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."
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.
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.
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
You apparently can't read comments when they don't agree with your logic.
I'm not saying the data is wrong; I am saying there is NO PROOF OF CORRELATION because there are more external variables than you can possibly count or even use. Therefore, the report is a conjecture of unproven relational attributes and theoretical, hypothetical, time-wasting attempts to tie information together into something that proves *ANY POINT* in relation.
That data can be read, reported, graphed, and put into reports all you want. What you can't do, unless you're completely lacking scientific process, is to tie something that has hundreds of thousands (and I'm just making that number up, BTW) of external modifiers to data points and to say that they are related in a cause-effect relationship.
The fucking data is fine. The use of the data in generating a relational cause and effect REPORT is COMPLETE BS.
Did I stutter on this reply, or is my initial comment clear now?