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.
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?
"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
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.
CO2 is not smog. If it weren't for AGW, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In that case it would likely be a good thing, and help plants grow.
Focusing on CO2 actually distracts from other pollutants, so if that your goal is to stop pollutants that cause illnesses, fixing AGW (for example, with carbon sequestration) could actually delay your goal.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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...
My inclination is that non-scientists are more likely to have vast food stores, hunting skills, and access to productive farm or grazing land.
The Mormons are commanded to have 3-months of food storage:
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_foodstorage.html
How much is commanded of the scientists?
Of course there is always money to be made in predictions that come true. Play some commodities and buy up all the stupid hicks' land.
That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
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.
How about you scientists make a solar powered machine that filters Co2 out of the air.
We have that, all we need now is for you as a taxpayer to vote to fund the machine.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
See the temperature escalator I mention above.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Climatologists have been warning about warming for many decades and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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...
Sure... Because over the long course of history, it has always been the intellectual elite that have faired well in the collapse of a civilization. Those Mongol hordes, farmers and hunters never have a chance...
Of course the "entitlement" crowd will be totally decimated...
"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?
The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?)
If all you can recall from that period is "global cooling", which was met with skepticism when presented and quickly obliterated in peer circles, you seem to have a peculiarly biased memory.
Ezekiel 23:20
"...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
The trouble is that the rate that we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceeds the rate at which plants can absorb it.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
I remember that it's largely a myth, if that's what you mean.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, obviously you only know enough to make yourself feel smart.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
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
To put that into perspective, continents move an ~inch per year because of continental drift.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Climatologists have been warning about warming for many decades and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me.
From someone who has actually been reading news for decades, take it from me. Most of the things printed in the layman press were wildly inaccurate over time.
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.
Gees, where did you get your Bio degree from? No, that not true for the majority of plants (carbon is rarely the limiting growth factor). If anything, plants become lazier as a result of high CO2 by making fewer pores for air exchange. Moreover, it's not plants but microorganisms in the ocean that produce roughly 85% of our oxygen.
Did you know that plants have mitochondria too? The way plants work is they store energy using chloroplasts during the day and expend it at night for growing. It'd be much safer for you to say that plants are carbon neutral instead of carbon negative.
I rather view it as an example that science actually works (bitches!). This "dissenting opinion" is being as ruthlessly attacked as any hypothesis, the difference is that a warming hypothesis is apparently much more difficult to shoot down with facts that a cooling one.
Ezekiel 23:20
That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.
You are aware, I trust, of these things called plants. It turns out that they absorb carbon dioxide right out of the air. What's even cooler is that the more CO2 that's in the air, the faster they grow and thus the faster they absorb it. This is why greenhouses will often run with drastically increased CO2 levels.
Wow! This changes everything, you should tell someone about your amazing discovery!
Send it into Nature
Abstract:
I don't think global warming will happen because the plants will eat all the CO2 out of the air
Introduction:
Because plants use C02, so if we make more CO2 we'll get more plants and we'll have less CO2!
Conclusion:
No CO2 means no global warming!
Future Work:
We've got lots of CO2 so figure out why still there's more CO2 instead of more plants.
I stole this Sig
Well as long as you feel fine then that is all that matters...
And feel safe in the knowledge that 90+% of the rest of the world feel the same way so you are no more selfish and arrogant than them. Almost no one will hold it against you...at the moment.
Future generations of course will curse your very existence, but fuck them right?
I've got mine, fuck you: The capitalist way.
Historically, many regions have experienced large amounts of local climate change, often man-made, and we have coped and adapted. Global climate change is no different: it's happening slowly enough that human migration and economic processes will adapt to it efficiently and without any major problems.
He never said it was. But reducing fossil fuel usage would reduce both.
If that was the case plants would be merrily snarfing up the excess and there wouldn't be a measurable increase.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If that was the case plants would be merrily snarfing up the excess and there wouldn't be a measurable increase.
Uh, that is a thing you made up, and it's wrong, sorry.
Seriously, you can't imagine a possible scenario where plants would do better with more CO2, and at the same time wouldn't absorb all of it? I strongly recommend you go look at the relevant research on the topic, many plants do so much better in high CO2 environments that some greenhouses pipe it in. What exactly do you think this is for?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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've been reading the news, too, and I seem to recall many stories of climatologists underestimating the effects of global warming. take, for example, this article which lists many examples.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The Tropical Rainforests in South America are said to be the lungs of the world due to the purpose. It's a shame they are being cut down to make way for farmland for a couple of years until the soil is exhausted and turns to desert.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Where is someone suggesting to curtail economic activity? To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we have been developing alternative energy sources and improving energy efficiency, both of which can benefit the economy. We're trying to avoid economic disaster, not cause it.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
And most of the things printed in scientific papers were wildly accurate.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
So because you don't like the results it must be bad science?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Building out renewable energy has been a boon to industry and employment in the countries that have pushed it.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."
No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.
A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.
The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.
Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.
Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.
And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.
You are not the first person to notice this......
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/...
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.
Nope. Regardless of news stories, according to peer-reviewed studies the real numbers are quite different. See my reply to your other comment above.
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
What you said. Also, air temperature measurements might just be the wrong measure of climate altogether.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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?
Is this more Russian propaganda? Another attempt at stopping the West from developing its energy sources to increase West's reliance on OPEC? Every economic calculation shows that gathering solar energy through anything but photosynthesis is an overall economic negative. And if money is lost, then overall natural resources are wasted rather than preserved as a result of the overall process.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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
It amazes me that so many Slashdotters are trying to convince the world that change isn't coming, rather than trying to figure out how they can get richer than Bill Gates by founding a startup for mitigation technologies.
This ain't the Slashdot it used to be.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You forgot to mention which side you're accusing of spreading FUD.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Climate change is inevetible and most ultimately dictated by the same orbital changes that bring us the "ice ages."
The second part of that claim is *utterly* falsified by the science. Temperatures are moving in the wrong direction: you'd expect global cooling as we exit the current interglacial.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
The predictions of the computer models have been quite good at predicting past event, but are consistently wrong at predicting future events, the simple truth is we don't even know what we don't know about the climate yet.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Did I?
Of course since these facts go against tightly held beliefs, you will never get any "Informative" mods... You might get a Troll or two...
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
I swear the next time I get mod points, anyone who sources either skepticalscience.com or wattsupwiththat.com is going to get -1 overrated; unless the comment is specificly about the sites rather than a topic on the site.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"Of course since these facts go against tightly held beliefs, you will never get any "Informative" mods... You might get a Troll or two..."
I've been experiencing those for years. Hasn't stopped me yet.
Armies of Kool-Aid drinkers can indeed make things difficult at times. There is a difference, though, between these particular Kool-Aid drinkers, and those in Jonestown. In Jonestown, they were all told they were going to a higher place. In this case, they were all told that they are going to a fiery hell if they don't give government control over the very air they breathe.
In both cases, there has been a lot of harm to a lot of people.
Are you getting paid by SS to astroturf slashdot?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You may want to look into how long coal, shale oil and shale gas are projected to last in the US. And not the "centuries!!!1!" idiots, but real forecasts.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
Some of these papers don't seriously dispute CO2-based warming. For example, the paper by Chylek et al. in JGR states in paragraph 6, "Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a positive radiative forcing, leading to a warmer climate and a higher annual mean surface temperature." The paper is about the role of aerosols in climate forcing and how that affects climate sensitivity.
If the alternative that is being proposed causes the resources to be wasted rather than preserved, then it doesn't solve this problem at all.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
"...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.
Tech is based on science. If there is no scientifically sound method for producing "green" energy that is an overall gain in extracted resources (rather than a loss as it is now), then it is not a question of tech. It's a question of sanity or lack thereof. Who are kidding though? Who do you think is trying to stop the shale gas revolution? Follow the money. Russia is the world's largest exporter of both gas and oil. But I am sure they would above something as sinister as starting a misinformation campaign for financial gain. You can trust Russia.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The only option we have is to turn those reserves into something sustainable.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
The only option we have is to turn those reserves into something sustainable.
No, it's not the only option. It may be an option. Certainly there are other options. And, for now, capturing of solar energy is not an option... at least not if you want to preserve, rather than waste, resources. Not developing resources in the West is definitely not an option right now though. The OPEC is on a war path. If we don't develop ours, they will develop theirs and do everything they can to extract as many concessions out of us as they can. In the end, if we don't develop our natural resources, they will accumulate enough power to buy out our resources and develop them themselves. It's already happened with our steel industry. It was regulated out of existence until it got bought out by an Indian consortium. It can just as easily happen with coal and gas industries.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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
Yes, it was a myth. I also remember reading about it in the paper all the time - just like these global warming stories. The trouble with the media is that they love to print bad news. Whether it is true or not, that part doesn't matter.
The reality is that as an individual there's very little one can do. The biggest polluters are in China and the developing countries. Plus perhaps the American meat industry. I stopped eating meat ages ago (for health reasons). Now what?
While this is true - given the IPCC past estimates 90% likely. I feel this is the wrong way of looking at it. It will very likely be much more expensive in the long run to do nothing than it would be for us to try to get the situation under control. This is risk management.
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
In a similar way to how casino's can accurately predict the takings they will have from a roulette table but not where the ball will end up on any one particular spin of the wheel.
Remember also that we took steps to mitigate that risk...
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.
Is that even true?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because the purpose of the IPCC is summarise all the scientific research done on the subject and evaluate the relative importance of each study. Think of it as a meta analysis.
This information is to be given to policy makers so they have as clear a picture of what the risks and likelihoods as we can currently provide.
You could insert a conspiracy in there but it would look exactly as it does if there was no conspiracy.
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.
Regardless of any facts, whether you believe in warming, cooling or another day at the beach. Any hope about the average person having any care about what may or may not happen has been crushed by alarmists, bad politics, whores making money out of it and sundry other things. If people are constantly bombarded with doom, gloom and despondency, they become indifferent. It's a version of the "Cry wolf" syndrome. Indifference leads in complacency. Take people out of the equation and science may have a chance. This is not a major issue, it is only our planet at stake. Astronomers have now found over a thousand other planets, maybe on one of them it's not too late. Forgive me if I appear cynical, I am inclined to find less and less that is particularly special about humans.
Nos Morituri te salutamus
A paper in Nature last September was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
One wonders why you don't apply as much skepticism to that paper as you apparently do to papers you don't like? Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position? There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming. The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models. Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful. They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better.
The reason is simple: their theory [drroyspencer.com] is fundamentally flawed. [principia-scientific.org]
Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again. Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics.
I read the NIPCC Reports for laughs.
Here is the problem I have personally with AGW...it DOES NOT MATTER if you believe it or not, DOES NOT MATTER if AGW is 100% correct and happening because a a handful of ultra rich leeches has made damn sure that the ONLY "solution" you will get will be buying their magical carbon indulgences at a greatly elevated price of course.
Read the article above or look up "Al Gore carbon billionaire" to see why AGW does not matter as long as fucktards like Gore and Goldman Sachs have their fat piggie hands out, I mean for fucks sake Al Gore lives in a McMansion, flies around with a handful of guys in his personal LEAR JET and has a fricking fleet of SUVs drive him around to tell YOU what a shit you are for not taking the bus yet he has the gold plated balls to say he is "carbon neutral" because HE PAYS HIMSELF indulgences from his own fucking company...which he gets a God damned tax writeoff for!
I'm sorry folks but that is EXACTLY what you will get with Crap and Trade and carbon indulgences, a handful of uberrich douchebags that live like kings while telling YOU that you need to eat bugs and ride a fucking bus, all the while they get tax credits for moving YOUR money from their left pocket to their right!!! And you notice rev Al and Goldman NEVER EVER say a fucking word about limiting imports from China and India, the two biggest polluters which in the case of China we can actually detect it from the west coast? Wanna know why? Because that would hurt their profits LULZ.
If you wanna actually support real change? DON'T BUY THE SNAKE OIL being pushed by scammers like Gore and GS! They are counting on all these reports making you foolish enough to go "OMFG we have GOT to do something!" which will be followed by them selling you some scam like carbon indulgences which will ONLY give more of what we've had for the past half a century, a handful of uberrich scum making insane bank and exporting misery.
So until Rev Al and his pals aren't in the way with their hands out? You damned right I'm gonna fight against AGW, not because i don't think dumping crap in the air is bad, but because I don't think Gore's magic billion dollar carbon be-gone spray is gonna do a fucking thing except give Gore the ability to buy the nicest land and best food while YOU are supposed to live like a third world peasant...fuck that shit!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You need to discount money over time. Combating something that happens 70 years from now would be about 1000 times more expensive than combating it in 70 years even if it were completely predictable. But climate change is not at all predictable and certain, so in addition to this enormous cost, you also have the enormous uncertainty in the predictions.
Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.
If I start throwing dice I can't predict what the next roll will be but I can predict with good accuracy what the results of 10,000 rolls will be. Climate is the average results of thousands of weather events which is much more predictable than any individual weather event.
Fortunately we did something about ozone depletion due to CFC's so the problem isn't as bad as it could have been.
Uhh... The reason there was no noticeable impact from the Y2K bug was because people actually heeded the warnings and fixed the most serious problems. The same goes for that devastating SARS epidemic; it never happened because dedicated people worked hard to prevent it.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
And wipe all life from the earth.
Nothing is ever inconsistent with AGW predictions. Because it predicts everything.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Don't be silly. What's happened is scientists have absolutely no clucking clue what caused the warming, or indeed the cooling, or indeed the warming before that or the cooling before that, but nevertheless will hoover up huge grants for their research institutions by pretending they do.
I thought they got it wrong by around 150%. But hey, what's 50% between scientists when you're already 100% wrong? The whole argument is utterly moronic. They don't know jack-shit about anything much. They can measure temperature reasonably well, but even there the temptation to go back and "adjust" past temperatures to make them cooler and "adjust" current temperatures to make them warmer, thus exaggerating the trend, is too much for them. The fact that we allow them to get away with this is one of the reasons public trust in science and scientists is rapidly reducing. Pretty soon these "scientists" (doing science in its broadest possible sense) will be held in as high esteem as lawyers and estate agents.
Then why is CO2 is added to greenhouses to increase growth rate of crops? Depending on local conditions growth is limited by one factor (basic ecology). Where there is sun and its not too cold ie in the summer for large parts of earth, it is typically CO2 limited for many plants. Even now at 400pm there is very little CO2 is the air. That is a lot of diffusion to absorb a decent amount.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
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?
Statement: as I understand things, it's not disputed that up until then it was rising? And that it's also not disputed that we're still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (at an increasing rate, even)? I can think of something that stops rising in temperature even though it continues to accept energy - substances undergoing a phase change from solid to liquid.
Armchair hypothesis: we've reached the point where atmospheric temperature has reached a temporary equilibrium point as the excess heat is instead going into changing the phase of the polar and glacial ice fields and permafrost zones.
Query: I presume somebody's already thought of this, so are there any observations that would tend to confirm or disprove?
You are comparing a greenhouse and the world. You are comparing how some unnamed plant species grow to how the entire ecology of the world functions. Don't you feel ridiculous silly? Has it occurred to you that you might not know enough to form an opinion on this subject, let alone one that contradicts the scientific consensus? I mean, if you are right, simply work out the details and collect your Nobel prize.
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.
As always there is a lot of noise about this, as if it was possible to determine the truth by shouting the loudest. People seem to forget that this is SCIENCE: it means that the scientists are saying "These are our data, we think it means so and so" - and then everybody can in principle go away and check and draw their own conclusions. A lot of very competent people have done exactly that and reached conclusions very similar to the IPCC, and they can argue very convincingly for the validity of their calculations.
I have not, on the other hand, heard any of the so-called sceptics do the same - which is probably why they direct their arguments at the general public, who are not in a position to actually question their explanations. Let the sceptics present their data, like all real scientists do; if their data and their conclusions are valid, then they will stand up.
Ah, but of course, this is where the conspiracy theories set in: You can't get funded, you can't get published etc, and it is not because you are wrong or your research is flawed - no it is the fault of The Establishment of Evil Scientists, who make a career out of milking the research funds dry. Yeah, right.
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 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.
"The coldest six months in over 100 years" globally, or just in the Northern hemisphere? If it is the latter, it isn't necessarily inconsistent with AGW predictions.
Not even in "the Northern Hemisphere"., it's "For much of the country", i.e. parts of the USA.
Here in Western Europe (also, the last time I checked, in the Northern Hemisphere) the winter has been notably mild.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
And that is why you should not have mod points.
Non-scientist types tend to reproduce at a much fast rate.
"We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now..." .' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he 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 about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com...
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Well said brother.
Well said.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.
I didn't see him say that.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Hole in the ozone layer didn't spread as feared. That'd be the most recent event that was predicted, with CFC's that never broke down, etc.
" Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position?"
Several times. I have a copy of it here.
"There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
I didn't ignore anything. The whole point was that it's shitty "science". That kind of error rate would be laughed at in most fields of science... so why aren't you laughing?
"The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models."
Correct. The fundamental "evidence" for AGW relies instead on flawed understanding of the physics involved. Two of those other links.
"Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful."
Correct. And models that predict a lot of warming during a full 16 years without any, aren't very useful.
"They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better."
When they're almost all grossly inaccurate, and based on flawed assumptions, they don't help anybody understand very much.
"Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again."
Spencer never tried to refute Latour's actual math. Neither has anybody else. For the simple reason they know it's correct. Spencer tried to use "thought experiments" to refute Latour. Sorry, just doesn't work. Show me where his math is wrong.
"Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics."
Latour designs heat-transfer control systems for a living. He did it for NASA, among other notables.
"the excess heat is instead going into changing the phase of the polar and glacial ice fields and permafrost zones."
After some record sea-ice extents in January and February, sea ice extents at the poles are right now completely NORMAL for this time of year. Nothing low about them at all, and they certainly aren't shrinking. Ice thickness (total inland ice mass) in antarctica has been growing steadily for years.
Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim [joannenova.com.au].
This one is especially annoying to me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
From that paper:
"It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period [the prior 15 years is] not significantly different from zero..."
Also:
"The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998-2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 +/- 0.08 degrees C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 +/- 0.03 degrees C per decade (Fig. 1b)." [emphasis added]
Do you have anything constructive to add or are just going to give out insults?
IPCC gives a dire warning that if we don't change our sinful ways then we are going to starve to death. Seems to me that nuclear power reduces our carbon output and does so at a price competitive with current energy sources.
A bonus to nuclear power is that, if we make wise choices on the design and location of the power plants, we can use the heat from the plant that might normally go to waste and desalinate water. That solves another problem that the IPCC warns us about.
Even if AGW is not a real threat it still sounds like nuclear power is a good idea. Just that if AGW is real then not only is nuclear power a good solution it may be the only solution.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"Dog and cats -- living together."
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I see.
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
it was 50% sarcasm. But seriously. Read the papers, not the web sites, not the press releases, not the political reports. But the actual papers these scientists are prepared to put in ink and have peer reviewed. The picture is quite different from the consensus "internet" view of AGW.
Why assume things about what I have read? Your beef is with AR5 and supplementary papers of the IPCC - not with me. If you think there is a problem with this material, describe in detail what the problems are.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look.
Just reading this slashdot thread a few days later gave me links that counter everything you've linked. Several times disproving the "hasn't warmed in the last decade" for example.
In terms of models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Since the internet contains a pro and a con side to just about everything (that has become politicized), one of us is picking the more accurate set of info from the sea of info.
I guess time will tell.
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...