Slashdot Mirror


NOAA Report: World Labor Capacity Dropping Because of Increased Temperatures

pigrabbitbear writes with a story about some interesting possible effects of Global Warming. From the article: "It's a good thing that robots are stealing our jobs, because in about thirty-five years, nobody in their right mind is going to want to do them. Scientists from NOAA just published a report ... that details how a warming climate impacts the way we work, and the results are pretty clear — we do less of it. NOAA discovered that over the last 60 years, the hotter, wetter climate has decreased human labor capacity by 10%. And it projects that by 2050, that number will double."

337 comments

  1. NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NO sense at all!

    So the people of the tropic or in sunny weathers do not work as much as the people of icy weathers?
    I guess that the Eskimos must be a super civilization of hard working machines and achievements!

    1. Re:NO sense at all! by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Up to a limit yes.

      Visit a nice tropical nation and look around vs North America or Northern Europe.

      In one climate you can survive without any effort, in the other you will work or die outside in the winter.

      Obviously once it gets cold enough that also impacts how much work can get done since now all energy must go into just not freezing to death.

    2. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may also something to have to do that heat makes some people stupid. I have personally a lot of problems with temperature changes. Drop the temperature by ten Kelvins and I'll catch a nasty cold. Raise it by ten Kelvins and I'll suffer from headaches, nausea, and I'll start vomiting. My mental output decreases seriously in both cases. I hate summer and winter, for obvious reasons. They're the least productive parts of the year for me.

    3. Re:NO sense at all! by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      If you want anything done in Puerto Rico give it an extra 30 days, DSL installed, Power line Fixed, cabinets built, increase the time it takes to get anything done by a factor of 30 =)

      P.S. Peurto Rico is a beautiful country and if you are a layed back and not uptight about your perfected 1950's Utopian industrial society its great.

    4. Re:NO sense at all! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Funny

      Peurto Rico is a beautiful country...

      Tee hee... so is Africa... and Europe!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Low temperature does not make you sick. Viruses, bacteria, and diseases make you sick.

    6. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puerto Rico is not a continent and more importantly it is one continguous political entity. if you're gonna be snarky don't also be wrong. If it's anything other than a country it would be a US state.

    7. Re:NO sense at all! by Lluc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Puerto Rico is not a country. It is a territory of the United States. It has some fringe elements who want to establish an independent country, perhaps like a few fringe elements in the American Southeast who want still want to secede in the Civil War fashion. Some people want Puerto Rico to become the 51st state, but this is also somewhat unlikely since it is an income tax haven for its wealthiest residents.

    8. Re:NO sense at all! by Bengie · · Score: 2

      After comparing metrics from Midwest USA to Southern USA, I would say it's dead on.

    9. Re:NO sense at all! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously once it gets cold enough that also impacts how much work can get done since now all energy must go into just not freezing to death.

      Sounds like an office building I used to work in.

    10. Re:NO sense at all! by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      Dude, the difference is SLAVERY. All large civilizations are built on the backs of slaves... Do you think the romans did actual work? Most old new york was built using slaves, same as Washington DC, etc...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:NO sense at all! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Slavery ended in NY state in 1827, most buildings we have today were built far later. DC was years later, but again most buildings are simply not that old.

      Lots of warm nations had slavery.

    12. Re:NO sense at all! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Well, hypothermia makes people pretty sick...

    13. Re:NO sense at all! by shaitand · · Score: 2, Funny

      That won't stop the ass fucking, it will just change the texture of the lube.

    14. Re:NO sense at all! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Doesn't do much to explain the reduced work ethic west, east, northeast, and northwest of the midwest though.

    15. Re:NO sense at all! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      So does hyperthermia (aka heat stroke).

    16. Re:NO sense at all! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Statehood doesn't exactly happen overnight. Congress does a thing, then state legislatures ratify.

      This gives plenty of time for those "wealthiest residents" to move their assets to some other tax haven.

      Guess you didn't think of that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:NO sense at all! by ChatHuant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dude, the difference is SLAVERY. All large civilizations are built on the backs of slaves...

      Not, they aren't; it may be PC to say so, but it's just not true. No large modern civilization was built mainly on slavery, because slavery is just not efficient and productive enough. It's risky and expensive to educate slaves, so you can't build serious industrial capacity on slavery, their mobility as a workforce is minimal, you get lots of extra expenses for security, not to mention motivation.
       
      Even in America, where slavery was much more prevalent and lasted more than in most other world powers, the productivity of the industrialized North (based mostly on immigrant labor) was far ahead of the productivity of the slave-owning South. Look at the 1850 census, especially here http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-06.pdf (table CXCV, on page 11) to see how the gross manufacturing production of non-slaveholding states dwarfs the GP of slave-holding states. Though the difference isn't as great, the agricultural production (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-05.pdf) AND productivity was also larger in the North.
       
      Of course, this doesn't mean the slaves didn't contribute, or had it easy, but, if you really want America to have been build on somebody's back, that back would belong to the immigrant laborer.

    18. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one cares

    19. Re:NO sense at all! by rockout · · Score: 1

      Unless you go by GDP per capita, in which case the midwest would seem to be woefully behind. Work smarter, not harder.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    20. Re:NO sense at all! by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Living off the land is indeed hard work, especially in a harsh cold climate. What do machines have to do with working hard anyways? Just surviving near the Arctic Circle is more of an achievement than most Anonymous Cowards will ever make.

    21. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a US State either. If you're going to be pedantic at least don't also be wrong. It's an "unincorporated territory of the US.

    22. Re:NO sense at all! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      It's actually a bit more complex then this. Considering the native Hispanic population there enjoys the freedom and lax federal regulation of their "territory".

      My theory is that this leads back to the main topic of the article, people are lazy in hot places this includes even governments in hot places.

      Their perfectly happy with tourism and minding their own business amongst themselves and do not want the federal government to clean house by earning state hood.

    23. Re:NO sense at all! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Low temperature significantly reduces efficiency of your immune system, as body directs energy towards heating itself. Additionally tissues in direct contact with cold environment, such as lungs and air pathways are exposed to significantly harsher environment, which also weakens immune system's efficiency in those areas of the body.

      As a result, it becomes easier to catch various diseases.

    24. Re:NO sense at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let me get this straight.. you're a human being that cannot stand a 10 Celcius (yes, because while they're equivalent, I'd hope 0C is more relevant to your life than 0K) change in either direction. That's... I don't know what to say man, that's rough. Do you live in a protected bubble with constant temperature and humidity? Maybe your parents' basement is a perfectly controlled stable ecosystem?

      If you were arguing that at a 35C ambient temperature, you become lazier because you're sweatier and so don't want to work your ass off, I'd say I understand. I also dislike heatwaves, and shoveling the goddamn snow at -20C is not my idea of fun, but a 10C swing between winter and the summer won't kill you. In fact I'd wager that's not what the article was about.

    25. Re:NO sense at all! by freshlimesoda · · Score: 1

      Cant be 51st state. 51st state of America is Australia.

      --
      I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.
    26. Re:NO sense at all! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Keep closing the siege on them. Eventually they'll end up with nowhere else to run.

    27. Re:NO sense at all! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire,Babylonians all the way up to the Nazis. Everyone who ruled a large chunk of the planet used slaves. Even China to this day.( living like that for the pittance recieved qualifies as slavery for the statel

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    28. Re:NO sense at all! by martas · · Score: 1

      if you really want America to have been build on somebody's back, that back would belong to the immigrant laborer

      Although depending on who you ask, those immigrants could also be classified as slave labor.

    29. Re:NO sense at all! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      But it's a hell of a lot closer to being a country than it is to being a continent.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    30. Re:NO sense at all! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      the productivity of the industrialized North (based mostly on immigrant labor) was far ahead of the productivity of the slave-owning South

      RTFA. That was due to higher temperatures in the South.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    31. Re:NO sense at all! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      There isn't a hot place on earth that hasn't been negatively impacted by colonialism, so it's hard to do a real analysis. Why were all the largest Native American civilizations located in Central America? Or where they? Most large Native American Civilizations were wiped out by plague.

    32. Re:NO sense at all! by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Precisely, so while i recognize the productivity numbers in the north/south post, I don't see how its relevant given the larger context of "nations are built on the work of desperate, overworked peons"

      --
      -
    33. Re:NO sense at all! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Indeed, thanks for the insight. While I was visiting I could not tell if I saw any descendants or cultural remnants of the indigenous Taino. Perhaps a bit in the art and murals but thats not atypical of Spanish influenced culture.

    34. Re:NO sense at all! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Puerto Rico is not a country. It is a territory of the United States. It has some fringe elements who want to establish an independent country, perhaps like a few fringe elements in the American Southeast who want still want to secede in the Civil War fashion. Some people want Puerto Rico to become the 51st state, but this is also somewhat unlikely since it is an income tax haven for its wealthiest residents.

      ===
      Sounds a little like Quebec, Canada, where the French want their own country, because they fear assimilation. Many Puerto Rico
      citizens fear losing the Spanish. Ergo, they look to independence.
      In fact, I prophesize that French will disappear through assimulation, intermarriage, schooling, and trade. 3.5 million vs 300 million is just not going to sustain them. It will happen over the next 150 years.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    35. Re:NO sense at all! by Occams · · Score: 1

      Thailand is a warm country that was not impacted negatively by colonialism.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    36. Re:NO sense at all! by Occams · · Score: 1

      The Roman Republic and Empire was a large civilization that was built on slavery. It worked very well for them for about 800 years.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    37. Re:NO sense at all! by Mooney+Driver · · Score: 1

      What a bunch of bullshit. You have a source for that? No, because you just made it up? I thought so.

    38. Re:NO sense at all! by Mooney+Driver · · Score: 1

      If you had left San Juan, you would find that PR's infrastructure is in terrible shape. The roads through the interior are insanely dangerous, the police are understaffed and corrupt, and poverty exists on a massive scale. Many Puerto Ricans think that becoming a state would mean better infrastructure, more development, a reduction in police corruption, etc. There isn't nearly as much tourism in the interior or even a lot of the coastal areas outside of San Juan, so the people are NOT perfectly happy sitting around collecting tourist dollars.

      This is why more than half of Puerto Ricans voted FOR statehood the last time around.

    39. Re:NO sense at all! by Mooney+Driver · · Score: 1

      Rome wasn't built on the backs of slaves. Slavery really took off after they were already very large and powerful.

    40. Re:NO sense at all! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It may not have had colonial rulers, but it isn't known for the sex trade because it was positively impacted.

    41. Re:NO sense at all! by iMactheKnife · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of a place called Singapore?

    42. Re:NO sense at all! by nobodie · · Score: 1

      After spending 15 years in the tropics I come back here to the US and find that people haven't a clue what a day's work really is. One guy in my office keeps staring at me and telling everyone he has never seen anyone work as much or as hard as I do. While he sits and drinks his coffee and tries to think of excuses for why he hasn't finished his latest project, or even the last one before that.
      Nah, I'm not going for it. I hate air conditioning and can do more in hot weather than most people who spend their life hiding from a drop of sweat. The problem is just that no one is willing to tell people to get off their fat diabetic asses and do some goddamn work. How about telling people to turn off the mobe the second work begins and leave it off until 5pm? How about asking why you need to have your personal email, facebook, twitter and whatever the hell else (what youtube, netflix, hulu tooooooo???) running on your computer while you complain how slow it is and how you need a faster computer to "do your work?"

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    43. Re:NO sense at all! by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Riding the bus last week the driver had the AC down to about 60F. In the process of asking him to warm it up I asked why he had it so low: "It keeps the germs down when the temperature is low." he said. I mentioned that he would have to get it down below zero to make any difference like that and he was quite adamant that he was right, one of his buddies had told him so.

      So you must be wrong about that temperature stuff cause the buddy of a bus driver in Florida said it was better to keep the temperature low, so that must be a fact.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    44. Re:NO sense at all! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Expansion. It wasn't citizens building the roads.
      Then there was the matter of tribute for the conquered.
      Like payin to have your ass kicked around and taxed for it.
      I'm guessing at a higher rate than a citizen, if not, I'm not sure the feeling was much better.
      Either way you were working for your obnoxiously superior new boss kinda like having the IRS run the show with iron age weapons. LOL
      I guess slaves are where you see them.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. Now if I can only convince my supervisor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    it is just too hot ... I need my siesta break!

  3. So all these siestas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the last three hundred years can be blamed on global warming? Great!

  4. Huh? by rs79 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down. Think of all those poor bakery workers. Oh if only there was some sort of box you could plug into the window and it would make the air colder in the room it was in. Oh wait...

    An increasingly obese America is getting too warm when it works? Good God man the temperature is up a degree, have some chips and try to last the night.

    Dumbest. Report. Ever. But I can't want to see what they'd say in an ice age. Presumably "oh well, that's it, we're all gonna die then".

    Who pays for crap like this?

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:Huh? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man doesn't understand report, calls it 'dumb'. News at 11.

      Alternatively:

      Yeah, it's the report that's dumb~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everybody is working in an enclosed space...

    3. Re:Huh? by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 0

      RTFA.

      That is all.

    4. Re:Huh? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Air conditioning only makes the problem worse. It may make your room cooler, by adding heat outside. In cities, when everyone runs the AC, the heat goes up and everyone cranks up the AC. Meanwhile, the additional strain on the power grid means more coal is burned and more heat generated. And not to mention all those people who have to *gasp* WORK OUTSIDE!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever tried working productively in a hot, humid island climate (example: trinidad and tobago)?

      believe me, the last thing you want to do is sit down at a desk when the weather is nice, or as nice as it is usually there.

      the report has nothing to do with air conditioning and everything to do with human nature.

    6. Re:Huh? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down.

      Moron. It's not about office workers. RTFA.

      The impact will be felt the most by those who work outside or in hot environments, such as firefighters, bakery workers, farmers, construction workers, factory workers, and others who will be forced to slow down due to increases in heat and humidity.

      Let me know when you can aircondition a farm or construction site.

    7. Re:Huh? by alen · · Score: 1

      and a cooler climate means colder winters and more oil is burned to keep warm. and in NYC there are lots of decades old boilers that spew toxic fumes into the air after burning the oil. no one wants to replace them until they break due to cost
      i'll take AC's and slightly warmer outside air any day over toxic smoke

      DUH

    8. Re:Huh? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Considering our rather primitive ancestors managed to survive the last ice-age, which peaked fewer than 25,000 years ago, I'd dare suggest that, as a species, we probably wouldn't all die out if the earth experienced another one in the future. In fact, given all of the advances we've made since that time, we'd almost certainly end up faring far better than any of our ancestors did previously.

    9. Re:Huh? by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Who pays for crap like this?

      If you live in the US, you do. This was a NOAA (hence government, hence paid by taxes) report.

      And yeah, it's crap, but it strokes the malthusians and doomsayers nicely, so it will be popular crap.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:Huh? by medcalf · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't spend much time around farms, for instance. Heck, a lot of the tractors now have air conditioned cabs.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    11. Re:Huh? by megamerican · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They base their finding on a climate model which like most climate models, are always inaccurate.

      They also assume that at these temperatures people would be working the same hours. They could easily work at night and since there is a push with the smart grid to pay for the time of use, working at non-peak hours would save costs on energy.

      This is nothing but pure speculation based on an unproven hypothetical situation to drive a political agenda. Welcome to modern science.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    12. Re:Huh? by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      Mine dumps it into the core of the earth. Look up heat pumps you dolt.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Huh? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Well we're making more humans faster than the rate of decline of work, so we should be good.

    14. Re:Huh? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I was born in a country town. I've worked on farms.Never saw an air conditioned tractor. I know they exist.

      Anyway, tell NOAA, they wrote the report.

    15. Re:Huh? by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Who pays for crap like this?

      Seeing as the study was produced by NOAA, we do. With sequestration in the news, I wonder how many autistic children with hearing aids could have been vaccinated with the money that was spent on this study.

    16. Re:Huh? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down. Think of all those poor bakery workers. Oh if only there was some sort of box you could plug into the window and it would make the air colder in the room it was in. Oh wait...

      An increasingly obese America is getting too warm when it works? Good God man the temperature is up a degree, have some chips and try to last the night.

      Dumbest. Report. Ever. But I can't want to see what they'd say in an ice age. Presumably "oh well, that's it, we're all gonna die then".

      Who pays for crap like this?

      Whoosh.
      This clown's failure to grasp the big picture would be funny, if it weren't so predictably narrow-minded. So all jobs can be equated to the work of bakers who, typically, work in significantly warmer environments (we are meant to assume). Uh-huh. Sure. RTFA and try to understand that the metrics here are bigger than "output of one fat guy vs one skinny guy in a bakery".

    17. Re:Huh? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      That's one hell of a set of heat pipes.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    18. Re:Huh? by JWW · · Score: 1

      Yep. Lets put constraints on the economy to slow down global warming which will cause more people to be unemployed because then the temperature will not go up as much and people will do more work!!

    19. Re:Huh? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are missing the "why" are we seeing a report like this just when the government is being forced to cut it's budget.

      But I agree, technology will alleviate much of these doomsday scenarios.

    20. Re:Huh? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      This report is dumb. There is no way to even begin to implement enough controls to be able to make a claim like this. Do you know how many correlations there are to a 40 year global scale trend?

    21. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you can air condition a farm or construction site.

      Well, first we build a big building around the construction site and install some big A/C units and . . . .

    22. Re:Huh? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Yeah, especially since he's dumping heat into the core.

      That's one hot dude.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:Huh? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you can aircondition a farm or construction site.

      Water sprinkler.

    24. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your fanny outside early enough and you never know that it got hot. but start thinking about how hot is it...it is really hot outside you know...(its all in your mind).

      Painting the south side of a house in Arizona in 110F wasn't any different than 90F, as long as you start at 6am.

    25. Re:Huh? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Who pays for crap like this?

      Unfortunately, us taxpayers do. My Federal Government at work.

      Let's hope that instead of cutting weather satellite operations at NOAA in the sequester, they cut stupid ass report generation. Like nothing was ever built in places that get hot - seems to me there are lots of oil refineries that get built in the middle of freakin deserts.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    26. Re:Huh? by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      And not to mention all those people who have to *gasp* WORK OUTSIDE!

      Sucks to be them...they should have paid more attention while in school and gotten a 'real' job.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:Huh? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The report is a finalist in the "Terrified invalid extrapolations" contest.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:Huh? by invient · · Score: 1

      In Colorado, for a particular commodity, the entire farming area is air conditioned.....

    29. Re:Huh? by tsa · · Score: 1
      --

      -- Cheers!

    30. Re:Huh? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Sort of like they did with the Burj Khalifa?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    31. Re:Huh? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The basis of this report is work that has been done in occupational studies about how temperature and humidity affect your ability to work. That's pretty easy to control and measure in a lab. The results of those studies that are used by all sorts of employers including the US military to understand how much they can expect of their employees under various conditions. By synthesizing those results with the expected changes due to AGW they came up with an estimate of how it will affect human labor output. I don't see anything dumb about that.

    32. Re:Huh? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      A lot of tractors have cabs that "were" air-conditioned. Most farmers are cheap and when the AC breaks they do not fix it, except for the one they personally drive. Driving a cab tractor with a busted AC in Florida is a very hot job, bring at least a gallon of Gatorade with you.

    33. Re:Huh? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Until it breaks during a heat wave. Then due to your weakened psychological state as a result of continued and extended protection from extremes of temperature as a result of living a life largely protected by air-conditioning your truly suffer until it is repaired. My air-conditioning broke and I was quite surprised how much I suffered compared to decades of exposure to air-conditioned high temperatures in my youth and the mild discomfort that resulted.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  5. it's not the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not the weather, it's sitting on my ass playing video games and writing on the computer all my life instead of doing things that has decreased my labor capacity compared to my father (in my case, much more than 10%)

    1. Re:it's not the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not the weather, it's sitting on my ass playing video games and writing on the computer all my life instead of doing things that has decreased my labor capacity compared to my father (in my case, much more than 10%)

      Your report makes sense. It must be thrown in the trash. That's how it goes, ol' chap!

  6. Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Global Warming is there anything it cannot do?

    1. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by crazyjj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah yes, my favorite was the reporter last week who seriously asked Bill Nye if global warming had anything to do with the asteroid near-miss.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      To elaborate: Can it create a rock it can't lift?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by macbeth66 · · Score: 2

      I bet it can't core a apple.

    4. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Heat makes things expand, the hotter the Earth is the larger it is, so passing asteroids are closer.

      Makes perfect sense if you're brain damaged enough to work for MSN.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    5. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it has. The asteroid actually would have hit, but then it figured out that on earth it is now too hot for its taste and thus decided to pass the planet instead of hitting it. :-)

    6. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It sure can. Unfortunately, once it finds it cannot lift it, it can give itself the power to do so. It's like when redbull gives you wings.

    7. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      That's interesting actually. Heat actually does have mass, and therefore results in gravity. There's also a tiny amount of expansion, which someone mentioned. It also would affect the flow of the tides, which would affect the position and speed of the moon, etc. The effects would be minute, of course, but could they be enough to alter the course of an asteroid? The answer is obviously "yes", but probably only in a very minute "butterfly effect" way which isn't really measurable. The answer to the reporters specific question is still a "no", of course. Ask the same question about a near-miss asteroid a million years from now, however, and the answer would kind of be "yes", although it would also be "yes" for the question "is this the result of a butterfly flapping its wings a million years ago".

      That video was also really interesting to watch. I especially was interested by the part where the reporter tells Bill Nye not to worry the viewers and he says that they don't need to worry about this one, but they do need to worry about the next one. On the same day as the passage of the asteroid they were discussing, a half-megaton explosion which would have destroyed a Russian city if it had penetrated a little further into the atmosphere, occurred as a result of another asteroid. That's pretty interesting.

    8. Re:Global Warming is there anything it cannot do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, my favorite was the reporter last week who seriously asked Bill Nye if global warming had anything to do with the asteroid near-miss.

      Yeap, meteorologists didn't manage to attract this one enough.

  7. Not This Shit Again. by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there anything bad in the world that is not caused by global warming?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Not This Shit Again. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Is there anything bad in the world that is not caused by global warming?

      ...

      Drone strikes?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Not This Shit Again. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A great many things. Climate changes, being a global event, will impact everything ion the globe to some degree.
      Well for a while, eventually the world won't be habitable. Then it won't get worse for us.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Not This Shit Again. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why are drone strike bad?

      There are vilified becasue of the accuracy and effectiveness.
      .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That goes back to not wanting to work. Why fly a fighter when a drone can do it, and you can stay at home.

      Global warming = drone strikes!

    5. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Increased global temperatures are making people more hotblooded.

    6. Re:Not This Shit Again. by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Global warming theoretically might cause increased competition for resources. Increased competition for resources sometimes leads to armed conflict. Armed conflict over resources sometimes results in the US getting involved militarily. The US sometimes uses drones when it is so involved.

      Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming definitely causes drone strikes.

    7. Re:Not This Shit Again. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 2

      Really? Most of the complaints I've read about them include mentions of all the collateral damage (including child-killing, etc). That would seem to belie your assertion.

    8. Re:Not This Shit Again. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are drone strike bad?

      A) summary executions of American citizens, thereby denying due process, and B) exceedingly high rate of innocent civilian casualties.

      There are vilified becasue of the accuracy and effectiveness. .

      Which I'm certain is a fully evidence-based assertion, right?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Not This Shit Again. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...eventually the world won't be habitable...

      Yeah, in about 4 or 5 billion years...

      Whew! It's hot... I need a nap

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as societies evolve into an automated, higher-tech world, we're all just getting lazier. no real surprise there. nothing to do with global warming other than the fact that all that industry and pollution that lets us be lazier contributes to it.

    11. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of missile strikes being executed are done by fixed wing aircraft as opposed to helicopters as well. Does that mean that fixed wing aircraft are worse than helicopters for human rights?

      People are complaining about an escalation in the aggressiveness in American rules of engagement and blaming the tool. Drones are not pulling the trigger. Jet pilots looking at a targeting screen while flying through the air do not have better aim than drone pilots looking at a targeting screen while sitting in a trailer.

    12. Re:Not This Shit Again. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Too clever by half.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    13. Re:Not This Shit Again. by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Apparently not

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    14. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anything bad in the world that is not caused by global warming?

      Slashdot summaries.

    15. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      No it means rich people are bad for human rights. This has been a solid fact throughout time.

      Poor people dont have aircraft or armies, only rich people.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:Not This Shit Again. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Stupid comments like yours (and yo' mama's).

      But don't worry - we who read Slashdot love one-sided skepticism like yours. The "skeptic" part makes you feel "edgy" and "counter", while the one-sidedness of your views means you're just whoring your mouth for the same old corporate interests.

      --
      That is all.
    17. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Kaenneth · · Score: 0

      Drones have a pretty good target/collateral ratio.

      Compare to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

      After 9/11 I heard the words "Glass Parking Lot" quite a bit.

    18. Re:Not This Shit Again. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I guess there's one sure fire way to find out: continuing this wild global experiment we're conducting.

      I'd argue that finding out the results for sure, and the probably cheaper energy isn't really worth it, but what do I know, I'm not a fossil fuel tycoon or politician.

    19. Re:Not This Shit Again. by c · · Score: 1

      There are vilified becasue of the accuracy and effectiveness. .

      Which I'm certain is a fully evidence-based assertion, right?

      Not a single drone-strike victim has filed a formal complaint that they weren't a valid target.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    20. Re:Not This Shit Again. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      How ironic that your sig should mention tedious and stupid.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    21. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...exceedingly high rate of innocent civilian casualties

      Maybe take a look at bombings during Vietnam, Korea, or WWII before you make a ridiculous assertion like that. The rate of civilian causalities in drone bombings is tiny by comparison.

    22. Re:Not This Shit Again. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      New twist on an old classic:

      "But Mr Dent, the [complaint forms] have been available in the local [drone strike targeting] office for the last nine months."

      "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

      "But the [complaint forms] were on display ..."

      "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

      "That's the display department."

      "With a flashlight."

      "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

      "So had the stairs."

      "But look, you found the [forms] didn't you?"

      "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, since drone strokes by USA drones seem to be happening in many countries that are not at war with the USA, it is a violation of the sovereignity of these nations. It is not going to end well.

      As for 'summary execution of American citizens' last I noted the US constitution and its due process in the USA were NOT just for citizens but for anyone. The US constitution limits the power of the US government, and does NOT grant rights to citizens.

      So, take your pick. Either you use drone strokes to kill terrorist combatants in states that we are not at war with - which is the equivalent of (say) the UK killing an IRA terrorist on the streets of Boston, Mass inside US territory (probably) without US permission (which is called an act of aggression against the USA), or you use them in a country we do have a declared war with (and as far as I know, we have NOT had a declaration of war since WWII -- everything else has not been war declarations even if it is called that), or have the USA use drone strikes against people in side the USA - citizens or not. Either way it isn't good. But of course, war is peace and freedom is slavery, so...

    24. Re:Not This Shit Again. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Something about the government deciding it is empowered to enforce the death penalty outside of war, even on our own citizens, without any sort of due process. That and that any instance of them doing this gets classified and isn't subject to any scrutiny. Not that anyone could do anything about it if they did scrutinize.

      If occupy wallstreet showed anything it is that the government no longer fears the people. The only power left to the people is the ability to try to whine loud enough that they shut us up. Usually a that point they make a minor tweak in policy that appears to satisfy our gripes but doesn't change the status quo in the slightest.

    25. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteors in Russia.

    26. Re:Not This Shit Again. by c · · Score: 1

      Sir... that information is classified.

      I'm going to have to ask how you knew about these complaint forms, and I expect some answers...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    27. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AGW depends on a chain of induction more lengthy, complicated, and dubious than your example.

    28. Re:Not This Shit Again. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      But the Press is trying hard to make it so!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    29. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global warming leads resource scarcity. Resource scarcity leads to armed conflict. Armed conflict leads to war. War leads to drones. Drones lead to the Dark Side. Avoid it you must.

    30. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anything bad in the world that is not caused by global warming?

      Pirates

    31. Re:Not This Shit Again. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Why, from The Guide, of course!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    32. Re:Not This Shit Again. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      No, they do not. That you provide an example of one with a target/collateral ration orders of magnitude worse than does not make it "pretty good".

    33. Re:Not This Shit Again. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Killing an enemy combatant on the battleground, regardless of his citizenship, is not considered a "summary execution ... denying due process".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    34. Re:Not This Shit Again. by invient · · Score: 1

      CO2 is a green house gas.... CO2 has increased due to human activity.... human activity increases temperature. Just like a lollipop... All it takes is 3!

    35. Re:Not This Shit Again. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Killing an enemy combatant on the battleground, regardless of his citizenship, is not considered a "summary execution ... denying due process".

      Right; because if the government tells you that a person is an 'enemy combatant,' then they most definitely are, because no one in the government would ever tell a lie to justify their crimes, would they?

      Let me guess - National Socialist Party member? It shows.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    36. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Specifically the lack thereof.

    37. Re:Not This Shit Again. by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But are they "enemy combatant(s)" in a war zone, or are they "unlawful combatants"?

    38. Re:Not This Shit Again. by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, no, not really. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is well understood and proven. The kinds of processes in nature that would mitigate the greenhouse effect are the ones with the lengthy and complicated chains. In other words, we know that more CO2 means more trapped heat, so the processes that would prevent increased CO2 from producing global warning are the complicated bit.

    39. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they remove the danger from killing others, and history shows that whenever you have a group op people that can kill with impunity (or thinks it can) you get horrorscenarios sooner or later (and usually sooner)

    40. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the people that haze ZERO sense of humor are getting mod points tonight. Or people are modding without reading context.

    41. Re:Not This Shit Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. That is pretty much the explanation for everything. What I am most upset about is that we are paying billions every year for people to study that if the temperature goes up virtually everything has something that goes wrong. Has it occured to these people that increased productivity in cold places might make up for any lost productivity in warmer areas. Also, how could they possibly measure this and not know if it is some other factor like people vacation more, enjoy life more, go fishing more. I have a feeling these people would complain about everything. If it got colder they would say thats going to be bad. If it stays the same it is bad. Can we put a moratorium on studying the "effects" of global warming. None of them are in the slifhtest believable.

  8. Doing Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It's a good thing that robots are stealing our jobs, because in about thirty-five years, nobody in their right mind is going to want to do them. "

    I don't want to do robots now. I mean some people in Japan might. But not me.

    1. Re:Doing Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangling modifier. Which, in the context of a discussion about robots, is an interesting image to say the least :-)

    2. Re:Doing Robots by invient · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Futurama.... http://vimeo.com/12915013

    3. Re:Doing Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to do robots NOW.

      captcha: flirts

  9. Doubt by Bigby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Talk about a study that has too many variables to conclude something so major... How did they eliminate the effect of today's technology and culture on work ethic and demand? Among the thousands of other variables...

    5 degrees isn't going to reduce overall labor by 5%, let alone 10%. And the 10% is considered with far less than 5 degrees in increased temperature.

    1. Re:Doubt by geekoid · · Score: 2

      he said, based on NOTHING.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Doubt by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, there are other studies that have concluded amazing things based on bullshit. So that's a bit more than NOTHING. Personally, I'm interested in how the study can claim labor has a temperature sensitivity of around 10% decline per degree C. That's huge. If it were true, then any sort of energy conservation via raising the thermostat in hot weather, would be greatly counterproductive.

    3. Re:Doubt by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From Jamesl in "Below the headline...

      --- ... far below the headline ...

      Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.

      Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."
      ---
      Spot on. In other words, they make a statement and then say that it could be wrong based on just about everything.

      Garbage.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you RTFA before you start flapping your retard hole.

    5. Re:Doubt by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Talk about a study that has too many variables to conclude something so major... How did they eliminate the effect of today's technology and culture on work ethic and demand? Among the thousands of other variables...

      5 degrees isn't going to reduce overall labor by 5%, let alone 10%. And the 10% is considered with far less than 5 degrees in increased temperature.

      Your math makes my head hurt. :>

    6. Re:Doubt by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apparently the US Army disagrees, because it's their research (amoungst others') on people's ability to work under heat stress that forms the basis for the model.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Doubt by PPH · · Score: 1

      Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models.

      Computers predict computers will take over the world. News at 11.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Doubt by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Of those variables, four are quantifiable and subject to ongoing research and the last two are the ones we can actually control if we want to change whether the outcome actually happens. So I'm not sure what's wrong with the model.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:Doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just happen to work back and forth between two cities in South America (Rio and São Paulo) which happen to have a 5 degree temperature difference. I am far less productive on one than I am on the other. While this might be anecdotal evidence, I believe my peers (who also fly back and forth) feel the same way.

      Also, please don't label anecdotal evidence as insightful. It hurts.

    10. Re:Doubt by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You think we can control future population distributions, and technological and societal change?

      Because if you do, then that puts your right up there with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. They thought they could control those things and we see how well that turned out.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:Doubt by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Ever done heavy manual labour in 35C? 40C? 45C?

    12. Re:Doubt by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Well, I was involved in decision making at work about the effect of temperature on work performance. What I learned during the research phase was that way before global warming was an issue people have been studying the subject vigorously. After all, many a legislation is in effect that regulates those things in any decent country. The first google hit in English [http://www.iaqscience.lbl.gov/performance-temp-office.html] shows that 10% decrease is easily achievable over 5 deg Fahrenheit from the optimal value. At work we really had an issue with this and the negative effects on performance were visible to all of us.

      The other thing is that we talk about change of temperature. Change. There is a rate of this change and a rate at which our bodies can adapt. I am from a continental, -20 to +40 Celsius country and I live and work for a long time now in the Netherlands. So at work I was not disturbed much by the high temperature. Other colleagues from warm countries were likewise almost unaffected. The Dutch were affected much more strongly. On the other hand they withstand the lack of sunshine, especially in winter, much lither than me and the other southerners. Work and population in NL is the densest along the coast. High temperature here combined with high humidity makes live hell (ain't New York like this too?). I will take 40 deg back home against 35 in Amsterdam any day.

      Put aside the debate about the origin and the rate of global warming. Is higher global temperature going to decrease work performance? - yes. Equally around the globe (assuming the same average temperature increase)? - no. Can we expect local extremities due to specific response of the local weather to the hotter climate? - yes (see humidity example above). Are we going to be able to adapt (physiologically-wise and fast enough) to the change? - probably not. Judging by the trouble the rest of the ecosystem has adapting to the already observed increase of temperature we (sans technology) would find it very difficult too. So we will have to spend even more energy for cooling and drying at work and home? - yes.

    13. Re:Doubt by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Yes. In a warehouse, which was brutal. And it has an effect there...

      But we are talking about manual labor (speakin' 'merican) in 36C, 41C, or 46C instead of your values. And then, how much of the overall work is performed outside? How much will people adjust and do work earlier or later (which they already do in Construction)? How much will evolution play a role? Does warmer weather make people happier and therefore more productive?

      This study was not in depth. It can't be. It covered something that has thousands of variables.

    14. Re:Doubt by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's not temperature it's WBGT, wet-bulb globe temperature

      WBGT = 0.7T_w + 0.2T_g + 0.1T_d
      Where

              Tw = Natural wet-bulb temperature (combined with dry-bulb temperature indicates humidity)
              Tg = Globe thermometer temperature (measured with a globe thermometer, also known as a black globe thermometer)
              Td = Dry-bulb temperature (actual air temperature)
              Temperatures may be in either Celsius or Fahrenheit

      WBGT takes into consideration air temperature, humidity and radiant heat, a WBGT F of 90 or more is seriously hot weather and dangerous for unacclimatized workers. In the Army durring training we would work 30, rest 30 and drink 2 liters of water per hour under those conditions.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Doubt by khallow · · Score: 1

      How about you RTFA before you start flapping your retard hole.

      I have. From the abstract:

      We estimate that environmental heat stress has reduced labour capacity to 90% in peak months over the past few decades.

      That's for a historical temperature increase of no more than 1 C during those "peak months".

    16. Re:Doubt by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      You don't believe in human self-determination?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  10. Below the headline ... by jamesl · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... far below the headline ...

    Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.

    Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."

    1. Re:Below the headline ... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      ... far below the headline ...

      Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.

      Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."

      Looks like John's doing an awesome job of feeding the computers data, getting result sets, massaging the results into a nifty little report, then throwing complete garbage logic into the report with little result set image representations in it to make it look all on the up-n-up. :)

    2. Re:Below the headline ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual scientific paper makes it very clear that they're making a projeciton on known metrics about heat stress and known data about tropical climate. It would take Slashdot to turn it into a straw-man like "World Labor Capacity Dropping Because of Increased Temperatures".

    3. Re:Below the headline ... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Huffingtonpost, then this TarenSK person, then Slashdot.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  11. Re:Sorry, too lazy to read summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sun is shining here in Portugal...

    Could someone tell me in one sentence what it was about?

    Work.

    In other words, nothing you Portuguese would know about.

  12. What global warming? by scorp1us · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Even IPCC head Pachauri admits no warming for 17 years. So what warming are they talking about? 17 years is not a small amount of time. It's 0 change for 1/5 of a century. Given that it's also the most recent fifth, I don't know how they can forecast anything. The OP report says over the "last 60 years", what they mean is 60 years ago for 43 years, ignoring the most recent 17. I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in that trend line when it stops 2/3 through the period.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rebuttal: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

    2. Re:What global warming? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1, Funny

      Awesome, so there is no such thing as global climate change? I'll let you tell the turtle that holds our flat earth disk in space while the sun revolves around us. Maybe all of our humors are out of balance too.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:What global warming? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Even IPCC head Pachauri admits [wattsupwiththat.com] no warming for 17 years."
      false. That has been thoroughly debunked.

      It amuses me..angers really, that someone would dispose of the work from 1000's of experts from around the globe, through out all the collected data, but trust some yahoo website.

      Do you even know how to think?
      At this stage in out body of knowledge about this issue, people lie you are right up there with anti-vaccers, 911 conspiracy cranks and bigfoot believers.

      The worse part is that we can still do something about it pretty cheaply, all thing considered, but it gets more expensive every year.
      Out of the last 10 years, 9 of them have been the warmest on record. Yes, even after homogenization of the data sets.
      That's not debatable. It's a fact.

      The 10th one was in 98.
      17 of the top 20 warmest were in the last 20 years.

      start hear.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:What global warming? by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      "17 years" seems like an oddly specific number.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    5. Re:What global warming? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Are we looking at the same article? The one I'm looking at has graphs - including NOAA graphs - that support the GP's point that mean temperatures peaked about 2003 and even dropped a bit in the past couple of years.

      I was ready to agree with you, but you've actually given me pause for thought.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:What global warming? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Apparently Watts is an authoritarian if he's willing to ignore what the scientists actually say in favour of a poorly-worded comment by the head of their organisation.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:What global warming? by medcalf · · Score: 1

      I've never actually met or read anyone who argues that climate doesn't change. In fact, that was one of the original criticisms of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as a hypothesis: climate changes, and the current/recent climate differences do not appear to be outside of normal ranges. But, you know, nice straw man and mockery and all.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    8. Re:What global warming? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If you've never encountered a person who believes the climate simply isn't warming, then you should probably read some of the comments here.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:What global warming? by medcalf · · Score: 1

      I've encountered people who doubt that the climate is warming. I said that I hadn't encountered people who claim that climate does not change.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we looking at the same article? The one I'm looking at has graphs - including NOAA graphs - that support the GP's point that mean temperatures peaked about 2003 and even dropped a bit in the past couple of years.

      I was ready to agree with you, but you've actually given me pause for thought.

      And everyone knows it's not real unless it only goes up all the time!

    11. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing odd about it. That's the length of the locust. We're using that now as a standard of measurement, like "libraries of congress per second" for bandwidth comparisons.

      Do try to keep up.

    12. Re:What global warming? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I derped.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    13. Re:What global warming? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      This warming https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7mjteSF7FW4/UQE4QTzUVtI/AAAAAAABMNQ/rBg-y7QjGv8/s821/climate_365_temperature_graph_final+(2).jpg

      You know, the setting the top 9 global record temps in the past 10 years type stuff

      No warming for the past 17 years? Every year has been warmer than the last for the past 30 years in a row. We really don't have enough long term data to tell if this is a normal cycle, but why chance it? There are small simple things that can be easily done to help reduce green house gas emission and general pollution.

      Paraphrasing someone sarcastically talking about anti-global warming people: "We have strong evidence that what we're doing is killing the planet, but no absolute proof, so why stop?"

    14. Re:What global warming? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      At this stage in out body of knowledge about this issue, people lie you are right up there with anti-vaccers, 911 conspiracy cranks and bigfoot believers.

      Oh good, conflate three completely separate issues to bolster your own credibility among other people who think like you do, while adding nothing to the conversation. What a cheap tactic. Why do you have to do this when you have valid points to work with?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:What global warming? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Three groups of people who dismiss the overwhelming concensus of evidence amoungst experts on the subject and attribute the existence of that evidence to a sophisticated cabal out to further its own interests? Yeah, I can see why people who dismiss global warming don't belong with those.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:What global warming? by sycodon · · Score: 0

      I ran into the IPCC people the other day.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    17. Re:What global warming? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to give cites, look it up yourselves, but I think it goes like this:

      AGW big wig, upon seeing the the mean temp did not rise in the past X years says that you can't make a judgement based on X years. It has to be X+Y some number.

      Y has been steadily increasing and I guess the sum of X+Y is 17 years at the moment.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    18. Re:What global warming? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Three groups of people who dismiss the overwhelming concensus of evidence amoungst experts on the subject

      Wrong. There is no evidence in the question of whether there was a controlled demolition, because all the evidence was swept up and destroyed immediately. That doesn't prove anything! And I will never say it does! It only prohibits proving the negative.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:What global warming? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      So the evidence which conveniently doesn't exist proves your case? And you're going to ignore all the evidence for the other, concensus hypothesis? Fantastic.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    20. Re:What global warming? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey buddy that's not just some yahoo's website. Anthony Watts is a professional shill for a right-wing think tank.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you made a graph and found somewhere to host it for you. You must be one of those experts.

    22. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

      Careful what data you use. I think you meant to say "according to graph I saw on Wikipedia I believe global temperatures are continuing to rise as compared to the last 100 years or so"
      Or you could say "I believe everything I read on Wikipedia".

      Or you could say "I have already made up my mind regarding CAGW and anyone else is an idiot, so I am sending in my CO2 tax right away"
      http://imgur.com/s19MOMd

    23. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate 365? Jeez man.....

    24. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >17 of the top 20 warmest were in the last 20 years.

      Are you kidding me?

      What about the Minoan warming period, the Roman warming period, and Medieval warming period?

      Stop pretending to explain recent climate change when you can't forecast and when you can't explain past climate changes. The climate is both warming and cooling over different time periods. And over the last 17 years, it's stationary.

    25. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the link, wanting to prove my idea there has been no warming since 1997, and Q1 answer is there has been no warming since 1997. They then say that date was picked just to show that trend and you need more data to show a real trend. They then "prove" that assumption is wrong by putting up temperature data from a single source, from their many, and one of the first comments calls them out on this and claims other temperature data sets show different results.

      Summary: The statement that there has been no warming in 17 years is true, but only because they picked a range of 17 years. To prove the statement wrong, they cherry picked data while ignoring the rest.

      So basically, you have taken me from questioning the 17 year remark to now knowing it actually is FACT. Perhaps you should read the articles you link to instead of just the title that is misleading.

    26. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I posted the link. The fact that you don't get the underlying argument despite reading the answer is rather sad. The answer was honest... if you choose the right period, in the short term you will be able to "disprove" global warming. The answer noted that they could do the same cherry picking in the short-term to "prove" global warming. The real proof is looking at longer term trends where localized noise gets averaged out.

      So, yes I did read the article, and unlike you actually comprehended what it said.

      -- MyLongNickName

    27. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, you are an idiot who can't read.

    28. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear geekoid,
      Your concern for the environment is admirable.
      I too, am a bit of a tree hugger.

      The fact remains we are sliding slowly towards another ice age.
      The scientists who would have you believe otherwise are just trying to secure funding.
      The politicians who would have you believe otherwise are just trying to get more control and money out of John Q. Taxpayer.

    29. Re:What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mean temperature will mean nothing when one area gains 10 degrees to their yearly average and another area gains -10 degrees for theirs.

    30. Re:What global warming? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC’s climate science panel has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate

      For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
      For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
      For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
      For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
      For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
      For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
      For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
      For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
      Has Global Warming Stalled?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  13. misleading synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The statistic mentioned by /. in their synopsis is very misleading. It implies (to me at least) that world total labor capacity has decreased by 10%, but the NOAA study is just stating that when it is hot out, people tend to be 10% less productive.

    1. Re:misleading synopsis by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Humans will continue to adapt and advance, and productivity will continue to increase...barring massive government intervention.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:misleading synopsis by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

      The statistic mentioned by /. in their synopsis is very misleading. It implies (to me at least) that world total labor capacity has decreased by 10%, but the NOAA study is just stating that when it is hot out, people tend to be 10% less productive.

      If that's true, I have some nifty data to throw in.......

      When temperatures exceed a certain limit with humidity at a certain point (dewpoint), they issue a Heat Advisory or Heat Warning. In each warning, they advise people to drink lots of water and to, GASP, take more breaks in the shade!

      Wait, so are they saying that their warnings are actually working?

      Oh, wait, that only includes the U.S. My central logic processor is overloading and using adrenaline to cool. This sort of report pisses me off! lol

    3. Re:misleading synopsis by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Actually their report says (to paraphrase) that labour output is 90% of what it would have been, had mean temperatures remained at their previous levels.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:misleading synopsis by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      When temperatures exceed a certain limit with humidity at a certain point (dewpoint), they issue a Heat Advisory or Heat Warning. In each warning, they advise people to drink lots of water and to, GASP, take more breaks in the shade!

      And when you're taking more breaks, you're doing less work. If you spend 10% more of your time drinking water or taking breaks, you think that might have an effect on your productivity? If you don't do those things and you collapse from heatstroke, do you think that might have an effect on your productivity?

      Read up on the history of United Fruit if you want to know about heat and labor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:misleading synopsis by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:misleading synopsis by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      That doesn't factor into the total point of the article, though. You're right - there are quite a few companies that suck. I don't think global warming with a few degrees in temperature and humidity variance can be hard pointed to the loss of productivity, though. I mean, look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.

      Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?

    7. Re:misleading synopsis by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?

      If what you want to assert is that calculating a precise decrease in productivity because of global warming is somewhere between difficult and impossible, I have some sympathy for that idea. But the basic idea is clearly sound, and it seems foolish to devote a lot of effort to attacking it.

      look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.

      Doesn't exactly point to factory conditions what? You forgot part of that sentence fragment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:misleading synopsis by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?

      Yes, yes it does. I was making reference to global -vs- U.S. only if you read the whole comment. Other countries aren't always as nice and forgiving to those who work in the heat.

    9. Re:misleading synopsis by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?

      If what you want to assert is that calculating a precise decrease in productivity because of global warming is somewhere between difficult and impossible, I have some sympathy for that idea. But the basic idea is clearly sound, and it seems foolish to devote a lot of effort to attacking it.

      Agreed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to defend that waste of resources and money, either.

      look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.

      Doesn't exactly point to factory conditions what? You forgot part of that sentence fragment.

      Sorry; rewrite: The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions in terms of temperature, though they may have sucked.

  14. Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    NOAA was one of the most respected organizations in my head until this BS.

    Is John P. Dunne trying to keep his job or something??? How in one's sane and collected mind are they actually corroborating reduction in labor by increased temperature?

    This is akin to me releasing a report, with data of my choosing that has changed since 1991, stating that the fall of the Soviet Union contributed to the increase in population in the rest of the world.

    The two are completely unrelated! There is NO evidence whatsoever that they can possibly be connected. I don't care if one is a believer in climate change/global warming or not, this is complete tripe!

    Oh, and let me tell you while I'm at it, my headache frequency has increased by 10% due to the EMI from electronics in the past decade. Rubbish!

    1. Re:Jaw drop by dywolf · · Score: 1

      You've never actually worked outside in the South in the summer have you?
      There was a reason it was sparsely settled and all the work was done by poor farmers/sharecroppers, and slaves.
      There is a reason little manual labor or hard outdoor work is done in the middle east, particularly during the middle 6 hours of the day.

      Humid locals get more humid.
      Dry locations get dryer.

      Raise the temp just a couple degrees and the max humidty may not change (hard to go over 100%), but it duration sure as hell does. To the point it no longer goes down overnight. Eventually its no longer only too hot and too humid during the worst of the day, but for the most of the night as well. And there are jobs that depend on the cooler/dryer nighttime (asphalt laying is one example from my own past experience). In fact, some models consider the effect of that humidity not going down over night and show it has (or can have; depends on location and replenishment) the effect of drying an area out, cause the water vapor doesnt get reabsorbed into the local environment. IE, desertification.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Jaw drop by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars on climate change research?

      Got to produce reports!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Jaw drop by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only there was a paper explaining it~

      Did you read the paper? if so please show me where it's rubbish. If not, STFU and let us adults who have read the paper talk about it, m'kay?

      . One heat-stress metric with broad occupational health applications4, 5, 6 is wet-bulb globe temperature. We combine wet-bulb globe temperatures from global climate historical reanalysis7 and Earth System Model (ESM2M) projections8, 9, 10 with industrial4 and military5 guidelines for an acclimated individual’s occupational capacity to safely perform sustained labour under environmental heat stress (labour capacity)"

      SO they took known data involving sustaining labour under heat stressed and applied it to the climate change.

      They aren't making data up.

      YOU otoh are claiming an increase in temperature does not effect production based on..what, your ass?
      please, tell me, specifically, what you find wrong with the report:
      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate1827-s1.pdf

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Jaw drop by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, the NOAA is up for budget cuts. It's a 'crisis' within a 'crisis'... you know... the Great Sequester and all.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Jaw drop by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      In fact, some models consider the effect of that humidity not going down over night and show it has (or can have; depends on location and replenishment) the effect of drying an area out, cause the water vapor doesnt get reabsorbed into the local environment. IE, desertification.

      And in other models, a drying atmosphere causes a drying biosphere, because of, y'know, equilibrium. Seeing how the Sahara has desertified during the period of time that saw massive ice accretion on Antarctica (3+ miles now!) during a long-term cooling trend, those models have a decent explanation and evidence.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Jaw drop by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If the paper tried to correlate temperature data to labour output data you'd have a point, but that's not what they did.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      If the paper tried to correlate temperature data to labour output data you'd have a point, but that's not what they did.

      I hear ya...

      P.2 paragraph 2. How are you interpereting their comparisons?

    8. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Well, the NOAA is up for budget cuts. It's a 'crisis' within a 'crisis'... you know... the Great Sequester and all.

      Sweet. So now the politicians have an excuse for not showing up for work! NOAA gets a budget increase for making an excuse for them. :)

      I'm sorry, I had to. Humor, humor.

    9. Re:Jaw drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you concede the data is correct?

      Simple logic exercise then.

      If things get hotter, do you need to take more breaks? If you take more breaks will your productivity rise, or fall?

      GO RTFA troll

    10. Re:Jaw drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars on climate change research?

      Got to produce reports!

      Why in the hell does everyone have to mod down comments that disagree with climate change research and funding? I mod you up unfortunately without points.

      Just because something isn't 100% inline with your thoughts and beliefs doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to see if there's something you're missing. Yes I'm talking to all of you "I DON'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA NAAAAAAA" climate change die-hard pundits.

      You know, there's a chance that you're right and there's also a chance you're wrong.

      I'm waiting time posting this because if something doesn't fit into a black or white category most people have to be lazy and discredit it.

    11. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      You've never actually worked outside in the South in the summer have you?

      I read your comment and I'm confused. What does discomfort have to do with increase or decrease in labor productivity? It's been hot and humid since Humanity came into existence in some places and it's been cold and dry as **** in others. Some are warming and some are cooling. This paper's point is completely useless because it's trying to tie overall global warming to reduction in labor.

      Should I write a paper on why the sky is blue? It's always been perceived in that color since Humans came into existence. Hot/humid and cold/dry have also been perceived the same.

      The data is cool (no pun); the paper is completely a waste of time and money. I need to quit commenting and replying now; I'm losing work time by doing so. Just to clarify, the atmospheric properties did not just reduce my labor time... online communications did.

    12. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So you concede the data is correct?

      Simple logic exercise then.

      If things get hotter, do you need to take more breaks?
      If you take more breaks will your productivity rise, or fall?

      GO RTFA troll

      Riddle me this, oh troll commenter: How do you correlate global temperature as a reduction in labor without factoring in other information and variables? Does your communication reduce your labor time (it is, mine, right now)? Does your distraction with mobile devices interrupt time? Does contract labor time filling and limitation requirements limit your work time? How about the freedom to do so -vs- past "work-till-ya-drop" rules?

      I read the fucking article, oh name caller. There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor - there are more OTHER factors than you can count that come into existence every day, month, year, decade, ad nauseam.

      The paper is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Just like my commenting on here is. I just don't HAVE to do it to get paid or promoted; climate research individuals do.

      Quick final question to you, oh anonymous commenter that won't even bother reading this... What would you do if your superiors said you needed to produce writings or papers to prove a point but you don't have any solid data to tie anything together? If you don't write it, you lose your job (oh, and believe me, you can't be secure in getting another one should you lose this one). I think you would write a paper and pick through as much data as you could to try and make some correlation that can look solid in the minds of shallow thinkers that wouldn't bother to tear it apart and think a bit deeper than "A+B/C*D/(A^2(F))+(mc^2)=COOL REPORT".

      Fucking use your brain. There are more things than temperature that lead to loss of productivity and/or breaks in work. As I said before: rubbish.

    13. Re:Jaw drop by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      You'd rather that they spent $70 Bn on research and then didn't publish it?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    14. Re:Jaw drop by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I'd rather they spent $70 billion on nuclear power research. Or, that's about 14 good sized nuclear power plants.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Jaw drop by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor

      Actually, there is. There's a very large body of evidence which the paper itself is based upon.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor

      Actually, there is. There's a very large body of evidence which the paper itself is based upon.

      It's one factor; it does not say that the reason labor is impacted is because of global warming. That was the statement being made. Yes, it's *A* factor, but that's akin to me saying that my stress is caused by caffeine. Not a cause-effect, 1-1 ratio. It's just a factor. It could leave me stress-free, add any degree of stress, or kill me with stress factors. A paper doesn't need to be written on the (pardon my expression) freakin' obvious.
      Honestly, if we have people who really think that there isn't an impact on those working outside anywhere in the world from the temperature and thousand of other variants, we have a bigger problem that could use a paper or ten thousand - Ignorance and Failure to Learn the Most Basic Facts of Living on the Planet Earth.

      That's the whole statement I'm making - what a waste of time and money (I do believe tax payers are the funding for NOAA).

      I'm not disagreeing at all that temperature is *A* factor, but it isn't all good, all bad, limited to, or not limited to labor.

    17. Re:Jaw drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why in the hell does everyone have to mod down comments that disagree with blah blah blah"

      Could this be why?

      "How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars [dailycaller.com] on climate change research?"

      Daily Center is the Faux News of the online world. They don't give a fuck about accuracy as long as it fits their libertarian/conservative views. Reality has a liberal bias and it always is in conflict with the imaginary world created by conservatives and libertarians. Next time. use a reputable site. Oh wait, you won't because you still want to live in that conservative fantasy world of yours where AGW is not real.

    18. Re:Jaw drop by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So then they have not spent over 70 billion since 2008 researching global warming?

      Oh, I see. You don't like the message so you have to discredit the messenger.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:Jaw drop by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's "one factor", that's all the paper ever claims it to be. You're raging against a villain of your own invention.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    20. Re:Jaw drop by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's "one factor", that's all the paper ever claims it to be. You're raging against a villain of your own invention.

      Question: What do you think the point of, and the usefulness of the paper, is? I'd like to hear your sane side.

  15. i hope we get some cooling by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    then when the east river in NYC freezes during winter and the temps are so bitter cold that the hipster idiots will go crazy and blame it on global warming

    and then the intelligent people can point out that this is completely normal. it used to happen in the 1800's all the time before global warming screwed things up with a warmer winter

    1. Re:i hope we get some cooling by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Why would you hope that, out of curiosity? Are you really the kind of person who would rather people made ill-informed conclusions because it offered you the opportunity to look like you're cleverer than them?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:i hope we get some cooling by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      then when the east river in NYC freezes during winter and the temps are so bitter cold that the hipster idiots will go crazy and blame it on global warming

      and then the intelligent people can point out that this is completely normal. it used to happen in the 1800's all the time before global warming screwed things up with a warmer winter

      And those of us in the South thank you up there for pulling the Jet Stream further North, thereby allowing us to grow tropical vegetables in January.

      That's why they call it "global".

    3. Re:i hope we get some cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really the kind of person who would rather people made ill-informed conclusions because it offered you the opportunity to look like you're cleverer than them?

      How did you guess I'm a consultant?

    4. Re:i hope we get some cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you the kind of person that asks rhetorical questions?

  16. Now you're cook'in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    it is just too hot ... I need my siesta break!

    After reading, I see that whoever did these studies, never seen a Mexican construction crew in August here in Georgia - in 100+ heat.

    And they got their work done well and on time.

    1. Re:Now you're cook'in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think that counters the point of the article.

      I've seen what you're talking about (and no, unbunch your panties, it's not racist). In the Southern California desert, the landscaping industry is absolutely dominated by hispanic workers, and they can do a kick-ass job in weather that makes people of my Northern European ancestry quite useless.

      But the combination of moving people 20 degrees north of the ancestral climate zone, and having them thrive in that weather actually aligns with the proposed theory. The question becomes, if they went back to their homes and temperatures and humidity were up 5 degrees and 10% (respectively) from their grandparent's childhoods, would their total productivity be impacted?

      Here in North America, you can travel on land from Panama to Barrow Alaska, so we can all just migrate north with the changing temperatures. Hawaiians aren't quite so mobile.

  17. In temperate climates we'll just time shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " In this case of 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) global warming, heat stress in New York City [during the hottest months] would exceed that of any location in the present day."

    There, fixed that for you.

    Here in NYC, it's often too hot during late July and August to do outside work. And, it's often too cold during February and March to do outside work. So maybe we lose some outdoor work days during July and early September, but won't we gain some outdoor work days in February and March?

    I understand that the topics won't be able to adapt to the loss of outdoor working days by time shifting them to the winter, but it seems to be a pretty even swap for the temperate climates.

    Also, it seems that in cold climates like Canada and Scandinavia, they will have a net gain of outside work days.

    Or am I being too optimistic?

    1. Re:In temperate climates we'll just time shift by Xemu · · Score: 2

      I understand that the topics won't be able to adapt to the loss of outdoor working days by time shifting them to the winter, but it seems to be a pretty even swap for the temperate climates.

      Also, it seems that in cold climates like Canada and Scandinavia, they will have a net gain of outside work days.

      Or am I being too optimistic?

      Yes, too optimistic. Warming is not a "swap "- global warming is destabilising the climate, leading to more violent ups-and-downs, like hurricanes and blizzards. In the case of Scandinavia, a global warming could mean constant heavy rains, which reduces the outside work days a lot. In Canada, warming can mean violent ice storms and draughts. It is not so much the warm peaks that are the problem but that the average temperature is changing and causing temperatures to be distributed differently.

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    2. Re:In temperate climates we'll just time shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >global warming is destabilising the climate, leading to more violent ups-and-downs, like hurricanes and blizzards

      I call bullshit.
      Where's the evidence for the "destabilization" and where's the evidence that global warming is responsible?
      Actually, where is the evidence that the globe is warming? We've seen 17 years of non-warming.

  18. Large population drop projected by dragisha · · Score: 1

    In other news...

    Resulting from average temperature and humidity growth, 98% people are 72% less inclined to indulge in sexual activities. Scientists from UN IPCC's climatodemography subcommittee agreed on 82%-91% less babies will be born in next 20 years than expected. 20 years after that, figure is a bit more fuzzy and goes from 86%-100% drop in new births.

    Dig deeper, sleep cooler, ... and keep your genes in global pool :)

    --
    http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
  19. They don't NEED to. by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A warmer climate means more food, simpler shelters, and lower energy costs. (Or they would be, without air conditioning, which is a luxury in all but the hottest places.) Where it snows, everything is more expensive, so people have to work more than they would otherwise. From a labor perspective, global warming will bring about freedom from slavery.

    1. Re:They don't NEED to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some people just shouldn't work... because they do more damage than good.

    2. Re:They don't NEED to. by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      A warmer climate means more food, simpler shelters, and lower energy costs. (Or they would be, without air conditioning, which is a luxury in all but the hottest places.) Where it snows, everything is more expensive, so people have to work more than they would otherwise. From a labor perspective, global warming will bring about freedom from slavery.

      Oh you optimist! Just like computers would mean we only would be working four hours a day four days a week by the year 2000.

    3. Re:They don't NEED to. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Not in the tropics, which is the region that their model addresses.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:They don't NEED to. by Lluc · · Score: 2

      Oh you optimist! Just like computers would mean we only would be working four hours a day four days a week by the year 2000.

      Once you factor in the amount of time you waste on Slashdot, your 16 hour (4 hours x 4 days) work week is pretty accurate!

    5. Re:They don't NEED to. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A warmer climate means more food

      [citation needed]

      You're going to have to prove or at least somehow demonstrate that. It may not actually prove to be true.

      From a labor perspective, global warming will bring about freedom from slavery

      Snicker snort.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:They don't NEED to. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That was correct, but instead we've kept the work hours the same and concentrated the increased wealth produced.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:They don't NEED to. by stymy · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind that peak solar output matches very closely with peak power consumption from air conditioning, which can take care of that power draw in the warmer climates.

    8. Re:They don't NEED to. by fredrated · · Score: 1

      This sad sack of shit got modded 5 informative?
      The moderators at /. have taken leave of their senses.

    9. Re:They don't NEED to. by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It was proven when the climate shifted from the Medieval warm period to the Little Ice Age. Well, it was shown that as it gets colder there is less food available. It is kind of hard to grow food when there is no summer (1816: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer ). And it contributed greatly to the Starving Time of the Jamestown settlement (1609: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time_(Jamestown) )

    10. Re:They don't NEED to. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      It was proven when the climate shifted from the Medieval warm period to the Little Ice Age. Well, it was shown that as it gets colder there is less food available.

      Logical fallacy, moving the goalposts.

      Today we have the technology to grow food in cold climates, it's highly similar to the technology we use to store food in the refrigerator conveniently... the plastic bag. But the technology for growing food in very hot climates, like the desert, is significantly more complex. It exists, but the repertoire is significantly more limited (it's easier to trap heat than it is to pump it away) and there are more opportunities for failure, not to mention a higher initial energy cost and higher ongoing energy cost.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:They don't NEED to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you optimist! Just like computers would mean we only would be working four hours a day four days a week by the year 2000.

      The French figured it out

    12. Re:They don't NEED to. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Work is 40 hours a week for the lucky ones and unemployment and poverty for the rest.

      But on average....

    13. Re:They don't NEED to. by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      It remains significantly less difficult and expensive to grow food in warmer climates than in cold ones. I don't even get how desertification is supposed to be a problem; the arctic gets pushed further north, too. The temperate zone isn't going to disappear, it's going to move.

    14. Re:They don't NEED to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you advocate paying someone who worked say, 20 hours a week, at a regular job, enough to live in comfort? How about someone who worked 10 hours a week?

    15. Re:They don't NEED to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caught ya, flat earther!

      The world is round.

      The temperate zone will move from a larger area to a smaller area.

  20. For me to be in a comedy club... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry.

  21. Breed! by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    The answer is obvious. Let's throw more people at the probem. We just have to make up for each persons 10% cut in productivity by putting 10% more workers out there, and paying each one 10% less. Problem solved...or something.

    1. Re:Breed! by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      Breeding is unnecessary for this solution. We already have a whole bunch of unemployed people, supposedly because there's not enough jobs for them, making the market very competitive and weighted towards capital.

      The punchline: this is an actual solution and not a joke, as you are treating it. In America, an eight hour day is still considered standard, and most people who manage to keep their jobs put in a great deal more work than that. This is unhealthy and exploitative, and causes the usual behavior of employers of using up their employees and replacing them when no more can be squeezed. There are many people struggling in abject, desperate poverty because they are basically waiting in a very long line for a job they're qualified for, and that line only exists because employers insist on sticking with the current standard of full-time-and-then-some employment.

      If we switched from a three-shift day to a four-shift day, many more people could be employed to do the same work for very close to the same cost. The people who had full-time jobs before this switch would get less money, but they would need less since they'd avoid many of the ridiculously overblown health care costs that Americans currently rack up due to their backward, punitive work ethic. Meanwhile, the newly-employed people would have enough to at least avoid homelessness.

      Of course, this will never, ever, ever happen. Large corporations will scream bloody murder if we try to make it happen, because they know the real benefit here is that labor will no longer be so hungry and fearful. When we no longer feel that slavery is necessary to avoid poverty, we will not allow capital to abuse us. What's more, with a six-hour day, we'd have the time and energy to do something about it when they do. And that would be just terrible.

    2. Re:Breed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Americans currently rack up due to their backward, punitive work ethic"

      Have some more cheese and wine Frenchman.

    3. Re:Breed! by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      Born and raised American, never even visited Canada. I just have the brains and free time (due to disability) to take notice of what actually makes the world work.

  22. "Political" Science by drik00 · · Score: 2

    What ever happened to "correlation does not mean causality?" I mean, I get more and more tired as the day goes on, and... I think it's because the sun is in the sky.

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    1. Re:"Political" Science by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      What ever happened to "correlation does not mean causality?"

      It's still here, and alive and well. Whatever happened to you to make you think you're smarter than everyone else? The limiting factor on muscle work isn't lactic acid as we once believed, it's temperature. Keeping the muscles cooler means they can work longer, and it's the single most important factor. Only a total ignoranus or an asshole promoting some agenda would have a hard time believing that humans will output less work when it's hotter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Whole goal was less labor for man.... by realsilly · · Score: 2

    I thought the whole goal of inventing machines was to make jobs easier for human beings.

    Even if there is some valid conjecture behind this science, since the beginning of time, man has invented tools and machines to make jobs less difficult for man to do, thus decreasing the labor. And I know that when I don't have to work as hard, I enjoy lounging on a beach chair in a bikini soaking up the warmer weather and relaxing.

    There is much more to all of this I would believe. The world's population has increased tremendously and now there are more people and less work to be done, and I'd gather that a majority of the world's population is located in warmer climate areas, this conclusion would appear to me to be conjecture. ...but this is just my take on it...just an observation.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Whole goal was less labor for man.... by 32771 · · Score: 1

      The whole idea was to achieve higher throughput to make more money in the same amount of time. The higher throughput would enable you to support more people which is essentially the driver behind growth, and now you have to continue to support these people with your hands work. Oh, what did I just say, not with your hands work but with your energy slave's hands work. Good luck with that.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    2. Re:Whole goal was less labor for man.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      It SHOULD be (imo), but it's been used to simply get people to make more stuff so far. There's a huge body of literature about this going back the last couple hundred years. I suggest starting with "How to Be Idle", it gives a good overview on the subject, is a fun read, and points one in some good directions on where humanity may have gone wrong in our drive to Be Really Busy.

      --
      -
  24. According to deniers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to deniers, is there anything global warming CAN do?

    Hurricanes? Nope.
    Sea level rise? Nope.
    Heatwaves? Nope.
    Flooding? Nope.
    Storms? Nope.
    Change the weather at all? Nope.

    1. Re:According to deniers by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Open a jar of pickles? Nope..

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  25. WTF? by gravis777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe the amount of work actually done in the past 60 years has gone down because of union regulations (amount of time you are able to work a day, number of breaks required to give workers), regulations against child labor, regulation of minors in the workforce, and the possibility that a lot of jobs in the past 60 years (not all mind you) have turned from factories and physical labor to offices. Many occupations have also modernized and mechanized, increasing production and decreasing the need for physical labor.

    While a 1-3 degree difference in temperatures (or even 5-10 degrees if you want to get drastic) is enough to cause global enviornmental issues, I doubt that anyone is going to say "Shoot, its 73 today whereas 60 years ago it was 70, Oh, its just too hot, I can't work today". "Oh, its summer in Phoenix, its 110 today instead of 107 it was 60 years ago on this day, oh, I just can't do anything".

    Really really stupid corrolation.

    That is like saying the number of viewers of the Today Show has increaded substantially over the past 60 years, so we are going to say that The Today Show has got to be the most awesome show on television, and take into no account the number of households who have bought televisions in the past 60 years, the population growth, or even comparing it to the actual percentage of total viewers now versus then.

    1. Re:WTF? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't about pointing to a change and saying "this was caused by that". This is about taking what we now know about the effect of heat stress on labour output (as determined by the US military, for example), looking at the change in climate in the tropical regions, and looking at how that change in heat stress should have affected labour output, and how it should affect labour output in the future.

      They've created a model based on empirical data, tested it against historical results, and projected it into the future with a testable prediction. The "climate science isn't science because it's not experimental" crowd should be here imminently.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:WTF? by Bengie · · Score: 2

      I doubt that anyone is going to say "Shoot, its 73 today whereas 60 years ago it was 70, Oh, its just too hot, I can't work today".

      It's a 3 degree change in the average across the globe and with wider variations.

      It's more like in one part of the Earth "Shoot, its 10f today whereas 60 years ago it was 40f" and in another part of the world "Shoot, its 90f today whereas 60 years ago it was 70f"

      But don't worry, it's only a 3 degree average increase. This last year alone, over 1,000 high temp records were broken around the world in only a 2 week period. That could easily be just a fluke, but it still doesn't make me feel any better about the constant increase of average temps that is happening every year for over 30 years in a row.

    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summers last longer though, and you will have more extreme weather days.

    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They've created a model based on empirical data, tested it against historical results, and projected it into the future with a testable prediction.

      Will anybody be there in 37 years to check and see how it failed?

      No. The money is in making dire predictions, not in question the climastrology dogma.

    5. Re:WTF? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      So you universally reject long-term forecasting? How do you feel about the odds of Comet Halley coming back?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  26. In mediterranean countries they mitigate by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    In mediterranean countries they mitigate against this by working in the early morning, sleeping for the hottest part of the day, and working until very late evening. Two four-hour sleeps suits hot climates much better than one eight hour one. I wouldn't be surprised if in a much hotter climate an 8-hour sleep in daylight and working through the night made more sense

    1. Re:In mediterranean countries they mitigate by invient · · Score: 1

      A long time ago I read somewhere that people who sleep in two four hour increments have better over all health indicators.... Not sure where I read it, or how long ago, but I specifically remember them mentioning the Mediterranean area for this specific sleep pattern...

  27. that's idiotic by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Work slowed down quite a bit here today because there's a snow storm. So if it was 40 degrees out instead, our productivity and workload would go up. In fact, this is a landscaping company so it would go way up. So hotter places that are so hot and swampy and miserable and unbearable that nobody should be living there right now (aka Mexico, Florida, Georgia, etc) will go down in productivity but places like this will go up.

    1. Re:that's idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not staying the study is accurate, and while it says increased temps, remember global warming doesn't always mean warmer temperatures.

      Global warming also accounts for colder temps and just general bad weather. That could have also been why the study found what it did.

  28. I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "oops, Global Warming is a red herring."

    We're all just lazy fucks. And we're dying. Because we were so busy arguing about Global Warming, we forgot to do anything about the causes of, what we mistakenly thought, was Global Warming but instead are pollutants just plain killing us.

    Oh, but the deniers will orgasm and mod this up and the Chicken Littles will mod this down as they screech, "Denier!" Meanwhile, I can't eat tuna because of the ever increasing levels of mercury.

  29. Propaganda by demon+driver · · Score: 1

    Even if the study's figures themselves may somehow be "correct", there's still the continued productivity increase per person through advance of technology - even though "labor capacity" might have dropped and might continue to drop.

    Seems to be a study to give bespoke rationale for those in power to further increase work time or invent new socially detrimental measures to fight the impending shortage of workforce. While, in long term reality, increasing unemployment is the only thing to be expected.

    1. Re:Propaganda by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      You'll get the same technical progress either way, it's just that in one scenario you multiply that output by 0.8 to account for the effect of increased temperatures.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  30. Anyone who says there is no global warming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is a denier. So we don't need to listen to them.

    It's obvious that Global Warming is going to kill us all. In a few years. Always in a few years. If it ever happens, god forbid that we should move to higher latitudes. As I recall, the projections (which aren't happening at all at the moment, are for around 2degC in a century. That would mean an average move northwards of about 150 miles per century if you wanted to keep the same temperature.

    I wonder why we don't cut the money going to global warming and spend it on meteor watching. The recent 500kton hit in Russia would have wiped out a town if it had hit it, and we didn't see it coming. That's a real threat...

  31. Cracked Article FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite a coincidence that I read this after I just finished reading a cracked article about BS stories, being one of the topics was the "doom by set date".

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

  32. Causality can involve more than one step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're all quite glad that you discovered that you don't "catch a cold" by stepping out into the cold. At this rate you'll soon learn about the Transistor!

    That said, low temperatures make many people more susceptible the viruses and bacteria that are ultimately responsible, and ironically, the low humidity caused by running our heating systems during this weather contributes greatly to that problem. At the other end, heat intolerance is a condition people in my family suffer from and it makes them quite useless at temperatures I find perfectly comfortable.

    The GP's post was on topic and required no correction. These are real problems. If the average temperatures in your climate zone go up or down 5 degrees, it's not hard to imagine that workers in unairconditioned spaces (often called laborers) would end up less productive as a result.

    1. Re:Causality can involve more than one step by JDevers · · Score: 1

      W Drop the temperature by ten Kelvins and I'll catch a nasty cold.

      Seems to me that he most certainly blamed catching a cold on a pretty minor temperature drop.

    2. Re:Causality can involve more than one step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that he most certainly blamed catching a cold on a pretty minor temperature drop.

      No, I simply suffer from chronic bronchitis. It is barely noticeable under normal conditions, but leads to nasty complications for me when the conditions are *not* normal. Also, we have asthma in the family. (I guess my lungs have simply been doomed from the birth.)

    3. Re:Causality can involve more than one step by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      W Drop the temperature by ten Kelvins and I'll catch a nasty cold.

      Seems to me that he most certainly blamed catching a cold on a pretty minor temperature drop.

      Going from a nice day that's at 80 degrees Fahrenheit, to suddenly 62 degrees Fahrenheit (maybe due to a rain storm) is hardly a "pretty minor temperature drop."

      It may not be enough for most people to catch a cold, but the OP seems to be in the unfortunate class of people who are more susceptible to them.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  33. Or it could be... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    That too many people have become lazy, narcissistic and generally so full of themselves that they think they're worth more than they really are. Add to that a group of people who blow smoke up the collective asses of these self-absorbed folk by promising them anything and everything in order to obtain and maintain power and influence.

    Attention: Ship B is leaving and you need to get on board now before the Earth blows up.

  34. Climate change vs latitude by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    World temperature gradient vs latitude is ~ +1 degree C per 145 km latitude toward the equator. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Temperature_versus_Latitude_png

    World temperature change since 1910 is ~ .7 degree C. http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Climate-change-is-real.aspx'

    Ohio is ~370km north-to-south, so that's about 3.6 times the temperature difference from 1910 to now.

    Are people in southern Ohio 30-40% less productive than people in northern Ohio?

    1. Re:Climate change vs latitude by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Ohio's temperature doesn't vary nearly that much from north to south; the mean temperature in Cleveland is only about one degree lower than that in Cincinnati.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Climate change vs latitude by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and that just highlights one of the problems with the kind of global "calculation" done in that NOAA paper. There are too many assumptions subsumed into those global statistics and too much variance to draw local conclusions from them.

    3. Re:Climate change vs latitude by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Right, that's why it doesn't draw local conclusions. It determines a global average effect.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  35. To deniers is there anything it can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heatwaves? No.
    Flooding? No.
    Hurricanes? No.
    Melt ice? No.
    Change the weather in any way, shape or form? No.

    1. Re:To deniers is there anything it can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes? Yes
      Tsunamis? Yes
      Meteor Strikes? Yes
      And any other calamity? Yes

  36. Oh, another Global Warming thread by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Time to play "Dog Pile on the Rabbit" with the mockery.

    After all, one can never let the topic of Global Warming go un-mocked - that would be a dereliction of duty!

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  37. Re:Sorry, too lazy to read summary by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    You're missing the fact that Portugal is 38 degrees north of the equator, and it's February/March.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  38. Someone must have read Cracked this morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cracked just had an article on things like this about how everything is going to collapse in 2050. Fisheries, mankind and the earth itself! Man 2050 is sure going to suck...

  39. No kidding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I see that whoever did these studies, never seen a Mexican construction crew in August here in Georgia - in 100+ heat.

    And they got their work done well and on time.

    I'll bet they never saw a crew of them in Texas either, working in 110+ heat.

    The reduced labor output is not because of the global warming... it's caused by unbridled growth of the FSA, socialism and the welfare state. Too many people living on the dole that don't want to work. Those who do want to earn an honest living and try to better their financial position are indeed not afraid of hard work, and despite the bad economy there is work available. Maybe not the work you'd like, but in a pinch, any job is a job... and those of us who are working hard are getting tired of paying dearly for those who don't want to, and it's going to come to a breaking point soon.

    1. Re:No kidding... by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "despite the bad economy there is work available"

      There might be work available in Texas but that doesn't mean there is work available everywhere.

      I had to make an emergency still unemployed relocation across the country from FL to NM because it took a year to get a crappy Job in FL (bottom level retail crappy) and despite having no kids and relocating to the cheapest apartment I could find and cutting all possible costs that job didn't pay enough to keep afloat. After the move I was amazed when applying for positions actually resulted in responses again and had no problem getting not just a crappy job but an excellent position in my chosen profession.

    2. Re:No kidding... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      There might be work available in Texas but that doesn't mean there is work available everywhere.

      Well, as you found, often you have to move to where the jobs are...inconvenient, but that's life these days.

      The days of having a job in one place for life has been LONG gone, even before the recession hit. If you want to progress in the W2 world, you have to quit and seek out new jobs every 3 years or so, and be prepared to move where they are.

      In tech, however, telecommuting is easing the pain of this somewhat though.

      Glad to hear your story had a happy ending.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:No kidding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "despite the bad economy there is work available"

      There might be work available in Texas but that doesn't mean there is work available everywhere.

      I had to make an emergency still unemployed relocation across the country from FL to NM because it took a year to get a crappy Job in FL (bottom level retail crappy) and despite having no kids and relocating to the cheapest apartment I could find and cutting all possible costs that job didn't pay enough to keep afloat. After the move I was amazed when applying for positions actually resulted in responses again and had no problem getting not just a crappy job but an excellent position in my chosen profession.

      FL to NM? Glutton for punishment much?

    4. Re:No kidding... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Yep, wages in retail establishments suck. Just a clue though: since an apartment is a major expense, an effective way to cut expenses is to share an apartment.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  40. Bingo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, just keep on giving me my food stamps, unemployment checks and Obamaphones and me and my homies won't riot and burn down the cities. :-/

  41. I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like an excuse for LAZY PEOPLE.

  42. Reading between the lines... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    So... over the next 60 years its going to continue to get hotter and hotter and .....hmmmmm.... wetter? I thought it was supposed to get hotter and drier?

  43. Hm. by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

    My outlook has always been hard work may pay off in the future, but laziness pays off now. I'm the V.P. of Lazy despite what the weather is!

  44. Re:Sorry, too lazy to read summary by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it's snowing like hell in the North of Portugal, and it is forecasted to snow in the South tonight. What was your comment about, again?

  45. Yeah, got citations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Earthquakes? Yes"

    Well, this one there is a small contribution. Heat. Expansion. Google it.

    "Tsunamis? Yes" Strawman denier statement.
    "Meteor Strikes? Yes" Strawman denier statement.
    "And any other calamity? Yes" Strawman denier statement.

    Really? Any citation? Beause there's plenty in the deniersphere about how the hurricane Sandy wasn't caused by GW, that the record heatwaves aren't GW, that no weather event is EVER caused by GW, nor even affected.

  46. Dont't freak out by judoguy · · Score: 1
    I worked as a carpenter in the deep South for many years. Only Yankees complained about the heat, seriously.

    Yeah, it was really hot in the summer, but no one died or made a big deal of it. You just work. The upside is that we got a lot more done in the winter.

    Guys, it would have to get *really* hot, really fast to make a difference. My experience is that you get used to whatever you need to. I moved to MN a while back and was shocked by the cold, but yesterday as I went off to my programming job, I told the wife, "Hey 18(Fahrenheit) above this morning, summer is almost here!". I wasn't kidding.

    I built my house a few years ago and worked though the winter nights and weekends. I worked in temperatures I wouldn't have believed could be survived, much less been productive in.

    If the temperature goes up, we'll all be OK.

    Side note: Space heating is a huge user of energy. Real warming will reduce that.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:Dont't freak out by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The upside is that we got a lot more done in the winter.

      Guys, it would have to get *really* hot, really fast to make a difference.

      I''m confused.

  47. Pseudoscientific farce continues by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    (Actual report conveniently behind a paywall)

    A fundamental aspect of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is a global-scale increase in absolute humidity1, 2. Under continued warming, this response has been shown to pose increasingly severe limitations on human activity in tropical and mid-latitudes during peak months of heat stress3. One heat-stress metric with broad occupational health applications4, 5, 6 is wet-bulb globe temperature. We combine wet-bulb globe temperatures from global climate historical reanalysis7 and Earth System Model (ESM2M) projections8, 9, 10 with industrial4 and military5 guidelines for an acclimated individualâ(TM)s occupational capacity to safely perform sustained labour under environmental heat stress (labour capacity)â"here defined as a global population-weighted metric temporally fixed at the 2010 distribution. We estimate that environmental heat stress has reduced labour capacity to 90% in peak months over the past few decades. ESM2M projects labour capacity reduction to 80% in peak months by 2050. Under the highest scenario considered (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), ESM2M projects labour capacity reduction to less than 40% by 2200 in peak months, with most tropical and mid-latitudes experiencing extreme climatological heat stress. Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.

    My guess is that they used the 'labor guidelines' from the comfortably indolent Western societies to claim that 'based on standard X, people cannot work more than Y hours when the temp goes over Z'.

    Really? Do we REALLY see that tropical societies are furloughing people, and stopping labor when the temp reaches over a certain level? Because in Iraq, equatorial African, South American, and SE South Asian states I've served in some pretty rough conditions, I don't see anybody giving the slightest shit that "it's bloody hot"*.

    *except for the pasty fat Americans, Europeans, and increasingly, Chinese and Japanese....

    Really this report has a lot of fancy graphs and tables, but the core of it is this root guess that people don't adapt which is complete folderol.

    In short, more FUD from the Global Warming Industry.

    --
    -Styopa
  48. Re:CO2, it cools, it warms, it untied my shoes by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Predicted warming did not occur

    It did occur and it is still happening. You living under a rock? Next thing we'll hear is that 640KB of memory is enough and we still don't use more than 640KB.

  49. NOAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOAA, another source of government propaganda.
    Don't tell me you trust the government.

  50. Silly beyond measure by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Except for the massive uptick in diseases (North American Malaria is back, btw) and a dearth of potable water from no snow melt....

    But you keep preachin', Pollyanna!

  51. Second rate models no less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/02/second-rate-us-numerical-weather.html

    1. Re:Second rate models no less by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      -1 Offtopic. Although they have things in common a weather model is not a climate model. In fact TFP you refer to complains that some of the computer resources used for climate modeling would be better spent to improve the US's numerical weather modeling.

  52. I did ask her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She said that you certainly are a people with vivid imaginations.

  53. So productivity is down about 10%. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    And unemployment is running at about 10%.

    What's that Baldrick? You have a cunning plan?

  54. Meanwhile by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The real reason that there is less work being done is because people are being layed off or working reduced hours due to 'austerity measures'

    What is the global unemployment rate?

  55. Not just heat, also clean water and energy by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    In fact, it is highly likely (read CIA analyses and various scientific studies) that much of the world will more resemble 50 C areas of Australia, but without access to clean water and power.

    In the US, this will hit most regions of the country, with the marked exception of the Pacific NW (BC, WA, ID, part of MT, OR).

    Adapt. Or die.

    Or maybe stop using coal and oil and stop whining about it. But changing that won't affect things before 2040, by which time it will be much worse.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  56. Star Trek? by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does anyone else immediately think of that one episode of Star Trek (The Inner Light) every time we start talking about global warming. We should just start work on our space probe and brush up on our Ressikan flute skills; There's nothing we can do about the sun going nova.

  57. Get out of the AC by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    These report writers need to get out of their air conditioned office and experience the real world where the temperatures vary from -45ÂF to over 100ÂF and I'm not even in an extreme climate. The real world is not a climate controlled 72ÂF 24/7. We have seasons.

  58. More excuses than a.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOAA is just making up excuses for another global warming tantrum.
    They got more excuses than a nigger going to jail.
    Don't get me started about Eskimos. The only race Niggers can look down on.
    They don't work at all. After Disney made that dumb movie about "Nanook" everyone felt so sorry for the life of the poor Eskimo, people got Congress to "help" the wife swapping babykillers. They now live in government housing, eat government food, watch t.v. and do nothing. No hunting, no igloos, just soak up beer and t.v. At least Niggers have to look for a job and get kicked off assistance after 5 years.
    When they did Eskimo stuff, if you had more than one girl child, the new one was smothered, wrapped in a blanket and put in the front of the kayak for hunting luck.
    If you stayed with an Eskimo you were expected to eat blubber and intestine. Intestine is eaten nearly fresh, you cut off a chunk, squeeze the shit out of it, turn it inside out and chew the soft stuff off it. Wonder why they rub noses? Who wants to kiss shit breath?You are expected to take their hospitality by also taking their wife to bed and leaving your load leaking out of them or it is highly insulting as if the fat shit eating bitch were somehow beneath your attention and summarily your host.
    Don't even call an Alaska Indian an Eskimo, they get insulted and want to kick your ass. Gee, wonder why?
    Alaska Indians are good hard working people who shun assistance.
    Thanks a lot Disney!

  59. Global temperatures? I have another theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World labor capacity has been dropping over the past 60 years, you say? Could it have anything to do with the rise of fascism and big government, which continually saps ever increasing chunks of our economic strength? I predict this trend will continue....until it finally and inevitably ends in a massively destructive war, of course.

  60. OP Got It Wrong by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Whether the report itself is dumb I won't speculate about. But it does not say what OP claims it says.

    TFA does NOT say that "global warming" has reduced labor by 10%. What is says is that summers -- summers in general -- reduce labor by 10% compared to the rest of the year. There is no mention at all about current levels being caused by global warming.

    TFA then goes on to explain that *IF* Global Warming continues at the rate some people predict, those summer reductions will THEN increase and cause reduced production.

    Even the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, admits there has been "a 17-year pause" in Global Warming. Some people need to catch up and get with the program. The draft report of the IPCC's upcoming Assessment Report has toned things down a lot too. Like admissions that there is little to no evidence after all that cyclonic energy (hurricanes, etc.) will increase, and more.

    1. Re:OP Got It Wrong by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Funny since construction work is not an insignificant part of the economy and tends to be busiest during the summer months...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:OP Got It Wrong by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Funny since construction work is not an insignificant part of the economy and tends to be busiest during the summer months..."

      You'd have to talk to the authors of TFA. They said it, not me.

  61. lol! sovereignty, much? by microbox · · Score: 1

    There are vilified becasue of the accuracy and effectiveness.

    They are vilified because of this little thing called sovereignty. And aside from that, we don't know they are effective, just that the military industrial complex tells us so. Just what is the collateral damage? How many terrorists are we making through collateral damage? For example, someone with a vested interested may think that 80% collateral damage is accurate and effective.

    The program is vilified because it violates sovereignty, and we don't really know what is going on.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  62. Jst the Facts, M'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote a famous American -

    "Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.
    -- Homer Simpson

  63. What warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What warming? There has been no warming for the last 15-17 years despite CO2 going up 8-10%.

    How long until you all admit that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? 20 years? 30? 50? Never?

    How will a "little ice age" affect human ability to work?

  64. What about colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about colder temps?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    Looks like it is happening. Hmmm.