Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried

Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 19, 2012 @08:51AM from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

iONiUM writes "From the article: 'Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3C of warming. Or 4C. Or potentially more." Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"

439 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I save money! by Murdoch5 · 2012-11-19 08:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.
1. Re:I save money! by Gilmoure · 2012-11-19 11:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Exactly! What do a bunch of scientists and college people know? There's plenty of sites on teh internets that have proved that temps are actually falling, that the continents aren't spreading, the moon does have a dark side and twinkies are actually Lembas, with better marketing.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
2. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-19 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  You mean things like the UAH lower troposphere temperature over over the last 15 years?
  Just asking.
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
3. Re:I save money! by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  The 20-yr linear trend for the UAH LT is a statistically significant +0.20 +/- 0.04 C/decade (uncertainty is the 95% confidence level).
4. Re:I save money! by Bongo · 2012-11-19 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  You know, there's a reason "think for yourselves" was a groundbreaking value to kickstart modernity.
5. Re:I save money! by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hum, 15 years.
  2012-15 = 1997.
  So you're starting around 1998. Wonder why.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
6. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-20 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Right, and the 33 year trend is just over 0.13/decade, and the 15 year trend is flat, and the ten year trend is slightly negative, which pretty much makes nonsense of the 0.04 C/decade "at the 95% confidence level" to the extent that fitting any curve you like to a selected (or if you prefer, "cherrypicked" segment of a highly variable dataset makes sense in the first place. The predictive value of any of these fits is diddly, joined by its friend squat.
  My point is that that there is precisely zero evidence in the form of a fit to actual data with any meaningful confidence level for a 4 C rise over the century. Even the IPCC AR5 isn't going to come close to that -- it is dropping its predictions to ~2.5C/Century, and every year with neutral temperatures will drop it further still. If one compares the actual temperature record to Hansen's early predictions over the last 35 or so years, the temperature curve is coming in slightly below his "no feedback" extrapolation, indicating neutral to perhaps slightly negative net feedback. His strong feedback curve is positively rejected. His intermediate feedback curve -- one that leads to the 2.5C/century type of warming -- is very inconsistent with the data but because the natural variability of the climate is basically not well known it leaves open the possibility that the current 15 year levelling might return to a strong warming trend at some point.
  So it isn't just "sites on the internet" -- one of the most reliable sources of data available over the last 33 years (and arguably one of the only sources that is both truly global and not susceptible to various forms of bias known to corrupt the thermometric record) is absolutely inconsistent with a 4C/century warming trend, which is out at the very-low-confidence limit of the current AR report in progress. So the top article is pretty much alarmist nonsense.
  IMO, the most likely century-scale warming we might expect based on the data is between 1 and 2 C. That is entirely consistent with the warming expected from CO_2 only, plus neutral to week feedback or climate sensitivity. It isn't very likely -- nothing like bullshit "95% confidence" levels -- because we still don't know and cannot predict most of the important natural variation in the climate and do not understand the feedbacks between things like aerosols, ozone, CO_2, cloud formation and the coupling of the climate to things like the phase of the major atmospheric oscillations and oceanic currents or the sun. The climate could indeed warm by 2.5C, or even 4 or 5C (unlikely to very unlikely). It could also actually cool some, or warm less than a degree. We cannot even be certain of what the CO_2 levels will be then regardless of the steps "actively" taken to ameliorate it. If somebody invents "cold fusion" (or hot fusion) at commercially viable efficiency, or the world starts to get off its thumb and build e.g. liquid thorium fission plants it would clearly make a large difference. Whether or not these things happen, in 10 to 20 years PV solar is going to overtake just about everything in terms of cost-efficiency, sooner if somebody invents a really good battery. That too will have a large impact. So even predictions that begin "assuming a doubling of CO_2" are simply adding a Bayesian condition to the probability distribution of final temperatures that is somewhat dubious -- we might well never reach 600, or even 500, ppm before it starts to fall back
  So as the Hitchhiker's Guide says, Do Not Panic. And hold onto your wallet while not panicking.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
7. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-20 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because starting in the middle of the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Optimum, or the Medieval Warm Period would be too confusing. Might as well start in 16000 BCE -- that's a good time, d'you think? If we fit a straight line fit from there, it predicts what, 10 or 15C of warming over the next 10000 or so years. You tell me what the signal is, and what is the noise, using YOUR favorite cherrypicked interval, or we could look at the entire dataset back to the Ordovician-Silurian transition (Ice age that began when CO_2 was 7000 ppm, almost 1 percent CO_2) and stop worrying so much.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
8. Re:I save money! by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-20 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  You tell me what the signal is, and what is the noise, using YOUR favorite cherrypicked interval,
  Why bother. We all know how honest you are.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
9. Re:I save money! by bzipitidoo · 2012-11-20 05:57 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  A global warming skeptic who actually knows something? How refreshing!
  Still, you state a number of errors and assumptions.
  
  hold onto your wallet while not panicking
  So you think changes are a net cost? Making our energy usage more efficient is more often a net gain. Worth doing regardless of whether there is global warming. Of course you can spend hugely on things such as expensive materials that are lightweight, but there's no need, not when there is so much low hanging fruit we're ignoring. We blow a lot of money on peacock style displays. People buy large vehicles and houses for the sake of appearances. Surely we can find some other way to show off that doesn't risk the climate. There's even better stuff than that. How about smarter traffic lights? Or do you enjoy idling at a red light while no traffic is present on the cross street?
  
  using YOUR favorite cherrypicked interval
  Cherry picking is something the deniers do. Responsible scientists don't. If you have evidence that scientists have deliberately misused available data, or analysis that shows they've just plain gotten it wrong, why don't you publish the specifics?
  
  Might as well start in 16000 BCE
  No! Now who is the cherry picker? Why do you want to chose that start time? What's your reason? Seems pretty obvious you chose that date because it's the middle of the last glaciation.
  
  or we could look at the entire dataset back to the Ordovician-Silurian transition
  If you want to go back that far, you have to take into account a lot of changed variables, starting with the radically different configuration of the continents. You would do better to look at more recent events such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago. Still plenty of variables to juggle. The most recent major geologic change is the formation of a land connection between North and South America about 3 million years ago, breaking a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific, and creating the Gulf Stream. That's the point in time in which the climate settled into the patterns we know today, and from then to the present is the period which perforce gives us the most useful data for figuring out what the climate should be like. Before that, there was the Messinian Salinity Crisis which ended about 5 million years ago, in which the Mediterranean Sea was cut off from the Atlantic. Data from conditions in those periods can't correlate as well, but is still useful.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
10. Re:I save money! by riverat1 · 2012-11-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you get your information about Hansen but even his simple model from 1981 isn't that far off.
11. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-20 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with pretty much everything you say. Note well: I was being a bit sarcastic (in context) about things like the Ordovician-Silurian and last glaciation because I was replying to somebody who picked a particular interval that showed extreme warming "at the 95% confidence level" which is and remains bullshit. The 15 year interval isn't quite cherrypicked -- it was stated -- some time ago, and by proponents of CAGW -- that it is the outer limit of an interval where natural variation could prevent the inevitable progression of AGW on a catastrophic scale. The point being, that since we are at that limit, it is increasingly unlikely (the longer the planet stubbornly resists warming to suit the theory) that the theories that predict extreme warming (not some warming, but extreme warming) are correct.
  Their response, of course, was to participate in ad hominem and doubt my honesty, which is typical of "accepters" (if one might introduce the moral opposite of "deniers") who don't want to consider any of the negative evidence for CAGW any more than the deniers want to accept or acknowledge positive evidence. Sadly, one could play logical fallacy bingo all night and all day on the "accepter" or "denier" blogs.
  As for this:
  So you think changes are a net cost? Making our energy usage more efficient is more often a net gain. Worth doing regardless of whether there is global warming. Of course you can spend hugely on things such as expensive materials that are lightweight, but there's no need, not when there is so much low hanging fruit we're ignoring. We blow a lot of money on peacock style displays. People buy large vehicles and houses for the sake of appearances. Surely we can find some other way to show off that doesn't risk the climate. There's even better stuff than that. How about smarter traffic lights? Or do you enjoy idling at a red light while no traffic is present on the cross street?
  Well said, sir, and I absolutely agree. But then one also has to consider carbon trading -- something that has no effect but to transfer money selectively into pockets that do nothing to earn it at the expense of nearly everybody in a way that even the proponents acknowledge will have no noticeable effect on CO_2 levels by the end of the century. One also has to do honest appraisals of the "catastrophic" costs that avoiding carbon based fuel supplies that are relatively cheap, plentiful, and reliable incur in the poorest countries in the world, where one of the primary things limiting the rise in the standard of living is energy availability. Not that this is easy when people are generating bullshit numbers like "400,000 people dying each year" due to (presumably anthropogenic) "climate change" and throwing them out into the public discourse, or asserting that the sea level is rising at alarming and unheard of levels, when there is no actual data to support them and a great deal to contradict them.
  Increasing the efficiency of our usage of energy is just peachy and as you say often makes economic sense as well, although a lot of times it does not because of things like marginal cost and amortization. Is it better to use your gas guzzler (already paid for) for another five or ten years or buy a Prius at a price so high that even with the savings in gas you spend 50% more actual money? Spend $10,000 on a high efficiency AC/furnace (something I did last year) or eke another few years out of a much lower efficiency unit I already owned, when the amortized savings from the $10,000 investment will not be recovered in my lifetime and MAY not be recovered in the expected lifetime of the improved hardware? Buy a $30 LED 60W equivalent light bulb (containing e.g. arsenic almost certain to make its way into the environment eventually), a $4 CF 60W equivalent light bulb (that contains mercury that is almost certain to make its way into the environment eventually), or a $1 incandescent light bulb that you could grind up and eat safely, if you could chew glass and tungsten. When those cos
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
12. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-20 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Goodness, do you know, I put exactly the same curve on top of the UAH data and it looks remarkably different. Although again how well or poorly it does depends a lot on how you cherrypick the insertion point, no doubt. Bottom line is UAH 33 year anomaly is a whopping 0.33 C -- which works out remarkably accurately to 0.1 C/decade, 1 degree C per century, with a lot of that increase coming from a single discrete event -- the El Nino warming of 1997-1998. It was nearly flat before (within noise). It has been nearly flat afterwards (within noise).
  Could UAH suddenly go straight on back up? Sure. Has it? No. Could it go down? Absolutely (it has gone down into negative territory several times in the last couple of years, and there are reasons to think that the world is in a weakly cooling phase now that the PDO has reversed). The point again isn't that AGW isn't a possibility, that CAGW isn't a possibility -- it is that it is by no means a certainty. The George Mason survey of members of the AGU and AMS found that it isn't even true that all climate scientists think that AGW, let along CAGW, is a certainty, and the majority believe in AGW but not the C.
  So when a top article cites warming consistent with the C when temperatures have been basically flat for 15 years and rising at only 0.1C per decade over the last 30 -- during which the bulk of the supposedly "anthropogenic" part of the post LIA warming occurred -- well, believe it if you want to, but personally I want something like believable data to support the assertion. In the meantime, I remain politely open minded.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
13. Re:I save money! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you cherry pick Hansen 1981 over Hansen 1988?
  Trick question: With an infinite number of predictions, is there predictive power in any of them?
14. Re:I save money! by riverat1 · 2012-11-20 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  No cherry picking involved. rgbatduke talked about Hansen's predictions over 35 years or so and that's the closest I could find. If you want a comparison of Hansen's 1988 model (which was much more sophisticated than the 1981 model) you can find it here along with data comparisons to other models. Scroll down to the "Hansen et al, 1988" heading. Hansen was still more right than wrong especially when you consider that he used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 rather than around 3 which is considered the best estimate today.
15. Re:I save money! by bzipitidoo · 2012-11-20 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  There will always be opportunists seeking to take advantage. That doesn't make a real problem any less of a problem.
  Over the last 4 years, I've had several door to door home remodelers try to persuade me to replace my single pane windows with energy efficient, argon filled, double pane windows. I ran the numbers, and could not justify the expense. The lowest quote they gave me was $6000 for at best a 50% savings on my heating and cooling bills. That part of my energy bill is about $700 per year. Also, I'm sure I'd see far less than a 50% savings. Maybe only 25%? At $175 saved every year, would take about 35 years to earn back the initial investment. I sent them all on their way. If they could get the cost down to $2000, I'd be interested.
  You mentioned hybrid cars? That's another play for suckers. A fuel efficient conventional car can equal or even beat a hybrid on fuel economy, and is far cheaper. Having said that, I'm all for experimenting with hybrids and electric cars on large scales. If we could make batteries about 5x better than they are now, the combustion engine would be toast. An electric motor is so much better that it would compensate for 5x better batteries still not being as good as gas tanks. Another area to watch is autopilots for cars. If driverless cars get good enough that we can tailgate in safety, it would be big, big savings. Interestingly, the computer visualization and control necessary to pull that off could about as easily fly a car as drive one. A good flying car would make our highway system instantly obsolete, useful only for cargo that is too heavy to efficiently move by air.
  Suggesting most would favor sacrificing colorful clothes is going too far. Color adds very little cost. It is also not purely cosmetic. That's one of those things the anti-greens like to imply that most greens demand, when there are very few who are that extreme and unreasonable.
  You also mentioned travel. Yes of course the ability to travel cheaply and quickly is most empowering and enjoyable. But, we've made it too much of a requirement, thanks to such things as suburban sprawl. I like to travel. But commuting is not particularly enjoyable, it's just a part of modern life and one I'd gladly do without if possible.
  Fears that we'll have to sacrifice our economy are not just groundless, but wrong. Work always stimulates the economy, and it will take quite a lot of work to convert our civilization to greener sources of energy. You may be sure that many of those stirring up such fears do so for their own purposes, not out of any concern for our well-being.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
16. Re:I save money! by cavebison · 2012-11-20 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely certain why everyone's worried about 2100, when worldwide socio-economic collapse will arrive in 2050.
  http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx
  You'd think the World Bank would be all over that one.
17. Re:I save money! by Stuarticus · 2012-11-20 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Pascal has a wager he'd like to make with you.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
18. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-21 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sure but the public argument is that you are a dastardly fiend for not doing Argon filled glass and a Prius anyway, damn the cost, because the real cost of not doing so is the end of the world when the sky falls and the seas rise.
  It's really a strange modern variant of Pascal's Wager -- by making the cost of the "catastrophe" associated with AGW sufficiently great, they create an unlimited bias in the expectation value of outcomes. Even if "catastrophic" global warming is a 1% chance, by making it a million times more expensive (if it happens) than doing nothing, they can make it a 10,000 to one bet that mitigation is the economical choice and justify any investment or political strategy to accomplish it, just as Pascal pointed out regarding the "bet" that God exists -- moderate costs if you bet that God exists and are wrong, but infinite punishments (costs) if you bet God doesn't exist but are wrong (forgetting entirely about the benefits in both cases as well, although they are equally skewed between "none" for the atheist or theist alike if there is no God, "infinitely good" if there is a God and you pick the right God and get into "heaven" for eternity).
  Again, otherwise I mostly agree with your reply. Personally, I've got R30 in the attic, low-E double paned windows on the house, and three uber-efficient furnace/ACs doing the three floors of my house, plus a tankless water heater. My energy expenses are indeed about a third of what they were (or would have been, extrapolating usage and prices) and yes, the amortization schedule is long enough that each of the investments will not really pay for the cost of the money in less than 15 to 20 years. That's sort of "break even". A 10 year amortization would be much better. Of the changes, I personally love the windows the most. Good windows matter, and one can e.g. clean them from the inside and they lock securely and have little flip-thingies so that you can leave them open and not let humans raise them fully to get in and they are very, very quiet compare to the old crappy windows we had. And I don't even "believe" in CAGW, and suspect AGW is minimal against the background GW of completely natural origin associated with coming out of the LIA.
  As you say, many of the things done won't "sacrifice our economy", and the reason I introduced the extreme version of the argument is to draw attention to the parallel to Pascal's Wager, where a sufficiently large negative payoff justifies any strategy that might avoid it. Similar things apply to the risk of kilometer scale asteroids falling, global pandemics occurring, nuclear war occurring, even terrorism -- make the negative payoff high enough even at low risk, amplify the public perception of risk, and people will cheerfully give up their civil liberties and endure enormous expense and inconvenience to mitigate what is really a tiny risk. We forever lock the barn door once a horse is flown but ignore the open window through which our chickens are about to fly.
  I personally would like to see the extreme edges taken off the entire debate. Don't predict meter-high sea level rise (and hence unimaginable "disaster", with unbounded costs) while the actual measured rate of sea level rise has been 9 whole inches since 1870 and is currently around 3 mm a year, or less than 9 inches more by the end of the century (assuming one cherrypicks the least favorable interval to use to compute the rise -- a fairer estimate would be a constant extrapolation of the post 1870 rate). Don't predict the melting of the ice caps (again, disaster) with Antarctic ice on the rise and just about matching the decrease in Arctic ice -- say instead that we don't really understand what and how polar ice is modulated. Don't predict horrible storms and droughts (disaster, worth any amount of money to mitigate) when there is zero evidence of increased drought, zero evidence of increased frequency or severity of storms. All of these things are predicted, but they are not actually happening.
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
19. Re:I save money! by rgbatduke · 2012-11-21 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Great minds think alike;-)
  See my reply to a different reply on the same thread. CAGW is at heart a partly "religious" argument.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
20. Re:I save money! by CHIT2ME · 2012-11-21 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you may be able to turn your thermostat down in the winter, but, come summer, there's hell to pay!
  
  --
  My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
21. Re:I save money! by riverat1 · 2012-11-21 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  First of all using only the UAH temperature dataset to the exclusion of others such as the other satellite dataset, RSS, and the various surface temperature datasets is a bit of cherry picking to since it is the one that shows the lowest temperature trends. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I know of no good reasons to use it to the exclusion of the others. Second, I don't really think any temperature trends based on less than around 20 years of data is particularly useful. Too much noise from natural variability. Climate scientists generally use 30 year trends.
  Attaching "catastrophic" to AGW is rather subjective. I'm not surprised that climate scientists don't use the C word. If AGW is going to be catastrophic it's a slow motion catastrophe and the really bad stuff won't show up for several more decades and even then it's not like a switch is being thrown* but a gradual worsening until all of a sudden you realize how bad things are getting.
  * That's not to discount the possibility of non-linear effects that do switch a natural system from one mode to another. But until they actually happen and can be documented scientifically they're just speculation.
  I think the current data is pretty believable. The physics of CO2's absorption of infrared radiation as tested is the lab is unassailable. To expect it to behave completely differently in the atmosphere doesn't seem reasonable. The rise in CO2 is well documented. Multiple lines of evidence show that the rise is primarily due to human emissions of CO2 mostly from burning fossil fuels. There are of course some other greenhouse gases we are emitting but in quantities small enough that you can ignore them for a first order analysis (except maybe methane).
  So then I guess you get to the question "How bad is it going to get?" That's difficult to answer because there are no good analogs in past to compare it to. The closest could be the PETM 55 millions years ago but that took around 20,000 years to raise the temperature 6C. At the rate we're going we could do that in 200 years (even at 1C a century it's only 600 years). One principle of disaster management is the less you know about something that could be bad the more you try to avoid it. I think that applies to climate change as well.
  Some things I'm pretty sure of. Warming will continue as long as greenhouse gas levels continue to rise and because of the thermal inertia of the oceans for another 30 or so years after they stop rising. Glaciers around the world and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will take several centuries to reach a new equilibrium state which will contribute to continued sea level rise. Ocean acidification will cause some level of disruption of the ocean's food chains. All of the changes are likely to have some drastic effects on the world's natural systems and the production agriculture that we've built our civilization around.
Quick... by Synerg1y · 2012-11-19 08:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Let's invade Canada before it becomes a super power in the new "warmer" world.
1. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 08:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.
2. Re:Quick... by cayenne8 · 2012-11-19 09:00 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I thought I'd heard the other day on the radio, that the world had actually seemed to have stopped warming a few years ago, and had been actually holding steady on average?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:Quick... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2012-11-19 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  It didn't work out too well the last time we tried that.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
4. Re:Quick... by alen · 2012-11-19 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  the midwest had a drought for years in the 80's. I remember farm aid.
  its a wet/dry cycle that lasts a few decades and alternates
5. Re:Quick... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2012-11-19 09:11 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Did you hear that on Rush Limbaugh? Because it isn't true. The last several years or so have EACH been the hottest year on record up until that point.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
6. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You heard wrong:
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Unless something comes along and fucks with that cycle. Like, say, global climate change.
  People used to joke about Canada becoming the 51st state. Maybe, in fifty years, they'll joke about the United States becoming the 11th province.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 09:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So, your post prompted me to research the history of Midwestern droughts in the United States, and I have to admit, there's a lot of history there. Suffice it to say, the data suggest that 2012 is only a little worse in terms of total dryness than 1988, and another shift of the same degree over the NEXT 25 years would only be slightly worse.
  Still, climate change is an accelerating process, and it could still be that bad. There are other factors like dwindling aquifers and increasing industrial usage of water involved too, but I think all that might not actually add up to enough to overcome Americans' lack of interest in boring, important things like water rights. I should have reviewed that information first, so I apologize for jumping on that scenario.
9. Re:Quick... by mofolotopo · 2012-11-19 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Please reevaluate your news sources.
10. Re:Quick... by rs79 · 2012-11-19 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure, cause I always trust Investment Wankers for unparalleled, unbiased insight into science.
  Hows the carbon market these days?
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
11. Re:Quick... by Synerg1y · 2012-11-19 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.
12. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why should I care about bankers. I pay attention to what scientists say.
  Look, even the Koch's are giving up the ghost. Time to face reality. The universe doesn't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and doesn't donate money to the Heartland Institute, and it most certainly doesn't give one sweet fuck about you, I, our economic ideologies or political ideologies.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
13. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.
  Not a lot of ocean here in Oklahoma.
14. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  You've overstepped into hyperbole. They just have repeatedly landed themselves into the top 10 hottest, and one of them(2008 was it?) was a number 11. Be careful, because the people you're disagreeing with will seize upon the fact that you're wrong as complete invalidation of anything you're saying.
15. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As a Canadian, let me help you out. Just go after Quebec. The rest of Canada will be glad to be rid of it, and you still get a fair stretch to the North.
  On a note related to the topic, it'd be nice to have more than the bottom few hundred kilometers to do something with. We have an absolute crapton of space that's essentially unuseable except as permafrost-filled tundra. I'm sure over time more people would be willing to move to Canada if a) our winters even right at the US/Canada border weren't horrendously cold, and b) you'd be able to set up farmland or towns or anything else further North than being within a few hours of the border.
  Because seriously, I've spoken to a lot of people either the year they moved to Canada, or within several years. Usually from somewhere that's never seen a snowflake. When asked about their experience in Canada thus far, without a doubt the first thing they'll say is that the first winter they saw, they 1) thought they were going to die from the cold, even indoors, and usually say they didn't step outdoors for several months until necessity forced them to, 2) that Canada looked absolutely filthy (if they arrived in spring, with all the dirty road slush, brown dirt/grass, sand and salt from the roads over everywhere, etc), and 3) that walking on ice is essentially 100% impossible for the first few months, until you get used to it.
  It's kinda funny, since after a few years they'll be laughing about what they thought during their first move... but all of them were at first utterly amazed that people not only go OUT when it's that cold, but continue their lives like normal! And generally, all of them describe it such that they *literally* thought their bodies would shut down and die, even at -10, never mind when it hits -40 or lower (celcius of course, although -40 is the same either way). They are inevitably amazed that the human body can keep *not dying* at that temperature, and they very quickly learn how to dress, and eventually how to walk without falling.
16. Re:Quick... by ArhcAngel · 2012-11-19 09:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  yet...
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
17. Re:Quick... by Grayhand · 2012-11-19 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.
  Twelve years ago I told a businessman I was dealing with oil wasn't the concern in the future, it would be water rights that caused wars. You'd be surprised at some of the corporations buying up water rights. Just imagine if fracking destroys a lot of the in ground supply and drought decreases the surface water how much those rights will be worth?
18. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Ok its manifest destiny then and or Gods judgement on America.
19. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037
  One of the biggest, right after 32-bit time_t overflows.
20. Re:Quick... by EvolutionInAction · 2012-11-19 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Keep in mind that broad strokes are normally easier than specifics. "It'll rain tomorrow" is a lot harder than "The average temperature for the month of October is X degrees C."
  Science is almost never 100% correct, but it is always approaching. And lets be honest, it's the only way to make predictions of the future that are right more often than not.
21. Re:Quick... by pclminion · 2012-11-19 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because scientists are ALWAYS correct. Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
  As an analogy, think of a snow globe. Shake it up so all the pieces are swirling around. Can you predict the exact path that will be taken by each of those pieces? Not easily. Can you predict with confidence that after, say, five minutes, they will all be sitting on the bottom of the snow globe? Yes. Your inability to predict phenomenon A at timescale X has nothing to do with your ability to predict phenomenon B at timescale Y. Every time I here such an argument I can't help but think it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
22. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Weather is not climate. You're not keeping it real, you're posting a fallacious argument (fallacy of equivalence by the looks of it) and then ending them with "Just keepin' it real."
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
23. Re:Quick... by rs79 · 2012-11-19 09:46 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  You pay attention to what *some* scientists say. Follow the money.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
24. Re:Quick... by rs79 · 2012-11-19 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's what happens when you remove all the trees. Stop it.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
25. Re:Quick... by Krojack · 2012-11-19 09:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.
  Which we already do. Only problem is, it requires a massive amount if energy to do. It's prohibitively expensive, especially when compared to tapping regional and local sources of freshwater. Kinda like those electric cars out there. Everyone would love to have one but not when they can get an internal combustion engine for 1/2 or even 1/4 the cost.
26. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  They are not worried about destroying the water supplies. They need millions of gallons of it. They are not particularly picky if it is 'clean' or not. It is in such high demand for the frackers they truck it in.
27. Re:Quick... by Joce640k · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  "On the radio..."
  Oh, well, it must be true if it was on the radio. The radio only ever has well researched, peer-reviewed content.
  
  --
  No sig today...
28. Re:Quick... by whathappenedtomonday · 2012-11-19 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  More than 1 billion people don't have access to safe drinking water, and >2.5 billion people lack adequate sanitation. >3000 children die every day from water borne diseases. Go ahead, talk to them about reverse osmosis. Better yet, fund it for them.
  
  Water shortages aren't making headlines
  where you live. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it's not happening. Just saying.
  BTW, a drought is something like a water shortage, ain't it?
  
  --
  I hope I didn't brain my damage.
29. Re:Quick... by Joce640k · 2012-11-19 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  I've heard this "16 years" thing several times lately. I think it's the latest thing being put out by the climate change disinformation campaign.
  When you've debunked it long enough they'll come up with something else.
  (...and put it on the radio for society's low common denominators to hear and spread as gospel truth)
  
  --
  No sig today...
30. Re:Quick... by interkin3tic · 2012-11-19 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it will require "Amazing" desalination technologies. Just enough to make it more economical to purify water rather than try to bully Canada about it. We can desalinate water now. It's just not to the point where it's cheap enough for farms to do now and remain competitive with farms that pipe freshwater in from wherever. It would require a lot of taxpayer investment and subsidies, and would probably also result in increased food prices. Or we could fail to do that, and would become dependent on importing water and crops from Canada. Which might be incompatible with the US maintaining our standard of living.
  
  Then again, I'm not an economist, farmer, or engineer working on desalination technology, and this is wild underinformed speculation.
31. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  on the other hand, perhaps that analogy isn't too good either.
32. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Is this meant to relate to my post in some way?
33. Re:Quick... by Burning1 · 2012-11-19 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Another way to look at it: body-weight fluctuates day to day, based on water intake, restroom usage, time of day, etc. It's somewhat difficult to predict to the accuracy of a pound what your weight will be on any given day. It is however easy to predict that your weight will tend to increase on a 4000 calorie all-nacho diet.
34. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even own any 32 bit devices?
35. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it has to other require revolutionary energy technologies or an order of magnitude lower energy cost to perform. Those both seem "amazing" to me.
36. Re:Quick... by tbannist · 2012-11-19 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  The frackers might not care, but the people who live near where the fracking is going on might like to be able to drink, bathe, and wash their clothes without catching on fire.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
37. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  The climate is more like the snowglobe during a gentle shaking than after you've stopped. That is a really bad analogy.
38. Re:Quick... by MachDelta · 2012-11-19 10:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Who says we'd let you be a province? I think "The Territory of the Former United States of America" sounds pretty good. ;)
39. Re:Quick... by moeinvt · 2012-11-19 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  Won't do any good. They use the Celsius scale.
40. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Posting anonymously because I've used a mod point here.
  I live in Quebec. In Montreal, in the NDG area just north of the St. Jacques cliffs (not really a cliff, and it probably has a proper, toponymical designation, but it means I'm on high ground, relatively speaking. When Antarctica melts,it'll mean about a 66-metre sea-level increase, and the Atlantic Ocean will have a beach about two blocks south of my place. This will also flood pretty well all the farmlands in Quebec. A bit of Montreal around Mount Royal and Westmount will probably survive, and perhaps art of the so-called Plateau to the east of these. But Quebec will no longer be a food-producing area. And the movement of so much massive water will possibly trigger existing fault lines,, causing severe earthquakes. Montreal on an active fault line.
  The rest of Canada, at least the part west of Quebec, will stay mostly above sea level.
  So sad to say, if the United States wants to take over Canada, Quebec won't be worth the trouble. Alberta might be, though.
  -- hendrik
41. Re:Quick... by moeinvt · 2012-11-19 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I joke with my Canadian friends about how they should militarize their Southern border.
  But I'm only half joking.
42. Re:Quick... by cayenne8 · 2012-11-19 10:21 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Oh, well, it must be true if it was on the radio. The radio only ever has well researched, peer-reviewed content.
  No...just said I'd heard it the other day while driving in...and no, it wasn't Rush or anyone like that...I don't even know if he's on the air down here.
  Just was hoping someone might have links one way or the other on it.
  Me personally? I don't really care....
  By the time the world explodes or dies or has a real problem with global warming, I'll be long dead and in the ground with no one to remember who I was or curse my name.
  Therefore, I'm gonna have all the fun I can with the fun things hydrocarbons can do...hell, right now I'm trying to buy a big block (455) 70's muscle car, and yes, even with 10mpg, It'll be a daily driver (I live fairly close to work)....
  Aside from that, I don't really go out of my way to pollute, but I certainly don't go out of my way with any effort to conserve or recycle or anything....I'm here a short time on earth, so live for today, and enjoy my time here to the fullest is pretty much my motto.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
43. Re:Quick... by Cabriel · 2012-11-19 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  The Earth is a lot more complex than a snow globe. There are a lot of scientists who wouldn't be sure, given similar complexity, that all the flakes would rest on the bottom of the snow globe after 5 minutes.
44. Re:Quick... by bunratty · 2012-11-19 10:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, the scale of distance is not the difference between weather and climate. The climate is the probability distribution, and the weather on a particular day is a sample from that distribution. Let's say that the mean high temperature for November is 40 degrees where you live. On any particular day, it may be 30 degrees or 50 degrees. Another way to explain it is the climate determines what clothes are in your closet, and the weather determines what you wear on a given day. It's far easier to predict the climate than the weather. The climate next decade will be very nearly what it is this decade. Right now, it looks like it will be slightly warmer, perhaps 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer, as it has been the past several decades.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
45. Re:Quick... by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-11-19 10:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sigh.
  Okay, let's take a real world example, then: will the average temperature this winter be colder than the average temperature in the summer in the Northern Hemisphere?
  Yes. Yes it will.
  That is a statement of climate, not of weather. It's also a statement that we can make with fairly strong confidence, despite the many factors involved in modelling the climate. If you want to get more specific, like how much colder one is than the other, you have to improve the models and simulations.
  Climate science isn't voodoo. There's data to draw on, models that can be devised, and hypotheses that can be verified. Sometimes the models fail, or the hypotheses are shown to be incorrect, just like in any other field of science.
  So if a climate scientist predicts that the temperature will climb over the next 50 years given current trends and lack of action, and the result of this will be certain climactic effects--like more drought or more powerful and less predictable storms (like Sandy)--they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.
  There is literally no long-term downside to improving our approach to the environment. All the down-sides are short term. Even the economic benefits in the long run (or at least, the lack of economic penalties) are enormous.
46. Re:Quick... by aztektum · 2012-11-19 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you misunderstood the analogy.
  He's saying to find the answer for the first problem (A, X) requires a completely different approach than the second (B, Y). The problems are not equivalent, so comparing them is stupid.
  
  --
  :: aztek ::
  No sig for you!!
47. Re:Quick... by sycodon · 2012-11-19 10:48 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Reposting since it seems relevant here...
  Little Change in Global Drought in the past 60 Years [nature.com]
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
48. Re:Quick... by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-11-19 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oooh, I like that climate analogy. Well spoken.
49. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:54 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Funny how you hold onto falsified anti-fracking propaganda, yes it was falsified and the people who did that are facing charges for doing so. So you support falsified "science" as long as it matches up with your political views then?
  Gasland misled
  I guess you fall right in line with AWG as well, seeing as Phil Jones deleted research data instead of risking having it peer-reviewed as well, but I'm sure your all good with that as well since it is also a lie that will probably line up with your political views.
  I've noticed in the last few years that the truth no longer matters in the US. Its all about having the "correct" policical views and doing whatever it takes to smear the people telling truth that doesn't line up with that.
50. Re:Quick... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-11-19 10:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the absence of data about energy expenditure, you cannot make such a claim about increasing weight. Go through full boot camp training every day and 4000 calories won't be enough. You need to know the entire system, and that's one of the problems with climate change models - there are large areas where we simply don't know what happens. And as a result we end up with things like Trenberth's missing heat because the model has those holes and the results don't correlate with the hypothesis.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
51. Re:Quick... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-11-19 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Climate is the integral of weather over time, just like climate for a day or week it the integral of weather over smaller time periods. You want to argue about the limits, that's fine - but to deny they're the same thing is plain wrong.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
52. Re:Quick... by Arcquist · 2012-11-19 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  I hear this as a counter argument a lot and I must admit complete ignorance on this topic. So, seeing as you seem more knowledgeable about climate prediction than I am, can you point me to some information on it please? Specifically, what predictions have been made based on these models for 1 to 5 year time frames and to what level of accuracy have they been right? I would assume that seeing as we're talking about predictions of 2-4 degrees Celcius over time spans of around 50 - 100 years that they should be within 0.2 degrees or less of exact in the 5 year time frame?
53. Re:Quick... by letherial · 2012-11-19 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well unless you study climate for a living, gone to school for it, have all the tools and data necessary to make a scientific opinion; scientist will always be more correct then you.
  I dont think your keeping it real, your head is in the sand and you feel safe that way.
54. Re:Quick... by espiesp · 2012-11-19 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind that broad strokes are normally easier than specifics. "It'll rain tomorrow" is a lot harder than "The average temperature for the month of October is X degrees C."
  You're right. Predicting the future IS harder than averaging the past! Science wins again!
55. Re:Quick... by fadethepolice · 2012-11-19 11:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I work for a company that cleans groundwater in the marcellus play area. Fracking is not capable of "Destroying" underground water supplies, it can temporarily pollute some areas. The chemicals involved in fracking are not that bad. It is a rather simple and straightforward process to clean up groundwater. Currently, most of our really bad cleanup jobs involve gasoline spills, which are much more toxic, and of an order of magnitude more common. What your should really be worried about is in-situ partial combustion of coal seams. Now that mining coal is becoming less competitive this process may take off.
56. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 11:19 · Score: 2
  
  It is not a straight line between local weather conditions and climate. I have no idea why you would try to peddle such a ludicrous oversimplification.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
57. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Plenty of brackish aquifer. It's energy that's the problem. Best invest in nuclear, preferably intrinsically safe, high efficiency nuclear, like LFTRs.
58. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  >Your inability to predict phenomenon A at timescale X has nothing to do with your ability to predict phenomenon B at timescale Y
  Correct. And the ability to predict a snowglobe's behavior has nothing to do with predicting the Earth's behavior.
  Repeatedly, climastrologists' predictions have failed to match reality. That they persist in defending their failures means that they are pseudoscientists.
59. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  i suppose you could extend your prediction out another 12 years and still be wrong.
  It does demonstrate one thing though, people will always do what is easier and cheaper.
  to paraphrase sam - You live in a desert. MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!
60. Re:Quick... by microbox · 2012-11-19 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You pay attention to what *some* scientists say. Follow the money.
  You say that brazenly like someone who never followed the money themselves, and knows nothing about the academic process. Mainstream science has been unequivocal since the late 70s. The well-oiled and well-funded denial machine has been operating in its modern form since the 50s.
  
  --
  
  Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
61. Re:Quick... by TapeCutter · 2012-11-19 11:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future.
  I think I see why you have trouble understanding the basic science, weather is NOT climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, unlike weather which is mathematically chaotic and is currently impossible to predict more than a few days ahead, climate is extremely stable over human time scales, climate forcings are relatively well understood and lend themselves to finite element analysis in the same way as many other complex natural phenomena are modeled for scientific and engineering purposes.
  
  What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
  A better question to ask is what leads you to doubt "the republic of science" has failed to lead to the best available answer on this particular question, emotion, ignorance, corporate propaganda, intellectual laziness? - There's certainly very little logic in your post and even then is based on a common (and fundamental) misunderstanding that psuedo-skeptics have been exploiting for decades.
  
  One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."
  You hear it all the time, you are just not listening, uncertainty is expresses with something called error bars (as seen in the WP link above), you should learn how to read them because they are quite useful from a risk management POV. For example, the insurance industry has been routinely offsetting the risks identified by climate scientists for the last 10yrs by adding the expected costs to your premiums.
  
  As for TFA, the "4 degrees by 2100" prediction has been widely accepted by climate scientists for over 20yrs and is based on a "business as usual" scenario. The only thing about the prediction that has significantly changed is the certainty of the prediction (ie: the error bars). The scientific advise is to try and limit the increase to 2 degrees to avoid further unnecessary death and destruction.
  
  Replacing the planets energy infrastructure may seem like a herculean task, but my bet is it will happen right under our noses and when it's done people will forget how far we have come (as they have already done with acid rain and pea-soupers). Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time and they are now much cleaner, but they now also service more people than there were on the entire planet when I was born. I believe science and common sense will prevail and we will adapt our infrastructure rapidly over the next 30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator). Luddite billionaires who continue to deny reality will be left sitting on a worthless coal mines bombarded by negligence lawsuits from anyone with so much as a wheeze.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
62. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."
  No, they say based on what we know this is likely to happen. We have x y z reasons to believe this will happen. Here are our simulations and what we took into account. Here is how we came up with looking at historical climate beyond human records. Here are the trends we see. Here is how CO2 absorbs and reflects photons as these energies. There is way more going into these predictions than the mindless who think everyone's opinion is equal and there's just no way to know what will happen. It's only journalist and idiots that turn it into some kind of philosophical debate.
63. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  It is not a straight line between local weather conditions and climate. I have no idea why you would try to peddle such a ludicrous oversimplification.
  Look it's real simple. If you live somewhere where with rainy weather you live in a rainy climate. If you live somewhere with somewhere with snowy weather you live in a snowy climate. If you live somewhere where the sun shines you live in a sunny climate. Now once we accept the idea that weather == climate it follows that you can't get snowy or rainy weather if you live in a sunny climate. So if you don't like rain just move.
64. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  I get what you are saying but in a way you are wrong. Predicting the climate is NOT an easy science and I believe ANYBODY who tries to do climate predictions will tell you it's a very complex science.
  I have a couple of problems with the climate change furor that's going on now. My concerns have little to do with the predictions of future change as I don't have enough of a grip of the variables involved to make much of a judgement. The problem I have is the belief system that fully supports climate change as fully a human caused change. I take this position for the simple reason that the climate of the globe has always and will always change. Measuring the true impact of human activities among all the thousands of variables involved in climate variability is a truly daunting task and I believe those who say they have it all figured out are blowing smoke out their asses. (Pardon my profanity)
  The second major issue I have with the current (dare I say it?) propaganda about climate change is this constant clarion call that climate change MUST be responsible for every major weather event that occurs. The latest in this trend was Sandy. Okay, Sandy was a pretty devastating storm. But what makes it's appearance notable? Nothing I can tell. A quick Wikipedia search of major storms in the New England States and New York produces a pretty long list of storms likely to meet or exceed the Sandy level prior to the period said to be effected by Global Warming. Only touching the beginning of the 19th Century until the first third of the 20th Century, remembering Sandy came ashore at a Category 1 Hurricane, and only mentioning the major storms, there are these...
  "The Great September Gale of 1815 (the term hurricane was not yet common in the American vernacular), which hit New York City directly as a Category 3 hurricane, caused extensive damage and created an inlet that separated the Long Island resort towns of the Rockaways and Long Beach into two separate barrier islands.
  "The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane, a Category 4 storm which made four separate landfalls in Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and southern New England. The storm created the highest recorded storm surge in Manhattan of nearly 13 feet and severely impacted the farming regions of Long Island and southern New England."
  "The 1869 Saxby Gale affected areas in Northern New England, decimating the Maine coastline and the Canadian Outer Banks. It was the last major hurricane to affect New England until the 1938 storm."
  The 1893 New York hurricane, a Category 2 storm, directly hit the city itself, causing a great storm surge that pummeled the coastline, completely removing the Long Island resort town of Hog Island.
  "The New England Hurricane of 1938 (or Great New England Hurricane, Yankee Clipper, Long Island Express, or simply the Great Hurricane) was the first major hurricane to strike New England since 1869. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane[1] on Long Island on September 21. The hurricane was estimated to have killed between 682 and 800 people,[2] damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at US$306 million ($4.7 billion in 2012).[3] Even as late as 1951, damaged trees and buildings were still seen in the affected areas.[4] It remains the most powerful, costliest and deadliest hurricane in recent New England history, eclipsed in landfall intensity perhaps only by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635*."
  *1635 Again according to a Wikipedia Article, modern analysis of the information related to this storm predicts it was likely a Category 3 at landfall.
  Finally, the predictions are all dire. Somehow every coastline will be flooded and simultaneously everyplace will experience drought. If the climate is warmer and the ice packs have all melted it's nearly impossible for my (admittedly only BS degree level) mind to fathom how we will not have a wetter overall world environment!
65. Re:Quick... by Burning1 · 2012-11-19 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Because there are only two choices - a black one, and a white one.
66. Re:Quick... by Bartles · 2012-11-19 12:54 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  What are you talking about? I've read on the internets about the evils of dihydrogen monoxide, and that's the primary chemical used in fracking. They use literally millions of gallons of it and just pump it into the ground like it won't matter.
67. Re:Quick... by Burning1 · 2012-11-19 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  You know what happened when we discovered the holes in Newtonian physics? We got relativistic physics.
  Climate modeling is insanely complex, and no one working with the models would state that they are perfect, or that they can ever be perfect. However, the models are predictive. Ignoring them waiting for a perfect model, especially when it's well established that we can't have a perfect model, is just burying your head in the sand.
68. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, I don't want anybody to stop eating, or for the vast majority of humans to kill themselves or any other batshit crazy thing like that. I want people to use energy-efficient devices when feasible, turn off their lights, and drive less. Is that really such a offensive thing for me to request? CAPTCHA: solvable
69. Re:Quick... by Guppy · 2012-11-19 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  I remember farm aid.
  I do to. But how many remember the dismantling of the Ever-Normal Granary system in the 70's?
  In our former system, the Granary system dampened price/supply swings and reduced shortages through government stockpiling in years of plenty. These stockpiles would be sold off during poor harvest, with an over-all neutral balance of grain-in and grain-out. The switchover to subsidized agricultural production solved the problem of shortage in an altogether different fashion -- by stimulating constant over-production. Smaller operations were able to survive the resulting surpluses and price volatility for a few years, until the droughts of the 80's tipped them into crisis -- ultimately resulting in consolidation of farms under large agri-businesses.
  Not surprisingly, the two systems are incompatible; attempting to keep both policies in force simultaneously results in things like huge mountains of "Government Cheese".
70. Re:Quick... by necro81 · 2012-11-19 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  While it's true you can get water from the ocean via desalination, it has environmental problems of its own, like what to do with the concentrated briny effluent you output. The big knock against widespread desalination is that it takes a lot of energy. Most energy now and for the foreseeable future will be made in power plants that require, you guessed it, lots of water. You can do both, but you get deminishing returns. See this IEEE series (not paywalled) that goes into great depths about the difficult tradeoffs between water and energy.
71. Re:Quick... by rubycodez · 2012-11-19 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  oh, you missed that little thing in the 1930s known as "The Dust Bowl"?
72. Re:Quick... by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-11-19 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air
  Actually that's where you're wrong , climatologists are by definition always pulling this stuff (predictions etc) out of thin air (hint: it's fundamental to their science).
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
73. Re:Quick... by lennier · 2012-11-19 15:39 · Score: 2
  
  they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.
  Well, literally speaking, they are... but it's extremely well-instrumented air.
  It's not like they're cosmologists pulling gravity models out of a black hole.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
74. Re:Quick... by sg_oneill · 2012-11-19 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well the 99.9% who are not on the exxon-mobil payroll.
  There. Followed the money.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
75. Re:Quick... by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Any individual weather event is like a roll of dice, difficult to predict (unless they're loaded). Climate is like the result of 10,000 rolls of the same dice, relatively easy to predict within known error margins. Climate is more complex but the same principle applies.
76. Re:Quick... by sg_oneill · 2012-11-19 15:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s. You can subract a century off that for when Fourier first demonstrated the green-house effect in the laboratory and started warning about the possible impacts of what it might mean for the industrial revolution of the time.
  Scientists have been saying this for WELL over a century that if you increase CO2, you trap in Infra-red spectrum energies really seriously , and that means things get hot.
  For it not to work, it requires some very novel physics to be invented and it would require completely throwing out a huge amount of current physics , including almost the entirity of astronomy and the practice of using absorbsion spectra for analysis (Since apparently atmospheres have stopped following physics and dont absorb shit and it all bounces now)
  Denialism is loon science.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
77. Re:Quick... by haruchai · 2012-11-19 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  People like that were not going to agree with him (her?) anyway.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
78. Re:Quick... by haruchai · 2012-11-19 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Alberta will go willingly so yes, they'll definitely be worth the trouble.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
79. Re:Quick... by T.+Jahora · 2012-11-19 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how you hold onto falsified anti-fracking propaganda, yes it was falsified and the people who did that are facing charges for doing so. So you support falsified "science" as long as it matches up with your political views then?
  Gasland misled
  This link is complete garbage. The journalist Phelim McAleer asks the filmmaker Josh Fox about a segment of Gasland which shows a Colorado resident light his tap water on fire. He asks why Gasland didn't mention that there was a 1976 report of naturally occurring methane in the water in Colorado. Fox replies that one can distinguish biogenic vs thermogenic gas, and those residents said they were not able to light their water on fire before fracking. McAleer then goes on about that report, then Fox says so what, there were also people in NY lighting their water on fire in 1936, but that has nothing to do with fracking in Colorado. Then McAleer is like ZOMG, so this dates back to 1936, why doesn't the movie say that? Fox says because it's irrelevant, then the video cuts trying to make it look like Fox just admitted to a big cover-up. Crap journalism at its worst.
  Fox posted this reply to the pseudo-debunking of his film by the gas industry shills.
80. Re:Quick... by kenorland · 2012-11-19 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s. You can subract a century off that for when Fourier first demonstrated the green-house effect in the laboratory
  Climate models and predictions aren't just based on the greenhouse effect, they assume complicated feedback mechanisms for which there is much less evidence.
  
  Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s.
  What science is unclear about is what the cost/benefit tradeoff of various warming scenarios and actions will be, and that is more important than temperatures.
81. Re:Quick... by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Where are you going to get the water to cool the reactor?
82. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  ...a 4000 calorie all-nacho diet.
  Mmmmmmmmn, ...nachos!!!
83. Re:Quick... by nadaou · 2012-11-19 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  > Climate models and predictions aren't just based on the
  > greenhouse effect, they assume complicated feedback
  > mechanisms for which there is much less evidence.
  You don't need evidence if you have the laws of physics and chemistry on your side.
  > What science is unclear about is what the cost/benefit tradeoff
  > of various warming scenarios and actions will be, and that is
  > more important than temperatures.
  Money is not more important to the biology of life.
  
  --
  ~.~
  I'm a peripheral visionary.
84. Re:Quick... by nadaou · 2012-11-19 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  > You don't need evidence if you have the laws of physics
  > and chemistry on your side.
  that should read "you don't need reams of evidence"
  
  --
  ~.~
  I'm a peripheral visionary.
85. Re:Quick... by EvolutionInAction · 2012-11-19 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. And then you can use those averages to build models! Amazing, isn't it.
  But I will say it again, generalities are easier to predict than specifics. "The world average temperature will be X C in November" is easier than "The US average temperature" is easier than "The Washington average temperature." That's how statistics work. You can mock all you like, it won't change the way the universe operates.
86. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  Read Trenberth's paper more carefully. The problem is nothing to do with the observations of the energy coming in, or leaving, the global climate system. There is a net influx of 0.9 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 - that's already clear from IPCC figures (see Table 4).
  What he attempts to address is where the energy is being stored. To continue the analogy, we know we're eating too much relative to our expenditure, we just don't know which part of us is getting fatter because we don't have good enough scales. He suggests the "missing" excess heat is being stored deep in the oceans, and later studies (von Shuckmann 2009) appear to bear that out.
87. Re:Quick... by narcc · 2012-11-19 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is literally no long-term downside to improving our approach to the environment.
  Improving the environment is a fine idea. But let's not pretend that we can say with any degree of certainty that there are no long term down-sides. For all we know, any action we take to affect the climate may result in a worse outcome than inaction.
  
  All the down-sides are short term.
  I guess that depends on your perspective, doesn't it? What does "short term" mean to you? 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? What do you see as the downsides?
  
  Even the economic benefits in the long run (or at least, the lack of economic penalties) are enormous.
  Now you're really far out in the land of wild speculation. For some reason, I'm starting to think that you haven't put any thought in to this...
  You know what, I think you're one of the crazy people that think that the anti-AGW folks are actively out to hurt the environment like the bad-guys on Captain Planet. Those people don't exist.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
88. Re:Quick... by narcc · 2012-11-19 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Argument from authority beat down!
  Tell 'em brother -- they're too stupid to understand the science, so they can't even have an opinion that differs from the majority of climate scientists!
  Elbow from the sky: Any climate scientist that holds a different position is obviously being paid off by big pollution -- so, really, 100% of all climate scientists are in agreement.
  Knock-out blow: You're not a climate scientist? Shut it. You don't know shit! Listen to what the authorities tell you. Get in line!
  Anit-AGW punks just got told.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
89. Re:Quick... by narcc · 2012-11-19 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need evidence if you have the laws of physics and chemistry on your side.
  Read that over and over until you understand what's wrong with it.
  Go ahead, I'll wait.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
90. Re:Quick... by Bongo · 2012-11-19 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. There's "expert bias" which means experts tend to get the predictions wrong more often than the man in the street, as the man in the street usually knows he doesn't know. This pattern was empirically demonstrated by the Institute for Forecasting.
91. Re:Quick... by Bongo · 2012-11-19 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you assume there are boundaries then sure, like the snow globe's glass, for example. You can assume "climate" is the long term average of the weather, with upper and lower boundaries, maybe it'll warm 2C, maybe 8C. But what if it isn't? What if 15 years out your models still aren't getting the average even in the right ballpark? Just wait longer? 30 years? 60 years? How long do you assume you can wait? On average, in the end, we're all dead.
  Besides, some of the big arguments are not around boundaries, but around whether clouds are a result of CO2 forcing, or whether natural variation in clouds are causing the changes that we interpret to be CO2 forcing at work. Clouds are still a huge unknown process. But a few percent change in coverage can explain a lot, if you'll let it. See it is a big argument around the direction of causality. The problem is feedbacks. There's no feedbacks in your snow globe, but there's plenty in climate. That's how you get from a 1C warming due to CO2 alone, to an eventual 3C or 5C or 8C warming because of feedbacks. But feedbacks are not easy to understand. The direction of causality may be mistaken. Hence many think that the climatologists have got a bit overconfident with fitting their models to data.
92. Re:Quick... by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even own any 32 bit devices?
  You don't have a phone?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
93. Re:Quick... by Bongo · 2012-11-19 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Funny you invoke diet because that's another area of huge controversy. You can think of the body as an energy balance, but there's an argument that whilst true (laws of physics) it misses the key pertinent point: the body decides how to use the energy, not you. Ie. your body decides whether to store energy as fat or whether to use it for metabolism and exercise. If that sounds wacky, consider: does a child grow because he is overeating, or is he overeating because he is growing?
  Hormones control much of this stuff, and WHAT you eat affects your hormones. Regarding weight gain, insulin is the big one. Now some foods have the effect of driving your body to produce more insulin, and insulin tells your body (fat cells) to store the energy as fat. So if you eat foods that drive up your insulin, your body will do, guess what, store those calories in fat cells. But if you don't drive up your insulin, you'll be satisfied after a meal more easily (not hungry) and use your energy more usefully. You'll probably also eat less naturally. That's the basis of high-fat-low-carb lifestyles (lifestyle because you can eat this way all your life).
  So whilst there has to be an energy balance, the causality is all wrong. People don't get fat because they are overeating, they overeat because they are getting fat ie. their high insulin is telling their bodies to keep eating so as to store the fat. When an animal is in "put on weight" mode before winter, you can deliberately starve it in the lab at a time when it normally puts on weight, and what its body will do is start to eat up its own muscle tissue and store it as fat. You end up with an animal that dies starved, and obese, with heart failure.
  There are precious few studies that demonstrate that the usual "eat healthy carbs and increase your exercise and avoid fat" diets have any positive effects in the end. But rather than question this model, people keep prescribing it and sighing that the patients must be too lazy or something, because why else wouldn't it work?
  Maybe it doesn't work because it misses key processes in the body.So whom to listen to? Just let's be reminded we take a lot of this info on faith, so if one can try it for oneself, and see what results it gives, that would be wise. And look around you.
94. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  I have no clue what your local weather will be tomorrow, and even if I had the information on your location, I wouldn't be very confident about the prediction. Yet I confidently predict that in the northern hemisphere the average temperature will get colder for the next several months. One of these predictions is a lot different from the other.
95. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  True. So, it's a good thing energy costs aren't increasing too.
  Oh, wait.
96. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  "On a note related to the topic, it'd be nice to have more than the bottom few hundred kilometers to do something with. We have an absolute crapton of space that's essentially unuseable except as permafrost-filled tundra."
  It will still be essentially unusable. In fact, it will be even less usable, because it will be a crapton of space filled with melting mush, more commonly known as muskeg.
97. Re:Quick... by kenorland · 2012-11-20 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need evidence if you have the laws of physics and chemistry on your side.
  Bravo on the rhetorical point. However, your understanding of the physics and chemistry still sucks. You obviously have no idea of how complex global climate models are and the assumptions and empirical data that go into them. The idea that you can predict future climate from physics and chemistry alone is ludicrous.
98. Re:Quick... by uptownguy · 2012-11-20 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not speaking to the overall rightness or wrongness of your post -- BUT -- you got some basic facts about coal plants wrong in your last paragraph:
  "Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time"
  30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator)
  This links to a list which contains 37 coal plants in the US alone which have been in operation from 1938-1950 (the list stops at 1950 but one can reasonably infer that there are additional plants which were built between 1950 and 1959).
  Again, not speaking to your overall point but you may want to consider how to incorporate this data set when making future posts...
  
  --
  
  I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
99. Re:Quick... by coinreturn · 2012-11-20 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. There's "expert bias" which means experts tend to get the predictions wrong more often than the man in the street, as the man in the street usually knows he doesn't know. This pattern was empirically demonstrated by the Institute for Forecasting.
  How convenient! Now your own opinions are obviously the best.
100. Re:Quick... by coinreturn · 2012-11-20 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  You must mean that that MANKIND-INDUCED event called the Dust Bowl. You see, people removed all the natural flora (grasses) and replaced it with deep-plowing agriculture without bothering with things like crop rotation, soil terracing, or trees for wind breaks.
101. Re:Quick... by tbannist · 2012-11-20 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, coward, but you missed the point. It's that frackers don't necessary need clean water, but the people living there do.
  Additionally, you appear to have mistakenly linked to the Heartland Institute's main propaganda site, next time you want to try and prove a point you might want to link to a group that is not internationally known for using lies and deception to try and influence the public. I mean, these are the guys who are still fighting against the link between smoking and cancer. I was, however, amused by the amateurish and nasty content on that site. It can only serve to further discredit the organization in the eyes of reasonable people.
  
  I've noticed in the last few years that the truth no longer matters in the US. Its all about having the "correct" policical views and doing whatever it takes to smear the people telling truth that doesn't line up with that.
  What if you're wrong? What if the people who are "telling truth" are actually bought and paid for shills who are lying to you? Because that's what the Heartland Institute seems to be to me. What they say runs directly against all available evidence. How can they be telling "truth" when everytime I look into their allegations it turns out be nothing more than innuendo and lies?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
102. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-20 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  So you support misrepresenting your position if it sounds more impressive?
103. Re:Quick... by EvolutionInAction · 2012-11-20 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's wonderful. You are actually 100% wrong. It's called the Dunning Kruger Effect.
  The man on the street thinks he is awesome at predictions, and the expert doesn't tell him he's an idiot because he knows that his predictions have some uncertainty.
104. Re:Quick... by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-11-20 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I've put quite a lot of thought into it. I won't put words into YOUR mouth, though, so I'll assume that you've also thought about this but come to different conclusions.
  The WHOLE POINT of this thread is to address the worries that the World Bank sees as major economic issues as a result of climate change. They've based their conclusions on fairly widely accepted climate science. Climate scientists are good at looking at the atmosphere, but they may not be qualified to interpret the results in an economic sense. Well, we've got an agency dedicated to analysing the economy that's looking at the conclusions that climate scientists are drawing, and they're predicting trouble. So that's one thing.
  The other thing is that addressing our stance on energy usage is inherently more efficient. Either we use less fuel to do the same sorts of things, or we use different, cheaper, cleaner fuels to do the same things. Instead of relying 100% on fossil fuels, solar energy (for instance) provides a long-term source of electricity that is thermodynamically effectively free (i.e., it would've been absorbed and/or re-radiated as waste heat anyway--this breaks down in places where the albedo is high and would have reflected the light, but it's still going to be better than fossil fuels, on balance).
  More forests, cleaner air, more captured carbon. Healthier oceans? More food, clean water, less need to purify our own waste out of it. More jobs. Fewer starving people. (As opposed to overfishing, which is a short-term win, but a long-term loss when fish populations come down to a level that is impossible to monetize.)
  We can do a lot of this stuff TODAY. My definition of short-term is one or two election cycles. Maybe a few more than that. Most of what we lack isn't technological, it's political. We've dug ourselves pretty deep at this point, though, so maybe it'll be a couple decades. A couple of decades of forcing ourselves to be better as caretakers of the one and only planet that we know supports life. Twenty years of passing up the SUV that you don't need for the compact car or bicycle that'll suffice. Twenty years of choosing to use less energy and choosing, perhaps, to use slightly more expensive sources of energy (that will come down in price as we use it, no less!)
  I really don't think it's that much. One planet is all we've got. We should be willing to sacrifice a lot more.
105. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  This discussion is about things happening in our environment. I don't understand why you have to bring up our "wants" and "needs". They are not relevant to the discussion.
  
  And I want a pony!
106. Re:Quick... by tlhIngan · 2012-11-20 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.
  Water rights will be the next generation oil - the countries that have it will profit, whlie the smaller ones will destabilize and go to war over it. Yes, war. This is actually where the world is heading because oil is still a relative "luxury" compared to water. And food - too. The northern climes may make it more seasonable to grow plants, but the growing season is still shorter (just because the earth warms 4 degrees doesn't mean the tilt changes any, so you still get the same amount of sunlight a year).
  Of all the water out there, only 3% is actually freshwater. North America holds one of the largest reserves of it in various bodies of water.
  Nevermind how storms will ravage countries as well - a 4C rise means much more hurricanes and such (it's how the ocean cools itself - a big one can easily cool the waters by 2-3C, Sandy probably cooled the waters more), which means more population crowding to less disaster prone regions.
107. Re:Quick... by lonecrow · 2012-11-20 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  You already have, your money got Harper elected. Now get off my lawn and out of my countries politics!
108. Re:Quick... by lonecrow · 2012-11-20 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Because scientists are ALWAYS correct. Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
  
  Actually I am pretty impressed with how accurate the 5 day forecast has become. When I was a kid (70's) the 3 day forecast was frequently wrong and the next day forecast was only had about a 50% confidence.
109. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut will become provinces first anyways - with global warming, they will start to boom, and ports will spring up in the northwest passage. could be faster to pipe Oil north to the passage - and then ship it to China.
110. Re:Quick... by scot4875 · 2012-11-20 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  So, "I've got mine, everybody else can go fuck themselves," basically? It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable viewpoint, but do realize that you've ceded any possible ethical or moral debate over the issue.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
111. Re:Quick... by Sabathius · 2012-11-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  *clears throat* Son, I believe "annex" is the term you're looking for.
112. Re:Quick... by cayenne8 · 2012-11-20 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hey..you come into this world alone and you leave it alone.
  During your short time here, you make the best friends you can, have fun, enjoy your time to the max here....and then leave.
  I don't see any moral or ethical debate on if there is global warming or not.....it is a provable fact, or it is not...simple, nothing to do with morality??
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
113. Re:Quick... by sycodon · 2012-11-20 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  50% Troll.
  Seems that some "educated" slashdotters who are AGW believers don't like any information that counters their viewpoint even if it comes from academia and is published in the Gold Standard of scientific research magazines, Nature.
  Why is that? Why would you mods mark as "Troll" a simple link, perfectly relevant to the discussion, especially when that link is to a peer reviewed article in Nature?
  Tell us, we are all curious.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
114. Re:Quick... by cusco · 2012-11-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Cost/benefit tradeoffs are economics, not climatology, and economics has only the most tenuous association with science.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
115. Re:Quick... by cusco · 2012-11-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  in-situ partial combustion of coal seams
  
  Holy crap. Never heard of that before. Now I rather wish I still hadn't.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
116. Re:Quick... by cusco · 2012-11-20 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least you're honest. If it were up to me I'd live quite frugally, mostly because I just don't have the urge to accumulate a lot of crap rather than environmental concerns, but my wife has other ideas.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
117. Re:Quick... by narcc · 2012-11-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  The other thing is that addressing our stance on energy usage is inherently more efficient. Either we use less fuel to do the same sorts of things, or we use different, cheaper, cleaner fuels to do the same things. Instead of relying 100% on fossil fuels, solar energy (for instance) provides a long-term source of electricity that is thermodynamically effectively free (i.e., it would've been absorbed and/or re-radiated as waste heat anyway--this breaks down in places where the albedo is high and would have reflected the light, but it's still going to be better than fossil fuels, on balance).
  More forests, cleaner air, more captured carbon. Healthier oceans? More food, clean water, less need to purify our own waste out of it. More jobs. Fewer starving people. (As opposed to overfishing, which is a short-term win, but a long-term loss when fish populations come down to a level that is impossible to monetize.)
  These are all things we should be doing anyway. The climate change issue is just a distraction.
  
  Most of what we lack isn't technological, it's political.
  If the issue is political, why drag a politically controversial (that is essentially irrelevant) along? Why not argue for these things on their own merits?
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
118. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing in that article refutes the HadCRUT4 temperature series not showing any increase in global temperatures over the last 16 years.
  It does contain a lot of hand waving over that fact though.
119. Re:Quick... by The+Iso · 2012-11-20 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  The Met Office made a post on their blog repudiating the Daily Mail report, noting that this is the second time this year that this reporter has published misleading information on this subject: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
  
  --
  "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
120. Re:Quick... by kenorland · 2012-11-20 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Your signature applies aptly to yourself.
121. Re:Quick... by cavebison · 2012-11-20 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now? ... Just keepin' it real.
  Keepin it retarded you mean.
  So if it's summer now, and a scientist says that in 6 months it absolutely will be a lot cooler - you think that's about as believable as a daily weather report? What do you mean by "weather" anyway? Whether it will rain? Or whether it will be a hot day or a cool day? Because for your information they are usually pretty fucking accurate about the TEMPERATURE.
  If you're referring to them saying "78% chance of rain" as an indicator of how "useless climate scientists are" then pull your head out your arse and consider how difficult it is to predict what a fucking cloud is going to do.
  People like you, who stubbornly hold opinions based on nothing but your own biases, have always been, and still are, a plague on civilisations everywhere.
122. Re:Quick... by Bongo · 2012-11-20 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Lookup the Institute for Forecasting and their research. Then compare, think about it and decide for yourself.
123. Re:Quick... by Stuarticus · 2012-11-20 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  So you won't be convinced anyone can say anything about the climate until every single variable can be quantified? Imagine if early chemists had thought that way, we'd still be in the dark ages.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
124. Re:Quick... by Bongo · 2012-11-20 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I know people who think like that. The caveat is that people should rationally think for themselves. Obviously, part of that is self-doubt and self-questioning. It does NOT mean ignoring everyone else. But when the Chairman of the IPCC sits at a conference and says that anyone who disagrees with catastrophic global warming is a "flat earther", then HE is not thinking rationally, he is not upholding reason and self-doubt and questioning, presenting himself as "conveniently" always right.
  When some Indian scientists questioned the story about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, the Chairman of the IPCC called them "vodoo scientists". But after some time, the story came to light that it was a claim based on a phone interview which got misquoted and they printed the wrong year, which was out by 300 years, supposedly more like 2350. But did the IPCC Chairman think to investigate or bother to tell someone to check? No, he just called them "vodoo scientists". That is the problem. "We're the experts, nobody questions us."
  Sooner of later the people who can't question themselves or maintain standards will lose credibility. Pity it had to happen to the IPCC. And instead people lament the lack of political will and blame people for being lazy and whatnot. If scientists overstate their case and confidence, rational people are going to notice.
125. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-21 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not a good point, all the smartphones track datetime with 64 bit numbers because they're on modern OS's
126. Re:Quick... by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-21 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  RU Sure?
  AFAIK on a 32 bit cpu linux time_t is 32 bits (a long).
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
127. Re:Quick... by haruchai · 2012-11-21 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's quite a leap you've made there. Are you now going to accuse Conspiracy_of_Doves of misrepresentation? That's a much more serious accusation than hyperbole.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Tragedy of the commons by i+kan+reed · 2012-11-19 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.
Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.
1. Re:Tragedy of the commons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yet many special interests benefit from bullshit that the World Bank and other propagandists promote.
Don't worry, global warming is a fraud by Arancaytar · 2012-11-19 08:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.
1. Re:Don't worry, global warming is a fraud by dkleinsc · 2012-11-19 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like these guys?
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Don't worry, global warming is a fraud by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Oh hey, a fellow Manitoban!
  Note: I'm only partially being funny. During spring flooding, there's a number of towns that *literally* have no access for a number of weeks except by boat. And there indeed are people who would have canoes or motor boats to go from the front of their house (most houses built in the past few decades will be built on a hill to avoid completely being flooded out if the water goes higher than the dyke around town) to their work or store or whatever.
The temps go higher, time-frame lower every year by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 08:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.
Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
As nations we are all fucked by aliquis · 2012-11-19 08:57 · Score: 0

Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"
With all the religion and what not I guess that (less developed) mean the US is fucked.
With most people in the 1st world countries under debt (=poor (no, not really, only if the debt is larger than the value of their property)) they to are fucked.
I guess the rich can always get away from it somehow. Likely not all consequences. Worst case scenario their wealth is also destroyed and hence they do become fucked :D
The developed poor people got nothing to say in this case since they are poor and well, who cares about what the poor wants?
1. Re:As nations we are all fucked by fustakrakich · 2012-11-19 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  With most people in the 1st world countries under debt...
  ...the banks will sell those debts at an even greater profit.. big win for them.
  ...only if the debt is larger than the value of their property
  The debts are larger than the output of entire countries
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:As nations we are all fucked by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Debt, like charge on an integrating capacitor, can be reset to zero with nothing more than some lead traveling at high velocity.
  
  The French used this technique a little over two hundred years ago when their system needed a tuneup.
3. Re:As nations we are all fucked by moeinvt · 2012-11-19 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. I think the bankers are engineering a global currency collapse as the trigger for establishment of authoritarian government. This will translate into a vast decline in the living standards for the vast majority of the population in both North America and Europe.
  If I'm paranoid, someone tell me the end game of the current trend of perpetual debt accumulation coupled with steady erosion of individual liberties. A "managed" collapse is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
  When the banking elite reduce the vast majority of the world's population to the level of serfs who receive strictly limited food and energy rations, the climate change problem will be solved.
Cause? by Shagg · 2012-11-19 08:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What percentage of that warming comes from man-made causes?

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
1. Re:Cause? by petteyg359 · 2012-11-19 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.
2. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  We, as a species, will survive. Just not necessarily with our current population level intact.
3. Re:Cause? by Ichijo · 2012-11-19 09:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  100% of anthropogenic global warming comes from man-made causes.
  Don't concern yourself with how much of global warming is natural. We should be trying to limit man's contribution.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
4. Re:Cause? by SirGarlon · 2012-11-19 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
5. Re:Cause? by ohnocitizen · 2012-11-19 09:14 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Mod parent up. Comments that acknowledge climate change on slashdot tend to get modded down.
6. Re:Cause? by Shagg · 2012-11-19 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was code for "I don't know the answer, so I'm asking a question".
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
7. Re:Cause? by thesupraman · 2012-11-19 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?
  Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
  going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..
  So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
  is incorrect, our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers and
  everyone has completely lost focus on such 'small' issues as chemical pollution (poisons..) and spiraling inefficiency
  in our base lifestyles (you think massive systemic waste DOESNT effect the environment? really?
  And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
  inconvenience with survival these days.
  If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
  kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
  dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.
8. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Then you've not been paying attention to the discussion.
  There may be some people out there genuinely asking the question for informative purposes.
  Not most.
9. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I find it preposterously unlikely that any person
  A) legitimately doesn't know the answer.
  B) can't or haven't read ANY of the VERY MANY explanations that have already been produced in great detail about it, available after 5 seconds of googling
  C) is asking this question out of good-faith intellectual curiosity.
  in the year 2012. Maybe twenty years ago, sure, it would be understandable, but if you're still curious about Climate Change - if you're posting on the Web in 2012 and claim to be uninformed about Climate Change, and don't know what to do to remedy that lack of information, you are almost certainly a straight-up disingenuous, dishonest liar.
  Seriously. I can't reconcile those three ideas about a person in 2012. I find it WAY more likely that people are trying to derail things with already-settled 'is it real' debates.
10. Re:Cause? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-11-19 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  A 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon can have drastic effects on temperature, so that argument is stupid.
  True. But if humans only contribute 3-4% to the 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbons, what effect would human reduction in carbon consumption have on temperature. I am betting on nothing.
11. Re:Cause? by bunratty · 2012-11-19 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures)
  3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels. If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the warming will be several degrees Celsius this century, and it won't stop there.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
12. Re:Cause? by thesupraman · 2012-11-19 09:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Did you just cut and paste that off your favorite pundits blog? Perhaps you should go and learn some actual facts.
  None of the models has yet managed to predict, in fact they tend to be wildly off, and generally hide behind claims of 'weather is not climate' and yet expect their long term predictions to be accurate when their 1-5 year predictions have been wildly inaccurate (no one is asking them for week or month scale predictions, THAT is weather..). They are trying to predict chaotic systems with massive feedback, small inaccuracies amplify over time, not the opposite.
  And we are not talking about a 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon, learn to read, total human output is 3-4% of the yearly output of carbon, that is what the carbon cycle is about! Global atmospheric CO2 levels are highly cyclic, and have been above the current level many many times before, and have also fallen many many times before - as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting...
  As there are about 70 nuclear reactors (all old bad designs) in the US, we could replace all of those in much less than 2 years by your 'one a week' BS, nuclear is of course only 20% of US power generation (although 80% in france for example, where rampant over consumption of energy is not as endemic), but at one a week, you would have replaced the total US power generation infrastructure in around 7-8 years, even the US power consumption is not growing THAT fast (in fact dropped 5% from 2004 to 2010, but again dont let facts get in the way of your stupidity)..
  I notice you ignore the statements about real pollution and rampant waste, I guess you like YOUR BS lifestyle, and just think money and governments are just going to magic the problems away if you put some fashionable bumper stickers on, and bake cookies for some nice rallies, hmmm?
13. Re:Cause? by Grayhand · 2012-11-19 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
  It's a myth that it will adversely affect the economy. Fixing the mess will create as many or more jobs as it takes away. The issue is the ones causing the problem have the money and resources to fight change so nothing gets done. They keep denying and adding to the problem and just pay off Congressmen to not do anything. Once they've bled out what money they can the sad joke is the ones causing the warming will switch to technologies to correct the problem so they make money off the fix. These are businessmen and they know from the stock market you want to make money as you ride the stock up then make money as you ride it down. We suffer while they get richer.
14. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not ignorant, just confused. The problem I have is whom to believe.
  Each side has a very legitimate explanation of why the other side has an interest in lying/exaggerating/overstating its case.
  And no change has occurred yet that I am qualified to observe or evaluate.
15. Re:Cause? by rs79 · 2012-11-19 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
  That's odd.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
16. Re:Cause? by Ichijo · 2012-11-19 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..
  
  That's 3-4% per year, and we've been burning fossil fuels for 150 years. Luckily, nature absorbs some of it, but humans have upset the balance.
  
  So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything...
  
  Except the models that correctly predicted that surface warming would be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and the models that predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, and the models that predicted warming of ocean surface waters, and the models that predicted an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, and the models that predicted sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and the models that predicted an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and the models that predicted continuing and accelerating warming of the surface.
  But other than those models, you're right, exactly zero of the models have been able to predict anything.
  
  And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive?
  
  If it were a gradual warming, it wouldn't be so bad. But rapid warming means we'll have to quickly change where our food and water comes from and abandon waterfront properties (possibly whole cities) long before they've reached their design lives.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
17. Re:Cause? by dinfinity · 2012-11-19 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  The overall effect is quite undesirable
  Is it really?
  Save for the gulf stream reversing, most effects of global warming actually happen in a gradual fashion. No properly developed country should have any real problems in adapting to rising sea levels, hurricanes happening more often etc.
  In all the discussions about global warming the poor countries tend to be the fucked ones (see TFA, f.i.). It seems to me that pooling large amounts of money to specifically provide for countermeasures in the poorer regions affected by global warming would be more effective in preventing 'catastrophes' than the current strategy.
  Don't get me wrong, I am thankful that 'reduce carbon emissions!' spurs on technological development that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, but other than that, I see very little use for it.
18. Re:Cause? by jc42 · 2012-11-19 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? ...
  Maybe we should all care. After all, if it's "natural", that means that despite all our efforts, the climate is ignoring us and there's nothing we can do about it. But if it's primarily "anthropogenic" (human-caused), then we have the power to overcome the natural forces and make the climate do what we want. If we can figure out what we want.
  The anti-AGW crowd are essentially fatalists, criticising us for believing that we can take control of the climate. And a good part of the reason that scientists have come out to warn us all of what their data shows we're doing to the planet is that the scientists understand that we now actually do have the ability (knowledge and technology) to control the climate. We're in fact doing it. The problem is that there's nobody at the steering wheel. And the Deniers are trying to keep it that way.
  Of course, climate is something that's mostly a global phenomenon. Trying to control it at a local level, even for such giant localities as the US, Russia, China, etc., is doomed to failure. We can only control the climate at a global level, and on a rather slow time scale. But humans aren't good at organizing on a global scale. We're not even very good at organizing small states, much less an entire planet. So we can expect the problems to continue, our climate zooming around wildly, with nobody at the wheel.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
19. Re:Cause? by Synerg1y · 2012-11-19 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  So... what you're saying is that if the temp went from 60 degrees in mid-October to 64 degrees, you couldn't survive? ...Darwinism at work. It's not about our survival, as it is about our eco-footprint, and preserving the species on this planet. If we heat up the planet and most species die out as a result, we're ultimately the ones that get to experience the unpleasant consequences of that. Businesses would have to close, food prices would change, but as a species, pretty sure we'd survive.
20. Re:Cause? by Synerg1y · 2012-11-19 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  The biggest problem too is developing countries where 1st world countries have little to no authority. Who's going to go into India and replace all the mufflers for 1b people driving shitty 80s cars that the EPA would have a field day over. Better yet China, who probably don't believe in global warming and are only looking to compete with the states on production. I don't think 1st world countries play as much of a role in global warming as they used to. Then again I hear the air in L.A. still isn't so good either...
21. Re:Cause? by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures)
  Percent of what?
  
  So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything
  Now you're just talking out your ass...
  
  our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers
  ...and generating a conspiracy theory to justify it.
  
  And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
  inconvenience with survival these days.
  Yes, I'm sure you'll be happy to trade your current cushy lifestyle for the dog-eat-dog world of a Mad Max movie.
  
  If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
  kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
  dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.
  I agree that nuclear power would be a good thing, but the evidence suggests that our civilization isn't mature enough to manage it. Too much profit incentive to cut corners on design, construction, and operations.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
22. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  You assume the institutions and political stability needed for a functioning and health economy are going to be able to weather and adapt to the rapid change and inherent instability created by mass migrations of refugee populations. Think Bangladesh and India. You think Mexican immigration is a hotbutton issue now in the US? You haven't seen anything yet...
23. Re:Cause? by rs79 · 2012-11-19 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  "as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
  I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
  In 2010 NASA and the NOAA bitch slaped the IPCC with this. "Your model is broken".
  "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
  This guy says unless CO2 rises, we won't be able to grow enough food to feed a more populous world. Grow food... uses CO2... at this point some sort of light should go off over your head. http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf
  Keep in mind it's not so much CO2 output from man as it is REMOVING ALL THE FUCKING TREES. It didn't work so well in the Dust Bowl (thank you Ken Burns) and apparently this is some sort of revelation to those who study CO2 (wot?)
  http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
  The rate of deforestation has increased. Go do a flyover of Borneo Island in the good and understand 95% of that island is unexplored. Now most of the trees are gone. Same in Brazil.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
24. Re:Cause? by rs79 · 2012-11-19 10:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
25. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
  Gosh you're right! No one has ever disagreed with 90% of the scientific community and later been proven right, best to stop all debate now and take whatever measures are "necessary" then.
26. Re:Cause? by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels [wikipedia.org]. If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades.
  I suspect it's too late for that. If we stopped emitting immediately, the world would continue warming due to all the carbon already in the atmosphere, until equilibrium is reached. And that equilibrium might be a good way off, since the continued warming is going to reduce ice cover and thus add more warming, in a vicious cycle, until we reach an equilibrium on that as well.
  *Then* we can start waiting for long-term processes to de-carbonize the atmosphere.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
27. Re:Cause? by thesupraman · 2012-11-19 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Where to start...
  What would make you think any natural balance has been upset? Global CO2 levels have been this high before, and in fact cycle up and down, sometimes very rapidly, with quite some rapidity. In fact there is a lot of evidence that our controlling of forrest fires (which previously would at times burn out huge areas..) has greatly reduced spikes (although volcanic spikes can be even larger still.. damn that nature!) - we have a self-adjusting ecosystem, thats why life has survived so far, through changes FAR larger than we see now.
  The models you are talking about are not carbon/temperature prediction climate models, you are talking about direct first-order effects which are quite easy to model. I am talking about the full system models that purport to predict global temperature a distance in the future, care to provide an example of one of those that has predicted within 10% (of the change, not the absolute, of course) over a 5 year window? remember in a cumulative system that would make its error 100% (at a minimum, probably much higher) in 50 years...
  And finally, you do realise even the most aggressive predictions of 'rapid' are in the orders of hundreds of years, not a couple, right? large tides, (normal) flooding, and our changing land/resource uses have MUCH larger impacts over tens of years than even the most extreme GW predictions..
  Humans have become so insanely change-adverse as a culture, time to accept the world is not a static place.
28. Re:Cause? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-11-19 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  maybe their just waiting for Dec 22nd 2012 just to be safe? ;-)
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
29. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  It is whatever percentage is required to pass oppressive laws and and regulations to shut down fossil fuel use.
  So the answer is, it depends.
30. Re:Cause? by whathappenedtomonday · 2012-11-19 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is something that really bothers me -- especially when people point out that there were periods in earth's history when CO2 levels were much higher, and temperature levels didn't rise according to the increases in CO2. What they don't seem to understand is that the planet and its climate were completely different systems back then -- today, the forests that used to balance the system just don't exist anymore, and yet, we burn vast amounts of fossil fuels -- the very carbon the system buried in millions of years is released within a few hundred years (in the blink of an eye in geological terms), and we keep removing earth's lungs and mess with dynamic systems that are far from undestood. But some keep saying: nah, can't be us, how could puny humans mess with earth's climate?!
  
  --
  I hope I didn't brain my damage.
31. Re:Cause? by Burning1 · 2012-11-19 10:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
  is incorrect.
  You sir, are a tool.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
32. Re:Cause? by tbannist · 2012-11-19 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  What if, on the other hand, humans are contributing about 200% of the observed increase. Impossible you say? No so, natural cycles are pulling about half of the CO2 we produce out of the atmosphere. Furthermore humanity is the only significant source of CO2 emissions in most years, human emissions are close to 100 times larger than the next nearest natural source.
  Human emissions have increased the CO2 in the air by about 25% over the last century. If we reduced our emissions to nothing, temperatures would continue to climb for a 10-20 years (estimated) and then settle in at a new, relatively stable level. At that point they'd probably resume their slow march towards the next ice age, at around -0.04 degrees per century (as opposed to the 4 degrees this article indicates we might see by the end of this century).
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
33. Re:Cause? by tbannist · 2012-11-19 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
  inconvenience with survival these days.
  The survival threat is global crop failure. No one really knows what will happen if it gets too warm for our current staple crops to grow well. What do we do if there's only enough food to feed 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of the world's population? We are facing the very real possibility that we will turn some of the world's best agricultural land into desert. We can compensate for a lot of the problems we're creating with artificial climate control, but that's far too expensive to feed everyone in the first world nations at a price they can afford, never mind the rest of the world. The greatest survival threat is global war as we struggle to control the world's diminished food and water supplies.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
34. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah! start a solar power company and get billions of dollars to create jobs!
  Oh...wait...
35. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  >The rate of deforestation has increased
  Perhaps. But the overall terrestrial biomass is increasing slowly. See the IPCC report.
36. Re:Cause? by Ichijo · 2012-11-19 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  Global CO2 levels have been this high before...volcanic spikes can be even larger still..
  Volcanoes release 130 million tons of CO2 per year, while the burning of fossil fuels releases 9 billion tons per year.
  
  I am talking about the full system models that purport to predict global temperature a distance in the future, care to provide an example of one of those that has predicted within 10% (of the change, not the absolute, of course) over a 5 year window?
  
  Hansen's 1988 model was about 10% higher than actual forcings growth.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
37. Re:Cause? by HPHatecraft · 2012-11-19 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?
  Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
  going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..
  This is my favorite solution (solution).
  The downside is that climate scientists have data from relatively recent volcanic explosions that naturally create the cooling side effect. However, no one AFAIK has artificially created this condition. This begs the question: what the side effects, and can what happens if you miscalculate, making things too cold?
  I'm personally crossing my fingers and hoping this, or other similar projects, precipitate a Thundarr-the-Barbarian-like global cataclysm. Bleep this garbage -- let's all start over.
38. Re:Cause? by Jeff+Carr · 2012-11-19 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you're interested in the science of climate change, and why the small amount of gasses we produce is a larger problem than the percentage would imply, I recommend this easily digested series of videos.
  
  --
  The television will not be revolutionized.
39. Re:Cause? by sexconker · 2012-11-19 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.
  Anyone who cares about nature will let it run its course and handle its own business.
  The effect is only undesirable if you're afraid of change. Life got to where it is now on this planet because living was hard and dying was easy.
  Now one piddly-ass species is selfish enough to want to stop nature in its tracks? (And arrogant enough to think they're causing the changes or that they can halt/reverse them?)
  We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT. I, for one, encourage our planet to keep throwing life curve balls. It's the only way life improves.
40. Re:Cause? by sbjornda · 2012-11-19 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  Global atmospheric CO2 levels are highly cyclic, and have been above the current level many many times before
  Not according to this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html. (You need to watch all 3 minutes of it to get the point. It's rather dramatic.)
  --
  .nosig
41. Re:Cause? by DFurno2003 · 2012-11-19 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  If we never successfully leave this planet and humankind fades away, will any of this matter?
42. Re:Cause? by Sique · 2012-11-19 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone who starts talking about why the other side makes an argument forgets to actually evaluate said argument. Someone with a vested interest about A being true can still be correct about A being true. Otherwise going to a car repair shop would be pointless as it has a vested interest in your car to be actually broken. You still have to listen to his actual argument to evaluate the truth.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
43. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  "The issue is the ones causing the problem have the money and resources to fight change so nothing gets done. They keep denying and adding to the problem and just pay off Congressmen to not do anything. Once they've bled out what money they can the sad joke is the ones causing the warming will switch to technologies to correct the problem so they make money off the fix. These are businessmen and they know from the stock market you want to make money as you ride the stock up then make money as you ride it down. We suffer while they get richer."
  Yes, but some of these people really are foot eaters. They also want to take additional power over land management and environmental management through this - power over your very right to exist as a dignified human.
44. Re:Cause? by Mashiki · 2012-11-19 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Odd, how come I keep hearing this 90% figure, but every time I look the number is actually 2-3%?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
45. Re:Cause? by mrchaotica · 2012-11-19 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  You need to read up on something called the "broken window fallacy."
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
46. Re:Cause? by David+Greene · 2012-11-19 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  Sure, warming might help Canadians save a bit on their heating bills but the soil at least in most of southern Canada is terrible for agriculture. It's a rocky landscape mostly undisturbed by glacial activity. I would like to know how much Canadian land would be viable for agriculture given various warming scenarios. I have a feeling it won't make up for the midwest U.S. breadbasket.
  
  --
47. Re:Cause? by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard the estimate was that man-made causes are responsible for 80-120% of the observed warming.
48. Re:Cause? by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Please go read up on the carbon cycle. In the carbon cycle a lot of CO2 is released each year but the same amount more or less of CO2 is absorbed each year. That's why the CO2 level in the atmosphere has hovered around 280 ppm for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation. Since 1830 CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 395 ppm in 2012, a 41% increase. Even 1% per year means you double it in 100 years (or less if you compound it).
  tbannist is right, only about 43% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year serves to increase the atmospheric level. Most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans. What we're doing by digging up and burning fossil fuels that have been sequestered for 10's-100's of millions of years is increasing the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle but the relative distribution between the various sources and sinks remains about the same which leads to increased carbon in all of them.
49. Re:Cause? by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Very illuminating.
50. Re:Cause? by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Of course many of the mass extinctions in the past were caused by drastic climate change and that's the way we're headed now.
  
  We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT.
  Notice though that the driving economies of the world are usually found in the temperate zones.
51. Re:Cause? by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
  That's odd.
  https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+global+warming+is+man+made
  Leading to:
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
  
  Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years
  Good enough for you?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
52. Re:Cause? by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Odd, how come I keep hearing this 90% figure, but every time I look the number is actually 2-3%?
  Yes, that is odd.
  Where do you see 2-3%?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
53. Re:Cause? by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Global CO2 levels have been this high before
  Yup.
  15 million years ago.
  Pretty warm back then.
  
  Global CO2 levels [...] in fact cycle up and down, sometimes very rapidly,
  
  But not as rapdily as they are doing now.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
54. Re:Cause? by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  So... what you're saying is that if the temp went from 60 degrees in mid-October to 64 degrees, you couldn't survive?
  
  Uh, if the temperature is 60 degrees in mid-October you're dead.
  Oh, you're using those funny degrees. Salty ice and human body temperature wasn't it?
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
55. Re:Cause? by coinreturn · 2012-11-20 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem too is developing countries where 1st world countries have little to no authority. Who's going to go into India and replace all the mufflers for 1b people driving shitty 80s cars that the EPA would have a field day over. Better yet China, who probably don't believe in global warming and are only looking to compete with the states on production. I don't think 1st world countries play as much of a role in global warming as they used to. Then again I hear the air in L.A. still isn't so good either...
  The USA is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter per capita.
56. Re:Cause? by Jmc23 · 2012-11-20 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for giving us your opinion that in no way reflects reality.
  China and US are pretty close, and if you take into account that it's US money and desire for goods that is funding most of the pollution in China...
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
57. Re:Cause? by sexconker · 2012-11-20 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of course many of the mass extinctions in the past were caused by drastic climate change and that's the way we're headed now.
  
  We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT.
  Notice though that the driving economies of the world are usually found in the temperate zones.
  I'm sure global warming will bring an asteroid down on us.
  I like your line about economies though. It really exposes the fact that global warming is about money not life on this planet.
58. Re:Cause? by scot4875 · 2012-11-20 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes, because the evil government boogeyman argument is so much more convincing than the AGW boogeyman argument.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
59. Re:Cause? by 32771 · 2012-11-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I'm wondering, there are a large number of resource issues on the plate with an exponentially growing population. At some point we will hit the wall of the petri dish (somebody should write a song about this, preferably involving a nice 'ding' sound) and then we can die off quickly due to wars (possibly even nuclear, depending on the desperation) or slowly due to starvation and disease. It will never be that clean cut, but would it be easier to quickly reduce the population so the situation can be kept under control or just let things happen over a 20 year period as some suggest the normal decline could look like?
  
  --
  Je me souviens.
60. Re:Cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  "as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
  I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
  I wonder why.
  Just because a natural system is resilient and self-adjusting does not mean that it will adjust itself to be comfortable for human life.
  Anyway, the fact that you quote a Lewis Page article from The Register is enough to tell me that I don't need to waste any more time on your opinions.
If Canada is spared that is enough for USA by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-11-19 08:57 · Score: 1, Informative

They have enough land, and enough oil in tar sands too. Too bad, Canada, we need some breathing space lebensraum , so we are going to have to invade you and take you over. Too bad your experiments with pinko single payer health care and welfare state has to end this way. Learn the fine distinctions between co-pay, co-insurance, deductible and life-time caps.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:If Canada is spared that is enough for USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  we are going to have to invade you and take you over.
  Yeah how well did that work out for you last time? Care to have your capitol burned down again?
no coast, no problem by Tumbleweed · 2012-11-19 08:58 · Score: 0

Puget Sound will be saved by installing some canal locks on the Strait of Juan de Fuca (yes, that's a real place). SF Bay will be saved by closing off the bay entrance. Everyone else? Sorry. Cascadia FTW! (I'm including SF Bay area in Cascadia because I want to.)
1. Re:no coast, no problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  SF Bay will be saved by closing off the bay entrance
  You can fly California's new High Speed Pig to see that.
Underwater? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 08:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

Venice was a first-world country. Now you can swim in its streets.
1. Re:Underwater? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Venice doesn't have water problems because the oceans are rising. It has problems because it is located on land that is sinking. New Orleans has the same problem, but they built dikes and installed pumps to keep it dry. In both cases the cities will eventually need to be abandoned as it becomes too expensive to cope with the situation unless we enter a new ice age very quickly.
2. Re:Underwater? by jc42 · 2012-11-19 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Venice was a first-world country. Now you can swim in its streets.
  Yeah, except that Venice has a long history of abandoning the bottom floors of their buildings and building upwards, as they slowly sink into the muck that underlies the city. Doing this with a few landmark cathedrals won't be easy, but the rest of the buildings can be handled by filling the basements and canal bottoms with rocks, and adding the new floor at the top that they've been talking about for decades.
  For the rest of us without such a local history, it probably won't be so easy. How easily can the New Yorkers abandon their cars and subways, and switch to gondolas? ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
World Bank, saviours of the universe. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

My goodness! We need to implement carbon credits! That will save the planet so the World Bank can sleep better at night. Hooray for the World Bank and all their concern for all of us! They are like a warm and snuggly blanket, defenders of high temperature everywhere.
1. Re:World Bank, saviours of the universe. by scarboni888 · 2012-11-20 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  I smell carbon credit speculation madness just over the horizon.
2. Re:World Bank, saviours of the universe. by JigJag · 2012-11-20 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hey mods, I understand some have a policy of not using their mod points for anon comments, but come on, this one is the most insightful of them all and I can't believe no one's mentioned that already.
  To be clear, I am not discussing here whether it's happening, whether it's man-made, whether it's reversible or even addressable. My points is: an organization that expects a very profitable outcome (should I say income?) for event X actively promotes/advertise event X and NO-ONE calls them on it?
  JigJag
  
  --
  "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
if it's real.. by NikeHerc · 2012-11-19 09:02 · Score: 1

If AGW is real, you have two choices: adapt or die.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Nations? What nations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:03 · Score: 5, Informative

If we hit a warming of 4 degrees, you can forget about nations or countries as we know it. The civilization may well collapse. If we hit 6 degrees, say hello to the next mass extinction. "It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles." Details on this article.
No idea if this is change one can believe in, but it looks like a very serious change... er, problem.
1. Re:Nations? What nations? by rs79 · 2012-11-19 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. I get all my hard science from newspapers. They really know their stuff.
  http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/observations/globe/
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
2. Re:Nations? What nations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Anecdotal evidence... Very damning.
3. Re:Nations? What nations? by jovius · 2012-11-19 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.
  An anoxic event, which is related to the sea temperature, could potentially lead to increased hydrogen sulfide emissions, which can poison the atmosphere.
  Vast areas of Earth can be rendered uninhabitable because of the "sudden" rise in the wet-bulb temperature. No time to adapt.
  Evapotranspiration may already be severely disrupted. The consequence may be a feedback loop to a drying Earth.
  Clathrate gun hypotesis - the rising temperatures lead to a feedback loop of ever increasing methane
  It's worrisome that currently everything is pointing to an increased possibility of aforementioned things happening. All of this while the humanity itself is releasing as much CO2 into the atmosphere per year as an extinction level super volcano.
  I'm not sure what to think of this. I feel like we already all past the point of no return. The forced reduction of the human activity because of the change in the external conditions can be considered as a natural negative feedback cycle.
4. Re:Nations? What nations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Let me console you a bit (that's console as consolation, not a /dev). The Earth has been through a lot: mass extinctions that put anything humans have managed so far as a tiny blip by comparison. Worst case, global warming from human activities looks a lot like the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This was a pretty dramatic warming back about 55 million years ago, estimated on the order of ~+6C over ~20k years. As extreme as it was, life on Earth did not end, it wasn't even a particularly prominent mass extinction (it doesn't even rate in the top 5), and while some fossil groups suffered, others flourished. Definitely a mixed bag. So, don't go all gloom-and-doom. Even with that strong a perturbation, things will get back to "normal" eventually. Life on Earth has handled MUCH worse and managed to bounce back. Like the PETM, what we're doing with regards to CO2 probably won't even rate on the grand scale of things. It won't be a Permian-Triassic extinction or something like that.
  Humans and their civilization? Well, we're a little more sensitive to change than life itself is. Unfortunately. Can human civilization survive a PETM-style event? Hard to say. We weren't around at the time. We did survive continental glaciations while living in caves, so humans can get through major climate change events somehow. I think the biggest concern is what will happen to civilization, and what we'll start doing to each other with these shiny new weapons that we've gotten since those early days.
5. Re:Nations? What nations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  I think the comments and disagreements on this board make it obvious we are past the point of no return simply because we cannot agree.
I get ocean front property! by cultiv8 · 2012-11-19 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

one of the benefits of living in a red state.

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
1. Re:I get ocean front property! by CHIT2ME · 2012-11-21 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  There are no benefits from living in a red(neck) state!!
  
  --
  My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Revotron · 2012-11-19 09:07 · Score: 4, Funny

http://xkcd.com/605/

This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.
And in the mean time US OIl production increase... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

At the same time the US speaks of becoming one of the biggest oil producer by exploiting oil shale. Tragedy of the common indeed.
Misleading subject by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

The world bank report at
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
does not make the case that the global temperature is actually increasing. Mostly it simply worries that there are "temperature anomalies" and pontificates the consequences IF a 4 degree C were to occur. The actual global temperature is not on pace for this to actually occur, however. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/now-warming-since-kyoto-was-rejected-fifteen-years-ago/
1. Re:Misleading subject by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Are you sure?
  "The emission pledges made at the climate conventions in Copenhagen
  and Cancun, if fully met, place the world on a trajectory for
  a global mean warming of well over 3C. Even if these pledges
  are fully implemented there is still about a 20 percent chance of
  exceeding 4C in 2100.10 If these pledges are not met then there
  is a much higher likelihood—more than 40 percent—of warming
  exceeding 4C by 2100, and a 10 percent possibility of this
  occurring already by the 2070s, assuming emissions follow the
  medium business-as-usual reference pathway."
  - p.23, "How Likely is a 4C World?"
nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis by swschrad · 2012-11-19 09:08 · Score: 1

we can handle ourselves, and vacation in the oceanfront states of Utah, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa. shame the Great Lakes got overrun, but hey, Marlin fishing in Wisconsin ain't bad.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  >"the Great Lakes got overrun"?
  I'm sitting at around 1000' of altitude. What are you talking about?
2. Re:nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-11-19 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're being facetious, but I'm amused by Utah as ocean-front property.
  Figure Utah's elevation is in the 2000-5000 foot (600-1500 meters). So, for convenience, we'll go with 1000 meters.
  I think it'd be really tough to get Utah and Tennessee as oceanfront, unless you count islands.
Cars by skade88 · 2012-11-19 09:08 · Score: 1

Cars are the world's single largest source of carbon. http://www.teslamotors.com/ save us!
1. Re:Cars by dkleinsc · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla doesn't solve the problem of cars. Tesla (or any other electric vehicle) moves the problem from the car to whatever is charging the batteries for those cars. That's sort of an improvement, because it means you could use non-carbon-emitting power sources to charge the battery, but it doesn't solve the problem.
  The real solutions are going to require either:
  A. Technological breakthrough of some kind that allows for cheap renewable energy. This is mostly what the Department of Energy has been trying to do under Steven Chu, with not-great results.
  B. Everyone to significantly change their behavior to conserve carbon-emitting energy. This would require big changes like carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, public transit expansion, and other politically unpalatable options.
  So currently my best bet is that we're boned, because the technological solution isn't happening and the other solutions won't happen until it's already too late.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Cars by Githaron · 2012-11-19 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  So instead you want the coal electric generators to be the single largest source of carbon?
3. Re:Cars by skade88 · 2012-11-20 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  We can move to clean(er) power plants too.
4. Re:Cars by Githaron · 2012-11-20 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well, on that front, nuclear is our best bet in the short term but green advocates make a fuss and make it extremely difficult to make them.
5. Re:Cars by skade88 · 2012-11-20 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why not solar?
6. Re:Cars by Githaron · 2012-11-20 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  The technology is not yet mature (and cheap) enough to handle the majority of the country on a large scale. Also, solar's generation capabilities varies by location and you still need power during the night. Energy storage at that scale would be a problem of its own. The United States would not accept not have power 24/7. At the very least, the nuclear power plants would provide night power and peak power.
7. Re:Cars by skade88 · 2012-11-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  What if we did a mix of Solar, Wind, water (Wave), Fire (Geothermal) and heart (People riding bikes instead of driving cars when they can)?
8. Re:Cars by cusco · 2012-11-20 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely scenario IMNSHO?
  
  C. Mass die-off of human population for any of several reasons (probably bio-warfare), with civilization recovering at a population level closer to sustainable.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Banksters in on the scam now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow, bankers are the authority on science now. I suppose that's an upgrade from politicians like Al Gore?
What a joke the scaremonger / banksters are.
1. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why do you need to refer to Gore or bankers, when the scientists are telling you what is happening? And no, the Heartland Institute does not do science.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by bhlowe · 2012-11-19 09:57 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Al Gore used expert scientists to predict a half dozen dire predictions that have failed to materialize. (Name one that has come true, if you can.) He is a big polluting hypocrite who has made millions on green energy schemes funded by the government.. while living it up in his mega mansion, mega yacht, and jet setting ways. He represents everything wrong with the global warming crowd. The billions "invested" in green energy have not produced a single revolutionary product that can stand on its own in the market place as an example of money well spent. I understand why you don't like Al Gore being propped up as the poster child of AGW.
3. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives a fuck about the market place?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  Why do you need to refer to Gore or bankers, when the scientists are telling you what is happening?
  Because it's easier to dismiss the claims of bankers and politicians than the claims of scientists.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
5. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by microbox · 2012-11-19 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore the scientists as experts. Ignore politicians that build consensus. Ignore the actuaries that do the sums and advice insurance agencies to put their rates up. Ignore the military specialists that treat climate change as a national security mater. They are all on the take, and the end goal is WORLD-SOCIALISM!!!
  
  Of course, you could just be wrong. Nahhhh... WORLD-SOCIALISM!!!!
  
  --
  
  Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
6. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  no.
  the universe has the opposite problem trying to escape heat death and is a little annoyed and jealous of us relatively new carbon based life forms.
  I mean, fusion was hard to get started.
  These monkeys figure their way out in a few thousand years.
7. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, are you retarded or just acting like one? AGW "predictions" don't materialize until there is sufficient warming. There has been more rather than less warming than predicted mere 5 or 10 years ago. But apparently the 5 or 10 year geological blip is apparently "long time" so it must be "long time".
  So I re-iterate. Are you playing retarded or simply cannot comprehend time on a scale other than your lifetime??
8. Re:Banksters in on the scam now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Name one that has come true, if you can.
  "The world will get warmer."
  Proof: Domingues 2008, Nuccitelli 2012, NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, Hadley Centre, and BEST 2011 (preliminary).
Beat me to it! Bring democracy to Canada. by echtertyp · 2012-11-19 09:17 · Score: 0

Yep, I can see it now, U.S. Marines "bringing democracy to Canada" for their own good. Nothing to do with resources. Nothing at all.
Devil's Advocate by BlackusDiamondus · 2012-11-19 09:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game. Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.

--
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
1. Re:Devil's Advocate by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your posting bullshit:
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
  No folks, AGW did not stop in 1998.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Devil's Advocate by h4rr4r · 2012-11-19 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Citations?
  I thought last summer was the hottest on record, that does not sound stable.
3. Re:Devil's Advocate by MightyMartian · 2012-11-19 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  The 1998 claim has been peddled for the last six or seven years. It's bullshit, but the AGW skeptic crowd are like Creationists, and let no claim, no matter how frequently debunked, go to waste.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Devil's Advocate by BlackusDiamondus · 2012-11-19 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hottest summer where? One hot summer does not climate make. And here's the citation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
  
  --
  Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
5. Re:Devil's Advocate by sideslash · 2012-11-19 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  The measurable land and air temperature showed no mathematically significant increase over that period; the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise. But it's admittedly overstating the case to say that the temperature didn't go up at all.
  
  It's also true that some of the graphs in your link are overstating their case by presenting very sketchy conjectural model data or drastically less complete measurement summaries in the same chart as modern, rigorous measurements. Extrapolation of empirically derived models of dynamic systems is typically a fool's errand. And when you realize the realistic error involved in these charts it kind of makes you go "hmmm".
6. Re:Devil's Advocate by rs79 · 2012-11-19 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Tiger attacks in New York didn't stop in 1998 either.
  "James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
  http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
  http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
  The alarmists say they were being alarmist and recanted. That the rest of the world hasn't caught up is simply latency.
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
7. Re:Devil's Advocate by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now
  Please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
  and tell us how many of the last 16 years are not included in the 16 hottest years on record.
  As the saying goes, you're entitled to your won opinions, but not to your own facts.
  
  in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher.
  And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
8. Re:Devil's Advocate by h4rr4r · 2012-11-19 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Any real citations?
  I would not trust the dailyfail to tell me if water is wet or not.
9. Re:Devil's Advocate by denvergeek · 2012-11-19 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm gonna mod you into oblivion because you say stupid shit like "I'm probably going to get modded into oblivion". But I don't have any mod points, so I guess that's a lie.
10. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  "The measurable land and air temperature showed no mathematically significant increase over that period"
  Don't bother. The climate believers don't understand science, the Null Hypothesis, or falsifiability.
  Common sense won't stop the climastrologists from chewing up grant money and pumping out phony computer forecasts that fail to match reality 100 years from now.
11. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
  Go play with the data your selves, lots of temperature series to explore.
  Temperatures are noisy, but pretty flat since the big el Nino in 1998.
12. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  > tell us how many of the last 16 years are not included in the 16 hottest years on record.
  Assuming you don't cherry pick the record, the answer is that none of them are the hottest. It's been much hotter in the past, even only 1000 or 2000 years ago.
  Why is the temperature remaining constant? And how many climastrologists successfully predicted this result?
  >And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.
  Ah, another thing the climastrologists cannot predict.
13. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  The more I see these debates, less I see studies suporting AGW views. They are becoming just a bunch of fundamentalists.
14. Re:Devil's Advocate by Arker · 2012-11-19 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Lovelock is old now but he's a real scientist. He can admit when his theory is wrong and revise.
  The key IPCC players were never real scientists. They hitched their boat to a hypothesis that was politically valuable and parlayed rich careers out of it, and they will never admit they were wrong.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
15. Re:Devil's Advocate by Arker · 2012-11-19 12:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  No, you are posting bullshit. Using the same measurements that were used to scare us prior to 1988, there has been no significant warming since. For years the IPCC cabal responded simply that x years is too few to be a trend. So-called 'scientist' Phil Jones insisted that 15 years just was too short to show a trend (for what it's worth that might be the first true words the man has ever spoken - my question is why did he not realise this back when he was claiming that 15 years of warming DID prove a whole lot?) Of course that dodge only worked for a few years, and since warming hasnt come back, they had to find some way to resurrect it. Simple, really, just change the measurements. No significant warming in air temp over land, but surely something has increased? There we go, certain measures of ocean temperatures *have* increased. So the air-temp readings that were the basis for the case 10 years ago are suddenly pushed aside in favour of a different source of information that conforms to the confirmation bias of the researchers involved. No surprise when you realise these are basically the same people that came up with the hockey-stick by merging several different data-sets, using one set for one year and a different one for the next to get the effect they were looking for while while making it appear to be a single consistent measurement.
  I understand that most people can lie easily if they believe it is for a good cause, but scaring the human race back into the dark ages is not a good cause, and I shudder at the thought of trying to understand someone so messed up they think it is.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
16. Re:Devil's Advocate by BlackusDiamondus · 2012-11-19 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.
  You're wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html
  
  --
  Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
17. Re:Devil's Advocate by serviscope_minor · 2012-11-19 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise.
  That statement by itself is completely irrelevent.
  As the number of measurements increases, the error bars of the TREND decrease. If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance. The noise on the DATA only affects the number of measurements required.
  If you do not believe that you can extract statistically significant small trends out of data where the noise is vastly higher, then please discard all GPS units you own since they don't work.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:Devil's Advocate by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-20 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Any real citations?
  I would not trust the dailyfail to tell me if water is wet or not.
  Ah but the can tell you whether it causes cancer.
  (or cures it).
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
19. Re:Devil's Advocate by sideslash · 2012-11-20 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance.
  I seem to recall that the Guardian article on the controversy quoted a boffin as saying that the trend was a tenth of a degree per decade, plus or minus 1.5 degrees. In other words, over a period of 15 years it was still hidden entirely inside the margin of error.
  
  please discard all GPS units you own
  Nah, the GPS thing is a red herring, since we can easily validate that we arrive at our desired destination. Confirmation of predictions of chaotic dynamic systems is rather a different challenge, and error estimation of old temperature proxy data is more voodoo than science at this point.
20. Re:Devil's Advocate by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-11-20 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny that you say that you think they're "scaring the human race back into the dark ages". I see the exact opposite: they're trying to scare us into the future. Better designed cities, smart materials, advanced energy production and capture...
  Some of the things, we'll borrow from the past. Just because the designs are old doesn't mean they're bad. When you design a building to be passively heated by the sun and with airflow to maintain a livable temperature without adding any energy of your own, that's a friggin' incredible feat of engineering. And yet, that's what humans have been doing for hundreds of years.
  We don't need to go back to caves, we just need to be better at what we're doing now.
21. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  The "world's ice is melting"?? Not in the Antarctic it isn't. In fact if you add it all up it is neutral. When the arctic melts the antarctic grows and vice versa.
22. Re:Devil's Advocate by tbannist · 2012-11-20 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, you are posting bullshit. Using the same measurements that were used to scare us prior to 1988, there has been no significant warming since
  I suppose that depends on how you define significant. If you looked at the graphs on the page, you'd notice again and again they show an increase of around 0.4 to 0.5 degrees celcius since 1988. That's pretty close to the IPCC prediction.
  
  No surprise when you realise these are basically the same people that came up with the hockey-stick by merging several different data-sets, using one set for one year and a different one for the next to get the effect they were looking for while while making it appear to be a single consistent measurement.
  This is ignorant hogwash, the real critics don't stoop to just making lies up on the spot like you have. I suggest you read up on the various controversies so you can at least not look like a vapid idiot.
  
  I understand that most people can lie easily if they believe it is for a good cause, but scaring the human race back into the dark ages is not a good cause, and I shudder at the thought of trying to understand someone so messed up they think it is.
  Now, who's being alarmist? If we started comprehensively dealing with global warming right now, it would cost the world about the same amount as sewer systems cost us. And I'm sure there were people just like you in the 19th century declaring that the first sewer system would send London back ot the dark ages.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
23. Re:Devil's Advocate by tbannist · 2012-11-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Most of Antarctica is technically a desert because it's actually too cold to snow much. Warming the temperature, for example, from -20 to -15 degrees Celcius actually allows more snow to fall, so the ice can grow while the temperature rises. It's a complex system, but here's a National Geographic article that explains some of the complexity.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
24. Re:Devil's Advocate by Arker · 2012-11-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Passive solar design is great, and if you think I am against that sort of thing remember you dont know me at all. The truth is the opposite. I put a few years of my life into that with no regrets in fact.
  But it is so much more than that. Many of these 'green' technologies are pushed out immature, at great expense and no real gain, just political stunts. 'Carbon neutrality' is a very dangerous goal, if pursued with currently available technology 'retreat to the dark ages' would be a good description of the result. Smaller population sounds good until you think about how that could actually come about. We live in an energy based economy and carbon neutrality would certainly mean impoverishing ourselves globally. The thrust of technological progress for centuries has been to bring more and more wealth and opportunity to the masses. The privileged elites have grown richer as well, but for some people it isnt enough to be rich - not without an underclass to lord it over. Making energy (the true basis of our modern economy) more expensive serves nicely to impoverish the rank and file of society while leaving plenty of room for the elites to preserve their own wealth and power.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
25. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-26 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  only in the usa which is a small part of the whole globe.
4 degrees warmer? by emho24 · 2012-11-19 09:19 · Score: 1

Give in now

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
1. Re:4 degrees warmer? by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Give in now
  I, for one, welcome our new four-degree-warmer overlords!
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:4 degrees warmer? by emho24 · 2012-11-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, dont be such a Tool ;)
  
  --
  You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by crazyjj · 2012-11-19 09:22 · Score: 4, Informative

The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I get ocean property! by skade88 · 2012-11-19 09:26 · Score: 0

My house would BE in the ocean at that point.
1. Re:I get ocean property! by fredprado · 2012-11-19 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  That is exactly his point.
2. Re:I get ocean property! by pixelpusher220 · 2012-11-19 10:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No no, you get ocean 'view' property. The problem? The 'view' is 'up'.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-19 09:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So you're saying you're inclined to disregard all claims of danger without examining the reasons behind them? Or does that only apply to the thought that the world you grew up in may one day change?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
1st world countries by Punto · 2012-11-19 09:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here

--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
1. Re:1st world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  We denizens of the first world don't emit this much CO2 because it's fun, we emit this much CO2 because it is a byproduct of not living in hovels and not commuting in a donkey cart.
  If you second or third worlders were as rich as us you would adopt the same lifestyle. Case in point: Taiwan. China. India. The non-poor segments of Brazilian society.
  Add to this the fact that the CO2-warming relationship has only been known for a few decades, and the 'blame' you can justly assign to us diminishes further. We can't reasonably be blamed for damage if we had no way of knowing we were causing damage. If aliens invaded tomorrow and said they only came because they wanted to shut down the source of telenovellas, does that mean we should blame South America for the downfall of humanity? No, because el pueblo watched them for fun and had no idea it could be a problem. When it comes to CO2, we should blame those who obstruct efforts to control CO2, and at the top of that list are countries like China and India, who use the 'but you guys started it' argument to blame the first world instead of doing anything, much like you did in your post.
2. Re:1st world countries by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  The CO2-warming relationship has been known for over 100 years. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius wrote:
  
  if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
3. Re:1st world countries by BeardedChimp · 2012-11-20 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here
  If focusing on the economic effects to 1st world countries spurs them to take action I'm all for it. Nobody in the US is going to act if they think only Africa is at risk.
Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 1: by skade88 · 2012-11-19 09:32 · Score: 1

We need to take a lesson from Mr Burns. Burns then reveals to Smithers his grandest scheme: the construction of a giant, movable disk that will permanently block out the sun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F) The Simpsons solved global warming! No sun, no warming!
1. Re:Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 1: by EvolutionInAction · 2012-11-19 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I support this idea. We build the largest disk we can to block out the sun. Then we put it in orbit. Then we put PV on it. We get a space program, power, and technological advancement all at once.
  If only it were big enough, it could even do something about global warming.
Ooooohhhh...!! "Stern warning from the banksters' by sgt_doom · 2012-11-19 09:34 · Score: 1

.... front office, the World Bank. You mean the previous neocon there, Robert Zoellick (and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission --- I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to acknowledge influence groups, etc., ad nauseum), never realized any global climate change was going on??? Geez, thanks World Bankster, front office to the banksters --- that's kinda like all those slimey douchetards who created and sold and profited from all their debt,and now claim it belongs to the rest of us, and we must embrace austerity to pay off all their debt while they were paid billions and trillions for creating and selling such debt (I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to learn arithmetic, so they won't understand what I'm talking about...).
Benefits? by jetole · 2012-11-19 09:35 · Score: 0

Benefits? I have lived in Ontario and Miami both several times. Toronto gets hotter then Miami in the summer. The earth is on a tilt and the areas that get the coldest where winter is seasonal tend to get the hottest in the summer season.
Re:Cause? --- thank you! by sgt_doom · 2012-11-19 09:36 · Score: 2

Discussing climate change with the Ameritards is akin to attempting to explain to them why a 4% foreclosure rate in their country wasn't responsible for the global economic meltdown --- it was the banksters' ultra-leveraged bankster run which did it...
Oh nooo by bhlowe · 2012-11-19 09:36 · Score: 0

Now the sky is REALLY falling! Using the best science available, Al Gore assured us that a hockey stick of global warming was inevitable and ultimately unstoppable. If the last 16 year trend of no warming keeps up... In the name of humanity, WHAT THEN??
1. Re:Oh nooo by kenaaker · 2012-11-19 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's like playing whack-a-goth. No sooner does somebody respond to this "no warming since 1998" myth with detailed information about why it's a myth, than some other mouth-breathing ignoramus presents it as the revealed truth.
  Damn it, read before writing will you?
2. Re:Oh nooo by bhlowe · 2012-11-19 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the hockey stick, exactly?
3. Re:Oh nooo by kenaaker · 2012-11-19 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have a hockey stick, and I don't care to know where you keep yours.
  If you want to know more about why "no warming since 1998" is a myth there are references to two articles about just that subject already posted, one pointing to a guardian.co.uk article and one pointing to a skepticalscience article.
  Go argue with them.
4. Re:Oh nooo by bhlowe · 2012-11-19 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Al Gore promised us a hockey stick spike in temperatures and he was flat wrong. In the last 16 years, you cannot say that the trend he predicted came anywhere close to being accurate. It was a scare story then, and it continues to be one.. With billions in the last 4 years going to politically connected people and promptly going bankrupt. All the schemes to add carbon taxes, reduce drilling, oppose oil shale development, fracking, and kick back schemes to promote "green energy" are just fleecing taxpayers and making the economy weaker. 2 and 3x increase in energy prices create poverty, inflation, higher unemployment, and more dependency on the government. But we can disagree. Turn off your computer, you're burning carbon.
5. Re:Oh nooo by tbannist · 2012-11-20 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Al Gore promised us a hockey stick spike in temperatures and he was flat wrong.
  You do realize that 2100 and 2012 are not the same year, right? The hockey stick doesn't predict temperatures it charts historical temperatures. The original one went from rought 1400 to present (at the time, 1999). The IPCC reports, however, predict a rise of around 0.2 degrees per decade. As far as I can tell Al Gore's predictions in an Inconvenient Truth were all further out than 2012. His predictions haven't come true because we haven't reached them yet. It's kind of like you're castigating someone who told you electric cars would be everywhere in 2040 because they're not everywhere right now.
  
  In the last 16 years, you cannot say that the trend he predicted came anywhere close to being accurate.
  Climate modles predict that we will occasionally have decades where the temperature slope appears to be 0. It's a consequence of noise in the data. We've had quite a few of these flat periods in the past too, yet the average temperature keeps rising. Skeptical Science has a blog post explaining the problem with this.
  
  All the schemes to add carbon taxes, reduce drilling, oppose oil shale development, fracking, and kick back schemes to promote "green energy" are just fleecing taxpayers and making the economy weaker.
  Actually, carbon taxes tend to be economically neutral to good. They encourage the reduction of CO2 emissions, and the money gets either refunded to tax payers who then spend it, or spent by the government on infrastructure projects. Both of those activities may actually stimulate the economy more than what the money would have otherwise been spent on (like raises for company executives).
  As I understand opposition to shale development and fracking has a number of reasons, most of which are not global warming related. It seems people don't like poisoned water supplies and earthquakes. Who knew?
  The total subsidies to green companies are actually still much lower than the subsidies offered to coal, gas and oil companies. I don't know why extremely profitable companies that pollute the land and air are beeing given tax payer money, but I'd start looking there if you want to figure out who's fleecing you.
  
  2 and 3x increase in energy prices create poverty, inflation, higher unemployment, and more dependency on the government.
  
  It will indeed, however, it's also unavoidable. The easy to access energy is gone, every year the cost to get the next barrel of oil out of the ground increases. It's only a matter of time before oil is the expensive, dirty option instead of the cheap, dirty option.
  
  But we can disagree. Turn off your computer, you're burning carbon.
  Actually, most of my power comes from hydro-electric or nuclear power.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
Luck for us by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:37 · Score: 0

a prediction is never, ever a fact.
Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why does Slashdot have 10x the stories on global warming verses the rapidly increasing US Government debt? Don't you think debt is a more pressing problem?
1. Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by PortHaven · 2012-11-19 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because Slashdot is mostly a liberal rag, with a chunk of Libertarians, and a smithering of conservatives.
2. Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by bhlowe · 2012-11-19 10:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Democrat in office. If a Republican were in, it would be non-stop stories of anti-war protests, massive layoffs, crony capitalism, the tragedy of the homeless, the poor state of our schools, rising crime rates... and yes, the deficit, and how "unpatriotic" high debt is would be front page. I lived in San Francisco under both Bush's and the papers were filled with the horror stories of living under a Republican... With Obama in, the anti-war protests have stopped, the sea levels have stopped rising, and the economy is always improving.
3. Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by hey! · 2012-11-19 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  No I don't think it is a *pressing* problem. With interest rates at a historical low and the government borrowing at *below* the rate of inflation, it's just not that big a deal right now -- certainly not enough to do things that might slow the rate of economic growth.
  When inflation resumes and interest rates rise -- that's a different story.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why does Slashdot have 10x the stories on global warming verses the rapidly increasing US Government debt? Don't you think debt is a more pressing problem?
  No.
  For some reason the public debt is only an issue when there's a Democrat in the White House. GWB went on a spree of tax cuts and spending, and no one complained that the national debt wasn't being paid down instead.
  "Government debt" is a manufactured crisis. There is an attempt afoot to use it as an excuse to bring disaster capital home, so we can experience it ourselves.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
5. Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? by tbannist · 2012-11-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  With Obama in, the anti-war protests have stopped
  One war is effectively over, and the other is winding down. They don't have much left to protest, do they?
  
  the sea levels have stopped rising
  I though it was the Republicans who were saying that?
  
  and the economy is always improving.
  When you start at the bottom, it's not hard to go up.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:46 · Score: 0, Insightful

Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

That's how science works.
Once consensus is reached, nobody is allowed to question it on pain of being branded a heretic.
In Other News by sycodon · 2012-11-19 09:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Little Change in Global Drought in the past 60 Years

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:In Other News by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-20 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Little Change in Global Drought in the past 60 Years [nature.com]
  If only the current cold period hadn't locked up atmospheric water in three miles of ice on Antarctica....
  Despite the scorched-earthers' Hell stories, warmer Earths are wetter Earths.
  But, hey, that's on average and would most strongly benefit the poor equatorial regions - the monied interests in Europe might stand to lose quite a bit from from a change in the thermohaline circulation.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
World Bank... by PortHaven · 2012-11-19 09:50 · Score: 1

Just curious....
Why is a bank involved in climate science...???
Oh, that's right, global tax would greatly benefit a World Bank.
All makes sense now....
1. Re:World Bank... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  I find it infuriating that people don't recognize the point you make more clearly.
  Why, oh why, do people never learn that big, popular trends/ideas, (like Anthropocentric Global Warming), are ALWAYS marketing PR con jobs with ulterior motives?
  When has there ever been a time when the herd was right about anything that mattered?
  Personally, I don't just expect a global military clamp down (see how Spain just is dumping its civil police force due to "Austerity Measures" to make way for riots and then international military intervention, all in preparation for an elitist-driven population purge in the hopes that they can survive the various planetary calamities unfolding, but I also expect a mile of ice to form on top of my house in the next decade or so.
  "Global Warming", my ass! More like "Solar System Chaos Billiards".
  Duck and cover.
  The World Bank are evil bastards deliberately bankrupting countries which don't play along.
2. Re:World Bank... by scot4875 · 2012-11-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of like all those climate researchers living large off of grants? Do you ever point the finger back at yourself and look at who stands to gain by *not* taking steps to mitigate possible warming scenarios? (or rather, who stands to *lose* if we do?)
  Anyway, I'll rate your post a 2/10 as far as conspiracy theories go. Nice and non-specific, and the World Bank boogeyman sounds scary, but it's just too predictable to give it any originality points.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
Alarmism by Hentes · 2012-11-19 09:51 · Score: 0

As I have detailed previously, we will likely run out of fossil fuels before a 2C warming. Not that it matters much in terms of policy: while we don't know whether global warming or fuel scarcity will happen, either of them is a good reason to abandon fossil fuels.
If we get near extinction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 0

... you can count on some climate denier to contend that extinction is not related to human activity and, in fact, is a good thing, because even if could possibly but improbably be wrong, human extinction will solve global warming.
I wonder whether a witch hunt is in order or if it could increase our CO2 footprint.
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

And who is buying their exports en masse, using their cheap and dirty power imputs to stock the shelves of Walmart and every other big box retailer, driving down the cost of goods? All the while, externalizing the environmental costs on all of humanity. We are drug addicts blaming the dealer. No one is blameless.
Saying "China bad!" while buying their industrial output hand over fist, not realizing the consequences of our own actions isn't looking at the whole problem. The fix? Get off the consumption treadmill - build durable, local, and repairable. Live in walkable communities.
We don't have a chance in hell. I live 10 kilometres from my office, but biking is risking your life - the infrastructure is car centric, sharing the narrow congested pothole filled roads with cars doing 60km plus. I then sit a a screen all day. I could telecommute, but our culture is such that it would be a bad career move, because physical presence is still oddly preferred, even though the real estate savings and productivity gains objectively make sense to a smart company.
The fact that we can't tackle these simple changes in our communities even before getting into international treaty complexities gives me little faith.
A trend is a trend by gmuslera · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 1

I suppose that this is related to the sea level rising observed by the NASA. One thing is speech with an agenda and another cold (ok, warm in this case) facts.
We could do something about it? We should? The problem is that there is no "we" there, probably the ones that could do something (and probably have a role in the current situation) won't.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.
Hard to see why it's "less-and-less like hard science", since it's based on evidence.
The only invariant in the science of global warming is that it always turns out worse than we expected faster than we expected. If we suddenly find ourselves with an ice-free arctic, we have to take that into account in our projections.

Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
Karma is cheap. You should speak your mind even if it isn't popular.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Canada might not be better off by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-19 09:57 · Score: 1

Before this year I used to live in Alaska.
The summers gradually got worse and worse and farmers were not happy. Yes winters and snow come later, but it rained 22 out of 30 days all summer non stop. The polar ice caps change weather systems that normally bring that rain further south. Grain producers like wheat and potato farmers are cold weather farmers. A longer growing season means theoretical better yields, but if it rains and is cold and damp the product will mold and rot.
Normally in south central Alaska it warms up and is sunny June and July. By late August it gets raining and cool and by the end of September or early October the rain picks up and starts turning to snow. The snow then keeps plants warm when it gets biter late on.
What is happening now is the rain came as early as June! Plants couldn't grow and 70 mph Sandy style winds came in September and fall is now bone dry with snow not coming until November because the polar ice caps are practically gone! Trees are dying because the roots freeze which are not insulated by snow and berries, grains, and potatoes are not growing due to the cold damp weather or are dying in mold and fungus infections. Canada is the same way and the longer growing seasons will be negated by cold rain and mud.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Columbian Coffee by ak3ldama · 2012-11-19 09:57 · Score: 1

The single greatest reason to fear climate change. I'm all in, lets fix this!

--
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by jenningsthecat · 2012-11-19 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

The article at the second link in TFA talks about the "upside" of "global warming" for Canada, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries - longer growing season, opening up the Northwest Passage, etc.
What these fucktards are failing to take into account is the colossal change in weather patterns that we'll almost certainly experience. No, I don't want warmer winters and cheaper produce here in Canada if the price is vastly increased destruction of property and life as a result of monster-sized hail storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, and increased insect populations. The latter of these, BTW, will likely offset any agricultural gains that might result from a longer growing season - all those bugs will just love eating food crops and trees. Never mind the horrendous effects that climate change is already having in warmer climates...
The so called "global warming experts" quoted would probably claim suntans as an upside to nuclear bombs. Do we no longer teach science and critical thinking in our schools?

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
1. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry. The results of climate change will be war on whoever has the most oil, eh?
2. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by HornWumpus · 2012-11-19 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Based on your thinking. We apparently don't do a good job of teaching critical thinking or science.
  Try to do better.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  The so called "global warming experts" quoted would probably claim suntans as an upside to nuclear bombs. Do we no longer teach science and critical thinking in our schools?
  After reading this rant it is apparent we do not.
4. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by perceptual.cyclotron · 2012-11-19 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  What they're also failing to take into account is that if everyone in the world except you suddenly gets fucked – then sitting on your pile of resources, water, land, and booming agriculture is going to make you a pretty big target. If these projections pan out, one of two things will happen: A) war on Canadian soil (who all participates is probably a more difficult question), or B) global consolidation of existing powers into a few NWO-style oligarchies (we're en route already; resource scarcity certainly isn't going to slow the process), who will make savage, cut-throat resource distribution decisions. The notion that some countries will benefit from warming is a typical economist perspective – turning a blind eye to what has always been the dominant political and market force: cheating / theft / coercion, whatever you want to call it. That ugly hidden variable that always maximizes so much more effectively than playing by 'the rules'. So no. Neither Canada nor Russia will benefit from our newfound stature. We'll be murdered for it.
  On the plus side, with the arctic waters open, maybe we can team up – back-to-back style? What do you say, Russia?
5. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by dunkelfalke · 2012-11-19 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, what good is a longer growing season when there is not enough sunlight for the plants to grow? It gets dark early in autumn in northern latitudes.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
6. Re:This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  all those bugs will just love eating food crops and trees
  Yes, it's unfortunate that points south of Canada cannot grow crops due to all the insects that live there.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Negatives will Abound by puppetman · 2012-11-19 10:00 · Score: 1

As a Canadian, I doubt the part about our "net benefit". As extreme weather becomes more common, it will become less comfortable for everyone. Maybe Canadians will be better off than Mexicans, but the farther out from the Goldilocks zone we go, the worse it's going to be, globally.
As for countries, I have doubts they can ever achieve anything. Real change is done at the community level.
1. Re:Negatives will Abound by froth-bite · 2012-11-19 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  "vastly increased destruction of property and life as a result of monster-sized hail storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, and increased insect populations" Actually, here in Vancouver, I'm looking forward to watching disaster movies while eating my crunchy ice cream (made from insects)
  
  --
  In NSA America social networks join you!
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:08 · Score: 1

And the per capita rates are what? Or are U.S. humans somehow different from Chinese humans.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by interkin3tic · 2012-11-19 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
I know what you mean. I can't bring up questions about spontaneous generation, Homunculus theory, or creationism without people modding me troll! It's almost as if raising arguments against the scientific consensus, arguments which have specifically been brought up for decades, arguments which no one makes unless they have an agenda which involves denying reality, is looked down on in rational debate!

I mean, Darwinists used to say that evolution was gradual, NOW they say it's punctuated equalibrium, sometimes going thousands of years without change! It's nuts! Clearly god created all life in 6 days!
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by pixelpusher220 · 2012-11-19 10:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

People are fucking encouraged to question it. They just have to have actual provable data to back up their questions.

"It can't be real because I don't see it" isn't a valid question and is treated as such.

Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination. And yet they don't. Because the data isn't there to support that, whereas decades of data show warming is happening.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-11-19 10:17 · Score: 1

I don't know why you have a problem bringing up questions about spontaneous generation, most evolutionists believe in it. They just think it happened millions of years ago and doesn't happen anymore.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Canadian Glory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:18 · Score: 0

I live in Northern Ontario a few hundred kilometers south of James Bay.
Although I do welcome the warmer weather I'm somwhat concerned.
I once moved during a downpour December 15th instead of a blizzard.
Snowmobiling season has been cut so short it's not worth buying a trail permit anymore but at least the summer is nice.
This summer however we were evacuated due to forest fires.
The first of which lit, cut a path 70 miles north in a single day while a second started between two towns just 10km apart.
Not sure if it's symptomatic of global warming or just a bad year but if we don't get snow this year I'll be worried.
I've already seen 100' long docks sitting entirely on land in that past few years. (Glad I don't have a boat :D)
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by sycodon · 2012-11-19 10:19 · Score: 1

Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively
Didn't see that one coming. Next thing ya know we'll have to pay more taxes to mitigate that...to the World Bank of course.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Canada and *Russia* will experience benefits? by blind+biker · 2012-11-19 10:21 · Score: 1

Russia I don't think so: they has a gigantic neighbor in the south-east. A powerful, and soon-to-be hungry and thirsty neighbor. If China determines that the only solution to its survival is Russian acquifiers, they'll go for it.
Canada and the US might, OTOH, find some kind of "mutually" acceptable solution.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:Canada and *Russia* will experience benefits? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2012-11-19 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  How do you think this'll work? Russia has nukes. China can never invade Russia. They might buy it, though. Or is China buying Russia what you meant by "go for it"?
  --PM
2. Re:Canada and *Russia* will experience benefits? by blind+biker · 2012-11-19 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  China invading in spite of nukes. They could reason that no access to fresh water >= nukes. When there's something more deadly than nukes, the shit has hit the fan.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-11-19 10:21 · Score: 1

Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
Says the AC who's currently modded at +3 Insightful as I post this.
You and your crew of Tough Individualists Boldly Speaking Truth To Power have plenty of company. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of your groupthink.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Does it matter, though, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:21 · Score: 0

I genuinely don't believe humans can or at least will ever make positive changes to their habits until they're forced to so the UN's/IPCC's recommendations are basically moot.
If we're dying off en masse because the planet is 4, 5... 10C hotter then we will either change or the masses of people dying off will necessarily effect a correction to the environment. I vote for the latter being much more plausible.
And we're pretty creative creatures. I think we'll find creative solutions to ward off mass-extinction, even if they're only multi-decade solutions. Mass-extinction via AGW won't be a sudden thing; we'll see it coming from a long, long way away (yes, I know the whole frog-in-the-boiling-pot analogy you desperately want to bring up).
Can we afford to throw trillions at a problem that has no inherent solution? "Can we afford not to it?" is the logical response. Of course we don't have to and I seriously doubt we will. James Hansen and NASA would tell you hey turn off your AC, stop using fossil fuels, only use solar panels and live off the grid, but, honestly, do any of them do any of that? Does Al Gore live "off the grid?" Seriously seriously doubt it unless his massive Tennessee mansion and his globe-trotting ways is carbon-neutral, which they're not. And don't feed me the "carbon credits" story - big, huge huge scam, that.
The trillions the UN/IPCC wants is just basically a massive, unprecedented slush fund to be spent on high living for an impossibly retrograde and corrupt organization, the United Nations. I'd sooner donate to a neo-Nazi group than to the UN. You might see a thousand high-minded committees and blue-ribbon panels and global AGW conferences fully-funded by this slush fund, but you're dreaming if you think a single nickel will go toward "solving" AGW.
Until I see Al Gore living vegan, farming his own property, riding a bike or walking everywhere, and only doing "conferences" via hand-cranked Skype (you know, to save on all that blessed private air travel), he's an intellectually dishonest snake oil salesman, period. If he wants to be the AGW Messiah, he needs to walk the walk.
China and India and the third world will put zero controls in place until they absolutely have to - and even then I don't China especially will care all that much if hundreds of millions of Chinese are dying off because it's too hot. Rest assured there are nice air-conditioned bunkers for the heads of the Communist party to ride out a major, long-lasting environmental catastrophe. I'm not even sure the third world has the ability to invest or implement controls in a manner that would be at all meaningful in the context of AGW for the next 30-50 years. China's economy is steadily imploding after decades of hyper-inflated, super-goosed over-heating by the Communist party (score: Capitalism - 1 bazillion; command economies - 0) and they are facing much, much deeper socio-cultural-economic issues in the interim. As is America and Europe and just about everywhere else.
When the world's biggest polluters... by Paracelcus · 2012-11-19 10:26 · Score: 1

When the world's biggest polluters (China, USofA) turn their backs on hard science (especially the USA) disaster will be closer/worse than anybody thinks!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Stephan+Schulz · 2012-11-19 10:27 · Score: 2

http://xkcd.com/605/ This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.
Actually, http://xkcd.com/164/.

--
Stephan
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by Kaenneth · 2012-11-19 10:32 · Score: 2

How much of China's pollution is to produce luxury goods for US/EU vs serving their own people?
Specifically, how many factories have been relocated to China, not just for cheap labor, but because of lax environmental laws?
No one wins by Frekja · 2012-11-19 10:35 · Score: 1

Let's get real - the summary says that Canada and Russia will benefit, but the reality is that the very large numbers of people living near the coast will want to move to Canada and Russia, perhaps violently so. Large migrations driven by environmental disaster in the past have rarely been friendly. I doubt future migrations will be easy and painless.
Affordable Nuclear Desalination... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:36 · Score: 0

...is probably an option provided we develop a new generation of efficient, low-cost reactors. MSR systems look especially promising in terms of cooling options, cogeneration, safety, efficiency, plant size, etc. Can we responsibly dispose of millions of tonnes of Cs-137? If we can, we will have an incredible economic opportunity.
There are many ways to go about desalination, but if the cost of energy is brought down dramatically, it will have a huge impact on its affordability. Middle-eastern ecology could be radically transformed, never mind the settling of deep-rooted water disputes.
Global Government Agenda by locopuyo · 2012-11-19 10:51 · Score: 1

All of these entities want a more powerful global government. Scaring people into believing the world is going to end gives them power. I don't want someone thousands of miles away telling me how to wipe my ass.

I would rather have a world ravaged by global warming than one ravaged by an oppressive world government.

--
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
The Energy Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:59 · Score: 0

We have barely scratched the proverbial surface of nuclear. We have under-developed decades-old technology that offers a radical departure from the solid-fuel based systems prevalent today. Nuclear economics are basically driven by plant costs and their liability, and liquid-fuel based systems offer significant gains in areas of efficiency and safety, potentially transforming the economics to allow rapid widespread deployment. A key question is whether our society can responsibly dispose of millions of tonnes of Cs-137.
Provided we have affordable energy, fuel synthesis becomes a real option for transportation with say $2 Green Gas. Mass desalination could relieve pressure on natural water systems, allowing some great rivers like the Colorado to reinvigorate their estuary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by T+Murphy · 2012-11-19 10:59 · Score: 2

Well someone has to lead the way if things are to get better, are you trying to suggest we wait for China? China and India are trying to catch up to the US, so if we can set an example as a sustainable society, there may still be a chance at limiting global warming. Given America's absurd CO2 production per capita, I think it is safe to say we need to make the first move.

--
My webcomic
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:00 · Score: 0

/. has always been highly skeptical of global warming. Take your fake bravery and shove it.
16 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:07 · Score: 0

Wait a minute. Wasn't there a recent report from Britain that there has been zero rise in global temperatures in the last 16 years?
Oh, well, I guess that doesn't support the zealots faith.
1. Re:16 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and as anyone with a modicum of research skills would know that claim has been completely debunked. Repeating falsehoods seems to be a denialist manta.
World Bank by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:17 · Score: 0

Excuse me.
But Climate Change isn't bad. It is in fact very good. Have you noticed that they changed the name from Man Made Global Warming, to "Climate Change"?
That is because there is no evidence for Man Made Global Climate Change, so they changed the name to Climate Change, so that you cannot argue with them about it, because of course the climate is changing all the time.
This name change came shortly after Gore and his Carbon Credits scam started up in Chicago after they realized that there was huge amounts of fraud in the scientific community looking for a free lunch to get money to study Man Made Global Warming.
So like a company with a bad reputation, they closed down the Man Made Climate Change issues and repackaged it for "Climate Change" with the same old crooks pushing the credit carbon scams.
Complete bunk.
If I want climate predictions I sure and the hell am not going to ask the World Bank, they have too much drug money to launder and are too busy destroying currency markets and countries with scams over in the EU to have any time to spend on scientific research.
-Hack
1. Re:World Bank by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  Hell, they changed it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because they have no idea what's really going on or why.
  England is on track for the coldest Winter in 100 years of recording.
  That's "Change", but it sure ain't "Warming".
2. Re:World Bank by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  If they changed global warming to climate change it must have happened back in the 1980's or before. Otherwise we'd have the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (formed in 1988). Actually I've seen reference to both terms in papers from the 1950's.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by DFurno2003 · 2012-11-19 11:18 · Score: 0

Hockey Sticks.
Scientific estimates are conservative by microbox · 2012-11-19 11:51 · Score: 1

The IPCC predictions are extremely conservative. That is the nature of the hard sciences. Expect pretty much all the projections to be revised continuously upwards as the data comes in.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by microbox · 2012-11-19 11:55 · Score: 1

If you want to point fingers, look at China.
This is such a dumb meme. China is making a /huge/ investment in renewables, and will never produce the per-capita carbon of the USA. And they will own the technology of the future (along with Europeans) if congress doesn't pull its finger out.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Well if the world banks saying it. Woot! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:02 · Score: 0

Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried
Now there's a perfectly normal English sentence - NOT
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by thetoadwarrior · 2012-11-19 12:08 · Score: 1

Science isn't like the bible. It keeps looking at things and changes when it looks like it was wrong. It questions itself and you should question it too but if your questioning is just more selfish "I don't see it therefore it's wrong and I'm not giving up my SUV" then don't be surprised if people think you're a moron.
Fuck it, time for Plan C by gman003 · 2012-11-19 12:29 · Score: 1

Plan A, stop global warming before it becomes a problem, failed long ago. Global Warming is now an actual, current problem.
Plan B, stop global warming before it becomes an insurmountable problem, is looking more and more bleak. We can't seem to convince anyone that it's a problem even when it actually is. Maybe Plan B can be salvaged, but we need another fallback plan.
Plan C is "Earth is fucked, what now?". We'll also want to genetically engineer crops and livestock that can live in the new conditions (hotter and drier, to put it simplistically), and start migrating cities that are shortly to be underwater inward. I'm also thinking evacuation should be at least one prong of Plan C - with the last of our fossil fuels, we should be able to get a self-sustaining Mars colony started. Hell, if we could export our excess CO2 to Mars somehow, we could lower our temperatures while increasing Mars's to a more human-friendly level. Pity there's no feasible way to do that.
Pleasures of Global Warming by pubwvj · 2012-11-19 12:48 · Score: 1

I don't mind longer summers and shorter, milder winters at all. I believe in Global Warming, and I'm all for it.
1. Re:Pleasures of Global Warming by CaptainLard · 2012-11-19 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  And I like reasonable non-scorching summers and winters where the snow lasts until march. If I move to a higher latitude and you move to a lower one, we can both enjoy our lives without your whims requiring a potential massive painful shift in global society.
farm aid wasn't because of drought by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 13:04 · Score: 0

the original farm aid was because small family farmers were being forced out by the corporate mega farmers as rules were changing in the 80s.
It's Good for the Environment, and OK for you! by Guppy · 2012-11-19 13:06 · Score: 1

Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.
Not a lot of ocean here in Oklahoma.
Who says reverse osmosis requires an ocean? Your future source of water might be found in the technological wonder known as "Toilet to Tap".
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by rubycodez · 2012-11-19 14:39 · Score: 1

the arctic thaws every year, and we don't have measurements of how much for even the last 100 years. A little run of bad weather and the "climatologists" (not a field of science for which any educational institution grants a degree) wail "it's due to global warming", whether hurricane, flood, drought or snow storm. Drought is cyclical, as is flooding. if you had been alive in the 1930s dust bowl in the midwest you'd be shitting your britches thinking the world was ending, claiming man's evil technology was to blame. The "climatologists" have been generating mostly useless models for over a decade, then cherry-picking those few that match reality (cooking the books after the fact), and then claim the model's future predictions are reliable. Meanwhile, carbon & cap& trade scams have already cost billions of eros of fraud in europe to date.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Rockoon · 2012-11-19 14:39 · Score: 1

Hard to see why it's "less-and-less like hard science", since it's based on evidence.
No. Science is based on predictive skill, which is verified using data. The problem with climate science is that so few predictions are verified. The problem with populist understanding of climate science is that they dont even know what the fuck science is, so they numerical trends with actual science.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-11-19 14:40 · Score: 1

The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.
COUGH! Really? And the millions of tons of cee-oh-too emissions that "the west" (europe/USA/etc) have been spewing for a hundred or two years didn't start the ball rolling?

Sure China/India and friends are now catching up and have accelerated hard, but to claim that "it's not our fault" is to completely ignore the entire history of the human race.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Climate change happens by ALeader71 · 2012-11-19 15:08 · Score: 1

Read up on climate change. Even the detractors will admit, climate changes and has changed throughout history. I'm not fool enough to think the swapping light bulbs, buying a hybrid, and paying carbon taxes will halt all climate change or even reverse the current trend. But it will and is cutting our dependence on imported energy. I'll even take a page from the Keanu Reves movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. Humanity only evolves when we stand on the precipice. I'm confident that humanity will move when threatened. Europe evolved over thousands of years of war to become the EU. Do they still have long and deep seated hatreds? Yes. Yugoslavia anyone? But the idea of another war on conquest is unthinable. Plus they have the United States and the UK to handle the things they'd rather not handle.
So like recycling, green tech will and is come of age. It won't be due to government action, taxation, or some grand crusade. It will happen because those that figure out how to make money with green tech will also make green cheap. Today, most alluminum comes from recycling not boxite. That happened because junk yard owners bought up money loosing recycling businesses and made it profitable. The same will happen with rare earth metals, solar, nuclear, led bulbs, batteries, battery charging, and a host of other products that have yet to be invented. So if you want to save the world, don't look to the Al Gores who preach the nanny state and salvation through taxation and regulation. Buy prodcuts that are actually green, not those that simply claim greeness. Waste less. Learn to eat off a whole chicken for a few days by cooking and making leftovers. When you buy durable goods, buy quality. Something you won't want to replace next year. Care for the things you purchase. A well maintained car driven once per day in a long errand and appointment running loop releases less carbon than a $50K hybrid driven on a dozen short trips, plus you have more time for yourself and less of it on the road.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 15:11 · Score: 0

well its only a matter of time before Canada to the USA is like USA to Mexico except we cant defend that size of border hope we re-adjust our welfare laws before our economy gets lowered due to high immigration with not enough work supply....time to build our military and strengthen our nuclear resources i mean we are the 2nd largest uranium mining country when i last heard, lets keep our population increase to a min we have all we need we dont need to give it away all this is heresay but i hope our leaders defend our resources and stop looking to bring down our deficit through contracts that take our resources away from us...California almost sued BC for using our water supply to stop forest fires just to save their butts....so what??the fact we could have lost an entire city so that they could have our water? my say is....adapt to australias water conservation system but thats off track lets share....but only if the USA can learn to self sustain and use our resources as a backup to their current system or else it will dig much deeper when they deplete their reserves due to lack of conservation(but when will Americans learn to conserve, probably never, as long as we have greedy PM's trying to make themselves look good through exploiting our resource abundance for cheap for personal reward and small financial gain at a greater loss)
Water versus Energy by dalosla · 2012-11-19 15:24 · Score: 1

An interesting read on the relationship between water and energy
IEEE Spectrum report on water versus energy
Extrapolation by Tony+Isaac · 2012-11-19 15:40 · Score: 1

Based on today's (11/19/12) activity, Apple's stock price is on pace to reach 13,888.25 in one year. You'd better start buying up Apple stock NOW!
Global temperatures, according to the article, have risen by 0.8 degrees. Sure, that's "on pace" to reach 4 degrees by the end of the century. But that assumes that global temperatures will not fluctuate. The fact is, they will fluctuate.
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by loshwomp · 2012-11-19 15:59 · Score: 1

The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.
Maybe in absolute terms, and only just barely. Go back and take a look per capita, and get your pointer finger ready.
WTG! by MakersDirector · 2012-11-19 16:48 · Score: 1

Good job, Earth! You're finally warming up to the idea of companionship!
AHHHHHGGGGG by finarfinjge · 2012-11-19 17:13 · Score: 1

Another bloody story about global warming, or is it climate change, or is it climate disruption. If anyone lives in New York or New Jersey, they should be royally pissed at this. Because Sandy was NOT a hurricane strength storm when it hit. What would the effects of Sandy have been if she had the strength of Hazel? But because of the "global warming" debate as epitomized by this story, no one is asking Bloomberg or Christie why a storm that was NOT a design event (as engineers understand the term) resulted in so much destruction. Politicians are using global warming as cover. They don't have to answer for the catastrophe that has happened in New York and New Jersey because it is "global warming". And the useful idiots here and the media are letting them succeed. So Bloomberg and Christie will not be held to account. A catastrophe that was predictable, certain to occur, is accepted as "the new normal". NO it isn't the new normal. It is LESS than the old normal. If you live in an affected area in NY or NJ, sue your government because they have failed you. This was NOT anything larger than a design event. OK. Stopping my rant now.
1. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hurricane or not the destruction that Sandy wrought is evident. In terms of sheer size it's the largest Atlantic storm ever seen, over 1000 miles across at one point. Chances are without the influence of climate change Sandy wouldn't have been quite as strong as it was.
2. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for making my point.
  
  The chances that the storm strength was increased by global warming are about the same as the chances that the storm strength was decreased by global warming. Because the stalling, geographical extent and heavy rain were caused by collision with a COLD front. Go here:
  http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/satellite/index_e.html
  
  and look at the North American Composite.
  You will regularly see cold fronts "over 1000 miles across at one point". The cold front that collided with Sandy was not exceptional in size, so I don't know where you get the assertion that "it's the largest Atlantic storm ever seen". It isn't even close. When one of these cold core cyclones collides with a hot core cyclone, you get Hazel . . . or Sandy. Hazel was stronger than Sandy. With or without global warming. Late season Cat 3 or stronger hurricanes make land fall in NY more than once a century. With or without global warming. Things that happen more than once in 100 years are called 'design events'. NY and NJ failed to be prepared for a design event. With or without global warming.
3. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by riverat1 · 2012-11-20 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Largest Atlantic Hurricanes
4. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by tbannist · 2012-11-20 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid you don't understand, coward.
  Sandy is the record holder for largest tropical storm ever recorded in the Atlantic. It caused so much disruption because of sea level rise (caused by global warming), increased precipitation (increase by global warming), and it hit New York because of a blocking pattern (strengthened by global warming) around Greenland. Until it hit that low-Arctic-ice blocking pattern, it was headed towards Greenland.
  The chance that storm was made worse by global warming is approximately 100% and the chance it was made weaker by global warming is approximately 0%.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
5. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  It caused so much disruption because of sea level rise (caused by global warming), increased precipitation (increase by global warming)
  I'm sorry, what? The 13 feet storm wave was so much more disruptive because of a few inches of sea level rise over the last 100 years? And, what increased precipitation? According to actual data there's been no increase in precipitation at all: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053369.shtml
  You anti science people amaze me.
6. Re:AHHHHHGGGGG by tbannist · 2012-11-22 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would think it would be obvious that I was referring to increased precipation during the storm. You're supposed to be anonymous, not stupid.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
yes, do listen to scientists by kenorland · 2012-11-19 17:43 · Score: 1

You should pay attention to science. Economics is a science, and exceptionally clear on questions like comparative advantage, rational behavior, risk, and opportunity costs. You just happen to selectively listen to those scientists who tell you what you want to hear, while choosing to ignore those that tell you what doesn't fit your ideology.
1. Re:yes, do listen to scientists by dunkelfalke · 2012-11-19 19:24 · Score: 2
  
  Economics is a science the same way theology is.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
2. Re:yes, do listen to scientists by kenorland · 2012-11-20 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  You sound like one of those young earth creationists talking about evolutionary biology: you don't like it, so you ignore the evidence and just denigrate it.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by riverat1 · 2012-11-19 18:49 · Score: 1

1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years.
Quite the piece of hyperbole there. No one is predicting 4C over 25 years and you're being alarmist by saying it. I have seen some research lately that says 4C by 2100 (87 years) is possible if we continue business as usual.
With your current +2 Insightful mod it looks like you blew it by posting AC if you care that much about your karma.
Re:Beat me to it! Bring democracy to Canada. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 19:13 · Score: 0

I doubt that we will re-elect another Bush Jr to office.
Psychopathy by justthisonething · 2012-11-19 20:28 · Score: 1

This will never be solved unless we can do something about the 1% of the population who are psychopaths. The climate change "debate" is a virtual play ground for these people knowing the eventual harm and mayhem they are helping to ensure.
We're in this sh*t together by jandersen · 2012-11-19 20:53 · Score: 1

Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?
It is not as simple as "some countries will become worse off, some will be better" - that is only where it starts. The rich countries - or those that will have better conditions in a warmer world - will have to deal with potentially billions of immigrants one way or the other. We let them in and try to sort out the problems that will bring, or we try to keep them out and end up fighting a war against desperate people, who will think something like "I can stay here and die of starvation, or I can go and die as a hero, killing as many rich bastards as possible". Not an appealing prospect, to my mind.
Or we can try to start working together now and perhaps make lessen the impact.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by narcc · 2012-11-19 21:30 · Score: 0

So you're saying you're inclined to disregard all claims of danger without examining the reasons behind them?
Well, yes. I'd rather not get in line behind Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, and Goosey Loosey hoping to strike up a conversation with Turkey Lurkey to find out how it is that we came to the conclusion that the sky is falling, while running towards the 'safety' Foxy Loxy's lair.
The news cycle has nothing but one alarmist story after another proclaiming the end of life as we know it. It doesn't make any sense to take the time to evaluate every warning of impending doom. It's nonsense most of the time. ("Most of the time" feels a bit like the worlds biggest understatement, as does "With the extremely rare exception") Well, you get the point.
Give me evidence first, then convince me to panic. Not the other way around.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by narcc · 2012-11-19 21:38 · Score: 0

Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination.
This doesn't make any sense. None.
Are you some kind of conspiracy nut?
What, so they prove that AGW isn't true and then ... what? They get free coal mines and oil wells? Energy companies in those sectors would hand them bags of money because ... they're really grateful?
It's like the Slashdot version of WND . The same brand of crazy, just a different flavor.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
No upside to global warming for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 21:58 · Score: 0

What these fucktards are failing to take into account ...
They *are* fucktards. The US will need more water in the midwest and they can get it from the Mississippi River. When *that* level is too low, then can open gates, near Detroit, to let more water flow from the Great Lakes (no pipeline needed). The level of the Great Lakes is already at historically low levels and continues to drop. All cities around the Great Lakes (e.g. Toronto) and along the Saint Lawrence River (Montreal, Quebec City) will be affected and ships will no longer be able to sail up the Saint Lawrence beyond a certain point.
Only an idiot can think that the US can suffer without it affecting Canada for the worse.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-19 22:22 · Score: 1

the arctic thaws every year,
What, all of it?
[...] the "climatologists" (not a field of science for which any educational institution grants a degree)
http://education-portal.com/articles/Schools_that_Offer_Climatology_Programs_How_to_Choose.html
http://www.hotcoursesusa.com/us/3-all/climatology-in-usa.html

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Lose much more! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 23:08 · Score: 0

Because food is more scarce and therefore more expensive!
1-5 years is not climate, dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 23:35 · Score: 0

But as for climate models being correct, the 1988 Hansen model got a climate sensitivity of 3.4C per doubling of CO2 whilst in the years since up to date, a sensitivity of 3.2C per doubling of CO2 would have been spot on.
An example of a model (and quite a crude one at that) being correct.
I'm in Canada by scarboni888 · 2012-11-20 00:23 · Score: 2

And let me tell you I'm having a REAL hard time having a hard time with global warming.
Bring it on, is what I say.
Locally grown bananas would be a-ok with me.
Only one thing matters now by Omniskio · 2012-11-20 01:21 · Score: 1

The Buddha was asked about the origin of the world.
He responded with a parable [well, my paraphrase thereof]:
"A man on a battlefield is struck by an arrow, and is bleeding badly from the wound.
What does he do? Does he calculate the trajectory of the arrow? Does he measure wind velocity? Does he survey and study his enemies' skills in archery to determine who among them could shoot so accurately? Does he analyze the composition of the arrowhead? Does he study the feathers? Does he evaluate the straightness of the shaft?
No, he removes the arrow and quickly binds the wound so that he does not bleed to death."
Global warmng: A, or non-A no longer matters. What matters now is where to move every coastal city, town, village, and port...where to move hundreds of millions of people...where to move agriculture...where to move civilization.
And, of course, how much it will cost you and your descendents.
Re:Cause? --- thank you! by coinreturn · 2012-11-20 01:41 · Score: 1

Discussing climate change with the Ameritards is akin to attempting to explain to them why a 4% foreclosure rate in their country wasn't responsible for the global economic meltdown --- it was the banksters' ultra-leveraged bankster run which did it...
Please don't blame all of us for a few loud-mouthed asshats.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by tbannist · 2012-11-20 02:20 · Score: 2

Is this really that hard to understand? There are several potential avenues for profit if they coudl prove that global warming isn't happening:
1) Coal companies would probably want to hire the guy who disproved global warming (they already pay a bunch of people to study it)
2) The Heatland Institute would fund them for a speaking tour to promote their research (they already pay a bunch of people to deny it is happening)
3) They could now have a career as a prominent "conservative" or "Republican" speaker at political events.
4) Conservative publishers would sign the guy to a book deal immediately (ghost-written if necessary).
None of these things involve conspiracy thinking, those are just the obvious opportunities that would afforded to such a monumetnal achievement.
Additionally, the guy who disproved global warming should be a hero to all libertarians everywhere for reaffirming their faiith in capitalism as the solution to every problem. So there is a lot of money to be made by disproving global warming, and perhaps more importantly, it would humiliate some very powerful people's enemies in the environmental lobbies. The Koch brothers, for example, want to destroy the EPA (and environmentalism) because cleaning up after themselves costs money and they don't see why they should have to pay to clean up the messes their companies create. According to their thinking, that's what governments are for.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by tbannist · 2012-11-20 02:39 · Score: 1

the arctic thaws every year, and we don't have measurements of how much for even the last 100 years.
There is melt every year, however, the low point of ice at the height of North American temperatures in the 1930s, during which "dramatic melting" was seen was higher than the highest level in any year since satellite recording began. So while we don't have satellite measurements, we do know that the first successful north west passage took place in the 1940s and took 2 years to accomplish. The ship was nearly trapped and destroyed a half-dozen times by shifting ice during the passage.
In ten years, there may be no ice at all in the artic during the summer minimum, that's a huge difference. It seems to reason that if the Arctic has been ice free at any point in the last century people would have noticed. Hell, we'd probably know if the arctic had been ice free at any point in the last few thousand years. The Inuit tend to notice things like that. According to the Wikipedia article on climate change in the Arctic, there's no evidence that the Arctic has been seasonally ice free at any point in the last 700,000 years. So saying it's a big change might be a bit of an understatement.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Beat me to it! Bring democracy to Canada. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 03:09 · Score: 0

Oh God No Please No, not american democracy!
donotwant donotwant donotwant
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-20 03:54 · Score: 1

That's an interesting choice of concern. Why do you believe you haven't been presented with evidence?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
What Warmning? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 05:33 · Score: 0

We haven't warmed in 15+ years. How long will it take for all the AGW proponents to admit their models are wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/#more-74502
In fact the little ice age that ended the medieval warm period was the longest and coldest snap in the last 9000 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Re:Go to fucking hell, geeknet by Hylandr · 2012-11-20 06:05 · Score: 1

Mod this up.
The Congressional hearing tossed gore and his lore out the window. With plenty of scientific evidence.
The numbers have come out and the damn planet's global average hasn't gone up, nor down. Not in 16 years.
- Dan.

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Go to fucking hell, geeknet by Hylandr · 2012-11-20 06:07 · Score: 1

Wish I could edit posts.
THIS >>
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3261203&cid=42040297

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Hollowing Out by mattr · 2012-11-20 06:23 · Score: 1

The phrase is "a hollowing out". As in, most of Japanese manufacturing and probably a good chunk of American too has been outsourced to China.
I don't know if there is a website for it, but unless you look at who is doing the mining, smelting, parts producing, assembly, shipping, distribution and waste disposal/reclamation, you can't easily say what the exact numbers are. Somebody must know. But there is a reason most every Kickstarter toy is built in China.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by cusco · 2012-11-20 09:32 · Score: 1

claiming man's evil technology was to blame.

Great choice of example. The Dust Bowl actually WAS caused by the technology of the time, mostly poor farming practices brought from the entirely different ecosystem of Europe. The drought that occurred may have been natural, but the result of it most certainly was not.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by narcc · 2012-11-20 11:28 · Score: 1

rich beyond imagination
Paid speaking engagements, a right-wing book deal, and a token job will make you "rich beyond imagination", eh?
You must have a shit imagination.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by narcc · 2012-11-20 11:30 · Score: 1

I made no such claim.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-20 12:08 · Score: 1

Alrighty then.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 16:36 · Score: 0

Yes it's all a big conspiracy from the big powerful hippy and crusty lobby, who want you to live in the trees (if at all).
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by tbannist · 2012-11-21 02:37 · Score: 1

My imagination is fine, but apparently you don't understand hyperbole.
Really, if you're nit picking over exactly how rich someone would get off the discovery, you've already conceded the argument.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by rubycodez · 2012-11-21 03:55 · Score: 1

Did you read your links, there is no degree called "climatology" there.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by rubycodez · 2012-11-21 03:59 · Score: 1

Inuit writing is a very recent invention, less than 300 years. without written history, it is ridiculous to say "the inuit would have notice". maybe they did, and maybe the knowledge was lost.
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-21 04:24 · Score: 1

Nah, why would I bother doing something sensible like that.
Sorry.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by narcc · 2012-11-21 11:13 · Score: 1

Not really. Your little play-pretend scenarios are ridiculously implausible.
Of course, you can't see it because you've already bought in to a bunch of wild conspiracy theories.
It's the exact same brand of crazy you'll find on sites like WND.
You should try reality some time. It's pretty amazing, if a bit less dramatic.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by tbannist · 2012-11-22 01:51 · Score: 1

Not really. Your little play-pretend scenarios are ridiculously implausible.
Really? A book deal and speaking tours are implausible?
Are you aware that the Heartland Institute already pays about a stipend to about a dozen different pseudo-scientists to continue their anti-AGW work? Have you ever considered that maybe you're the one who's not in touch with reality any more?

Of course, you can't see it because you've already bought in to a bunch of wild conspiracy theories.
Oh, please do enlighten me on this. I love to find out exactly which wild conspiracy theories I supposedly believe in this week.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical