Slashdot Mirror
We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover writes in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that climate change is irreversible but not unstoppable. She describes the changes that are happening already and also those likely to happen, and compares what is coming to the climate of the Pliocene: 'Even if countries reduce emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising much above the internationally agreed-upon "danger" threshold of 2 degrees Celsius (which seems increasingly unlikely), we can still look forward to conditions similar to those of the mid-Pliocene epoch of 3 million years ago. At that time, the continents were in much the same positions that they are today, carbon dioxide levels ranged between 350 and 400 ppm, the global average temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than it is today (but up to 20 degrees higher than today at the northernmost latitudes), the global sea level was about 25 meters higher, and most of today's North American forests were grasslands and savanna.' Stover agrees with two scientists published in Nature Geoscience that 'Future warming is therefore driven by socio-economic inertia," and points the way toward changing a Pliocene future.
Which group contains the scientists? The ones fudging data? Leaving out the 1930's? Drawing tenuous connections and misinterpreting causality?
Science sure is inconvenient to YOU GUYS these days, sheep.
Otherwise known as "believers". The true scientists are the ones questioning the weak research and goal-seeked studies.
(Any second now, one of the many sheep here will use the word "consensus" to shore up their position).
If you look at the data you will find we have been flat for the last 20 years
Bullshit. The temperatures have not deviated from the same trend established in the decades before that.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
It means the concentration of CO2 in everybody's lungs is at least 40,000 ppm. So people blaming their "ailments" on 600ppm is complete BS.
Sea levels rise about 2-3mm per year when you're not using your imagination.
Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.
Right, because when their average temperature suddenly jumps up to 25C, those northern frozen wastelands will instantly become a tropical paradise/breadbasket of the earth. Nevermind that since nothing has grown taller than a foot in 100s (1000s?) of thousands of years there are no nutrients in the soil and its much more likely to turn into a desert (much like rainforests do after deforestation). The effort to turn our newly thawed tundra into the fertile paradise all you "AGW aint so bad" crowd like to spout all the time could well be greater than eliminating all CO2 emissions within 5 years.
It's hard to take the "facts" seriously when there appears to be obvious fraud involved. Climategate continues as temperature data seem to be systematically falsified:
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha... (Yes, it's a wordpress site, but data is from nasa.)
How can you take scientists seriously when being "right" becomes the agenda instead of pursuit of the truth? Critiques should be embraced to ensure we didn't miss something instead of being quickly dismissed as ignorant "deniers". Present ALL the facts transparently and truthfully - including funding - and let the scientific community draw the conclusions. Chips and heads fall where they may.
Fear of losing credibility, reputation, and funding is corrupting scientists and ruining science.
Yes, really. Are you that stupid?
You're talking about a soil layer measured in inches on top of permafrost, that is, ground which is mostly frozen water. If you start thawing this, the ground subsides, generally fills with water, and then a ten-thousand-years-delayed decomposition period starts. The North Slope of Alaska is dotted with millions of tiny lakes for this exact reason.
Maybe your imaginative powers are able to compare that with the places that we are currently growing crops. Turning bog into fertile farmland is not impossible, and neither is greening the desert, but it's not trivial and it's not going to happen without a huge amount of time and human intervention. But even if you do all of that, you're still going to have a short growing season, because of that whole "axial tilt" thing.
I'm failing to come up with an analogy to describe how irrelevant the conditions of Earth 100 million years ago are to the current carbon crisis. Maybe you can try again with a non-bogus argument and save me the trouble.