Slashdot Mirror
Report Says Climate Change Already Evident, Emissions Gap Growing
Dupple writes "Following on from a world bank report of 4 degree C warmer world comes this story from the BBC. 'The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned. "Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.'"
Here's the report in question. There also comes news we've hit record levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now we've rewritten history
The one thing we've found out
Sweet taste of vindication
It turns to ashes in your mouth
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Tell about it to New York people. I've heard it is getting windier there by.
Apparently, there will never be enough data to convince some people of that. (See also "Evolution, teaching in US schools.")
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I prefer mine with some context. Like this one.
Just look at the curve The rise is so steady every year in the last fifty has set a record and every year in the next fifty probably will too.
"Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process"
Fairy dust? Maybe unicorn farts?
I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.
To name a few:
- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water
Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.
I love an alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines as much as the next guy, but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.
Yeah well, believe it or not one of the common arguments I face when talking about man made CO2 is that human emissions are nothing compared to natural forces of CO2 and a similar argument is that the Earth has a natural cycle that keeps this level of CO2 in balance and in check.
So as we watch CO2 levels steadily rise, it gives us insight into how much of these "natural processes" are effecting greenhouse gases in our atmosphere versus what we are contributing to these levels. And I think it's important to remind people that 1) these levels are steadily rising so no, the Earth is not keeping itself in check, 2) it's not just something where turn on the "remove CO2 machines" to fix it and 3) if natural processes are the cause of these levels of CO2, where is the corresponding increase in these natural processes?
Seriously people tell me all the time that one volcanic eruption dwarfs anything man could do in a decade. And I don't know where they get this shit. So tell me, where are all these new volcanic eruptions to explain this steady trend upward? Oh, we can't report that it's rising because you feel offended that it's "alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines." With all due respect, you're not helping this situation!
My work here is dung.
Decide for yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
Yes, the reporting sucks, as usual. If the climate were perfectly stable (never is) and human economic growth continued you would EXPECT damages from pretty much everything to increase unless people in general were rational and had enough foresight to mitigate obvious problems like putting lots of expensive things next to the ocean.
Add a changing environment (hotter, colder - it really doesn't make much difference) and you're going to have more damage - unless you get smart about where to place things.
But the climate is changing - and changing fairly quickly. Whether or not mankind is really forcing the change or not, it still is going to be a big problem because we are pushing the carrying capacity of the planet at present. If you look at the history of human kind it is apparent that climate change has forced numerous civilizations to move, adapt or collapse (or various combinations). Given close to 7 billion people, moving lots of them doesn't work well. Adapting will certainly happen - some more successful than others and collapse is definitely a possibility.
Just try to ignore the media - as usual, it's not being terribly helpful.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
A glib and superficial comment at best.
If you don't believe that you need to think seriously about your own personal contributions to the problem, then you rob future generations by your sloth.
There will be all sorts of methods, some that work, some that are insane and don't work, but I appreciate California trying to tackle the problem. With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem and raise understanding of how to make it work.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Yes, because everyone knows that global plant coverage is increasing at an enormous rate and will continue to do so as the global population expands.[/sarcasm] All the plant growth of a decade wouldn't soak up the CO2 from a single year of our emissions, not to mention the fact that in 100 years when those plants die they'll release all that CO2 right back into the atmosphere.
Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels
Meagrees. Methinks it is much more likely that ledow (319597) is much more up to speed on climate modelling, geology, large scale biology and other natural processes than armies of scientists who have devoted large parts of their lives to studying this. Mealsothinks that people who have been studying it for a long time and spent their lives shooting down their collegues and being shot down (science is like that: there's no consipracy, it's generally a bunch of people desperately trying to make a name for themselves by proving everyone else wrong) are far more likely to have missed something obvious than ledow (319597).
Mewouldalso like to point out that your arrogance and self belief is quite astounding if you think that you're more knowledgable than the world experts.
Meisnot going to link to all the arguments about why your last paragraph is tosh because they are easily found and you would have read them by now if you actually had an open mind, rather than an ideology.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh, right, of course, because after all the number of plants on Earth is increasing!
.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.
Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....
Maps and the full article are here.
California is solving it's pollution problem by trashing it's economy and encouraging its citizens to move elsewhere.
It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.
Well, except for religion.
And politicial ideology.
And conspiracy theories.
And urban myths.
And all the "I know what I know" categiries.
And... er... hmmm...
Since most of your food is grown in warmer climates, good luck eating when the food runs out. Most food grown everywhere only does so in specific climates. Vary the temperature, rainfall, soil salinity, etc, etc even slightly and it dies. We're looking at global collapse of the food distribution network.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Lots of work to be done. International ship exhaust is unbelievably, even insanely high and totally unregulated. We have lots of "clean coal" to replace, along with the jobs that'll be lost. One mountain at a time....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Myth: Busted!
No sig today...
You weasel my words.
I'm the future generation. I have a grandson due in March. It's not an abstract idea. There will be no zombie apocalypse. There will be children.
Maybe we're the generation that realized through scientific discovery, that there are limitations to resources. Maybe we took responsibility for our actions, rather than blithely ignoring the warning signs.
Wealth creation is a long tried and true, but ultimately vacuous destination. Maybe we sacrifice a little as a world community and benefit greatly from having done so, rather than hedonistically building wads of cash and grandiose castles.
War is not inevitable. Those that believe this often use it as an excuse to behave badly and cowardly rather than face up to the fact that we all live on this planet together. Degrading the economy will be laughable in the face of not being able to breathe, with shorelines starting in the Rockies and Appalachia.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem...
Yes, we should pay the price so rich environmental scientologists can scurry off to Rio in the wintertime more often and not feel guilty about it. See, this is one of the big issues behind a lot of the 'green' movements. All the sacrifice is expected to come from our hides. I'll believe the likes of Al Gore are serious when they sell their private jets and start riding public transport.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I dunno, ledow (319597) is quite possibly right about some natural process decreasing carbon levels if we don't do anything...just wrong about the timeline.
See Malthusian catastrophe for more details.
I highly doubt that we will are capable of altering our climate in such a way to destroy all life on the planet. However, we very well might be altering it in such a way to make it very uncomfortable for us.
There is another aspect of this. People talk all the time about there being a cult following of climate change believers and how this is nearly a religion. Religious fevor has through the ages produced some very dedicated individuals willing to go to incredible lengths in pursuit of their beliefs.
So where are the extraordinary acts?
I think you have things backwards. Climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the mainstream, evidence-based consensus. It's the deniers who are like a religion. Just like "creation science", they have people who cherry-pick evidence, mash figures, and come up with conclusions that are counter to the mainstream. Just like "creation science", they have cheerleaders who repeat arguments that have been refuted time and time again (e.g. "volcanoes").
Oh, and of course, there's those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, who'll back the denialist message, whether they believe it or not.
So perhaps the absence of "extraordinary acts" like blowing up coal fired power stations, is because the people keenest on reducing CO2 emissions, are sane, level headed people.
Except of course that there is no local signal from intermittent volcanism, and that this issue has been examined by scientists decades ago and is confirmed by many other measuring stations. And that the extra CO2 from fossils can be distinguished by a slightly different isotopic ratio.
There is a persistent behavior in climate "skeptics" who think they are clever. They take 15 seconds and imagine one simple consideration in response to a popularized sound bite and assume that somehow they gotcha'ed thousands of people who spend their lifetimes working on the problem.
There is no way to gather a significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad" or that anything "good" we do is working without comparing to some 10,000+ year cycle that we've never observed. Best records for such things go back a few hundred years, and beyond that the data is very sketchy and specific only to specific areas (e.g. ice cores, etc.).
Paleoclimatology is not exactly "sketchy". It studies global trends over millennia, and provides far more information than just a book of thermometer readings from the measly few years humans have been recording such things. There is indeed a large body of data. They use ice core data to determine temperatures and atmospheric composition. They have calibrated those readings based on the few hundred years of written records available. They also corroborate the data with other evidence, such as archaeological and fossil data, and even historical accounts of weather related events. No one piece of data tells the whole story, which is why they have gone to such great lengths to collect as much as possible from a wide variety of sources. Put together, the current body of evidence is scientifically acceptable.
The data is available, it's validated, and it's significant. Instead of continuing to deny climate change is happening, and appearing foolish to people who know better, why not put forth some plausible hypotheses about why you think the climate change that is happening now has natural causes at its core, and offer some tests to validate your theories?
John
"Do we know that reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere - by whatever means necessary - will reverse or start to reverse climate change?"
If we're driving towards a cliff, do we know whether braking will prevent a crash? If we don't know, does that mean we shouldn't brake?
We know that accelerating our greenhouse gas emissions will kill us all.
December 1990 was one of the coldest months since records were first kept in the Silver State more than a century ago. In fact, it shares the podium with the coldest month of all, January 1937. The other winners in the "Top Ten" coldest months include January 1890, January 1913, January 1917, December 1924, December 1932, January 1949, December 1972, and February 1989. During the brutal cold snap of December 1990, at least 16 locations, with between 30 and 113 years of record, set new low temperatures for any month, with 2 to 3 times that many just missing all-time lows but establishing new minima for December. The State's long-standing December low of minus 45, set in 1924 in San Jacinto was broken, as minus 46 was recorded at Mountain City during the peak of the pre-Christmas cold snap. (The – 46 at Mountain City ranks second only to the minus 50 set in January 1937 as Nevada's all-time lowest temperature.)
I could find many, many more examples...
Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels and then those people put in charge of whatever-crackpot-carbon-saving scheme now will be able to do an I-told-you-so then. When, really, everything we did made zero difference whatsoever.
Magical thinking at its worst. If you look at the evidence, god forbid, you'll find that there many examples of opposite happening. For instance warming is causing an accelerated release of methane from permafrost and since methane is a strong greenhouse gas... Sea warming is starting to cause release of methane hydrate deposits from the sea floor, which will also accelerate warming. Reduction of ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is reducing albedo (the amount of solar radiation (heat) reflected back into space). All of these are factors that are causing an acceleration of global warming.
-- QED
So millions of acres of Northern Canada and Siberia become suitable for farming. That sounds like a good thing.
There's quite a bit of land currently unusable due to permafrost.
Have gnu, will travel.
Oh, my sweet summer child! What do you know about fear? Fear is for the winter, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep; fear is for the Long Night, when the sun hides for years and children are born and live and die all in darkness...
Winter is coming.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.
Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....
Maps and the full article are here.
Is that the discredited NOAA figures http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2 ?
"Do we know that reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere - by whatever means necessary - will reverse or start to reverse climate change?"
If we're driving towards a cliff, do we know whether braking will prevent a crash? If we don't know, does that mean we shouldn't brake?
We know that accelerating our greenhouse gas emissions will kill us all.
James Lovelock takes the view that we've missed our chance to reverse or slow down global warming. He says that efforts to reduce CO2 output are diverting resource that could be used instead to adapt to the changed world. That is, instead of spending $1 billion moving to a CO2 neutral energy source, spend the $1B on flood defences, agriculture suitable for a warmer climate, relocating population centres as the sea level rises.
With your car/cliff analogy - since we don't know whether braking will stop the car before it reaches the cliff, don't waste effort on braking, use the time to open the door and jump out.
Of course, you should probably keep the brake pedal down while you're messing around with the seatbelt and the door handle. The analogy probably stretches that far too.
It's true that there is latency in recovery from greenhouse gasses. Plants are only a temporary solution, since much of what they capture will eventually be released back into the atmosphere. You can read some statistics here about how the concentrations of the major gasses have changed. The numbers at the bottom for residence time can be interpreted as "how long it stays in the atmosphere", i.e. how long before a reduction is noticed. CO2's huge variability is because most of the time when CO2 leaves the atmosphere, it goes into the top layer of the ocean, and then comes back out again. It can take up to 500 years for the carbon to actually work further down into the ocean and become completely removed from the system.
But this hardly means no action should be taken—it means that simply stopping isn't enough. We need to actively reduce the greenhouse effect by removing moreCO2 from the atmosphere than we're putting in so we can reach sustainable levels again. That's not an excuse to stop production, and claiming it might be makes you look like a spoiled brat.
Supporters of climate change research don't behave religiously because they aren't religious; the evidence is very solid and they're simply reacting logically. I'm glad we nipped that fallacy in the bud before it got out of hand. Conversely, though, I'm surprised you didn't try to blame environmental science for the ELF.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It will have a massive effect. You don't seriously expect auto manufacturers to design and engineer new cars, set up plants to produce all the component parts, and totally retool their assembly lines to build these new models overnight, do you?
Unless someone comes along and repeals the CAFE requirements, which is unlikely, given the political bad-will it would cause, Obama and Congress have made a significant step towards reducing total US emissions.
Our actions are constrained in all manner of ways for the greater good. You can't drive at 90mph down a freeway in the wrong direction; it does indeed make you morally inferior if you do.
Personal liberties are not absolute proof against a society, or indeed, an entire civilization trying to save itself.
Beyond that, do you think the universe cares about your ideological or moral views? Do you think a hurricane a drought can be prevented by Libertarian extremism? Do you think the universe will alter the laws of physics based on the makeup of the US Congress or on some strident interpretation of the Constitution?
There has to be some point when reality takes you by the balls and yanks you out of your ideological underpinnings. The universe doesn't fucking care about you, not one fucking little bit. It will squash a Libertarian just as easily and with as little thought as a Republican, Democrat, socialist, anarchist, Presbyterian, atheist or whatever. This idea that you can counter reality with rhetorical lectures is beyond bizarre.
Oddly enough, at least some people think the long term survival of our civilization is a tad more important than your ideological leanings. I know, that seems shocking, seeing as you believe you should be constrained by no interest but your own, but there you have it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Remember, for pseudo-skeptics, even the most appallingly idiotic skeptical comment is proof against whatever science they are battling, but the bar on science's side must always be set impossibly high.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That only applies if the organic matter ends up in anoxic conditions - buried under soil or anoxic water.
We could engineer that, I guess, if we put in a massive worldwide effort. It's unlikely to happen spontaneously at a large enough scale to help.
That statement sounds alarmist to me. Given the number of times I've heard California's economy is in bad shape in the past, and how business seems to be thriving there, I think there isn't much to worry about.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
People get paid to collect litter and sweep streets. They do it because it's necessary to keep the place liveable in.
Industry is compelled by government to sequester pollutants, and dispose of them in an approved manner.
CO2 sequestration is analogous to both of these. It's not free. It needs to be done.
Maybe you can point us to where "it got several degrees hotter than we thought it was while we weren't looking". It sounds like you're making it up just to be argumentative. The average global temperature has risen about one degree Celsius over the past several decades, and I don't think that has surprised many climatologists because it's in line with the predictions we've seen since the nineteenth century.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
So your plan is sit around and Nature will save us? That's just a short hop away from Senator Inhofe's "only God can change the climate" statement.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Localization is not the question, and in fact most climate discussion I find frustrating because it's the wrong argument. The argument should not be "Is man changing the climate?" but rather "Are we fucking things up?"
If we look at the suggested question, the answer is absolutely "yes". First, we know for a fact that Oil is not sustainable with the current population. Even if we all recycled plastics Oil vanishes faster than the earth is producing new Oil. Second, we are polluting everything. That pollution has not gotten better recently, but rather worse since we are arguing "Climate" instead of addressing our impact. This in turn has resulted in reduced controls, higher acceptable levels of pollution, and deregulation. Our pollution rate is not sustainable. Lastly, are we rendering portions of the Earth inhabitable and useless? The obvious answer to that question is also yes. Numerous studies show how we have rendered at least 10% of the Earths farming area useless for at least 100 years and that number is increasing. The same goes for Oceans and dead zones in them.
Look at it this way. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that coal power is bad for people's health. Both the powdering process for the coal, and the burning of the coal pollute the environment something fierce. We do so knowing it's bad because it makes some people a whole lot of money regardless of the impact. The excuse to continue has nothing to do with "is it bad" but rather "it's cheaper than wind power (which could be argued rather heavily from the angle of wind not being as profitable to the same people making money from fossil fuels)".
We need to get back to the real issue, which by the way was prominent in the 70s and 80s by the way.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is a great point. This study shows an increase in arable land by as much as 67% in some places. Overall though it sites a figure somewhere between a decrease of 1.7% to a total increase of 4.4%.
...As an individual, is to reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals. We breed billions of cows and pigs, and feed them unnaturual diets--which greatly increases their flatulence. So we're pumping massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere that wouldn't be there otherwise (Cows in particular are methane machines, and there would be nowhere near as many as there are now if not for humans). Methane is 20x better at trapping heat than CO2, and recycles out of the atmosphere in 7 years instead of 100. We could see immediate effects on global warming.
But in addition to that, most deforestation is being done so that cattle has grazing land. That's where most of the Amazon is going now--not to make wood or paper, or even just room for people, but so that cattle have grazing land, and cheap beef can be exported to fast food chains. Fast food chains are shrinking the lungs of the world.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
The problem is that the scientists have no power to fix it. It is the politicians and everyone else that has to do the dirty work.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your argument seems to be:
1) Believing in Climate Change must be like a religion.
2) No Climate Change believers have resorted to illegal acts to stop pollution.
Therefore: Even Climate Change Believers don't believe in their "religion" enough so why should everyone else?
I'd argue that 1 is wrong because most folks who "believe" (using that word loosely) in climate change do so because they've seen the evidence. As for 2, you can believe in a religion and not commit illegal acts to further your religion. I'm Jewish and keep kosher. I don't go around bombing pork processing centers. Does this mean that I'm not a "true believer"? If a religious belief I held was opposed by a societal law (e.g. If a public school was requiring students to recite Christian prayers), I'd work within the system to change this law (e.g. talk to the school board, local/state officials, etc). I wouldn't immediately resort to violence. (Going back to my example, bombing the school might stop the forced prayers in the short term, but would only hurt my cause long term.) So even if #1 and #2 were true, your conclusion is false.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I have it on very "good" authority that I don't need to.
Personally, I believe that a disaster of this magnitude should drop the planet into a wartime command economy. We shouldn't be wasting our time with mechanisms of self-interest like capitalism when they're so transparently a threat to our well-being. There are gentler ways of dealing with the problem involving subsidies and the creation of a whole new industry, certainly, but no one should be unwilling to deal with the situation on crisis terms if necessary.
It's very disappointing that so many people are so irresponsible.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
how business seems to be thriving there, I think there isn't much to worry about.
The unemployment rate in California is 10.2%, third highest in the country. I wouldn't call that "thriving".
" 'Future generations' is an abstract idea that completely worthless from our perspective, we will never meet them, we will never know if they even will exist or not and it is really not our problem what challenges they will face as time progresses"
Spoken by someone who is either childless or has no concern whatsoever for the welfare of his offspring.
actually that would be the 2nd best thing you can do.
The #1 best thing would be to stop breeding. The world would benefit by following the example set by Slashdotters.
Huh. That's funny because where I live, we have received colder than average months two winters in a row. We're talking freezing temperatures in a place that rarely gets frost on the windshields! In fact, I believe we even broke a record low from the 1930s the winter before last.
A cap and trade program on sulfur emissions led to substantial reductions in acid rain, so it's one approach with real-world evidence that it can work. Because it provides a financial incentive for reducing emissions, the "invisible hand" directs resources to just those areas that are most efficient, and stimulates innovation to develop new ways of reducing emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program
[Is there enough data] to show this is definitely not a naturally occurring cycle?
That's the wrong question. It's epistemologically broken. The reason is that you can't prove non-existence of something through data. So if your standard of proof is, "show there is no natural process, possibly unknown to current science, which might account for climate trends better than the currently accepted scientific consensus," you will never be satisfied.
So a better question would be, "Is there any evidence that suggests global warming might be due to some natural, cyclical process?" The answer is, there is. In fact *there's bound to be*. But nothing so far has stood up as well as AGW.
That's not for lack of trying. Scientists make their careers by poking holes in the scientific consensus. People are still bringing up data that brings global *warming* into question. Scientific consensus shifted from global cooling in the 1950s to warming in the 1980s, with anthropogenic contributions the prime suspect. In the 90s attacks were made on the validity of historical records, on remote sensing data. Most recently we had the issue of Antarctic sea ice. None of them has proved to indicate a cooling climate. Likewise nobody has been able to rule out AGW as the culprit, but so far every other proposed culprit has been exonerated.
So you have to ask what level of proof you demand. If that involves disproving things we haven't even thought of, you aren't going to be convinced. The suspect was seen walking into the room with a pistol, then leaving a few minutes spattered in blood holding the same smoking pistol. Witnesses entered the room to find the victim shot in the back. They look for other entrances and exits to the room and find none. Is that proof enough for you? Well, I say. You can't prove that there might not be some *other* explanation that that the suspect shot the victim. And maybe there is. Maybe a magician contrived the whole thing, and the victim is still alive. It's possible, but without evidence of that you have to go with what the preponderance of evidence you actually *have*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Which will also lower emissions.
Massive unemployment and the looming economic collapse and the mass starvation that follows are quite effective in reducing a populations' carbon footprint. By that metric, we're well on the way to huge reductions in US CO2 output.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The effects of global warming are going be more severe than the slight discomfort of feeling warm. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Droughts will be more common. GDP will drop. It's economically favorable to us in the long run to work on reducing carbon dioxide emissions now. In any case, fossil fuels will nor last forever, so we will need to develop alternative energy sources at some point. I would rather develop them earlier so their cost will come down, which will help keep energy prices lower as fossil fuels run out.
Your post smacks of "Let them eat cake!"
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Seriously, everybody likes to point to America, yet, our emissions continue to go downwards. OTOH, ALL of the decreases in emissions are overcome by China ALONE.
You serious? Well, if you are serious, how about some facts? To make it easier for you, I'll start
- About 17 percent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2007, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators. China had a total installed capacity of hydropower of 197 GW in 2009.
- China leads the world in renewable energy
- China Sets New Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals - The newly released Plan aims to reduce China’s carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP – by 17 percent by 2015, compared with 2010 levels.
Your turn now, if you please (hint: start with Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 14.3 percent of the domestically produced electricity)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
What are these "draconian means" I keep seeing people refer to? Increasing energy efficiency seems quite sensible to me, especially given the current cost of energy. And we will have to switch to alternative energy sources some day because fossil fuels will run out. The means seem perfectly reasonable and sensible to me, not "draconian". Of course, the longer we delay, the more draconian the means will need to become, so we better get started right away to reduce the draconianness as much as possible.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well, you're correct that the data is there. However, it doesn't tend to actually say what certain paleoclimatologists or activists would have you believe...
"They use ice core data to determine temperatures and atmospheric composition."
Correct, but they also find that CO2 rises after temperature, not before, with a lag time of at least a couple of centuries. What's interesting is that right now CO2 is rising first, which means that there are very interesting questions about the degree to which this impacts warming.
"They have calibrated those readings based on the few hundred years of written records available."
The problem is that prior to the Little Ice Age, they tend to ignore those records. The current alarmist claim is that we are in an unprecedented period of warming. The historical reality is that while the rise of CO2 prior to temperature is pretty unprecedented, the levels of warming are not. We've been this warm and warmer before, in both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.
How do we know this? Because the economies of the time were barter economies, and therefore the tax records were tracking goods rather than money. We actually have detailed records of what was grown where, when, and frequently how well. We have archaeological evidence and records of old vineyards at altitudes that cannot support vineyards today. We have Medieval deep water ports in Scandinavia that are not deep water ports today (the water level hasn't risen back to high enough). And then there are the hundreds of peer-reviewed proxy studies that indicate a Medieval Warm Period at least as warm as the present, if not warmer. Don't take my word for it - the Medieval Warm Period Project has been collecting and listing them: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Now, all that said, this says nothing about what the impact of man-made CO2 has on the atmosphere - we are in a warm period, and we are contributing greenhouse gases to it. Some of the latest research out of NASA suggests that the actual sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is under 2 degrees: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
And, we also have the empirical evidence of Linzden and Choi, who did some of the first long-term research on actual solar warmth coming in vs. warmth going back out in comparison to CO2. They found that the empirical evidence suggested a warming of around 1 degree: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/
When you actually look at the journals (which is what I try to do - when I delve into this stuff, I prefer the websites that aggregate research papers), you see far less consensus and far more active discussion. The problem is that "Our climate is changing, we're in a warm period, and we are going to need to adjust and ensure that we're not creating problems" does not read nearly as well as "Our climate is changing, it's unprecedented, and we're all going to die!"
If you haven't guessed, I'm a skeptic on this, but this means my opinion on the matter is always changeable - I go where the evidence points me. I take empirical data over computer models always, and I'm trained to look at historical trends. And, it drives me crazy when people misrepresent the history, derive the wrong conclusions from it (the history tends to indicate that we as a species do better during the warm periods, not worse), and drown out the critical research and its findings with declarations of apocalypse.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Anybody ever notice the irony that conservatives keep talking about not wanting to "crush future generations with debt" when talking about the US National Debt, but are rabidly against the notion that they are actively working to crush future generations in an entirely different, but equally difficult to survive way?
Quite simply, there are two arguments:
The difference: There is no consensus among economists about how burdensome the national debt really is - macroeconomics simply doesn't work the same way corporate or personal finances do. Nobel Prizes are still awarded to Keynesian economists, as well as monetarists and adherents of the Austrian school. Even though these schools of economic thought have radically different and conflicting viewpoints, each school continues to win Nobel prizes. There simply is no consensus as to how economies actually work.
On the other hand, among climate scientists, the conclusion is nearly unanimous with an overall consensus of over 98%: The climate is warming, and human burning of hydrocarbons is the cause.
The vast majority of climate deniers come from people who have no credible qualifications; a dentist shouldn't have to argue about how to pull a tooth with a businessman with a string and a door.
Yet climate scientists have to argue with crackpots with a meat thermometer and a solo cup.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.