't. For one thing, the power EV's use is much more efficiently created by power plant turbines than with individual engines. This means that considerably less fuel is burned -- even taking into account line and charging losses -- to run electric vehicles than gasoline or diesel vehicles. For another, an EV only makes CO2 while the centralized power plant does. Switch the power plant -- a much easier proposition than changing all the cars yet again -- and instantly, all those EVs become less, or zero, polluters. Put a petrol powered vehicle on the road, it'll make pollutants until the day it is taken off the road permanently.
First, your facts are wrong, which is why you haven't caught on yet. Read a little more - or just ask questions, I'll help -- and you'll see. Second, while some of the electricity comes from coal, the thing is, if you have a petrol burning vehicle, it will *always* make CO2 and other pollutants. If you have an electric vehicle, and let's say it's fed by a coal plant, then the polluting, radiation-emitting coal plant can be replaced with something else and instantly, all those electric vehicles now change how they contribute to pollutants in a very desirable fashion. This is why it makes sense to convert to electric no matter *what* kind of plant your region is actually using (and it's rarely simple as "we're on coal", as power is shared and bought back and forth all the time.)
Yes, the uninformed and statistically unskilled are unnecessarily scared of nuclear. That is one of our more serious problems. Very hard to fix with the hysteria that is extant. If they understood that coal plants put out more radiation than nuclear plants do, and coal mines kill more people than nuclear plant accidents do, and coal mining does more environmental damage than uranium mining (not to mention thorium-based designs), and that today's nuclear designs are not those used at Chernobyl, and that the placing nuclear power plants on earthquake prone spots (like Japan) where Tsunamis can get at them (like Japan) are not good design practices, not to mention a few other basic, but important ideas... they might straighten out. Getting that info to them in a form they can understand... very tough. Plus, there are people who just love a fuckarow; they love to scream about things that make other people's eyes go wide, and giving up a prized preconception like "nuclear is bad and scary" is hard for some.
Solar can be stored. There is pumped storage at numerous scales (pumped storage can store any type of energy, not just solar, btw, as can most storage techniques), molten salt, flywheels, and even batteries (though the latter... ugh.) There's even a plan for using the anticipated at-home EV charging stations as distributed storage - load 'em up with any excess, feed back to the grid when convenient. Me, I'm a huge fan of pumped storage. Environmentally
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. It means it uses less than 1/3rd the power. First, it's way more efficient. So for the same miles traveled, the EV uses less power, period. What that 1/3 range means is that batteries don't store as much energy per cubic foot as gasoline or diesel fuel does, that's all. And that is probably about to change anyway.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The abortion is murder message isn't so bad but it needs to be accompanied by "here's how to prevent it" by someone with condoms in one hand, iud's in the other hand and in the gripping hand, the pill.
Lets stop abortion by stopping unwanted pregnancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism