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?"

50 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. I save money! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.

  2. Quick... by Synerg1y · · 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 · · 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 alen · · 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

    3. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · · 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.
    5. Re:Quick... by i+kan+reed · · 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.

    6. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · · 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.
    7. Re:Quick... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:Quick... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Funny

      yet...

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    9. Re:Quick... by Grayhand · · 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?

    10. Re:Quick... by EvolutionInAction · · 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.

    11. Re:Quick... by pclminion · · 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.

    12. Re:Quick... by MightyMartian · · 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.
    13. Re:Quick... by Krojack · · 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.

    14. Re:Quick... by Burning1 · · 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.

    15. Re:Quick... by MachDelta · · 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. ;)

    16. Re:Quick... by bunratty · · 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.
    17. Re:Quick... by Dixie_Flatline · · 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.

    18. Re:Quick... by fadethepolice · · 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.

    19. Re:Quick... by microbox · · 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
    20. Re:Quick... by TapeCutter · · 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.
    21. Re:Quick... by sg_oneill · · 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.
  3. Tragedy of the commons by i+kan+reed · · 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.

  4. Don't worry, global warming is a fraud by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.

  5. The temps go higher, time-frame lower every year by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. World Bank, saviours of the universe. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Re:Cause? by petteyg359 · · 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.

  8. Nations? What nations? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 jovius · · Score: 4, Informative

      I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.

      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.

  9. I get ocean front property! by cultiv8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    one of the benefits of living in a red state.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  10. Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by Revotron · · 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.

  11. And in the mean time US OIl production increase... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  12. Banksters in on the scam now by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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.
  13. Re:Cause? by Ichijo · · 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.
  14. Re:Cause? by SirGarlon · · 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.
  15. Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by crazyjj · · 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?
  16. 1st world countries by Punto · · 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!

  17. Re:Devil's Advocate by MightyMartian · · 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.
  18. In Other News by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  19. Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  20. Re:Oh nooo by kenaaker · · 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?

  21. This is why I prefer the term "climate change". by jenningsthecat · · 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.
  22. Re:Cause? by rs79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  23. Re:I get ocean property! by pixelpusher220 · · 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
  24. Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by interkin3tic · · 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!

  25. Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea by pixelpusher220 · · 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
  26. Re:Devil's Advocate by Black+Parrot · · 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
  27. Re:Cause? by Burning1 · · 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