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.
believe it or not the last 50 some years in NYC have been very lite on hurricanes. in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy
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 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- Coal power plants - Outdated tech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.
.
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.
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!”
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.
NYC used to get hit by a hurricane every few years. the list is on wikipedia. the last 50 to 70 years it has been once a decade or so.
the 1938 hurricane was Cat 3 when it hit Long Island and moved at 70mph. It had 130 mph winds when it hit Long Island. Lots of other Cat 3 hurricanes hit New England in the last 300 years and did a lot more damage than Sandy.
Sandy was barely a Cat 1 when it made landfall and moved at 15mph. the flooding was because it made landfall during a full moon and at high tide when the water is naturally a few feet higher.
Irene when it hit a few years ago was more powerful than Sandy but made landfall at low tide and there was almost no flooding
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
You know, people actually quantify things and then apply statistical methods, in order to see if they are deceiving themselves. You will (almost) always be able to look backwards in history to find a single worse event. The frequency and intensity of events is what matters in a statistical sense.
Scientists have done the math and drawn scientific conclusions on increasing extreme weather events.
But forget them.
The US military did their own analysis an noted the trends in extreme weather events, and have characterised it as a national security problem.
But forget them.
Insurance companies have actuaries who spend their lives studying and calculating risk, and they work out the rates on insurance policies. And the verdict is that premiums will need to go up.
But forget them.
There was a big hurricane in 1938 in NYC.
See what you did there?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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
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.
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.
Insurance companies have actuaries who spend their lives studying and calculating risk, and they work out the rates on insurance policies. And the verdict is that premiums will need to go up.
I would be amazed, if ever in the history of insurance companies, that a study of risk calculated that they could lower their premiums.
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.
...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.
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.
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
And lightning has been known to cause forest fires, so we don't have to do anything about our habit of tossing lit cigarette buts out the car window.
You'd be wrong. I am an actuary, and I can say that insurance premiums generally correspond pretty well to the actual risk. That's because the current insurance market is very competitive (note: I am only referring to traditional insurance, such as car, house, life, and whatnot, NOT life insurance). Insurance companies are always trying to see if they can undercut the competition. For the most part, the insurance companies don't make money from your payments, but just on interest accrued from investing those payments.
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.