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."
it is just too hot ... I need my siesta break!
"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.
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
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
Why are drone strike bad?
There are vilified becasue of the accuracy and effectiveness.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.
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.
Rebuttal: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
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.
"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
Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down.
Moron. It's not about office workers. RTFA.
Let me know when you can aircondition a farm or construction site.
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
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".
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?
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.