Slashdot Mirror
International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming
mdsolar writes "An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound."
This comes alongside news of research into one of those short-term factors: higher than average rainfall over Australia. "Three atmospheric patterns came together above the Indian and Pacific Oceans in 2010 and 2011. When they did, they drove so much precipitation over Australia that the world's ocean levels dropped measurably." According to Phys.org, "A rare combination of two other semi-cyclic climate modes came together to drive such large amounts of rain over Australia that the continent, on average, received almost one foot (300 millimeters) of rain more than average. ... Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century
- Only governments have the power to change this.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably won't be alive by the end of the century.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he is rich enough to move his beach mansion three feet higher.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably doesn't give a fuck about what happens to those who aren't.
I wish that a similar amount of scientific effort would go into deciding what (if anything) to do about it.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Here you go: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/#Stages%20of%20Denial
You are at Stage 2: "We don’t know why it’s happening" and a bit of Stage 5: "Climate change can’t be stopped"
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Islam IS the religion of peace.
First half, when Mohammed was struggling with the then-dominant religion and power base, is all about helping others and the like. The second half, where he's mostly in charge is about enforcing the new religion.
This, however, IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT from the xtians who claim that Christianity is a religion of Love. They edit and elide the monstrosity of both the Old Testament in nearly its entirety, but also much of the New Testament that doesn't gel with the profession of "Jesus Christ Loves You" as the be-all/end-all of Christianity (and therefore the christian suicide bombers like Brevik are Not True Christians).
So quite why you felt you had to single out Islamists for the hypocrisy escapes me.
It just boggles my mind that anyone could be so naive as to think emissions can be curbed significantly, in a relevant time frame, by multilateral international agreement. This to the extent that they will even spend decades trying to convince the doubters that "no, it really is anthropogenic" - as if the problem is people just don't believe enough.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
sudo make me a sandwich
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
The greenhouse effect is well understood.
It's not, though - that's basically the crux of the current arguments. The sensitivity of the various variables in the model are unclear because many of the underlying mechanisms and confounding variables (e.g. cloud formation) are poorly understood. Many of the theories are built on models which are built on theories - the assumptions become self-embedding, not built from first-principles.
We'd have a model that makes great predictions if we understood all that stuff. Imagine if a bunch of physicists got together and proposed a grand unification theory that they were confident about, thought we should make policy decisions based on (because, "or else") but they were still unable to use their model to make useful predictions.
Heck, I was showing my grandparents, who lived near the ocean, some simulator models that were published in the late 90's. By those models, the oceans were going to be lapping at their front steps by a year and a half from now. If the ocean level has risen at all, it's in the range of millimeters. They looked at it and told me to be careful to not believe everything somebody who has an agenda says.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
According to the economic ramblings of those who deny human-caused climate change, the fat blowhard's failure to take advantage of the opportunities that climate change offers is his shortcoming, so even that isn't a disadvantage if you use their logic.
No no no, that's only true when the little people fail to take advantage of something. If you inconvenience our monied overlords in any way, you're either an economy-killing, wealth-redistributing commie or a jackboot-licking statist parasite, depending on which flavor of fiscal conservatism you're up against.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Microsoft cites near certainty on superiority of Microsoft products.
Creationists cite near certainly on validity of creation science.
Etc.
The whole purpose of the international climate panel is to drum out hysteria about climate change. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
LOL, love your sources.
Like say for this one?
Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
So, it's been steadily increasing for the last 100 years?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
To a large portion of the world, You're the fat blowhard who will have slightly less money. They meanwhile could find themselves facing starvation or freezing in the winter because food and energy prices shot up.
This isn't hyperbole, just look what Bio-diesel did to some of the world's poorest.
There is no disadvantage to less pollution. It's HOW you go about doing it. Ignoring China's and India's environmental impacts while taxing the hell out of every American and European person to line the pockets of politician and political benefactor's carbon market schemes, not only is pure crap, but is stagnating an already bad economy to certain ruin.
But apparently that is what some folks desire, for some reason.
I am not anti-anti-pollution. I love the outdoors and nature. And I can tell you that even basic laws and ACTUAL enforcement has turned a lot of rivers I could not fish, due to pollution, in the 70s and 80s into thriving ecosystems in the 2000s and 2010s. You don't have to ruin world economies to clear up the pollution, no matter how much certain politically motivated parties would have you think otherwise.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The earth is a cold place. snow and ice are relatively new things in earths history and on geologic time scales they just started ocurring. The earth has historically had higher levels of CO2, and far warmer temperatures, Did this cause any problems? No it did not.
There were more species, greater plant growth, and more bio diversity than at any other time in earths history. Sea levels were higher but there were no ice caps and far from being a climate disaster, the warmer, higher CO2 earth could support MORE life.
Contrast that with the global cooling that's occurred in the last 20 million years and it's plain to see that having entire continents like Antarctica frozen solid and under miles of ice is not a normal or healthy state for our planet.
The irony is that so called 'green' movements actually seek to keep the global thermostat set on deep freeze, which HURTS plants, limits bio diversity, and we all suffer cold winters, countless deaths caused by incliment winter weather and millions of dollars of damage every year during winter months. Entire continents of our planet are uninhabitable frozen wastelands, and the most fertile soil in the northern and southern hemispheres goes to waste under months of permafrost every year.
There is nothing "green" about climate alarmists. They want to keep the earth cold when the greatest benefit to actual plant and animal life is to let it warm back up.
We might as well go to Mars right? Defeatists like your are the problem.
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
The issue isn't that we're concerned about the über wealthy losing money. The issue is that, unless you can get every single nation in the world to agree on certain environmental and worker health and safety standards, you're fighting an uphill battle. We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place. Then they have even less incentive to reduce their emissions. You have to solve the problem of globalization in order to solve the problem of industrial pollution. Otherwise we'll lose the jobs and pollution will likely get worse.
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
Given the choice between forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while doing nothing, and forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while getting our own house in order, I'm going to take the high ground. Of course, if it's a net economic loss, that's bad - the whole idea of carbon taxation and trading is to be economically neutral, with the taxes offset by reduced harms from climate change - but that's a point of debate.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
They talk a good game, but you're apparently willing to ignore the over 350 new large coal-fired power plants they're building over the next few years. China will reign supreme in CO2 generation (per-capita means nothing to the environment BTW) from here on out. India also plans to build over 450 new coal-fired plants.
As to a new "US avoidance excuse", US CO2 production is down to 1994 levels due to fracking and therefore increased use of natural gas, among other factors. Now all we need is a sane nuclear power policy, with nuclear plants replacing almost all coal-fired plants here, and CO2 production would be way down without harm to the economy. In fact, by exporting high-tech thorium generators, the US could make a ton of money.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Okay, I'll bite.
TFA says "a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century". Meanwhile NOAA http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf says 1.1-1.3 mm for the years 2007-2012. So for a layman, it would appear that the rate of ocean rise is slowing. Furthermore, if we project the most recent 1.2mm/yr average, it works out to be less than 5 inches over the next 100 years. Maybe enough to make me move my beer, but nothing to panic over.
Finally, this paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052885.shtml (which I only read the abstract) suggests a 60-Year Oscillation in Global Mean Sea Level. So, the choice of where in this cycle the measurements are taken, the results will vary drastically. And depending on the agenda of the funding source, the published conclusions can be drastically different.
For rich people, such as 90% of Americans, it costs a few thousand per year. For the uber-rich, it doesn't matter much - they just need to invest in fake solar companies rather than energy companies. It's the very poor who are deeply, even fatally affected
Take ethanol fuel, for example, which has tripled the cost of corn. Before, $10 could buy corn for three people. Now that same $10 can only feed one person. That's a big deal if you're poor, or if you're average income by global standards.
It ripples through food prices generally, of course. Most processed food that used to have corn starch is now made with wheat flour, increasing the cost of wheat. An extra $500 / year on food isn't a big deal if you're rich, making $40,000. It's a very big deal if you make $2,000 / year.
It's the same with any non-optimal production. When stuff is more costly to make, less is made, and people have less. Hardest hit are those who can't get by with any less. Any food you burn in your gas tank is food that could have fed a starving person, so in the end the cost is in lives.
Obviously that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about environmental costs. It does mean you better carefully balance them against other costs. You dont want to engage in policies which have as their primary benefit making you feel good because you're "green", at the cost of having people starve to death. Irresponsible use of CFLs are a good example of this. A CFL is great in the bathroom. For the attic or hall closet, it makes far more sense to use a 50 cent non-toxic standard bulb and give the $10 you save to United Way. You'll keep mercury and other toxins out of the environment and help someone who needs the help.
There are many solutions which do not involve economic destruction, which a quick glance around the world and through history show will be far worse for human life than global warming adaptation would be.
We would decidedly not be better off had people in 1900 slammed the brakes on economic dynamism, leaving us in 2013 with less gw and a 1956 level of technology. History shows the more government burden and intervention, the more Soviet Unionlike you get. Goodbye to not just iPads but integrated circuits, and certainly to any consumer electronics even if not.
Advancememt swamps everything else in increasing quality and length of life. Put together. It doesn't care if the burden is kickbacks or warlords or bribes or legal donations or taxation, any more than evolution cares about why another organism is sucking its blood (and telling it where to step as it walks).
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
scientists can calculate the forcing effect of greenhouse gases with certainty.
Except they can't....Sure, they can do it in a jar without any difficulty, but on an earth with a dynamically changing atmosphere, where not all parts even contain the same amount of greenhouse gases, it's very very hard. Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Correction: The US is refusing to do something about it. Europe has made a lot of progress.
Since someone will inevitably bring it up, China is not an excuse. Clean your shit up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC