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."
No, they deny ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. That's my biggest beef with IPCC: they started with a conclusion, and the inherent bias of that made their conclusion inevitable.
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?", so that all possible causes and inputs could have been considered. . .
Actually, for me, it's just an issue of "I don't care". Let the oceans rise three feet. Couldn't bother me less. What does bother me is the huge amount of government (at whatever level) that it would take to actually implement the "mitigation strategies" you present.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Oh man you are so wrong.
Fact: CO2 is actually a very small contributor to the "greenhouse effect" the main contributor being BY FAR water vapor. Moreover MOST of the CO2 come from NATURAL sources not human.
Fact: The skewed numerical models created to prove global warming through CO2 DO NOT WORK.
Fact: It has been showed that changes in CO2 level in the past was followed by a corresponding change in temperatures with a lag of ~800 years. Therefore it's not a cause... it's a consequence !
Fact: In recent history, temperature did not follow CO2 level.
Fact: Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
Fact: IPCC is full of it.
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.
It will cost industry billions and billions of dollars. Of course this is the price they pay for polluting the environment. It has always cost a lot of money to clean up their messes (and there have been many). Rather than thinking ahead and being good stewards of the Earth they act like greedy bastards knowing full well that this won't come back to haunt them in their lifetimes.
The rich guys will still make their money. They'll just have to raise rates on those of us who are dependent on their industries.
This is a threshold of evidence required of exactly 0 other taxes and government activities, and in the face of pretty substantial economic and scientific research saying exactly that. I think that it's fair to reject your special pleading.
"these people" are pushing for better (more efficient, sustainable, etc) technology, not less of it. Saying that "these people" are trying to take away your cars is setting up a straw man argument, plain and simple.
Second of all... have you done the math on how long it will take the human population to decrease as a result of the declining birth rate? And compare that to how quickly the carbon footprint of the middle class is rising? Do the math... then talk.
Lastly... if climate change is allowed to continue unabated then the economic impacts will affect our levels of education and technology. Look at new orleans and new york - that's billions in economic effort spent that could have been spent on tech and education.
You are discussing HOW it should be done, having conveniently decided, without justification, WHAT should be done, i.e. reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Please, first prove that reducing GHG emissions is the best strategy. After that we can discuss how to do so.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
T...we want to make a significant dent in AGW before it's too late.
Where is your scientific and economic proof that this is the appropriate response?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
This. Coming from Australia, a country similarly sized to the US and also lacking high speed rail (and thus essentially dependent on the car and air travel), there are a lot of short trips that I am forced to make in my car here (in the US) that I could have walked in Australia. This is because many (not all, but most) US cities are terribly designed. It's not suburban sprawl that's the issue (Australia has just as much of that as teh US), but rather that there's no sidewalks, random uncrossable highways (walls, no pedestrian underpasses/overpasses), isolated far-flung strip malls and malls far from residential neighborhoods (instead of the little local shopping centres like you have in Australia).
I work from home and thus don't need to commute. I live in a similarly sized city than I did in Australia (400,000 vs 360,000). But nonetheless I am noticing I'm putting approximately twice the miles on my car per year than I did at home, despite living a similar lifestyle. I used to be able to walk 10 minutes and get to my local shops, which had a supermarket, butcher, baker, post office, newsagent and a few cafes and restaurants. Now I have to drive ten minutes to get to that stuff. And I'd still have to drive even if I lived closer, because it's a giant mall surrounded by 2 square miles of concrete parking lot, right off a major highway with no way of crossing.
In both countries, long distance travel relies, and will continue to rely on air and the car (though Australia is seriously considering an east-coast high speed rail line - the 600 mile long Sydney-Melbourne corridor is the fourth busiest air route in the world so it'd probably work). But car use could be reduced locally in the US with some urban planning changes (and incentives to get people to change their habits ... which may or may not include raising the price of fuel, which is very low by developed-world standards anyway).