Slashdot Mirror
IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages
The Australian reports that "UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.
A draft of their report, seen by the news organisation AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.
Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.
'We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences ... including the implications for security,' said Chris Field of the US’s Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.
The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming. It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3C-4.8C this century, adding to roughly 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100. The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much."
The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming. It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3C-4.8C this century, adding to roughly 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100. The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much."
At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.
What a load of utter shite.
And I feel fine.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
THE SKY is falling~!!!! The sky is falling!!!!
The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...
Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates. You can actually bake the plants in too warm of a climate. A warmer climate means more evaporation of standing water, especially bad in places that don't get heavy rain fall. Not so much scare tactics, but I would take it with a grain of salt; However much easier to believe if you've actually taken the time to record your weather, I live in a place that is normally very very wet and it's been just far too dry the past 2-3 years and this year is aiming to be more dry than last years.
... the temps of the Medieval Warm Period?
We actually tried to clean up our mess, not because it's not our problem, but because it's better for everyone? There're plenty of studies that smog and other pollutants are correlated with rises in various illnesses. So, who the fark cares, if a disaster movie is what it takes to get people to get their heads out of their ass, then so be it.
"Boy who cried wolf" ring any bells?
Yes it does. You will recall that in the end, there was a real wolf who did appear. He ate all the sheep. So if the townspeople had reacted to the warnings not with scorn but by realizing that they were unprepared for actual wolves, their sheep would have been safe.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
...that global cooling is the hot topic for all the cool scientists now.
When all you've got is a global warming hammer, everything looks like a carbon emissions nail.
The droughts in California ARE man-made, but they have nothing to do with the Global Warming boogy-man and have everything to do with 2 important facts that people seem to forget:
1. That part of California is a freakin' desert and no, it didn't turn into a desert overnight because of Global Warming, it was a desert long before humans showed up.
2. California's intentional man-made mismanagement of its water supply to dump water for bait-fish and for Mexico and refusal to build new reservoirs to store water from years when it has been plentiful has caught up to it now that we see California's climate doing exactly what it should be doing.
But go ahead, blame Global Warming and burn a few witches at the stake since radical religious fanaticism with a thin veneer of "science" painted over it has now replaced rational thought.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
This sounds more like biblical rhetoric than science.
26 cm = 10.2 inches
82 cm = 32 inches
Why that wide range? It is taking into account if we take active measures to diminish it or try to not make it worse, or keep running as if nothing is happening? Or just the uncertain of predicting a so complex system with so much unknowns as is the global climate system?
In any case, with so uncertain final impact, maybe food and water shortages will be just the tip of the iceberg. Rising the average world temperature so much (at least, for close to the worst case) should have a lot of very visible effects in all the ecosystems.
FUD is the best way to beg for money ... I would certainly welcome warmer climate in Central Europe but I doubt it will happen. Heck, tell me how to warm the climate and I will do that.
How long do we have to put up with all these stupid reports? "We not quite sure how exactly it happens, but we have a consensus that it is happening, but this is for sure what will happen in 90 years!" "oh, its a 50% chance of rain tomorrow" Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.
How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.
The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Breaking news: there was more than one Ice Age. Why do people think the Earth has some stable temperature that it was always at before the industrial revolution? Why are people so arrogant that they think they can actually control mother nature?
Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average. It seems what I can gather from this is while many areas are hotter than they were previously, other places are somewhat cooler, so it balances out.
Some of the skepticism does exhibit a recency bias, by simply ignoring everything prior to year 2000 or so. In a chart of temperatures during the past 100 years, the current pause does look rather insignificant and could be simply a temporary pause rather than a change in the trajectory. They have problems explaining away the previous 50 years of temperature increase.
What? We were all to be dead by now!!?!?! Remember?? Skin Cancer from the Ozone Layer and we
were all to be dying of cancer by 2014.
Anyone who is foolish enough to play this game will either be making $$$ or losing it all. Which are you?
Well, you're comparing apples and orange. (And by your own admission.)
First, the boy yelled, "Wolf!", to get attention or watch the action it caused. (The last may be a symptom of boredom.)
Last, a real wolf appeared and the boy yelled, "Wolf!", again and was reasonably ignored.
So there was an imaginary wolf and a real wolf--quite different "animals".
The point is, as I understand the comments, that this constant barrage of "worst cause scenarios" that the Main Stream Media and Politicians bring to us has the effect of filtering their extremist messages into the mental waste bin. (There was a Federal Government study on this so we know this reaction/response is true. Of course, those of us who are married, a minority of slashdotters, know this from spousal communications.)
The use of "Chicken Little" would not carry the "wolf" baggage but does express the same point. Since everything is an emergency, I will sit back and see how things sort out. The emergencies will identify themselves whether silly people yell or not.
In the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate? Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).
It also makes more sense if you think about it logically, food grows slower and not as plentifully in colder climates. Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.
Also for droughts, why would a warmer climate not also mean fewer droughts for most areas as a warmer sea surface led to more evaporation...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because the IPPC's models always hold up so well...
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985.
Meanwhile:
Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
"in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn."
"That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
"Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.
“It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”
In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.
“They’re absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed.”
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters."
Lovelock: who predicted disaster -
http://www.independent.co.uk/o...
Now says:
The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question
Need Mercedes parts ?
Infowars and Prison Planet? Seriously?
Generally "experts" under estimate the ability of others to cope with unexpected or adverse events. Their education and training unfortunately gives them a feeling of superiority to those outside their knowledge base. Doubtless if the climate were getting colder they would also predict calamitous consequences. Of course there will be winners and losers both for individuals and societies but it has always been thus. Buy land in Canada!
"...pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed...."
At least their analysis is objective, measured, and not trying to panic anyone.
-Styopa
How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.
Not sure if you were trying to lure someone into a trap there, but just in case you were being serious that "solar powered machine" is called "a plant". :-)
If you worry about CO2, plant a tree and drive a bit less. It will probably do more overall than anything else you could reasonably do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes it does. You will recall that in the end, there was a real wolf who did appear. He ate all the sheep. So if the townspeople had reacted to the warnings not with scorn but by realizing that they were unprepared for actual wolves, their sheep would have been safe.
Time to read your childhood stories again, they were prepared for actual wolves but only as long as they responded and due to the many false alarms they ignored the actual emergency. If there's any relevant analogy to the current situation it's to not run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling unless it's true because nobody will take your warnings seriously afterwards. At least some scientists and politicians like to promote their worst doomsday predictions and every time they fail to come true it hurts their credibility, leaving many people to think it's all bogus and a sham. The media doesn't exactly help either, they like extreme headlines because they sell so they often take highly speculative bullshit and print it up huge as accepted scientific facts.
Even if you take some of the worst case predictions they're talking about something like 5C over 100 years, which might sound a lot but we're talking 0.05C/year on average. Local variations are far, far greater than that, what you personally has experienced is pretty much irrelevant. One warm summer and people say it's global warming, one cold winter and people say it's bullshit. Even when you look at 10+ year averages chances are many places have gone against the global trend, either because of natural variation or because of shifting weather patterns. What matter is if you sample thousands and thousands of places and the total keeps going up, not one particular place. But most people will look out the window and base their opinion on that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I sort of like the way the Social Security Trustees do their 75 year projections: they do it for three scenerios- likely, optimistic and pessimistic. Any organization that veers to one side is not very competent.
https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.skepticalscience.c...
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It's just Monsanto PR working to drive up prices knowing everyone is still going to pay.
Are once again squaking even louder and more enthusiastically, because none wants to believe them about the sky falling.
Yeah sure they are going to convert many people that way.
The first link points out how there is a limit to CO2 helping plant growth - but does nothing to argue against some areas being warmer producing more food, nor does it argue at all against plants doing mildly better with more CO2. It argues against levels of CO2 that are not possible harming plants.
The second link ins something about animals having issues adapting which is irrelevant to talking about plant life and mild warming.
The last link is just more stuff about extreme weather already debunked by actual weather events we are having.
The problem you have when you parrot other people's ideas is that you can't effectively argue when those arguments fall out of date or or otherwise debunked (summary: we have to have more extreme weather events before you can claim warming causes them, instead of just asserting they will happen).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First, we need some references for your claim that in the period when Europe was unusually warm there was increased overall agricultural output there. Maybe, maybe not. Second, Europe is on the whole on the cool side of temperate. It's way north on the globe. The larger proportion of the world's human population and agricultural lands are in warmer climes, many of which are already borderline in terms of water and relief from heat. If more wheat grows in Canada 20 years from now, but the central US is a permanent dust bowl, that's a problem if you're not Canadian. It can also be a problem if you are Canadian, since the US is likely to one way or another annex your land, or else insist you provide us wheat on very favorable terms.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
They can call it "Limits to Growth"!
This is where the debate leaves the realm of science and enters the terrain of speculation. How fast can we replace crops to the new climate is not a scientific question in the same level as "do we have AGW or not?". This last one has been settled, the former is a lot more complicated, and frankly the UN doesn't have a very good record on predictions.
Please pick up "Six Degrees" and read it.
You are woefully ill-informed if you believe 5C simply "sounds like a lot" but "local variations are far greater". The effects of Climate Change due to Global Warming are not limited to it being just a little warmer. 5C will make things very difficult.
To your point, you need to separate the purported propaganda of us reaching a 5C increase by 2100 vs. the effects of a 5C increase. Yes indeed it is one thing to go on and on about the effects of full scale nuclear war (or a catastrophic asteroid strike, Yellowstone erupting, or whatever) while ignoring the related probability of such an event. But it's foolish to debate the effect rather than said likelihood. These are separate issues/debates. Documenting what has happened in the past at certain temps is probably quite a bit more "settled" than predicting things for the rest of the century.
Many are missing the implication all together. Man Made Climate Change is evidence that man may finally be able to control the planet's climate. We may be able to eliminate unwanted ice ages, Great! We now have no reason not to flex of our collective human muscle to demonstrate our ability to control the climate on purpose, to reduce global warming.
Not even a man made global warming denialist can oppose such a test of our might, for these would believe our efforts futile and no impact possible. Their only opposition is that it will cost a something in the short term to gain more efficient energy usage, but they fail to see the long term rewards is both efficiency AND if we are able to change the world's climate we'll also be able to increase the production of foods.
Until the test is performed the climate denialists have no leg to stand on against the ones advocating for the experiment to begin, in fact it makes no sense to oppose our actions to influence the change of climate as this is the only way to put the issue to rest. The sooner the better.
How many times are we going to listen to an organization filled with liars who change the scientific data to fit their exact (Rothschild banker) agenda?
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI
So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate? Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).
It may have something to do with the proliferation of cities, suburbs, and high density animal farming sometime during the last 1,000 years since the medieval warming period.
And we've also done our best to deplete the stocks of every important sea creature that we like to eat.
It's disingenuous to try and compare the two periods, for many more reasons than the few I've listed.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I am sure their suggestion is to curtail economic activity now in order to cause these disasters and shortages NOW... before it's too late?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If at first you don't succeed, try harder.
Trying to keep the hype alive with scary stories is getting tired.
People are moving on. The climate remains as unpredictable as always.
Chicken Little is a better fairy tale analogy anyway.
> likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.
Maybe in some countries. You know, like the ones where corporations aren't allowed to buy politicians.
Bark less. Wag more.
Climate change is inevetible and most ultimately dictated by the same orbital changes that bring us the "ice ages."
What is worse for the earth within our lifetimes is the adequate supply of food, fresh air/water and fuel (supported by mineral resources to do this) for a population which is heading toward 10 billion critters who have an insatiable appetite to emulate or even exceed the US & EU as their God given right!
n the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate?
It's your assertion - you prove it.
1. What is Europe's total tonnage of export agricultural commodity as a percentage of world output?
2. What is Europe's total tonnage post us exceeding the MWP temperature a few years ago compared, say, to the 1950's and how much of that increase is attributable to a warmer climate?
Warming should lead to more, and cheaper, food for all nations (well all nations that treat farmers well anyway).
Well, the farmers tend to own land where there is soil and good rain in the temperate zones. The other land is owned by other people. Should I go on?
It also makes more sense if you think about it logically, food grows slower and not as plentifully in colder climates. Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.
Maybe learn some crop science before launching into describing fantasy, and come back when you are done.
More hits. I remember when Digg was popular until people used it for politics. Slashdot is also starting to lose my attention. I am getting very tired of reading about the broken scientific process. How about open source climate data? Results based funding? Banning people caught stealing tax payer's money with false data? Open sourced tree ring samples? Whatever happened to the NASA researcher caught falsifying ozone data to get more funding? Follow the money. I read this morning that Russia has been funding the anti-fracking green movement in the EU or as Putin calls them useful idiots. Russia has the EU over an energy barrel and wants to keep it that way. The US is lucky it has 300 years of gas or the economy would have crashed by now. Somebody here pointed to a website of cherry picked data but event that website cherry picked its short term data over very long term data. What is the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk
You are woefully ill-informed if you believe 5C simply "sounds like a lot" but "local variations are far greater".
In 2010 my little place on earth was -1.4C colder than normal, in 2011 it was 2.2C warmer than normal so that's a swing of 3.6C from one year to the next. Are you seriously disputing that this is way, way greater in magnitude than any global warming that may or may not have happened in one year? Like I said, 5C in a century is 0.05C/year so how am I to tell if that's 3.6C natural variation or 3.55C natural variation and 0.05C global warming? I wasn't really arguing about whether global warming is real and what the effects are, I'm talking about 99% of the population using whatever their local climate is as indicator and that statistically it's not worth a shit. Even if you've lived there all your life, looking at 115 years of climate statistics for my city there's way too much variation to be certain it's a trend and not just statistical randomness.
Of course, scientists don't do stupid things like look at one local climate or one isolated even, but do a poll on how many in the US believe in global warming before and after the 2014 polar vortex, I dare you. That's what I was talking about.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If the rain is not there, the plants do not do what you hope.
Really, Seriously, get a fucking clue.
Buy a fucking vowel.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Is the fact that at the time of this comment, there were only three comments rated at a 5 and not even root comments but responses to other people's low-rated threads. That says a lot about people's feelings toward this particular topic. Given that people with mod points are downgrading everybody else's posts, perhaps Slashdot should consider not accepting such stories on the grounds that it's nothing more than a pissing contest.
A study that studies the ill effects of X without considering the costs and drawbacks of combating X is always going to find that we should do something about X, so then it's no surprise that the studies about the effects of global warming find that we should do something about it, since that is the only conclusion that a study like that can reach. I'd like to see a study that compares the effects of three different government policies, assuming all of the governments on the planet do the same thing (a ridiculous assumption, but let's humor it for the sake of argument):
Scenario 1: Governments tax the hell out of fossil fuels in order to prevent more global warming from happening.
Scenario 2: Governments lower taxes on fossil fuels in order to help the economy grow, which will help people adapt to global warming. The warming will of course be much worse than in scenario 1.
Scenario 3: Business as usual.
Has this been done and what have the results been?
Personally I believe AGW is a farce. It's a lie from the government to make the government bigger. It's a smokescreen to hide the intent of those in power to grab more power from us and make us feel good about giving them more authority over our lives.
That said, let's assume I am an ignorant paranoid fool and AGW is real. What should we do about it?
We don't burn coal because we are assholes that want to watch the oceans boil from global warming. We burn coal because it is the best means we have to provide the lifestyle we enjoy. It appears to me that a majority of people in the government think that to improve the situation it must tax the coal burners, which makes a profit, and give it to the windmill manufacturers, which only make a profit when handed government subsidies.
The ultimate goal, so it seems, is to tax the coal out of existence so that we can all breathe the cleaner air that drives our windmills. Problem with this is, where do the subsidies come from when there is no more coal to tax?
The current path that the IPCC has laid out for us involves taking money from people that know how to make it and give it to people that can make up a good enough story on how they can stop the rising of the sea with their brand of snake oil. All that does is leave us poorer and rarely produces something actually viable.
I keep hearing how profit is evil from those that claim to be more righteous than me. Profit is not evil, profit is good. Why do you go to work every morning? I say because it is more profitable than staying home. Profit is what allows you to buy the food, shelter, and clothing for your children. If we want to make the air cleaner for our children then we need to make creating cleaner air profitable.
Wind and solar power are "profitable" only so long as it takes profit from others through taxes and gives it to them with subsidies. It cannot produce profit on it's own, barring some unusual circumstances. Advancements in technology may change that but in the here and now profitable wind and solar is rare. Hydroelectric is profitable but there are few places left worth a dam. Coal and natural gas is profitable but that is what is supposedly causing all the trouble we are in. That leaves nuclear power.
Nuclear power is profitable, clean, and safe. Bring up all the nightmare scenarios you want from things like Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl but they are all irrelevant. We've learned from those and we don't build nuclear power plants like them any more. Nuclear power is so safe that we put it on submarines. These people live within feet of an operating nuclear power plant for months on end without concern, and have done so for decades.
What about the nuclear waste? Look up "Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor".
We don't need more government. We need more nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Food, flood and water shortages? No, if I believed even half this silliness--the part about warming--I'd be planning on growing tropical foods in my little lot. Lots of oranges, grapefruits, bananas, breadfruit and the like--none of which grow here now. If you live in a warmed up, semi-tropical climate, life is as easy as it was on the West Indian island I once spent the summer visiting. Ah, if only it were true....
It seems that, with each year that passes, these UN scientists (there's an oxymoron) get more and more hysterical, particularly since global temperature have been stable for over 15 years, contrary to all their projections. And those fools who believe in them are most pitiful. Much like con men will promise you a far too much wealth with far too little risk, these prophets of doom and gloom make the mistake of painting everything dire and dreadful. That's one of the primary clues they're lying. Any real and major climate change would bring both winners and losers.
Besides, we've gone through two warming spells in the last two millenniums. They were marvelous times, with climatologist calling them optimums (Roman and Medieval). It's the century or longer cold spells that come when there are few sun spots that bring the bad news. And if that comes, we'll need all the greenhouse gases we can get.
Actually they are predicting 0.3C-4.8C for the century, the upper value is 16 times the lower value. A temperature rise of 4.8C would be pretty devastating, where .3C is barely worth a yawn. A range of 16 times yo me indicates that the "settled Science" isn't very settled or very scientific.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We probably won't be able to economically sustain the production and use of hydrocarbons at an industrial scale much beyond the next 30 years (We run out of money first, then net energy, rapidly followed by supply chain breakage all the while enjoying price feedback spikes). That takes about 300 exajoules of heat energy off the table each year, plus many fewer particulates and much less CO2. While that may not be enough to stop the methane releases that spiral global warming out of control, we at least slow it down.
Oh, and about 6 billion of us die from starvation.
Cheers!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Your error is in assuming a simple, isolated system and ignoring the complexity of dealing with the horribly analog world of biology.
In general, there are two considerations for when, and how much, plants grow. The first is the amount of sunlight they receive (hours per day) and the second is the number of "degree days". Since duration of sunlight isn't going to change (at a certain latitude), let's focus on "degree days" first.
A "degree day" is based on the temperature of the day, so the higher the temperature - the higher the value. However, there are bounds for this. For example, corn needs at least 50 degrees Fahrenheit, but not more than 86 degrees Fahrenheit. i.e. - Below 50 means "0 degree days" and 92 will be the same number of degree days as if it were 86.
The problem comes in when it is far too warm which, for corn, comes in around 86 degrees. The plant hasn't adapted for growing in temperatures much higher, and will shut down growth; much higher temperatures will even cause damage to the plant. Here is a human analogy - a human might be able to run really fast and really far but, if it is 115 degrees outside, that isn't going to happen and any activity may result in heat stroke. A plant will be stressed in this kind of heat and will actually be damaged. In this way, too much heat will cause plants to grow less, and we will have lower yields.
However, since plants also depend on certain amount of sunlight, it isn't a simple matter of moving things northward (or southward in the Southern Hemisphere) to match temperature. All of the plants are also expecting a certain duration of sunlight. This isn't constant with latitude, so moving the plants north will reduce yield. (And more sunlight doesn't mean higher yield - plants also do things at night like release water vapor.) This means that we will have to reengineer our crops to match new conditions - which will take decades. (And crop genetics isn't a simple matter - companies spend billions on trying to make better species.) So, until we do that, we will have lower yields.
Also, many plant diseases like the heat (or like that they don't freeze to death in the winter - see Asian Soybean Rust ranges) - so they will enjoy millions of square miles of new territory - increasing the cost of production (herbicides and pesticides) and, since bugs and molds eat the plants, will give us lower yields.
The other problem is related to economics and infrastructure. Farmers have certain equipment to plant and harvest the crops native to their area. Plus, their fields have been designed for those certain crops. For example, they may be terraced in a certain way or be designed with a certain level of drainage based on existing weather patterns (temperature and rainfall). Renovating millions of square miles of farmland is going to be expensive and ridiculously time consuming and until it is modified to match new, prevailing weather patterns, will contribute to lower yields.
The other side to the economic coin is that decisions are not going to be made on a 50-100 year strategy. To operate next year, a farm needs to turn a profit this year. So, they aren't going to completely retool if yields go down 10% - it would make no sense. The capital costs would dwarf any profit from the new crops being put in. Therefore, they will operate at lower capacity and accept a lower profit - since it is still a profit. Sure, we will get changes when push comes to shove, but that will take decades as climate change forces them to change. Until that point - lower yield.
Moral of the story, we are looking at decades of lower yields as climate change really kicks in.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
they were prepared for actual wolves but only as long as they responded and due to the many false alarms they ignored the actual emergency.
If false alarms caused their system to fail, then they were definitely not prepared.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary"
The boldface is mine
If this is all about SCIENCE as the advocates are always claiming (like they always cite that bogus 97% of scientists AGREE crap) the WHY are there a bunch of government representatived involved in drafting the report???? hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?????
Remember that 97% number was 97% of the people who CHOSE to respond, and many of those who responded were NOT scientists. Of course, being "progressives", for these clowns the ends (more government control and power) justify the means (lying, data manipulation, peer review manipulation, etc).
Are you getting paid by SS to astroturf slashdot?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
That's what you get when you make a science issue a political issue. Liberals, I'm looking at you.
Propaganda only works if you control access to opposing ideas. Thus since the left has *everything* invested in forcing global cooling/warming/change down everyone's throats, the only place you can get access to contrary ideas is on conservative sites.
If you compare the way *men of science* handle climate science with literally any other scientific idea, you'll see a massive difference in the conversation.
There is no conversation - because this is not about science. It's about damaging democracy and capitalism.
That's what you get when you politicize science. You get this.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
These shortages were always going to happen due to overpopulation.
"...pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
assuming for argument's sake that warming is occurring, why would/should the impacts be all bad? A warming climate should make vast areas of the planet more habitable, reduce heating and shelter requirements, increase areas for agriculture and allow increased yields, etc. Why wouldn't there also be some benefits?
"Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary.
Is this meeting 'science' or 'government?' It cannot be both.
"The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming."
The alleged scientists have allegedly been 'more certain than ever' for at least 10 years. In fact, anyone who doubts is usually referred to as a 'denier.' Are a greater percentage of the 'scientists' in agreement or are those in agreement merely firmer in their allegedly scientific convictions?
"Seas will creep up by 26cm-82cm by 2100."
The global absolute sea level has increased by 24 cm since 1870 and disaster has not yet struck. Land use changes, buildings and cities move over time. The sea level has dropped significantly at times over the last 20 centuries and has been much higher at times during that period. For example, the ancient ports of Rome and Ephesus (two of the 5 largest Roman cities 20 centuries ago) are now high and dry. Why would we think that sea level should be a constant? The current rate of increase has been essentially constant over the last 13 decades. An increase of 26 cm in the next 9 decades is not much of a change from the present rate.
People are hard-lined on being to the left or right. Especially on Slashdot, I would figure more people wouldn't be on here but it is the internet, hell I can go on NPR and bring up legit points, that aren't left or right and get more dialog and open minded opinions.
No one thinks for themselves they let others do it for them, when it comes to everything outside their lives. We are truly f'ed as a race.
Two points I make over this.
1. I am not denying global warming. But I am not going to believing the "science". I'm not against science either, but it has become defunct, corrupt, and a corporate mentality.
2. Adding to the above statement, lets not kid are selves, these are "GUESSES". There are so many factors that come into play of what man "thinks" he knows and what is really going on. We simple do not know everything about the planet, including our sun, ect..
You'll probably disagree and only commented on why California shouldn't be used as an example. It is spot on as to why that state is in the cluster f'k it is now.
I appreciate the thoughtful response instead of ad-hominm attacks.
The counter-argument I would make, is two points:
1) A lot of the shift would be more about farms producing different kinds of crops. Yes it's expensive to open up brand new farms, but there are still a lot of farms in places like Europe and Canada, where the equipment to farm is in place already - so it's more a matter of adjusting what you are growing. Some farmland as you mentioned is focus on one kind of crop, but the vast majority of it can grow many kinds of crops.
2) The rate of temperature change is showing no signs of "kicking in". Even if we supposed the temperature changes would resume at one of the faster rates we saw, between 1990 and 2000 - even that is around 1/8 of a degree (C). That means over fifty years only a change of 0.625 degrees (C), or just a bit over one degree (F)... That is a lot of time to adapt or to start creating new farms as needed. And as we have seen that rate was not kept up, it's flatlined for the last decade or so which gives people even more time to slowy adjust to average temperate changes.
People and plants both thrive when it is warmer, that's true the world over already - I don't see gradual temperature changes changing anything about why that is so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I come from a farming family, we do produce lots of crops including wheat.
If temperatures go warmer by a degree. It won't matter. Really it won't.
however, as temperatures change, rainfall patterns change.
For example, we get rain from westerlies in Northwest India from Dec-End feb.
So wheat gets water at times of growth, and while harvesting end march - late april there is hardly any rain.
Over the past 10 years it has changed. It can rain heavily in march-april also, which will destroy almost ripe wheat crop.
Heck, westerlies are active into may now.
Such change in rainfall patterns can destroy crops.
Another example, the himalayas got a lot of snow this year. Much more than normal. Good thing. But all of it started in feb in some regions, which will result in poor apple crop this time in some regions.
Any climate change which alters patterns(not necessarily warming or cooling, but change) has the potential to destroy agricultural yields. So climate change is a bad thing in general for agriculture unless it happens over millenia.
I would not mind climate change if it happened gradually like in olden times. We would adapt. But rapid change in rainfall patters over 3 decades. Everything goes for a toss.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Remember also that we took steps to mitigate that risk...
Its funny that no propaganda is needed to convince anyone of Ohms law, but its because it can be scientifically demonstrated. I have a hard time believing wrong predictions of the globe being hotter than its ever been before when this is the coldest 6 months in over 100 years. Anyone who believes their own predictions after they have long been proven false suggest a thickness that no real science can penetrate.
Thats right! Despite the coldest 6 months in over a century, one day it really will be here! REally really. I mean it this time. It will be announced by Bigfoot stepping out of a flying saucer!
Thats right. And the coldest 6 months in over a century. But keep up the fight, it will get here one day. Record breaking cold in Antarctica this summer, but that doesn't matter. Our wrong predictions will one day be right. Really really really.
Even if you take some of the worst case predictions they're talking about something like 5C over 100 years, ...
The difference between the depths of the Little Ice Age and mid-20th Century temperatures was only about 1 degree C. Even another 2C probably wouldn't be pretty.
In the US this is being reported as the coldest winter in 100 years for most of the country.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/coldest-winter-record-100-years-22890066
RE: No one spends a lot of time looking for 0 or -1.
How could you possibly know that?
You clearly enjoy making up (likely) false claims and stating them as fact.
You clearly do not understand the difference between popular and acceptable.
ALso - Notice that you have not been downmodded. Thus your own theory falls flat. (Yes I know, anecdotal. Just like your own irrelevant, incorrect, ignorant claim.)
Fortunately we did something about ozone depletion due to CFC's so the problem isn't as bad as it could have been.
And wipe all life from the earth.
It's disingenuous to try and compare the two periods, for many more reasons than the few I've listed.
What do you think climate models use as input?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
IPCC: doom gloom and the seas will rise by 'x' by 2100
Counter argument: given the complexity of the system and the shallow understanding of many processes, is it not likely that some small perturbation will greatly alter the predicted outcomes of your model ... especially over the time frames you are talking about?
IPCC: then we shall assume that if nothing changes, our outcomes will be proven valid
Counter argument: when in all history has 'nothing changed'? Ergo your models are so brittle as to be utterly unrealistic.
Also when the IPCC starts adding qualifiers that highlight the _accuracy_ of their models, then maybe they will have some credibility. But right now, where are the caveats and cautions clearly stating the assumptions of the models and the sensitivity of the model outcomes to those assumptions? That's right, there are none ever shown to the public.
Bunk.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Changing your crops means changing nearly everything a farmer does. It's not a small task in any way. And the temperature might change even faster if we reach a tipping point (say, the vast methane deposits under the tundra permafrost in Russia get released, or ocean acidification kills off large amounts of our oxygen-producing algae). You are relying on the absolute-best-possible-scenario, which is clearly highly unlikely to be the case. And your last line just ignores everything he had to say. Your bias is showing.
Climate change is a lie propagated by anarchist terorrists, we don't need to cut carbon emissions. The environment and the animals exist for us to exploit them and eat them or burn them for energy.
In the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. ... the clouds will rain down elsewhere. For the Sahara to become green again it has to grow green from the edges ... will take roughly 10,000 years to do that.
First of all on what basis do you claim that?
Then, you have an idea how few people lived on the planet during the short warming periods?
Third, ever heared about erosion?
At roman times, the northern edge of the Sahara was green, it was the food source of the whole mediterranean area.
At roman times Spain was covered with woods, now most of Spain has to fight with droughts.
If germany has bad luck it will convert from a very water rich country into a very dry one, because the "warm winter" and lack of snow prevents "storage of snow/water" in the Alpes. So over the summer we lack the melting snow as supply for our rivers and ground water.
Also for droughts, why would a warmer climate not also mean fewer droughts for most areas as a warmer sea surface led to more evaporation...
Because droughts can only prevented by water raining down in the affected area, or other means to get the 'evapoured' water to get there.
The Sahara or Arizona won't get wetter because of more 'water evaporation'
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In the US this is being reported as the coldest winter in 100 years for most of the country.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/coldest-winter-record-100-years-22890066
And this is relevant to global warming how?
You know, averages make no sense if you farm crop.
Lets assume you want to farm grain and harvest it in July. It has to be grown till then (requires water etc.) amd has to be dry ato be harvested (requires a short period of warmth/dryness).
Now assume for some reason it will rain a lot during July and early August: no easy harvest.
Now assume it is super dry during June and July, the grain will 'dry' out instead of riping.
There is a famous huge mistake done by using 'averages' during the 1960s when the UNO sponsored third world development programs in Africa.
There was a small county that had the perfect 'average' rain over the year, a perfect average sunshine and temperature to plant peanuts. Many farmers where 'forced' to plant peanuts. What the UNO did not take into account: the average rain was a peak of summer storms comming down during one single week. The rest of the year it was to dry to plant peanuts. This incident not only costed a huge amount of money (to the UNO, and to the peanuts using industries in the US, behind that stupid idea) but costed a few million lives to starvation. I believe the country where that happened is Somalia, but don't remember, perhaps one can dig that out somehow.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I hate the use of the term climate change or global warming or whatever. It only references one aspect of the poison we are forcing into our world. We are doing terrible things to our Earth. Just like our body, it can take a lot of abuse...but just like our body, as far as we know, there is only one. Eventually the body breaks down...it just can't take more abuse. Now, perhaps if we could provide periods of relief in our polluting of the world, we could find a balance...like when the Loma Prieta loggers stopped logging, and a wonderful 2nd growth forest roared back into life.
But, we keep treating the earth like a paycheck we refuse to save. I'll just spend this last paycheck on whatever...I'll put the next one towards my retirement. Eventually, you will run out of time, and retirement age will arrive, and you won't be able to save up for retirement.
You may be right, on a geological scale. But in short term the impact of any climate change on the crop yield is almost certain to be negative.
Why? Because the type of crop the way they are grown and selected are optimised for the current use.
Our agriculture has a yield that is a multitude of what would be possible in nature. It is a highly engineerd piece of science. When something as fundamental as temperature, rainfall etc. changes. Yield will fall.
Also, you focus on one thing. Don't forget the draught. More storms. Rising sea levels.
We will adapt. Don't get me wrong. We will have to because, unlike what some think: the effects of global warming are comming. How big they will be is still up for debate but we will face the consequences no matter what. And since we are used to our current climate this will not be an easy nor agreeable process.
What our Masters, who facilitated this mess all along, figure we should now do is:
(1) Give them a LOT more power and wealth and totalitarian control of humanity
(2) Dramatically impoverish humankind with lots of new taxes, wealth transfers, and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
(3) Transfer all that stolen wealth to the likes of Goldman Sachs and their vampire-squid-produce-nothing-suck-everything compatriots in banking and government
(4) Continue to do dumbfuck things like encourage Americans to buy Chinese (because if you can't see the pollution it must not be happening).
I've got a suggestion: How about if we require sterilization of the bloodline to anyone who aspires to be a "politician" or "banker"? Make that a prerequisite to "leadership" and a clear display of walking your talk?
It always amazes me these idiots who make bold and sweepingly broad statements about California: "It's a desert! It's always been a desert!" Well, people, WTFU, because California actually has quite a few different climatic zones, and declaring the Central Valley a desert is nonsense.
Thanks for pointing this out!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
People and plants both thrive when it is warmer, that's true the world over already - I don't see gradual temperature changes changing anything about why that is so.
Farming underwater can be problematic. Also rain fall is significant (both how much & when) which will also alter.
The previous PR campaign - making DIRE claims about how horribly terribly miserable we would all be if we didn't pay attention to this huge problem in an urgent/critical/ASAP way - along with end of the world predictions and scenarios -- failed miserably. Many of those dire predictions failed to come to pass, making the IPCC a laughingstock among many, and tarnishing the science of climatology for decades to come.
So what's the glorious new plan?
Make dire claims about how horribly terribly miserable we would all be if we didn't pay attention to this huge problem in an urgent/critical/ASAP way - along with end of the world predictions and scenarios...
Clearly, these people are utterly fucking clueless about how to advance their cause. Or they are so arrogant - that they believe everyone else is a complete idiot, and can be easily fooled with zero effort.
Meanwhile, climate science is less and less credible. People argue with more emotion. The naysayers have more ammunition. Less and less is accomplished.
Murphy was an optimist
I'm not the original poster but I can assure you its not astroturf from me but rather have read some of https://www.skepticalscience.com and found it amongst the best resources on climate change and AGW on the net. Its facts come from science rather than wishful thinking
Also calling it SS caused me some confusion at first (there was a rather nasty & infamous group called the SS).
This will sound like a wild conspiracy theory, but really, it's an honest question....
Has anyone thought of the reason governments won't do anything to try and fix our problem, is that the global population is truly out of hand and they think disaster is the only way back to normal, sustainable levels?
Again, just a thought.
P.S. Sorry for the Anonymous Coward posting... I'm on my work computer.
Protip: if you argument leads you to effectively claim something is a type 2 perpetual motion machine, your argument is wrong.
In any case, at this point everyone who can be persuaded by facts or logic have been, and that's nowhere near enough to stop or even significantly slow climate change. Nor does it seem likely that we can significantly mitigate the damage due to general inability to plan beyond the next financial quarter or election, or in many cases to even acknowledge that any kind of coordination might be a good thing. So whatever the consequences are, we'll be facing them soon enough.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I am sure they are right, the sky is falling. We are all doomed. I think old age will get me first. If they can't determine some reasonable solution and even various progressive levels of action that can be taken, all they are doing is playing Chicken Little and giving Saturday Night Live more fodder for comedy. Get real. Whatever we do must fit the economic realities. It doesn't have to be easy, but the harder it is, the less likely it will be implemented.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
What is it about the models FAILED that these corpses don't get? Stupid is like being dead it effects everyone around the deceased but the dead don't know it. Aargh! They wont stay dead! We are dealing with zombies! A Model prediction is not data. A model prediction is not data! The CAGW predictions show NO skill in predicting. The data falsifies the theory AGW as proposed is therefor not significant. Ocum's Razor prevents any preservation of the failed theory by rejecting a strategy based upon introducing a compounding complication.
Hard to sort any of this out for someone well educated, but not in Climate Science. Two items DO appear obvious. 1. Lots of Government money available to those who support the current political thought 2. When contrarian opinions from knowledgeable people are belittled or ignored, then we no longer have 'science' but political theatre. I still have money in the bank and my health because I didn't listen to Al Gore and his Wall St circus or the Hollywood bimbo health informercials.
Changing your crops means changing nearly everything a farmer does. It's not a small task in any way
Ah yes, the old adage that a farm should never, ever rotate his crops because it is simply too difficult and time consuming...
Paired with evidence that earlier warming periods were vast, desert tundras rather than lush, hyper-vegetated landscapes...
Gee, if only those skeptics paid attention to reality, facts, and observable evidence!
I keep hearing about crop failures and the like. However no one ever talks about the vast areas of Canada, Alaska, Russia, and Northern Europe that will be able to support crops that these areas currently cannot support. I think we are looking at global warming from a purely one-sided view. The land in the far north that we gain from global warm far exceeds the land we lose due to rising coast lines. I think we need to look at the possible benefits as well as the possible problems that are being caused by Global warming. It can also be seen as good thing as people will be forced to move to more stable regions inland and away from the costly expenses of trying to maintain a civilization on the coast. This may cause geopolitical lines to be re-drawn, and that is not always a bad thing either. I am just asking the question have we even thought to look for the good while we empress the bad?
CO2 is not the problem in the atmosphere in terms of 'climate change' it's water vapor, but good luck trying to get that out of the atmosphere. lol.
EIther way, I don't know why the IPCC even bothers anymore, they are considered a laughing stock at this point and no one trusts a word they say. Besides, they never state in their reports what they would like the mean surface temperature of the earth to be to satisfy them. It's just doomy gloomy reporting and in the last 30 years air qualities have gotten better, not worse. China and India are clearly an exception, but if you've ever been there and actually traveled around the whole of china or india you will see why. They are effectively open toilets emitting everything and anything you can think of.
Another issue that has never been addressed in these reports is, what level of taxation does the IPCC want to introduce in order to combat such atmospheric folly?
Anyone who is foolish enough to play this game will either be making $$$ or losing it all. Which are you?
A nice example of a false dichotomy.
you do understand that climate science predictions is based mainly on models that disagree with reality so it's not objective?
No its not. You can show that a container of CO2 warms more than a container of N2 in sunlight. I'd say this leaves those wishing to deny its effects as having to present a mechanism as the actual scientific evidence is behind global warming,
I do not "believe" in anything, I want raw unadulterated FACTS!!!
You can have "I think therefore I am" and nothing else other than reformulations of that.
Or I might have to do something
While a plant is growing, it takes carbon out of the atmosphere. After it dies, it decays and releases exactly the same amount back into the atmosphere. That's carbon-neutral.
Only human intervention can make plants carbon-negative. If you harvest wood, and make lumber or pianos out of it, then put a roof over that wood so it doesn't decay, you have taken carbon out of the atmosphere on a somewhat permanent basis. However, looking at the many old buildings that have been allowed to fall into ruin suggests that a few hundred years is the best you can hope for from that carbon sequestration strategy.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Why did you have to say that. I hate that fsck Alex Jones. You ruined my corn flakes
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
is it a$?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
n the past medieval warming period, there were a lot more fertile areas around Europe than we have today. So how can you reasonably claim that a warmer climate leads to food shortages when we have direct evidence showing we can grow more overall in a warmer climate?
It's your assertion - you prove it.
Are you saying that buying Vine Street in Monopoly is a bad call?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Anyway I don't play Monopoly any more. There was, shall we say, an incident.
So how long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before the CAGW crowd and the IPCC admit their models are based on a false assumption? 20 years? 30? 50? Never? ALL 5 datasets show no warming for between 12 and 17.5 years despite rising CO2. Maybe the IPCC got it all wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
The big concern is not a warmer world with more CO2 for plants but a colder one with less. Unfortunately we are spending money on this junk science with not a concern for the possiblility of being wrong.
- 1979 climate prediction
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
So far 3 decades in that is the most accurate and longest running climate prediction. It calls for a cold period which we just entered.
but do a poll on how many in the US believe in global warming before and after the 2014 polar vortex
The belief of the US population is not required for climate change to happen
Didn't anyone ever warn you about the girls on The Angel Islington? They aint no angels.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Honest question. .3 to 4.6C over a long time predicted. What would falsify the prediction? What IS the prediction?
is this for the time between now and 2114? .003C a year increase this is not very impressive and need not be attributed to AWG. Similarly the sea rise prediction seems less than the average sea rise over the last 10k years. I pull a 100 m out of some old archeology.
if you measure the global temperature right now what are the error bounds?
In the above what does "now" mean with respect to climate? Are we looking at a ten year average or what? If we look at an average of
There is something particularly sad about lying when the truth is better. I suppose the sad is more about your audience but still.
Crop rotation is not introducing new crops to the farm and workers merely rotating them.
I don't know of any evidence that the UK was a lush hyper-vegetated landscape during the MWP either.
the earth has seen plenty in 4.54 billion years
man has been on earth for less than the blink of an eye
the earth does what it does and will do for billions of more years
>At least some scientists and politicians like to promote their worst doomsday predictions and every time they fail to come true it hurts their credibility, leaving many people to think it's all bogus and a sham. T
Why exactly does it hurt their credibility when the entire point of the announcement was their INTENTION to have it NOT come true ! When the sole purpose of making the prediction is because of the belief that it can be prevented, Occam's razor suggests that failures in such predictions actually prove their efficacy - that they do not come true because enough people heed them and took action to prevent the predicted outcome.
Why was Y2K a non-event ? The threat was real, very real, so how come out of all those terrible possible effects -there were almost no actual effects ?
Because years earlier when people started warning- others paid heed, the entire IT industry invested thousands of hours of research, effort and on-the-ground man-hours to solving the problem in all it's many incarnations. Insurance firms paid heed and made implementing solutions mandatory for coverage. Politicians paid heed and allowed the IT staff the time and resources to do the job.
The result - a potentially massive problem completely averted.
Now here's the interesting bit - quite a lot of people had panicked, instead of just supporting those working on solutions or helping them - they went on mad emergency supply shopping sprees assuming the prediction *would* come true. When it then didn't (because the prediction SUCCEEDED by ensuring it's own failure to materialize) they then concluded that the prediction must have been wrong all along and just became more sceptical of all risk warnings.
That however is not only an unjustified response - it's completely wrong based on the evidence: the failure of Y2K to be a disaster isn't proof that the predictions of potential Y2K disasters were false, it is proof that those who heard those predictions acted correctly in response to them.
In short - the failure of doomsday predictions is the best validation for the process of making doomsday predictions.
>Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.
Yes actually because - if you understood even the most basic elements of chaos theory, in a chaotic system (like weather) predicting 90 years from now is much, much easier than predicting tomorrow.
Furthermore - you are confusing weather with climate, climate is weather AVERAGED OUT OVER A LONG TIME - which is a lot LESS chaotic and a lot EASIER to predict than short-term weather which is highly chaotic.
"Dog and cats -- living together."
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
... will settle this dispute.
Witness the SHEER INTELLIGENCE (lol - NOT) of Sardaukar86 http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Witness the SHEER INTELLIGENCE (lol - NOT) of Sardaukar86 http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
seriously, we do. When I hear 'cost billions' I'd like someone as amazingly sharp as Nate to look at the data through his analytic mind, and either call BS on those of you posting "it's FUD," or those of you saying "we're f'd !" I get my news only from The Daily Show - and of course /. - so cannot be biased by either FOX or NPR ...
while I am not at all a warming skeptic - the math seems to support it - I cannot be entirely on board given the unknowns. Like in this report from the EPA, with all sorts of charts and scientific graphs n stuff, which predicted Ocean City MD underwater by now ....
http://papers.risingsea.net/fe...