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."
The good news is that governments don't have to do a lot. Increase taxes on fossil fuel, lower taxes on income, fund basic research and other promising but currently unprofitable research into energy saving and energy production and distribution.
The details are going to be a bit tricky, but not prohibitively so if all political parties agree that it needs to be done. That 'if' is admittedly a rather significant one, but it may help to talk more about the carrot part of the deal, i.e. the lower income taxes.
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
Bullshit. The greenhouse effect is well understood. So is the amount of CO2/methane/etc. we're putting into the atmosphere.
No sig today...
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.
The 'increase taxes on fossil fuel' part is a deal-breaker in the US. Even with the current very low petrol tax, the national pasttimes include grumbling about the cost to fill up. People there aren't going to be at all happy about losing their cheap gas - the car is more than a means of transport, it's a symbol of individual freedom and independence.
I like how you've clearly defined "environment movement" to only count the people who are actually rabid lunatics, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of environmentalists who would be happy to see funding for alternative energy research and better climate monitoring.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
Nothing short of humanity committing mass suicide will ever make them happy.
But that's already predicted to happen, at least on a grand scale.
As education and technology improves the birth rate decreases. Worldwide population is expected to spike to over 10 billion, due to increasing age, before declining to below current levels.
If ... actually this is ironic ... the only way this could go awry is if humans decide to decrease their level of technology on purpose. Which is basically what the carbon taxes are about. So basically these people are asking to get the opposite of what they want because they think they're sooo smart but don't consider second, third and beyond -level effects.
What we actually need to do is to push as hard as possible on the economy, creating excess wealth, some of which will fund additional science (the more the better IMO) and rapidly get to the point of having sustainable non-fossil fuels (safe nuclear (eventually fusion), static towers, convection chimneys, perhaps solar, etc.). This stuff is only going to happen organically, not by some industrial model of the population where a few self-appointed "smart people" tell everybody else what to do.
Stalling out the economy will produce exactly the opposite effect of what these people claim to want. Which makes me question what they really want.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Climate modellers are well aware of the uncertainty in their parameters. That's why in modern work, they run their model with ranges of parameters determined to be plausible based on empirical observation, and output a range of possible outcomes. Future observation and comparison with the model allows them to refine the parameter range to be more realistic.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The tax isn't just low, the petrol is subsidized. (With about $4 billion annually.)
You just need to convince people that subsidizing is a sign of communism and let them weigh their fear of communism against their symbol of freedom and independence.
Let's also not forget we have 50 contiguous US states, many of which are the size of the whole of UK ( Louisiana is probably closet ). Our 'symbol' of individual freedom is often times the means by which we visit family, go on vacation, and for some unlucky people commute for over an hour in to get into work. Then there's the people who work on the road, as well as the haulers.
I'm really glad some of you EU nations have managed to put up a full service light rail system connecting all your major cities, in an area about as large as the five boroughs of NYC.
Our lack of "petrol" tax has more to do with keeping our economy strong then remaining 'independent'.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
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.
And the same can be said for Christians, Republicans, Sports fans, people who insist chocolate ice-cream is better, and all those people who try to tell me how awesome emacs is even though they're wrong. The rabid people have a fixed position which in their minds is unassailable -- that's true. That doesn't mean that anybody who has any intersection with that group exhibits the same level of zeal or irrationality.
See, if you throw out the entire notion that we're fucking up the planet (or anything else) on the basis of the most lunatic element of any group you're being an idiot. I'm a vegetarian, but I look at half the stuff PETA does and just shake my head.
That, however, in no way changes that climate change definitely seems to be happening, the actual overwhelming scientific consensus is that we're causing it, and that if we don't do something about it then long-term we're probably fucked.
So, if we judge this based on all idiots called TWiTfan, since there are people who have extreme environmental ideas, fuck it, lets burn everything because there's no point in trying to do anything.
If we judge the world according the Westboro Baptist Church we're all evil sinners and God is doing this to punish us,
If we judge this by the most 'free market' position there is, then clearly 'the market' has indicated it wants pollution and global warming as a desirable outcome.
Sorry, but you have just acted as extreme and idiotic as the people you're bitching about. Big deal, you have identified that there will always be people who take their ideas to extreme -- and you've managed to say nothing at all intelligent about the topic at hand.
The world isn't a black and white "everybody who slightly disagrees with me is wrong". And, as anybody who has ever dealt with a rabid idiot who makes such assertions can tell you, they often act like irrational douchebags -- so, congratulations, you're in good company.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They don't even have to "care about staying in power"; representative democracy uses voter preference as a proxy for ability, and therefore ultimately the people who are elected are those who are best at being elected and not necessarily those who are best for the role.
The beauty of democracy in practice is getting electability as strongly coupled to performance as possible, and the ugly side of ever pre-election campaign is the effort to decouple the two wherever convenient.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
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.
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."