Slashdot Mirror
UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming
iONiUM (530420) writes "'The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.' A document was released by the IPCC outlining the current affects on climate change, and they are not good. For specific effects on humans: 'Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.'"
Because scary reports must logically be false.
This is the basic position a pseudo-skeptic like yourself takes, right? That if a large group of scientists say "X is harmful, potentially very harmful", you're response is that they're just trying to scare you, and you can safely ignore what they have to say and keep on doing X.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Because the first thought when confronted with a troubling scientific report is to consult an economist...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?
It means you are reading BS that does not reflect *reality*.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41C (0.74F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.31C (0.56F) above the 20th century average of 3.2C (37.8F), tying with 1943 as the 44th highest for February on record. For the ocean, the February global sea surface temperature was 0.45C (0.81F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.6F), making it the seventh highest for February on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the Decemberâ"February period was 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.8F), making it the eighth warmest such period on record.
we're all effed. even if we do an aggressive CO2 reduction in emissions, we won't get emissions down to sustainable levels by 2050. Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels. and this assumes we don't get an explosion in emissions from developing countries.
So we have 80 years of unmitigated climate change ahead of us. pretty much everybody reading this will die before there's a possibility of things improving. sorry to be a debbie downer, but these are no longer dire warnings of what might happen unless we take action, they're explanations of what will happen due to past inaction. hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo husbands, cuz things are gonna start changing.
I will give you a hint, pro-climate change scientists tend to be funded by universities and in some cases governments.
Deniers tend to be funded by Exxon, and their like.
So tell, me who gets tot see the world on expenses - the deniers or the scientists?
If you can't see the answer than that tells me who is funding your internet connection. After all the deniers have expressly admitted paying people to spread lies.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Well if I am not to believe the BS from the IPCC because it doesn't reflect reality we don't need TFA, do we?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...
I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wow, the climate deniers are out in force on Slashdot today. Out of curiousity, are you paid? Do you all get instant alerts whenever the subject of climate is posted on Slashdot, like the Digg Patriots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
I have always found it interesting that a lot of folks would prefer that such problems didn't exist when even simple logic seems to point to the fact that it is human caused. Common sense tells you that if a billion of us start to burn things it might have some negative effects. Heck, I remember as a kid we use to dig holes in a riverbank for fun and over time with a few sticks we managed to amazingly reshape the entire riverbank. Granted maybe I shouldn't be so hard on folks who refuse to believe in it. After all if it doesn't directly affect me and I can't do anything about it, it doesn't exist right?
The real problem is what to do about it. It probably isn't all gloom and doom. The UN is making a huge deal of it because let's face it there's a LOT of third world and poor countries out there where even a small shift in climate would kill millions. The UN represents ALL countries. For us richer nations it will probably be uncomfortable, maybe an inconvenience at worst so long as serious world war doesn't break out. Still I wonder how morally bad we would feel if we knew that say saving a little now could save millions in another country. Sadly I suspect in the end greed will win out and we'll likely take the difficult road in life. It seems to sadly be what we do best. Wait until things get bad or someone dies, then try to fix it if we can.
I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...
I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.
I hate those scientists, they have an agenda. They even question God's intelligent design.
They will have sprouted friggin' gills and still be struggling with the concept.
1. Proof is for liquor and mathematics.
2. There is a large body of data and evidence contained in a vast number of published papers and reports. If you are incapable of reading them, that's your problem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yeah! The motto of the UN and any world leaders should be "Hope for the best and prepare only for the best!" Because planning for the worst-case scenario is just ASKING for trouble. Who are these people with their negative thinking about the worlds food supply? Why, that's downright irresponsible to be pessimistic like that, according to "The Secret."
Sarcasm aside, I do sorta agree with you. They know it's going to be a problem. They don't really seem to be pointing fingers which would be the next step. I realize the top carbon emitting nations run the show at the UN, so even a toothless resolution telling the US and China to fucking stop tinkering with the atmosphere is never going to get anywhere, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying. Furthermore, the UN is against the next logical step of cleaning it up. They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
So they won't make moves to prevent it and they won't make moves to allow it to be reduced. They come up with suggestions, but they're all basically "deal with the problems." For instance it encourages economic diversification in response to problems with the economy. Oh, great. Cause that's not something anyone thought to do before hand. MUCH easier than causing algal blooms in the ocean to soak up the carbon.
Assuming the projections are correct, wouldn't it make sense to eliminate using maize (corn in the US) as an additive to gasoline? When 30%+ of the corn currently being planted in the US is done so to get the Ethanol subsidy, it removes quite a bit from the food supply. I do not claim that all would be planted for food (corn price would plummet), but arable land is being used to for this 'not green' fuel additive. I say 'not green' because even the UN has acknowledged that the use is counterproductive.
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.
Science: If we can't change it, well, fuck it.
Here in Vermont, a few years back they redrew the flood maps, and a large number of people ended up being added to the flood areas. This cause a lot of outcry for people who suddenly had to buy flood insurance in order to keep their mortgages. Of course, they stopped whining after Hurricane Irene hit and caused a ton of flood damage and taking out a lot of houses that had just started being covered by flood insurance...
Nothing significant can happen unless everyone does.
Not true. If 20% do something, it will be significant.
Everyone blame everyone else, and don't do anything? No thank you. Try at least.
And here's the thing - most countries (especially poorer countries) don't give the tiniest bit of a fuck.
Not true. Countries are affected differently, and some poor countries are highly concerned.
If everyone in America did what I'm saying it would make an impact, but A) That will never happen and B) It would just delay the inevitable, because of china etc.
So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.
Scenario B It's not true and we're arguing over..nothing.
It doesn't paint the greatest picture of humanity but I'm fairly certain it's an accurate one.
You are falsely blaming others. Even if not everyone contributes, change can be achieved, and it should be tried. Non-contributing countries could even be fined for not contributing to the common rescue attempt.
China has about the same emissions as the US. And guess why China has so much emissions? Because of the outsourced productions (electronics, clothing, toys). The US could easily implement requirements that their outsourced products have to adhere to emission limits!
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill. That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes.
You can go to the bottom of the report page 38 for a chart and review the differences in the between a "low emission mitigation scenario" RCP 2.6 (one that we try to help the problem) and a high emission scenario (where we keep on keepin on.) RCP 8.5.
While temps go up for both, the mitigation scenario leads to a much more livable planet, closer to the one we live in today. the difference between scenarios is stark, an average of 3C difference by 2100. Children born today could easily live to see 2100, they would be 86 years old. So for me in Houston TX that means a hot summer day that was 100F will be 105.5F. The mitigation scenario could reverse the warming trend as early as 2050. You are correct that even the best case scenario doesn't allow for a return to current temperatures by 2100. In my mind the question is how long until we realize we our saving our own skins and make some hard decisions. Everybody want's a livable planet, but nobody want's to be the first to make the sacrifice.
TODO create witty sig.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things. Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change. And very similar arguments against (it is to complex, data keep changing, this doesn't make sense to me, there is a conspiracy by the government).
And it is a world wide scheme and not a UN scheme, since all scientists across the world are saying the same, independently of UN and US actors in the debate. Close to all of the scientists in this field are repeatedly refuting what you claim. Do you want me to refute intelligent design, homeopathy, vaccine skeptics, fake moon landing? Same answer.
Just say it like you mean it. "Let's hope they're wrong, they must be wrong, I don't wanna stop driving my SUV."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's not what they said. I know reading TFA is unfashionable, but if you had you would have seen that they are saying we can still do a lot to make it less bad and to cope with the changes that are coming. They present two models, one based on high emissions and one based on low emissions, and urge everyone to aim for the latter.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
That's because you only get to try this (or anything like it) once. And if it doesn't work, and has side-effects you didn't anticipate, you're seriously fucked. We don't get have the technology to do terraforming, our global effects so far have all been unintentional.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
2010 and 2011 were La Niña years, i.e., years where the sea surface temperature is 3-5 degrees celcius below normal. What you're seeing is weather, not climate.
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
So Box 9.2 of AR5 in which they attempt to explain the 15 year (a year ago) "hiatus" is just describing just weather, not climate, because the general circulation models predicted 0.5 to 0.6 C warming over the same interval and they couldn't possibly be wrong, could they?
Also, if you are going to ignore the cooling/flattening associated with La Nina, perhaps we should ignore the one single solid burst of global warming in the latter 20th century in association with the 1997-1998 super El Nino as well. If you are going to assert that 15 years isn't statistically significant, perhaps we should ignore the single 15 year interval with significant warming in the latter half of the 20th century, especially since this 15 year stretch is surrounded by flat to descending stretches all the way back to 1944 on the left and flat to very weakly ascending stretches from 1998 to the present. All of which can easily be seen with your own eyes here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
That's what, 0.5 C of total warming over 75 years, almost all occurring in one single burst? Sort of like the 0.7 C of warming visible here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
except that warming occurred without the benefit of significant CO_2 forcing and was much more uniform.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Yes, but the well-educated ones know enough to steer clear of any Slashdot discussion of climate change.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In fact climatologists don't consider 1997-1998 to be normal - they treat it as an outlier. It's the deniers who pick up on it and say "we've been getting cooler since 1998!".
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I've met and seen many scientists argue against GWA. In fact, many meterologists and geologists....which mind you, until the recent creation of "climatology" were the DE FACTO experts on climate.
I've seen numerous staticians cite incorrect methods.
I've watched laymen document poor evidence collection methods en masse.
I've seen and heard blatant fear mongering, and antagonism, and professional censoring of anyone who disagrees.
Heck, per the old school definitions, the earth is STILL in an ice age.
It may be colder than normal in some specific places (like the eastern part of the United States). In spite of that, worldwide temperatures are way above average (NASA released a report recently saying 2013 was one of the warmest years on record and every year in the top-10 was in the last 15 years).
One of the things that came out of the diplomatic cable leaks was the concern diplomats had for the mass migration the 2009-10 drought was causing, 10% of Syria's population simply abandoned the rural area due to lack of water and sought refuge in the cities. One US diplomat even correctly identified where the social strain would reach flashpoint. The fact there was an unprecedented regional drought with widespread food riots just prior to the "Arab spring" seems to have escaped people notice. The obvious cause-effect link between food shortages, internal displacement, and civil unrest seems to be lost in the noise of a bitter civil war and tens (if not hundreds) of millions of disillusioned revolutionaries now enduring the "Arab summer".
Sure it's silly to blame an historic drought and subsequent civil unrest on AGW alone, the point is not that "AGW caused the civil war or toppled Mubarak", the point is that such "dustbowl" scenarios are much more likely to occur with AGW than without it. The issue of "climate refugees" is why for almost a decade now the pentagon has put AGW at the top of it's medium term future threat list.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Are you saying that the conclusion that most people agree upon is correct or that having more people understand an issue is helpful to the overall dialog on the issue?
If you are saying former then I would say that is a classic logical fallacy.
If the latter then I would agree with you.
To do that we must have access to the process and a seat at the table.
There has been a concerted effort lately to shut out "deniers" from all such discussions. They are being blacklisted from media. Blacklisted from science conferences. Blacklisted in science journals.
We can't possibly tell the difference between a crooked and an honest system if we're shut out. And worse, the very people that are shutting people out won't be able to tell either since their ability to detect problems is largely based upon a healthy internal dialog which they've terminated.
Science cannot operate without debate. By all means, let the debate be amongst experts. But "expert" can not be defined as "agreeing with everything we say about everything."
That isn't expertise... it is orthodoxy.
I'm sure you don't want that anymore then I do... however, it is the current state of affairs. It is a consequence of polluting science with politics.
Until the political elements are purged the debate is likely to remain a political debate... and not a scientific one.
The pro global warming people might well have the stronger scientific argument. But in perverting the issue with politics they've made the science irrelevant. And they are losing the political battle.
The best course is to purge the politics. But so far as I've seen... they're addicted to it already. They can't stop. And that means nothing short of collapse will end the relationship.
Again... even if they're right... they'll exaggerate their position. Its what politicians do. Think of them like investment bankers suddenly being given access to a no limit credit account. That is what the scientists have... or had. They had a no limit credibility account. Our trust in science is deep. Do we trust our politicians in the same way? Not even close. By by mixing science with politics... suddenly the politicians could BORROW the credibility of the scientists and use it for their own ends.
This sort of thing eventually trends towards collapse. Eventually the politicians will tell a lie so big that credibility check will bounce.
That will be a sad day and not one I am looking forward to... but really... its inevitable if the politicians are not cut off. They will suck the scientists dry and leave them with nothing but... piles of money. So there's there. But their integrity and position in society will be merely on paper at that point. The trust will be gone.
Is it worth it? Anyone that really values science would sever the connection. Its toxic.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In my view the answer is yes, but much in the same way that anti-tobacco lobbyists had propaganda machines supporting that tobacco was harmful against an onslaught of well funded research and arguments trying to questioning it.
Except that they're the ones outspending the evil oil companies propaganda machine. For example, there are major government agencies such as US's NASA and the UK's MET supporting climate change propaganda. Vast sums of public funds are burned on climate change issues such as roughly 30 billion euros per year by the EU.
And a number of private NGOs are on the gravy train such as the World Wildlife Fund which gets over $30 million per year just in public funds for its copious propaganda exercises. That's alone is well over any amounts alleged to be put into skepticism groups and propaganda.
Sure, the funding battle is uneven, but it's uneven in favor of climate change advocacy. It doesn't mean that climate change is wrong or even exaggerated, but I think it's healthy to consider all conflicts of interest, not merely assume they exist only for opponents.
"You would think there are enough math geeks who would be able to see the vast amount of BS the GW people are putting out, but since they hide the raw data and have no way of adjusting for varying albedo at ground stations we just have to go by the fudged data."
This is simply and completely wrong. The data sets are OK and there is numerous adjustments & corrections applied.
Remember the Berkeley statistician who was a skeptic about the data quality & reduction procedures for various reasons? Well, he did what you said was impossible: he got the not-actually-hidden raw data, and with some colleagues re-did everything. The conclusion? The climatologists were right all along and didn't screw anything up.
And why would thousands of scientists all over the world suddenly and nearly uniformly "want" a specific outcome?
And if it's all just a giant magic trick for "moar funding!!!!" somehow maintained across generations and countries why hasn't this happened in any other area of science? And if it's all a scam, why choose one which would be opposed by many of the most powerful forces on the planet?
The ones who really "want a specific outcome" are actually the other side, for obvious reasons.
The US can always pay the interest on its loans denominated in US dollars by making dollars.
In any case, in 2013, the current interest on the US debt is about 400 billion USD. The US GDP is 16,803 billion USD, so the interest payment is about 2.3% of GDP. The US GDP could go down a bunch further.
This is a completely different situation from actually changing the global composition of physical molecules in the atmosphere, which cannot be redefined by any human action. The risk of long-term nearly irreversible changes in the physical environment vs human-to-human financial contracts?
Funny you should mention a 30 year old man. The last time the global average temperature for any month was below the 20th Century (1901-2000) average was 30 years ago in February of 1984. So that 30 year old man has never experienced a world where the monthly average temperature was below the 20th Century average.
The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.
There have been several meta-studies on these questions, and they all say that it's total bullshit, just in nicer words and with graphs and statistics. Google is your friend, I'm not doing the legwork for a denialist.
As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise.
There's a time for being nice and understanding and there's a time to call the sky blue and the liar a liar.
Unfortunately, most arguments are lost by the reasonable and rational persons, because they say "probably" and "I think" and "the data indicates, that", while the fanatic says "certainly", "I know" and "(whatever) proves". Thus the fanatic sounds more convincing, irrespective of facts.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org