Slashdot Mirror
We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong About the Planet's Future (washingtonpost.com)
Less than 24 hours since we read this dire climate study, an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things: James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. The research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves in its quest to suggest that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be far too much. Hansen has called it the most important work he has ever done. "I think almost everybody who is really familiar with both paleo and modern is now very concerned that we are approaching, if we have not passed, the points at which we have locked in really big changes for young people and future generations," Hansen said.
Fuck, I thought the ice caps were permanently melted last year already. Why do they still feel the need to scare us when global warming has already killed us according to these same predictions they made 10 years ago?
Oh, and bonus points for the next time that some bot who slobbers all over this story as proof that we are all doomed DOOMED I SAY turns right back around and says that this "report" never happened in 5 years after the world hasn't ended.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So what? After all, we've hit peak oil and the population bomb has already gone off. We are literally lifting people in frontloaders out of the way and Soylent Green is people. This is just a drop in the bucket with all the disasters that have already befallen us that were correctly predicted in the 1970s. It doesn't seem like there will be a humanity left to even care by the time Earth has turned into Venus.
Now, excuse me, I need to go out in my gas mask and radiation gear to go salvage vacuum tubes from the ruins of civilization so I can keep my mainframe working in this post-apocalyptic world.
... is cultural marxism at its worst.
Just when I thought slashdot couldn't get any stupider, the climate denialists are here in force. Of all freakin' places.
If being a scientist requires the ability to look dispassionately at the evidence, Hansen's not a scientist.
I tend to be a skeptic myself, so my reaction is far from panic, but this seems like something we should be studying very objectively. It's a shame so few people are capable of doing it.
I remember the kids who went into "climate science" in college: they were the ones who couldn't handle real science.
Why work hard when you can get easy money of you support their agenda?
Here is the pdf. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net...
And, you never have to release raw data so no one can ever prove you wrong.
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!"
"Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!"
"Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!"
"Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!"
"If we stay in one place we'll all die!"
"Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
That the planet doesn't have a future.
The planet will kill off all of the humans and then get back to its regularly scheduled program. We're just a glitch.
Perhaps the increasing fervor is due to a situation that no one is addressing and that most Republicans aren't wanting to force to NOT be addressed. People like you remind me of the cartoons where the screaming character is a hilariously long distance away from the steam roller moving slowly towards him so that the character's scream is long and drawn out....until he gets ran over.
The climate is changing. The vast majority of scientists are not debating that point. IF it is man made, we may have an opportunity to fix it and we should start now because this is literally the only planet we have to support our life. The other case doesn't really matter, we're boned no matter what we do, but there's no reason outside of some people claiming that OMG CAPITALISM COULD DIE. Personally, I'd rather the death of an economic system that'll eventually die off vs the planet that sustains the life I live.
I just wish all the climate deniers would start building houses at the ocean's edge.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
... Hell, even better: Those kook whackjob Christians who predict the end of the world on a precise date at least admit they were wrong when it doesn't happen!...
In a sense they hedged their bets by shifting from "global warming" to "climate change". Now any and all weather that isn't average can and will be used as evidence for climate change. As noted below, average isn't as common as one might think: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
Perhaps it's because his work is based on mathematical models, research, and the scientific message. Religion is based on - believe me cuz I said so...OR DIE. There's no comparison, just your lack of intelligence on the difference between climate science and religion. I'd call you stupid, but that'd probably go over your head.
Or worse, get fired for not following the agenda.
Sadly, this type of kooky shit makes up 80% of Facebook.
What kind of idiot does that anyway? You don't need global warming to be hit by a plain old hurricane or flood.
It's worth noting that this is just one paper, and some reservations about this paper have been expressed by peers:
Michael Mann, a Penn State university climate scientist familiar with the original study, commented, “Near as I can tell, the issues that caused me concern originally still remain in the revised manuscript. Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem unphysically large, and the ocean component of their model doesn’t resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward. That makes northern hemisphere temperatures in their study too sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning ocean circulation,” the scientific name for the ocean circulation in the Atlantic that, the study suggests, could shut down.
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible, and it raises important research questions as to what those changes might mean if they were to occur. But, the paper does not include enough ice-sheet physics to tell us how much how rapidly is how likely.
Hansen is so polarizing a figure because of his activism in governmental policy that his presence in the media is becoming counterproductive to getting anything done about it. I'm sure he's a good scientist, and he should objectively look at the fallout from his involvement in the public's (mis)understanding, and think before he speaks. We'd better off with hearing from his research than his pulpit.
Seriously, yes, the proper response is to hope that the scientists are wrong... Wow... No further comment.
The great majority of religionists today, especially in the United States, aren't at any threat of dying if they fail to continue to follow their religion. Try again.
The paper starts talking about boulders on page 3781: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net... - it's only a small part of the paper.
The logic is that increased temperature gradients will increase frequency and ferocity of storms in the North Atlantic. It draws upon evidence from the past where this happened, the sea can throw massive boulders great distances. The paper provides evidence that this isn't due to rare tsunamis but powerful storms. This isn't exactly new information to be honest, just the scale.
Of course your counter-argument - personal attacks on the scientists - shows great maturity on your part, and a willingness to engage. Not.
Just another Trumpist Trumping his Stubby Horn.
Someone doesn't agree with you they must be retarded. 99.9999% of scientists agree! (That the earth is flat circa 400bc)
Like Al Gore?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/08/home/la-hm-hotprop-20100508
Seriously. If Slashdot, of all places, can't have a reasonable conversation about the science behind this topic without the deniers dominating the discussion then there really is no hope. We should just defund any climate research and put all that money into coal and oil discovery and extraction research. Game over. Why delay the end point? It's not like there's any political will to do anything serious about it anyway.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
The Rothschilds, (Already worth trillions of dollars) want even more money by taxing you for your carbon footprint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI
Their dream is to tax everyone for exhaling a perfectly healthy gas in this manner. In order to accomplish this goal, they need to lie, cheat, and fearmonger everyone into submission, so that you give up more natural rights in order to serve their profits.
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
James Hansen has long been revealed as a leftist activist and charlatan. He is predicting historic levels of heat. Brace yourself for a cool summer.
James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. "
Does his study use real data or the fuzzy logic data which NOAA, NASA and AMOS have been manipulating or out right altering????
Maryland House and Senate just updated the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act to cut emissions by 40% by 2030.
You just noticed them?
Since methodological naturalism didn't really exist until the end of the Middle AGes, there were no scientists in 400BC.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Rich people buy oceanfront property. Once enough rich people have soggy feet, I have the feeling that they are going to demand that something be done with other people's money to fix the problem (even if it's just bailing out FEMA's flood insurance account after it gets drained buying out all their now-worthless million dollar homes).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
is never, ever wrong. I put my future, my wealth and my sanity in their editor's hands ... NOT!
Well, seeing as the case is now a genuine emergency, I know what we can do. Let's give the radical Left everything it's been asking for for decades, right now, without any debate or voting or any of that old-fashioned crap that only randomly results in positive outcomes. Let's make the decision now and get rid of capitalism once and for all, in the West anyway, and implement a fair system by which we'll be ruled by highly intelligent elites that will put all of society's resources in a basket and then share them out fairly for all.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Imagine if a scientist would publish a paper that basically said: It's all good, no worries, we've got everything under control. Nobody would talk about that, and the funding would be cut. So there always has to be some kind of catastrophe lurking just around the corner, so these people will stay employed.
It would be nice if all the haters, climate change deniers could have their own planet to fuck up. We, the sane people could then fix the issues which contribute to climate change and resource deficiency.
say that china gets a pass. In addition, the far left will continue to fight against the use of nuclear power, even though it could replace coal quickly.
I applaud Dr. Hansen and his work, but hate his followers are just as unscientific as the far right.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Uh, Pythagoras said it was round in 500BC. And proved it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Funny you mention the death of an economic system. Have an agenda much?
You're right. When an uneducated radio preacher starts sermonizing about the end of the world and for evidence holds up a book written by a bunch of ignorant stone age goat herders, we Atheists go off our rocker because it's an amoral shitshow. Especially when the key question gets asked which is "Okay, so what should we do?" and the answer is to mumble to ourselves... I see that person as an idiot charlatan and treat them accordingly.
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
I presume your reference to the preacher is to Harold Camping... Note is apology is laughable at best.
Scientists speak without certainty because they work in a world where new evidence can change their world view. The religious nuts speak with certainty because no evidence, however good can change their beliefs.
As for magical government regulations, you lost me on that. I'm yet to see scientists come out and say "Phew, good thing we passed that carbon tax or we'd all be screwed by now!"
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
All worthless distinctions, bestowed on him by the ideologically insular, hopelessly corrupt and diseased leftist universities
Hope they're wrong? I thought this was settled!?
And 90% of climate deniers....
Just direct personal attacks :) Validating my argument even more.
Central Bankers have been on record stating they want to tax your carbon footprint, and the best you have is "Tin foil hat!"
Keep drinking that kool aid and enjoy your Mass Media mind control which defines your every opinion in life, even "Tin Foil Hat"
This always hurts my head, when people point out the change from "Global Warming" to "climate change". Do you know WHY it was changed? Because virtually no one understands the term "Global Warming". Everyone assumes it means everywhere is getting hotter, so *any* weather event short of a drought is used to refute the problem.
"Global Warming" is still an apt term, if one understands that it implies that more energy is being put into the system ( or perhaps being retained ). I far prefer that phrase to "Climate Change" for no other reason than it's more accurate.
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling. I distinctly remember seeing videos in school about how new york would be under water by 2015. What struck me was the imagery of the torch on the Statue of Liberty peeking out from the ocean. All these predictions about how horrible the world would be by this point, yet here we are; no flying cars, no coastal apocalypses ( Katrina...maybe ), and yet another presidential election where the choices are a Douchebag or Turd Sandwich.
Just once I'd like for climate scientists to hold a press conference to admit they don't really know what they're doing yet. That climate science is *hard*. But here's a list of things that are never the less good ideas ( reducing/removing air pollution sources, keeping our water ways clean, ect... ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
As long as the earth has existed there have been warming and cooling cycles and we've only been recording them for a short while. The alarmists and pessimists that make the most noise insult our intelligence by disseminating (sometimes deliberately) incomplete information and promote their pet conclusions based on that incomplete information. Humans, with the best of intentions and complete information, are still prone to arrive at flawed conclusions because we're only human. How much more prone to flawed conclusions with *incomplete* information? Most people don't have the time to invest to research these enormously complex subjects so read a couple of books and articles on each side of every argument and form your own opinion. Easily said, but when I went about trying to find a book by a reputable author and researcher that did not simply parrot the "alarm du jour" of "global warming" I had a really tough time finding anything. For one terrifying moment I thought that maybe there isn't any published counterpoint to the alarmists and that all of life on earth would perish in the next two centuries. Googling and YouTube eventually lead me to one such book by a well known author called Matt Ridley - "The Rational Optimist". I'm still working my way through the second half of it but it will open your eyes to a lot of things (including global warming) and give you genuine reason for optimism. Pick it up - you'll be glad you did. Disclaimer: I have no interest in the book, the publisher and don't have any connection to the author. You will read and learn a whole lot of stuff you didn't know - I did. The more you know, the greater the probability you'll form a realistic opinion on the subject.
Morgan Freeman has to be in this movie.
Let me know once you've got a photograph of the six-winged beasts of Revelations.
My guess is that you'll live long enough to see the ravages of climate change (whether or not they include megaboulders... that part has not been collaborated by other researchers). It won't exactly be an end-of-the-world type thing (sorry to disappoint), but maybe at that point in your adult life you'll be able to reconsider the value of trusting indirect revelation over empirical/rational/mathematical analysis.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
that is all
Looks like St. ALGORE is a denier then: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
[wipes away tear] St. Gore's sacrifices for the cause are just so inspiring!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Remember kids, if some guy on a street corner or some kooky radio preacher was sermonizing about this stuff the Atheist echo chamber in here would go off its rocker in attacking religion.
But when we slap the magic word "Global Warming" on the same thing, now it's "science approved"!! Hell, even better: Those kook whackjob Christians who predict the end of the world on a precise date at least admit they were wrong when it doesn't happen! We don't even have to have that level rationality with our predictions, we just double down or claim that magical government regulations staved off Doomsday.
If the "whackjob Christians" actually had some evidence, instead of quoting from an ancient book, people might listen to them more. Science is funny that way. It actually requires evidence. Also, simply because someone accepts AGW or biological evolution, doesn't mean they are an atheist. AGW and evolution don't conflict with non-Christian religions, or any form of Christianity that is not the whackjob fundamentalist Evangelical type of Christianity. Unfortunately, we have a lot of them in America, though they are small minority world-wide (you know, the rest of the world - that place "outside America").
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Republicans??? THE EU HAS BEEN INCREASING THEIR CO2 OUTPUT EVERY YEAR! Should I repeat that? Go check it yourself. It isn't a REPUBLICAN problem. This is why this climate change is political bullshit. It has nothing to do with Republicans. If people believed in it, they would change their CO2 output. Yet they don't.
Ever heard the phrase "There is no hope!" ?
Seriously - have you made ever a count, how many time your hope was working out or it failed...
Hoping creates contemplacy, delays action and hinders rationality - just look at the actual odds of winning Powerball. Doing it consoles, gives hope despite the fact that the odds are something like 1 : 11 Million. That's how human mind functions and gets fooled.
Our planet is not a powerball lottery to use hope for future human and environmental decent existence.
Would you consider the EU to be "climate denialists"? After all, the EU is increasing their output of CO2 EVERY YEAR. Why aren't they cutting back on it? Do they "deny" climate change?
This means what exactly? That climatologists are going to die if they don't stop researching the climate and making prediction?
He claimed that we are past the point of no return more then 10 years ago.. So we are to late.
It was reported Florida would be underwater.. in the '80s... It's still there.
We are second only to TURKEY as science deniers. Looking at these comments makes my head hurt. Cataclysmic event in the US might not be a bad thing.. stop the stupidity.
We need nuclear power. We, as Americans need to be building a new nuclear power plant (with about 1GW capacity) every week. We, as humans, need to be building a nuclear power plant every day. We need to do this from now until we replace all coal and natural gas power plants, and then keep going to replace the nuclear power plants that we'd retire in 40 years. At some point we'd likely have to build them at an even faster pace to account for an increasing population and/or an improved standard of living.
To those of you that think we could never build such complex machines at such a pace I say look at the numbers of commercial jet aircraft or oil tankers built in a year, they are comparable to a nuclear power plant in size, cost, and complexity and we mass produce them. To those that think we'd create some sort of radiation hazard, well we can address the comparatively small problem of disposing of radioactive waste or we can deal with the problem of oceans rising, super storms, and so on. I'd also maintain that the problem of nuclear waste has been solved already, we'd just need to build reactors that can both produce power and consume the waste we have now.
To those that believe we can solve this problem with wind and solar I say these technologies produce less than 5% of grid power now after decades of government subsidized research and development. Nuclear power now produces 20% of our grid power and we've not built a new nuclear power plant in 40 years. Even if we built those same 50 year old designs today then we'd still be a century ahead of what wind and solar can do. If we build truly modern nuclear power plants, and mass assemble them, then we'd be able to bring costs down below that of any other power source based on economies of scale alone.
To those that think nuclear power is the path to nuclear annihilation I say there is no better way to make nuclear weapons worthless than to make them more valuable as fuel than as a weapon of war. A large problem of dismantling these nuclear warheads is that we'd have to find a way to make the nuclear fuel inert. We can make it inert by neutron bombardment in a reactor, and we'd get effectively free energy from it. The cost of mining and refining this uranium and plutonium is a sunk cost, we can power the world for a very long time on these warheads alone and in the mean time go out and dig up some more fuel in the form of uranium and thorium. With breeder reactors we'd have an effectively limitless supply of fuel.
Don't build the reactors on fault lines, or places known to have tsunamis, but put them on solid bedrock in the middle of a desert and use high temperature air cooled reactors so the lack of water is not only not a problem but makes containment in the case of a spill or leak much easier. In a dry place the radioactive material is much less likely to wash away, contaminate drinking water, or irradiate crops.
If this doomsday scenario is true, and I DO NOT believe that it is, then we need to do something about it now and quickly. We can hope these scientists are wrong and keep burning coal and oil, we can continue to maintain our standard of living free of global warming with nuclear power, or we can revert to a life of subsistence farming and beasts of burden where life is poor, brutal, and short.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
the WORLD'S scientific community agree on this.. it's not a US left wing political issue. Please oil the wheels of your home, sir.. they squeak.
If this really were the case, then we should immediately cut off all trade with China and India and go to war with them to force them back to an agrarian culture, because 85% of the pollution of the planet is coming from those two countries... As utility costs and gas costs rise in the US, more people will go like I have and go solar and hybrid electric car. My carbon footprint is about the same as a subsistence farmer at this point. The US is not the problem or the solution.
All of these doom and gloom nutjob "scientists" conveniently forget that looking back 250k years, the globe has traversed these temperatures multiple times and still survived. The bottom line is this is some ass clown with no common sense, no understanding of history who was willing to be his advisors bitch for 4 more years to get 3 letters after his name and now he is looking for some grant money or wants to impress some politicians into giving him something. The majority has realized this and is no longer taking these people seriously.
Let's suppose that I grant that all the climate predictions are accurate. Can somebody explain how you'd ask that *my* life change to mitigate the issue? I imagine the answers are:
- higher taxes
- higher cost of living
- more regulations at all levels of government
- making illegal some kinds of currently owned property
In short, it's going to cost a shitload of money, and it will cost everybody. The middle class will be destroyed unless you only tax the super rich - what are the odds that would happen?
Would developing nations have to play by the same rules? Or would the fix be used to allow them to grow to developed levels?
Is redistribution of wealth from developed nations' middle class to poor developing nations fundamentally a part of a climate change solution, or isn't it? If not, how not?
So um powerful storms can move boulders? What is the point of even mentioning that? Power storms can do many bad things. Histrionics.
Oh my God, sky is falling and we are sinful beings. Repent ! Repent !. Mr Hansen, the amount of hurricanes is actually going down. The amount of biomass is growing thanks to elevated levels of CO2. The growing season is longer and reaching more land further toward north and south poles.
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling.
The problem is once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it. There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
Yeah, the whole fucking planet because people are assholes.
I just wish the EU would reduce their CO2 output. But they don't. They INCREASE IT every year. Why? They must be "deniers"!
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I said it in another post, but enough data has been provided. If non-scientists/engineers/skeptics/ideologues don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Nobody believes the data because they don't trust the source of the data, the people drawing the conclusions and they need to *visually* see the conclusions drawn in action. Merely showing models is not enough.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
So I had a thought. Perhaps the quickest way to addressing climate change is to do the same thing. Sponsor a "suicide mission to the end of the ocean". Scientists should push hard to lift all regulations on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. The world needs to be *shown* catastrophe. Don't slow down the progress. Speed it up so that we can deal with it, already.
So stop funding all of this climate change research. Support the deregulation of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Put the funds into disaster relief and global catastrophe planning. I think that actually may bear more fruit.
Here we come!
Too many people have bought wholesale into the cult that is AGW alarmism, their denial of the reality of self-regulating climate systems of the Earth is too deep at this point to overcome. We'll just have to shake our heads at them and move on with life as every year shows the dire predictions to be more and more fanciful... the eventual start of the next Ice Age cycle will quiet them for a thousand years or so though.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What kind of idiot does that anyway? You don't need global warming to be hit by a plain old hurricane or flood.
Well, they could just build in Miami in the places that used to be dry, but are now being flooded at spring tide.
Ironically, it is in the wealthy area, populated by denialists. Now that's funny!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Granted.
However, this Chicken Little PR campaign is only working against their interests. You want to know the origins of Climate Change Deniers? It's not political; the GOP is only capitalizing on public sentiment. It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction to the point where we could have iron clad, easy to understand proof that the world will end tomorrow and no one would believe it. It's gone on long enough, in fact, that we could have LA and SF under 100 ft of water, and people would still doubt it was climate change. That's the legacy of this DoomsDay campaign.
I'll admit the media played a large role in this. They never could do science reporting right. However, having scientists publicly reinforce these perceptions is a huge issue.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
So, I'm not worried at all.
I'm more worried about what the maniacs in the DC region might do.
I remember the kids who went into "climate science" in college
Really? Because most places don't offer it as an undergraduate course, it's something that people generally move into as a PhD specialism, or often later after a PhD, typically in physics (or, often, computer science, because building models of complex systems involves a lot of algorithmic knowledge).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
March 22, 2016
Vegan Eating Would Slash Food's Global Warming Emissions: Study
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/diet-fitness/vegan-eating-would-slash-cut-food-s-global-warming-emissions-n542886
That has nothing to go with global warming, but the destruction of the marshlands which mitigate the effects of the tide. This is a MUCH bigger problem than AGW.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there is an infinite amount of oil, or that the production (biogenesis) of oil is greater than or equal to demand? Because otherwise, isn't "peak oil" a mathematical certainty? Or am I missing something?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
All these problems would go away if you all SUCK MY THROBBING COCK, while your fucking retarded moms tongue my sphincter and I fart in their fucking mouths, and slip my hands in your fucking sisters cunts and bench press them while they FUCKING yodel!
AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!
There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
If the problem is anthropogenic, then there are instant fixes to it. Humans have such an extremely small effect on the planet's atmosphere and surface that we've BARELY made noticeable scratches or blemishes. Acid rain sucks. Inversions suck. Smog sucks. O-zone holes suck. Those can all be dealt with within a single year. ONE. SINGLE. YEAR.
Oh ho ho!!! But this magic CO2 levels that has less than 1% of the effects of Methane IS THE WORSTEST THING EVAR!!! It's not like we're anywhere near the planet's organic capacity to digest CO2 in healthy, sustainable ways. We've got about 5x more CO2 to dump into the atmosphere until we're at a historically "Healthy Level" for our planet when species survived for millions of years at a time instead of hundreds of thousands. Wasps and Alligators ate that shit up, now we all act like they're fucking canaries in the coal mine! "The Bees will all go first!" and shit. It's ridiculous. Is "Actively ignoring everything but some bullshit correlation data" sound scientific to you? It doesn't sound that way to me.
Every claim that "scientists" make about the destabilization of our ecology has been shown or can be shown to be complete bullshit. If animals can survive in zoos and aquariums, then they can survive in a hastily scrubbed/developed ecosystem. It's a matter of truth. If the science disagrees, then it's bad science, no matter how many fucktards subscribe to it.
Err... I am in Florida for the winter. Right on the beach, too. 'Snot that I deny climate change. It is that I can do math. I'll be dead and gone before it is - unless a hurricane gets it. It's insured.
At the same time, I don't go burning tires and and taking a semi on my foliage viewing trips. ;-) I'm not a monster, after all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
>It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it.
I don't believe this, requesting a source.
Democrats are saying it is real, but they aren't doing anything about it. Republicans are straight up saying it is not real and that it is a conspiracy from "big climate" to convert the US to socialism.
One is bad, one is completely and utterly retarded. Lesser of two evils, etc. Sure, the EU increased their co2 output, but so did everybody else, by a whole lot more. At least they aren't increasing at a constantly accelerating rate
Keep in mind that Matt Ridley's family owns coal mines so he has a vested interest in the subject.
Dude, how many times do you need to say that? I guess once you say it 20 times or so you will "win" and big business can do whatever they please at anyone and everyone's expense.
It's what you do with it.
That's why he's obviously not a scientist. Once he was, but he vacated that ground long ago.
A real scientist is willing to agree a theory needs work if data disproves it; not altering data to fit a theory or claiming the theory is right and all argument is closed on the matter. Science is never closed, so when someone tells you a conclusion has been reached absolutely, back away nodding and smiling and be thankful it's not you who have lost faculties for reason....
Unless of course the same thing has happened to you also...
bBacks away nodding and smiling
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since when did Slashdot become full of idiot mouth-breathing climate change deniers, red state republicans and Trump sympathizers?
Reminded of the panicking kids stuck on a railroad track as a train was bearing down on them. Just before it hit them, it swerved over onto the next track. They'd feel pretty silly if he had sawed off his leg.
Well it's simple. One has evidence(global warming might cause problems), and one is retarded (bad things are going to happen to people who don't believe in $DEITY for no reason at all out of nowhere just because me and my god decided to be assholes).
> Merely showing models is not enough.
Especially when the models prove to be totally innacurate, and rather than MODIFYING the models, they massage the data for the umpteenth time to FIT the model and bump doomsday 10 years into the future.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
http://ssrf.climatecentral.org...
and in the end the terrible dragon smaug ate the false prophet of doom!
Assuming continued economic growth you supposedly need to build one nuclear power plant a day.
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html
Just replacing the 60% fossil energy in the 18TW total power consumed would lead you to 10000 1GW nuclear power plants.
Assuming an MTBF of 100000 years you get a Fukushima every ten years, assuming a more realistic 10000years MTBF you get one every year.
So no, not quickly and only if you accept this glowing in the dark thing.
Just asking ... what is James Hansen's track record for accuracy with climate predictions? If it's egregiously off, *why* are we paying any attention?
The good, the bad and the ugly will express their views.
The ignorant and the educated will also contribute to the voice of mankind.
Children, idjits, mothers, politicians and religious leaders will pour forth their thoughts.
All will be grossly out of their mental and intellectual league.
Most scientists will also be suffering from being human ( biased or willfully ignorant ).
Only a few of us are not biased, and capable of tackling the problems of global climate, economics ( oil, coal, nuclear, solar, winds, tides ).
We will be shouted down, ignored and branded as 'the useless'.
So what? We will all find out in another 100 or 200 years. Just wait.
Matt Ridley is certainly optimistic, but I'm not entirely sure it's rational. His optimism allowed him to ignore the impending financial disaster that lead to the failure of his bank. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... . Is it possible his pollyannaism (and possibly his own coal interests) are making him blind to the costs of global warming?
As you say, it is a complicated subject. If you trust one just one source you would need to know that they were providing a complete picture.
You are an aggront douchelord. EABOD
http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
I saw that video, too! It's called, The Day After Tomorrow. If you give equal weight to actual scientific research as you do to some dumbass video, then you really shouldn't be posting on SlashDot.
I knew that I came to SlashDot for a reason.
Since when has the far left been pro china? The far left is super anti child labor, pro organization, pro high pay for manufacturing jobs, and pro tariff for the purpose of ensuring that jobs aren't outsourced to the low paid slave child labor of china. That is literally the main thing that liberals believe. I have never met a liberal who was in favor of ANY thing that china has ever done in hundreds of years.
Nuclear power is great and safe and clean, and I am liberal and have no problem with that. However, it is a stop gap measure. Anything we do in large scale that relies on limited natural resources is a stop gap. Those resources will run out eventually. Always.
I love vegans, they are great BBQ'd!
We've heard it before. And it was wrong before. Why is this time any different?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
IF it is man made, we may have an opportunity to fix it and we should start now because this is literally the only planet we have to support our life. The other case doesn't really matter, we're boned no matter what we do
Just to play devil's advocate (because that's more fun) if it isn't man made then the models are wrong and there is nothing to worry about.
Data and sources do not matter. Only belief. Get with the program.
I wish people would stop using the term "denier," it's become so goddamned useless. Seriously, it went from being used towards those who actually outright denied anything was happening, to those who asked legitimate questions too, not to mention parading the term like some do (shout "denier!" as if it automatically negates anything they said) is an arrogant and moronic tactic that shouldn't be present for those who want honest debate. Don't get me wrong, not saying YOU are doing that (not in the slightest), I have seen it though, and it annoys the fuck outta me.
It is scary to think that a portion of the population believes that higher education belongs to the left. I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
Getting the sign right isn't good enough. 50 years of climate data is not good enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is so hard to understand about that?
It still looks like a case of Pascal's wager to me.
Curbing fossil fuels is simply too politically charged to get done (my evidence is this comment board). The two largest contributors (China and USA) will never make the changes necessary to enact, at least soon enough. The shifts to their economies would be tectonic. Deniers and naysayers have political power too, and make no mistake this is political.
I believe we need to cool the planet and it is too late to do this by reducing fossil fuel use. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols or other geoengineering seems to be the only viable path. This process requires constant replenishment (similar to volcanic eruption). This has the benefit that we can implement and then measure. And the cost of doing so would be much less than ending coal use in China or gasoline use in America.
Is it ideal? Maybe not, but it does seem more viable.
Wrong: http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...
We are already trying as hard as we can, didn't you read the news, faster than during the PETM. Actually there might be some faster examples out there but lets not kill a perfectly good joke. Also note that scientists have never been able to change the direction of mankind when core instincts were concerned, so they won't do so now. Therefore you will have a green revolution but not the ability to prevent the use of all available energy in some brief flash following some logistic function.
See the Limits of Growth for an example.
So we are technically on this suicide mission you speak of, the scientists are there for comical display and you are supposed to have some popcorn while watching them flail around. Also you have to accept that you may not return from your trip around the world, but with that you will have more fun watching.
Dr. James Hansen is just another crazy doomsday prognosticator, discredited, forced to retire from NASA GISS for falsification of science data; seriously you can't make up data with statistical data fabrication and then make wild doomsday claims as a result as he has done for most of the world's landmass and the Arctic and Antarctic areas. If you believe anything Hansen has to say you're just as belief stricken as anyone believing in the doomsday claims of Harold Camping. It is scientific fraud to fabricate data using interpolation and then claim the planet is doomed from your bad math and fake science data. More than half of the land data temperature data isn't actual temperature measurements, it's fake data made up by statistical data interpolation. That isn't science, it is fraud. If I had done that in science classes I'd have not just received a failing mark but expelled as well.
The cause doesn't necessarily define the conclusion. Why climate change is happening is far less important than the end result and the opportunity to at least TRY to do something about it.
Nuclear??? Um... of all the possible things we could switch to, why that?
Solar or wind, sure. Their prices have been plummeting. Wind is already less expensive than coal, and solar is expected to cross that line within the next few years. As a result, use of them is growing exponentially. Together, they accounted for about 2/3 of all new capacity in the U.S. last year, and they're expected to be even higher this year.
But nuclear isn't even close to cost competitive anymore. It's not politics that's keeping it back. If "the far left" actually had the ability to determine what energy sources got used, we would have completely phased out coal years ago. If building nuclear power plants made economic sense, companies would be doing it. But they aren't, because the prices of wind and solar and natural gas have gone down so dramatically that it just can't compete.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Citation needed. Could you please point me to the "failed prediction after failed prediction" you're talking about?
Last I saw, global temperatures were doing an excellent job tracking predictions made over the last 40 years. Ditto for sea level rise, which is actually happening a bit faster than most scientists had predicted.
Let me hazard a guess: you don't really pay much attention to scientists to find out what they're saying. If you did, you'd find that most of their predictions are cautious and very carefully qualified. Instead, you listen pundits who like to rant about the "Doomsday Predictions!!!! of the Scientists!!! who say we're all about to die!!! Who do they think we are???? We know better than to believe that."
Am I right?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
...bullshit, from 'Climatedot'. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. I thought Slashdot was supposed to have improved.
And as for "the hurling of boulders by giant waves" - LOL! That'll be it! Those damn boulders attacking us again! Hansen is a fraudster, like all the other alarmists, sucking off the public teat (OUR taxes).
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
You're an idiot. You forgot the word "some", as in "SOME other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings", and guess what? ALL of those scientists' JOBS depend on global warming ALARMISM. And you believe them! You fucking idiot.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
Clearly this study is complete biased nonsense. Look at the institutions at which these supposed scientists work.
Columbia University, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, NASA Goddard, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of California Irvine, Western Carolina University, University of Toulon.
Each one is some garbage degree factory with no scientific rigor whatsoever.
hehe
I just wish that all the climate change supporters who own prime beachfront property would sell it to me for pennies on the dollar because they are convinced that the house I build will be underwater in just a few years.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
I know what you are trying to say, but basically every part of your statement is wrong. People have known that the Earth is round since the ancient Greeks, at least. We're talking 200 B.C. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . They actually knew the circumference of the Earth as well. The knowledge of that circumference is what led everybody to believe that the voyage was suicidal, because there was no way that Columbus could've made it from Europe to Asia (which was true). Columbus was relying on a different calculation for the Earth's circumference, so he thought the Earth was much smaller and he could survive the trip. Turned out both sides were right (and wrong) - the ancient Greek estimate of Earth's size was more or less correct, but it turned out that an extra continent was there that saved Columbus from starvation.
So I had a thought. Perhaps the quickest way to addressing climate change is to do the same thing. Sponsor a "suicide mission to the end of the ocean". Scientists should push hard to lift all regulations on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. The world needs to be *shown* catastrophe.
This is just stupid. I know, I know, you're worried about climate change. I agree with you, we should be doing things to stop it. But your reasoning is so self-refuting that it just provides fodder for denialists. More or less: people don't believe in global warming, so we should encourage global warming, so that we can stop global warming.
It may be cathartic to rant on the internet, but when you use flimsy arguments and don't research your statements, you make your position seem less credible. Extremism and sensationalism aren't worth the cost. Rational arguments may not be as immediately gratifying, but anything less makes you as bad as the head-in-the-sand denialists.
I hope. We all hope. But are we hoping hard enough?
At the bottom of the
Sure there were... they just weren't called that back then. Usually, they were called philosophers, astronomers, or mathematicians.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Either you believe the sky is falling and immediate drastic changes must be made or you are a climate denier? There are many more likely outcomes then those two, I've found that stupid tends to live on the extremes.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Granted, complaining about editing is a waste of time (I've got some time here you go), but I'm surprised I don't see anyone posting about the ridiculous clickbait headline. As I scroll through the /. homepage, I see a bunch of headlines that tell what the story is, and then this one, which is effectively "ZOMG! YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT THIS SCIENTIST SAID!" You may as well subcaption it with "The discovery mainstream media REFUSES to print!"
If you're going to post ridiculous, anticlimactic, obvious stories, at least make their titles informative as to what it's about.
Oblig. car analogy: "Scientist discovers steering wheel turns car" vs "CONTROL VIRTUALLY ANY AUTOMOBILE WITH THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!"
it's not being used on legitimate questions being asked. Take your post, for example. Not one legitimate question, just a whinge.
Deniers still trot out the arguments that were had in the 19th Century and haven't yet learned that an answer has been around for a hundred years, if they bothered to listen rather than be in denial.
>
Some people have made a good argument that negative studies should be made available, and I agree with that, but if they're not published, it's not because the researchers don't want them published. Most researchers want anything and everything publishable to be published, and they're disappointed when a study ends without a "publishable result".
Having open lab notes is growing in popularity:
* http://media.utoronto.ca/media-releases/university-of-toronto-researcher-first-to-open-lab-notes-in-real-time/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_notebook_science
Yes, nuclear, because it is required for any realistic carbon-free economy. Sure, wind and solar have a role as well, but those are not sufficient on their own to displace coal and natural gas.
If climate change was as dire in reality as the activists have claimed, they would be protesting the construction of natural gas power plants and cheering for the nuclear ones. But obviously the reverse is true. Why do you think that is?
Nuclear power is expensive because of excessive regulation. NIMBY, LNT, and frivolous lawsuits are the reason for that, as opposed to any real risk or history of safety problems. All of that comes from the environmental activists. Ironic that if Dr. Hanson is correct, the people at fault for runaway AGW are the environmentalists themselves.
RIGHT: http://climate.nasa.gov/scient...
It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction ...
Maybe the failure is yours in not understanding what the predictions were actually saying. From what I know and have seen most predictions are right on schedule or perhaps even a bit behind real world observations.
I'm not a delialist (I honestly don't care), but I would if land wasn't so expensive.
No. It is right, right, right. Miami will never admit it because they love the property taxes.
Until someone can explain it. So go ahead and explain it. But you can't. Why DOES the EU keep increasing their CO2 year over year? They must be denialists or Republicans?
No, the US actually REDUCED their CO2 output. But the EU increased it. You can go check it yourself. Please explain how that is the fault of the Democrats or Republicans.
Yes. Really.
97% Horseshit - http://on.wsj.com/1PrLojc
once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it
But we've been told we're already past that point, unless you disagree with the scientists.
Bullshit, inbred: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work... the world's scientific community has zero reason to care about your political views.. other countries don't have to care about your political views... as Neil deGrasse Tyson said last night, the US is one of the worst countries in the world in science deniers... and you and your high school diploma fighting against PUBLISHED scientists with doctorates are the reason.
So climate data going back to 1966 isn't good enough? What would constitute good enough evidence?
With Pascal's wager though you're making a false equivalency.
Weighing the evidence of human cased climate change against the evidence of god(s) existing, I'll put my money on climate change.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Eratosthenes calculated it's circumference sometime around 240 BC. Citation: http://www.juliantrubin.com/bi... And look at the art; Atlas is not holding up a disk.
Comments such as yours are much of the reason why I can't take global warming seriously. Virtually everyone who supports it knows not even the most basic things about it, which makes the skeptics look like experts and the believers look like idiots.
You see, what makes global warming such a catastrophe (if it were true) is that it isn't reversible. Once we kick it off, the temperature goes up 20C no matter what we do after that. Even if we somehow start sucking carbon out of the air faster than we add new carbon, the temperature still goes up and stays up, at least until we suck way more carbon out of the air than we ever added to it. That's why (if it were true) global warming is such a serious problem. It isn't a "we can just notice when it has gone too far and take care of it then" sort of thing. The temperature change we've seen so far, the changes in weather we've (supposedly) seen so far, those aren't global warming, those are just more warmth that is no big deal. Global warming is a feedback effect that causes the earth to become much hotter without us doing anything more to cause it, which will in short order turn the earth into hell, and once you're in hell, you're stuck there.
So your plan here is basically "let's irreversibly destroy the planet, then they'll have to believe us, and then we can finally save the planet." That's the most fucking stupid thing that someone who believes in global warming could possibly say. For fuck's sake, try actually knowing what is literally the first fucking thing about what you believe in.
You're missing the point entirely. Regardless of how many people knew that the earth was roundish or flattish... it is irrelevant. You are obviously one of those people who actually believe these deniers can be convinced of reality.
Remember, people "knew" cigarettes caused cancer. Yet still denial abounded. People died. It took decades just for deniers to finally admit the truth... and even the wrongdoing. This is different, how? You may think my arguments flimsy. But you aren't saying anything by saying that.
But I'm not arguing anything at this point except for let nature take its course. The scientists have done all they can. Short of going to war and forcing nations to change... there is nothing else that cam be done.
While I wouldnt normally bother, because this information is SO easy to find..
here you are a couple of examples.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
There are plenty more around..
As you can see, the climate 'models' are doing a pretty piss poor job of predicting anything.
Does that prove a negative for AGW? of course not, you cannot prove a negative.
But it *does* prove that there is currently no evidence for a positive in these models....
No, that's the *worst* feature of nuclear power - it cannot be ramped up quickly. Planning and building and bringing a nuclear power plant online is a very long process, up to three decades. The same goes for waste disposal sites. New nuclear tech like new types of reactors, add another decade or two of R&D. With wind and solar (and nat gas), the turnaround time is much quicker because there is a whole industry that builds and installs these things. In the US we haven't built a new nuclear plant since 1990 - we aren't going to break ground on thirty new ones tomorrow. That field simply doesn't exist.
even though it could replace coal quickly.
With construction times of minimum 10 years I would not consider that quick. I believe if you even find a place suitable for a nuclear plant and propose it, the planning, certification, approvals and finally construction will be around 20 years.
In the meantime you can install 100 times of its output in wind and solar for a fraction of the cost.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong"
Why?
Why the fuck should we stick our heads in the sand and "pray" they are wrong?
Why not just fucking accept their modelled forecasts, and change our fucking behaviour?
You can not check a false assertion :D
Because all the googeling will give: no hits.
How should it even be possible in a time of depression and increased warming to increase CO2 output for the EU? Even if you do nothing at all, the CO2 output would decrease. (*facepalm*)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Blasted General Grievance. Very uncivilized.
If you think so, your school must have been very bad or at least one sighted. ... the "invention" of the atom ... I could now write for days. But I stop here, because I'm bad with "arabic" and "persian" and "indian" names ...
Hint: Archimedes, Thales
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Because nuclear power is slower and more expensive than alternatives, investing in nuclear power leads to higher emissions. Nuclear power is always later, not now and represents inaction.
The one who calculated the earth circumference "the first time" was Eratosthenes, around 275 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No idea about Pythagoras.
The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa around 600 BC. The reported to see the sun at noon in the north ... http://www.phoenicia.org.uk/ed...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I far prefer that phrase to "Climate Change" for no other reason than it's more accurate.
How can a phrase that does not even indicate if it is getting warmer or colder be more accurate than "global warming" that clearly indicates what is going on?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
From what I know and have seen most predictions are right on schedule or perhaps even a bit behind real world observations.
Predictions are far behind real world observations. Seal level rises are far out of the upper part of the "error margin".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Here you go
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Well there was the bit about a new ice age in the 70's and like another poster already mentioned, New York underwater. There was also the complete unscientific cherry picking of data in an attempt to hide the cooling period after 1998. There must be some accountability for failed predictions.
Someone above already listed a bunch of books that were failed predictions when the same "citation needed" challenge was made.
The predictions of horrible consequences. And of course, the consequences are only horrible and will devastate everyone and everything. ACT NOW!
Irreversible? How? The world will find equilibrium no matter what we do to it. It will take a long time to find it, but it will find it. Humans have been on the planet for a speck of time compared to how long that the earth and life in general have been around... and have evolved. Another newsflash for you, AC. We aren't going to "destroy" the planet. We will destroy each other long before we are capable of destroying the entire planet.
I definitely am positive that global warming is happening and I am also certain that a portion of this is man-made. However, nobody is certain of what the exact effects of that will be on life and humanity. It will certainly suck. There will be migrations. There will be bad weather. There will be extinctions. But we don't know what all of that means in any real context. All I know is that GW deniers cannot be convinced that GW is even an issue. So I personally have no issue with letting them drive the car into a brick wall as fast as they want.
We aren't dealing in science, anymore. We are dealing in policy, rhetoric, and ideology. When morons want to thin the herd in Darwinian fashion... I personally have no problem with it.
CO2 emissions per capita
1. The EU has not been "increasing their CO2 output every year".
2. The US has more than double the per capita emissions of the EU. Double the emissions of heavily industrialized nations like Germany and Japan.
3. Clean up your shit
4. Shut up in the future
Saw that name and knew there was nothing to worry about.
https://quickbookshelpsite.wor... QuickBooks error support phone number ,the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support1844-556-6315@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist, ask QuickBooks file error support, what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help, support for QuickBooks, QuickBooks official support site, QuickBooks support website, intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks, call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support qbo help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support number 1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help support for QuickBooks official support site QuickBooks support website intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support nu1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist, ask QuickBooks file error support, what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help, support for QuickBooks, QuickBooks official support site, QuickBooks support website, intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks, call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support qbo help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding QuickBooks error support phone number QuickBooks payroll support phone number QuickBooks error code 80029c4a QuickBooks error 80070057 intuit phone help QuickBooks phone help QuickBooks premier customer support number 1(844)-203-1044@intuit QuickBooks error the file exist ask QuickBooks file error support what is QuickBooks phone number QuickBooks help support for QuickBooks official support site QuickBooks support website intuit QuickBooks support website call QuickBooks call intuit QuickBooks online technical support phone number QuickBooks customer support phone number QuickBooks customer service QuickBooks desktop support QuickBooks desktop support phone number QuickBooks enterprise phone number QuickBooks enterprise support phone number get QuickBooks support QuickBooks enterprise help and support QuickBooks not opening QuickBooks support for mac intuit 24 hour support help phone number QuickBooks mac technical support QuickBooks not responding error QuickBooks error 15215 server not responding Qu
Denialists constantly show Exxon has managed to push its agenda into the minds of a sigificant number of americans, to such a profound extent that now it got these poor fools do their corporate bidding in exchange for nothing.
>you'd find that most of their predictions are cautious and very carefully qualified
SERIOUSLY? That's EXACTLY what we're debating in this latest linked article. It's not the Washington Post making something out of nothing. It is a supposedly respected scientist publishing 'possible doomsday scenarios' in supposedly 'peer reviewed' work that has extremely little in regards to being 'cautious' or 'very carefully qualified'...heck, apparently the unpeer reviewed version published to the web without review was 'modified' only to change the title from using 'highly dangerous' to 'could be dangerous' (all other input resulted in cosmetic modifications...really? that's 'cautious?)
So, let me guess, you see 'respected scientist' and thus automatically assume anything & everything they publish must be done with 'best scientific premises' in mind.
Note, that I'm not claiming no AGW here, I'm saying that 'doomsday scenarios' are no better & can be WORSE in advancing any discussion as people who claim there is 'nothing we need to worry about'...
Hes been alarmed since the 1990's. He is also the guy who culled 20% of the coolest weather stations from the GISS, leading to a increase of temperatures. He never did figure out how to adjust the poorly situated weather stations to conform to Leroy 2001, and all that is proven from these 'predictions' is that the UNIPCC has fixed the results so they do not match reality.
If he is alarmed, dont mention to him that the ozone hole is now 24 million square kilometers big. What was greenpeace's mantra in 1988? That if it ever reached 20 million square kilometers then all life on earth would cease to exist. Ok, we're there now, whos alarmed again?
What about the nitrogen problem? We have way more nitrogen to Oxygen or CO2 than 66 million years ago, should we be alarmed that we will one day not be able to breathe?
I forget what I'm supposed to be alarmed about because the air above the equator is 0.5 degrees cooler than the 1970's - the exact opposite to what the CO2 to water vapour (biggest green house gas) man made global warming theory depends on.
Induced science is confusing me :(
Post up. SLR is/has been 3mm per year. What tide gauges are you looking at?
Why do you people repeat the same FALSE info, sea level is NOT accelerating and can be explained by natural processes.
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/20-false-representations-in-one-10-minute-video/
We would, but it 's too damn expensive because the wealthy people flying around the globe to AGW conferences are already living there.
Exxon looked at the data and came to the right conclusion. Gasoline produces a miniscule amount of the human contribution and stopping its use would be more catastrophic than stopping it. Might as well float that rumor of a car that runs on tap water while you are at it.
This always hurts my head, when people point out the change from "Global Warming" to "climate change". Do you know WHY it was changed? Because virtually no one understands the term "Global Warming". Everyone assumes it means everywhere is getting hotter, so *any* weather event short of a drought is used to refute the problem. "Global Warming" is still an apt term, if one understands that it implies that more energy is being put into the system ( or perhaps being retained ).
In fact, it was changed to reflect that dumping lots of extra energy into a chaotic system results in the system trying to dissipate that energy in extreme weather events as well as gradual general warming. So yes, on average the planet is warming up, but it's also subject to more extreme extremes of hot and cold, high and low pressure, etc. So phenomenon such as the Polar Vortex, Chinooks (a week of summer temperatures in the middle of february), bigger and more powerful storm systems which can spin up tornados or lead to large rainfalls/flooding are all going from "hundred year" events to common occurrences.
I distinctly remember seeing videos in school about how new york would be under water by 2015. What struck me was the imagery of the torch on the Statue of Liberty peeking out from the ocean.
Where did you go to school?
Just once I'd like for climate scientists to hold a press conference to admit they don't really know what they're doing yet. That climate science is *hard*. But here's a list of things that are never the less good ideas ( reducing/removing air pollution sources, keeping our water ways clean, ect... ).
It's not hard, we know what is happening, you can recreate it in a greenhouse (hence the "greenhouse" gas effect). Trap light/heat in a system and watch the system overheat and try to compensate.
The only thing the climate scientists can't tell you is when exactly you can expect to see the full effects and the damage has become irreversible (my guess is it already is). Even if they could precisely model the climate, they would still need inputs they can't predict (solar activity) and things they can't measure (all carbon emissions at any given time on Earth; all carbon sinks (plants, algae, etc))
Ah, yes, the beach-side villa....three kilometres inland and 159 METRES above sealevel. Such a good argument you have there.
Lucky that we have climate evidence going back several million years in ice core samples, fossilized tree rings, and a few other places. It's a lot more than just 50 years for the CO2 measurements.
solar and wind can not do the job by themselves. Even if we add geo-thermal (and we should), it will still not be enough. We need to add new nukes, but not the 1GW gen 3 reactors. Instead, we need to add gen IV reactors and burn up the vast majority of the 'waste' that we have. Most importantly, by adding new reactors, these can replace old ones, and go into replacing the majority of coal plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
no, you are looking at gen III reactors that are economic disasters. We need manufactured gen IV reactors that can be ramped up quickly and safely.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
skip the gen 3 1 GW reactors.
We need the gen 4 reactors that can be built in factories, do 100-200 MWe and can be installed in 1-2 years. In addition, they can use nuclear waste, which is the smart thing to do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your obtuse ignorance is not becoming. The answers you seek are not esoteric, and your failure to seek them out for yourself shines a cold, bright light on your motives.
"In the Alps winters will be 2C warmer already between 2021 and 2050." How the fuck has that prediction failed when it's still 2016?
"However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels,"
You lost me at 'direct correlation,'
Correlation does not imply causation.
You are aware that global average temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations officially deviated from one another back in 1998 right?
No, you're not right.
Not a single long term prediction has ever come to pass unless you have some unheard-of publication that proves it?
" Ditto for sea level rise, which is actually happening a bit faster than most scientists had predicted."
Any body can look up the tide gauges and see that there has been no acceleration and that the rate has been relatively consistent for the past thousand years:
http://www.psmsl.org/products/trends/
The good news is that James Hansen has been consistently wrong about every prediction he has ever made. EVER. So it's safe to relax.
You didn't do very well at school, did you?
The last time climate scientists attempted that, they got their ship trapped in antarctic ice. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/antarctica-ice-trapped-academik-shokalskiy-climate-change
"In the meantime you can install 100 times of its output in wind and solar for a fraction of the cost."
Presumably that's why Germany is building loads of coal plants?
For some reason they don't like the idea of the lights going out at night! or when it's mid winter with no wind!.
Also smelting industry is not that keen on screwing up a whole plant for days/weeks when an aluminum plant has a power cut!.
Irreversible? How?
Imagine you have a second thermostat in your house that's wired up a second furnace, but it is wired up backwards, and you can't turn it off. Rather than turn the heat on when the temperature is below 90F and turn it off when the temperature rises above 90F, this thermostat instead turns the heat off when the temperature is below 90F and turns it on when it is above 90F. This is known as a "positive feedback," whereas how a conventional thermostat works is a "negative feedback."
So far this second thermostat hasn't been a problem because you keep your main thermostat set to 75F, and perhaps occasionally some fool turns it up to 80F, but you just turn it back down and the temperature goes back down. ...but then one day a woman shows up and says "I'm cold" and turns the dial all the way up hoping to cause the furnace to warm the room faster. She then leaves the house to go spend your money without turning the thermostat back down.
Eventually the temperature in your house reaches 90F and that second thermostat kicks on, turning on your second furnace. Now, you arrive home from work and notice it's 95F, so you immediately turn off your main thermostat, but that second thermostat, the one you don't have any control over it, it's going to do what it does. So it keeps the second furnace turned on since the temperature is above 90F, and so the temperature in your house continues to rise until it's at the limit of what the furnace that thermostat is attached to can do. So now your house is stuck at 120F. You can play with your other thermostat, turning that heater on and off, but all that does is adjust things between 120F and 130F, which isn't of much use since you can't make the temperature go below 90F to turn off that second thermostat. So you try opening the windows but that second furnace is just so bloody powerful that you can't get the temperature below 100F. So all you can do is wait for that furnace to break down on its own.
That's what global warming is about, and anyone who doesn't know that has no business having an opinion on it.
In my experience, it's only the skeptics who ever seem to know this. All of the believers are too busy making arguments that boil down to nothing more than an appeal to authority. Now personally, I can't claim to have looked into global warming enough to really have an opinion, but I see two groups of people arguing it out and one of them *clearly* knows way more about the issue than the other, so I find it hard not to side with the skeptics. ...and honestly, the idea probably deserves more consideration than the skeptics give it, but you believers are so busy making it bloody obvious that you don't know anything about the issue that it's just too fucking hard to take any of you seriously.
In particular, screaming "the science is settled" all the bloody time, especially in a world where any climate scientists who might want to propose an opposite conclusion immediately gets their funding taken away, just says that you think the arguments that support global warming are too weak to stand up to scrutiny. The proper thing to do is ask the skeptics why they don't believe it and then counter whatever points they make, perhaps even make a nice web site to the effect of "here's the arguments that skeptics make, and here is why they're wrong," but the believers aren't interested in the science of the issue, they're only interested in the religion of it, and so they want to say nothing more than "if you don't believe, we're all going to hell," and they expect that to be good enough. It isn't.
So climate data going back to 1966 isn't good enough? What would constitute good enough evidence?
30 years is roughly the minimum scale for climate. The second replier has the right idea with the millions of years of climate proxy data.
Weighing the evidence of human cased climate change against the evidence of god(s) existing, I'll put my money on climate change.
Which climate change? Before, you had very specific effects and consequences. Don't move the goalposts.
Why do you think that? Wind and solar are each individually capable of covering roughly 100x the world's total energy needs. Take a look at this map to see just how little land would be needed to go to 100% solar. Of course, we wouldn't do that. We'd certainly also include a lot of wind and hydro power, probably some geothermal and biomass as well (mostly municipal and agricultural waste, since that's effectively free energy). Maybe tidal energy too, but that's a less mature technology. Going to 100% renewable energy isn't just possible, it's actually pretty easy and much cheaper than nuclear.
The only big problem is doing it fast enough. If we leave all the existing coal plants running for the rest of their intended lifespans, they'll keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for decades. We need to shut them down and replace them as quickly as possible. And there again, renewables are much better placed than nuclear.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
They have been wrong about so much for so long why does anyone care about their opinions?
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
All these dire doom predictions are based on models that have been WRONG for 20 years.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university. It even quotes his post here on /.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Unprecedented in 66 million years? Sorry, wrong. Global temperatures have varied far more than a mere 2 degrees Celsius average just in the 100-odd-thousand years our species has been a thing. The climate is always changing, that's what it does.
We ought to be (and mostly are) figuring out ways to adapt to that changing environment, not wringing our hands over doomsday scenarios.
In the Christmas of 2013 an Australian climate change expedition came unstuck when their research ship was trapped in ice they had not been expecting because they believed so faithfully in “global warming”.
Who was it said, in the 1980s, that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2003?
It's 2016, they're still there.
In November last year NASA published a study - and as quickly took it down, but not before the world's press got a peek - that proved that the AGW scam is precisely that. It showed that the Antarctic ice sheet is not only not receding, it is GROWING. Those big chunks that are calving off? They're not calving off because they're melting, they're calving off because the only thing that's holding them up is seawater, and most of the Antarctic permafrost sits on top of a land mass. And we know it is accurate because it uses altimetry data from satellites to gauge changes in the size of the Antarctic land mass.
What this shows is that between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82billion tons a year.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good carbon tax con we have going here, right? Tell you what, we'll ignore all climate data prior to 1976 (because that's when we started getting reliable satellite data), we'll ignore all winter data (because we're not out to show the ice sheets growing when it gets cold because cold doesn't exist in a global warming - I mean, anthropological climate change - world) and we'll ignore what the Japanese are doing to the predatory whale populations which in turn is affecting the penguin population. That and overfishing. Yes, there are more penguins but they're looking a bit skinny.
Yep, back to the pre-satellite-data models drawn up on napkins which if true or accurate would mean that my house in the middle of England is now beachfront property.
I can't see the beach. It's 70 miles away. It was 70 miles away in 1980, it'll be 70 miles away in 2052.
Who are the real deniers here: those who look at the hard evidence or those who want to go on scaremongering regardless of what the data shows?
And now for the mike drop:
Drop an ice cube into a glass of water and note the meniscus height. Wait for the ice to melt and not the meniscus height again.
I guarantee you that the meniscus height will not change, because ice is less dense than water. By 12%, in fact. This is why the top eighth of an iceberg protrudes from the surface of the ocean. If the Arctic ice sheet melted completely, the sea level would not change. Other things are causing sea level rise, such as topsoil erosion, pyroclastic flows, earthquakes, and the continual change in datum caused by the fact that we don't measure sea level height form the centre of the Earth, we measure it from land masses which we INCORRECTLY assume to be static.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
He he, yeah, I did a double take as I read it as "hurling of boulders by giants", and was like this shit just got real!
We don't have the battery tech yet to handle our total nightly energy demand in solar energy. I doubt we even have the storage capacity to handle long periods of cloudy days. You need a base load.
We absolutely have the battery technology. We haven't yet built and installed the necessary number of batteries, but that's a different matter. All the needed technology is there.
Besides, the wind keeps blowing at night. And hydro, geothermal, biomass, and tidal power are all very stable and predictable. Batteries are just one of many sources that will together provide baseline capacity. Also, there are lots of places where long periods of cloudy days simply don't happen. Take a look at the map I linked to above. Notice how they're putting a huge solar install right in the middle of the Sahara. Guess why? Not only is it near the equator, cloud cover is close to nonexistent all year round.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Specific to the thread, I'm speaking about ocean acidification, rising atmospheric CO2 levels, sea level and ocean temperature.
These are things that there is conclusive proof are being caused by human activity.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Do you have some kind of citation for that claim? The last I heard, our battery technology was woefully behind our capabilities to generate energy and the quantity we'd need to store. Molten salt was the closest potential method with hydrogen cell just not there yet. This isn't a problem you can just solve by hooking up a few additional car batteries to. They lack not only the energy density requirements, but also wear out over time.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/new...
http://www.aquionenergy.com/pr...
http://www.eosenergystorage.co...
http://www.treehugger.com/clea...
And those are just a handful of the top hits that came up when I did a search. Future technology development will certainly bring the cost down further, but we're completely capable of doing it even with current tech.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
These are things that there is conclusive proof are being caused by human activity
So how big are these things? Current research indicates that they are rather small to date.