Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried
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?"
Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.
Let's invade Canada before it becomes a super power in the new "warmer" world.
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.
Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
one of the benefits of living in a red state.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
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.
At the same time the US speaks of becoming one of the biggest oil producer by exploiting oil shale. Tragedy of the common indeed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
That's odd.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Damn it, read before writing will you?
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".
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 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.
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
"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 ?
Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).
Need Mercedes parts ?
No no, you get ocean 'view' property. The problem? The 'view' is 'up'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
Volcanoes release 130 million tons of CO2 per year, while the burning of fossil fuels releases 9 billion tons per year.
Hansen's 1988 model was about 10% higher than actual forcings growth.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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
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.
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
Economics is a science the same way theology is.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
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