Slashdot Mirror
Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth' (bbc.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from BBC: Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. But the researchers say the fertilization effect diminishes over time. They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. The lead author, Professor Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries. A new study has also shown that ever since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970's, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. The study published in the journal Nature found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago.
Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In the Netherlands it's the other way around, 30-40 years ago, we used to have long summers, with warm weather. These days if we have a few days warm weather before it starts to rain and storm again, we are happy....
But what about poison ivy!
I hope the recent change of ownership of slasdot.org does not mean we will now see pro fossil ideas fed to its fans.
This is almost a dupe of an earlier story about CO2 making plants more efficient with the same amount of water.
Quiet you! I don't want them deleting this one too
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It sounds good that crops will be more productive. So will other things, though. There was an experiment in which poison ivy was grown in higher CO2 conditions. It grew better and produced more urushiol (the stuff that causes you to have an allergic reaction). Crops may grow better, but so will weeds. It wouldn't surprise me if that included some invasive weeds like kudzu. If it stays warmer, pests might not die off in the cold; the mountain pine beetle is an example. Furthermore, there's not only increased temperatures and longer growing seasons; rainfall patterns will shift, too. Areas that currently grow crops might become arid and either have to grow different crops or not be productive at all. Other areas, such as the northern US, are likely to become wetter. Maybe you have longer growing seasons in some areas, but I'm not sure how much of a real gain there will be if the rainfall moves poleward with the warm temperatures.
As will be anyone who questions if the moon landings actually happened.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9029479&cid=51984863
The parent was posted in an earlier story. It's been copied and pasted. Mod it down, please.
What are there way more duplicate stories on Slashdot the last month or so? It's getting out of hand
.... who cares if some island nations are wiped off the map or a few thousand people drown in Bangladesh?
That's right! We, your leaders; the wealthy; the elite, can't fuck anything up. It's impossible.
Keep trusting us forever. Because our system WILL last forever!
Relax, sit back, and enjoy. Your input is barely required. Do your job for a few years and your spot in heaven is assured.
If anything seems to go wrong it is but an illusion. If it bothers you simply divert your attention!
No, I'm not okay with anyone being modded down with a good argument one way or the other, whether it's about climate change or moon landings.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Is the melting of the ice etc not just part of a very long natural cycle. Consider the location of oil and gas wells - many under arctic ice and in desert areas. How do people think that it got there? Its mere presence indicates that at one time - and for a very long time - that these areas had considerable tree and other vegetation cover.
Scientists have failed predicting future climate every single time, and will continue to fail.
1321: Cold
I get that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it seems like nearly all of the "society ought to do X" suggestions for combating climate change equate to "reduce CO2 emissions." However, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas; methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions, particularly from ruminants; and water vapor is practically ignored. Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle? Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Alternatively, since clouds cause global cooling, why not a plan to increase cloud formation? It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever. When it comes to "plans that require decades, cooperation between most of the world, and trillions of dollars", why are we so laser-focused on this one plan to decrease CO2 emissions?* It seems to me that big problems tend to be solved with dozens of smaller solutions, rather than one big "hurray, it worked!" solution; true, there are many ways of producing energy aside from burning carbonaceous materials, but as I've mentioned above that's just attacking the issue from one angle.
*I imagine a big part of the reason is "don't spend $billions on that, spend $billions on this (which I have a stake in) instead." But that doesn't fully explain the issue either, I think the 'call to arms' to rally scientists to consensus has caused a little too much groupthink, and bluesky ideas which should be seriously considered are being dismissed out of hand.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree with you that as long as someone makes a reasonable argument, they shouldn't be modded down. Even if they doubt AGW or the moon landings, it should be on the quality of the post and not the popularity of the opinion. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
"Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants."
The same industrial society that cuts down trees so fast that 90% of old growth forests are gone, 90% of the American Prairies are gone, and that 200+ species of animals go extinct every day due to... industrial society (pollution, habitat loss, urbanisation, etc).
Modding someone down is not censorship. Expressing disapproval of someone presenting lies as the truth is not censorship.
Learn to love Alaska
First it didn't exist. Now, it is benefitting the planet.
We are slowly getting there.
Some plant growth won't stop the global warming, though.
Plants don't reflect the sunlight, and the growth is likely balanced by increased forest burnings, ice is still melting, sea level still rising. Obviously, it will be beneficial to the planet as a whole if shore cities are washed away.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
What would be the real long-term downside of global warming? I mean really? People say things like melting icecaps and rising sea levels, but we've had that before in human history. It might shake things up, but I don't think it's happening so fast that it can't be adapted to, to some degree.
Warmer weather, more precipitation, unless you're living by the coast what's the catch?
The reason is that there are really two issues rolled into the climate change debate. The first is man-made warming itself. The second is environmental conservatism in general. What many climate campaigners would like is for humans to stop destroying our natural environment - cutting down forests, polluting rivers and lakes, that sort of thing. Many of the same people/organisations who were drumming on about environmental conservatism since before the climate change debate, simply used climate change as their latest vehicle to get their message out. Nothing wrong with that.
However, the reason they don't want to talk about geo-engineering, is that if this is seen as a viable option, then the two issues separate again. In other words many people will see a much simpler third way which involves technology preventing global warming, while they continue burning oil and buying endless junk they don't really need.
Sadly, humans being humans, it is likely that this third way will be the one we take. However, the biggest risk I see is that while us rich westerners just buy a few more air conditioners and argue about whether climate change is a thing or not, some country that is bearing the brunt of the problem decides to setup an aerosol plant and begin feeding something into the atmosphere that they think might fix the problem for them. I mean, if your country is starving due to drought, or sea level rise threatens to wipe you out, and the rich western countries are busy arguing about whether they should be able to have enormous cars or giant cars, you might just get desperate and do something risky for the planet.
Is this the new spin from conservatives and the oil industry now? They realized they can no longer refute climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, so now they are trying to sell it as being good for us?
The PTB rely on HUMAN FLESH in the FOOD SUPPLY to maintain their human appearance
Human flesh exists in a lot of foods today. Sometimes it makes the news. These are PTB slip ups, and/or conditioning this reality.
They rely on the consumption of human flesh to retain their human appearance. They all have the same scent. They exist from the bottom to the top of the pyramid. Some are bums, some are middle/upper class, some are those dancing for you on TV, in a web of deceit to keep your mind and body occupied.
If you want to try and let one of them know that you know what they are, you might say to them:
"This hamburger is really quite human"
(inhale deeply) "This planet is filled with creatures which all smell the same"
"I hope you enjoyed your flesh burger"
"How long did your last regeneration period last?"
"What office do you work for?"
Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?
while you are dreaming up boogeyman
Yet another bit of PR in the spin cycle when the old PR was shown to be bullshit.
Once you're finished terraforming Earth, it will become habitable for intelligent life.
Sincerely, Your Neptunian Overlords
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Have you even looked outside?
It's rising as we speak!
It's coming right for you!
Fortunately plants are a cheap way to combat global warming, they simply absorb more CO2 to grow bigger!
Of course, since the greenhouse gasses are still building up, it takes more and more plant growth to keep up...
Thus solving the problem once and for all! ...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
Or in New York. Those poor bastards.
I always thought it was dumb that certain Canadian politicians would talk about global warming as though it were a bad thing for Canada. Huh? I like warmer weather - in Canada.
But now I've moved to the Philippines. We recently had a high of 37 degrees in the shade - the temperature when fans stop cooling you and start warming you up. And the thing is, most people in this town can't afford air conditioning. Many of them don't have electricity. And among those with AC and electricity, some of them have to work outdoors in the daytime.
That's why we need to reduce GHG emissions. Not for the Canada or the U.S. - well, maybe for Florida, a little. But mostly it's for low-lying islands that will be flooded, for people that already live with weather that is too hot, and since global warming is not uniform, for certain other victims that have yet to be identified.
But yes, let's stop global warming. It's the right thing to do, and that should be enough.
You know you can't bring back a herd of triceratops and apatosaurus's without enough greens for them to eat. It's best to green up the planet and warm it up a bit too before inseminating a few elephants to kick the process off.
Does Obama have a Mini-Me?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?
Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas that were previously farther from the coast and relatively safe, people cannot afford to just abandon their property and buy new land and build a new hose/farm in a safer place elsewhere because they are so poor they can hardly afford food, the government is to corrupt/apathetic/incompetent or just plain too poor to build flood defences which in many cases may even be a futile effort... result? Lots of people drown in storm floods in places like Bangladesh.
Try a month of 40c+ like we had a few years back in west australia. That was hellish.
And the fun part is some of the areas in the north of australia had regular 50c days. Thats the point where people start dying without some sort of cooling.
I should note the article states "Since we started talking about global warning in the 1970s" or something to that effect. No, we've been talking about it since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered and worried scientist started wondering if all the coal being sooted into the air from the industrial revolution might have unintended consequences. The science was always fairly solid. CO2 (and other gases like methane) absorb gases at various spectra, which then becomes either heat (warming) or disipates into kinetic energy (storms and general chaos). There has never really been any proposed new physics that would prevent this happening, nor reliable observations that it isn't, yet unfortunately a large population still thinks its this whacky idea invented by environmentalists in the 70s and then adopted by some spooky lizard people cartel looking to lie about physics for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain.So I still call it the greenhouse effect, because thats what it is.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Since when was it possible for 156 million mostly penniless people to move elsewhere?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Yes. Let us play God with a system we barely comprehend. What we're doing now isn't bad enough so let's screw with the system deliberately.
A few thousand people are always being drowned in Bangladesh. It's basically a river delta. Stop building fucking houses there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The flywheel effect is the continuation of oscillations in an oscillator circuit after the control stimulus has been removed. This is usually caused by interacting inductive and capacitive elements in the oscillator. Circuits undergoing such oscillations are said to be flywheeling.
To my mind, clouds and UV-reflective/absorbent foliage and ice caps and oceans all act as capacitors/inductors of temperature change. They cover land, sea and air. Duh!
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. ... so they admit an increase but argue it is good? Confused ...
I thought if they were "skeptics" they would argue there is no CO2 increase or there is no temperature increase
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have yet to see a "Climate Change" study that corrects for the ongoing non-CO2 weather modifications:
Video from US Weather Service satellites showing the clear and obvious production of thick cloud formation by coordinated steam releases. In the right conditions this can produce rain, or increase severity of a storm.
Here's a neat 7min video about the South Texas Weather Modification Association, who helps make it rain for the benefit of Texas farmers.
Interesting that the mention "silver iodide" as their weather acceleration chemical since that is among many of the chemicals, along with aluminum oxide, that soil samples are showing increasing amounts of, esp. in California.
Weather Modification is real, but "Climate Change" is propaganda this is evident because their measurements do not correct for our weather manipulations (esp. cloud heating via NEXRAD microwave). I suspect the messaging is designed to manufacture your consent for a global tax on all goods and services called: "Carbon Tax". Meanwhile allowing polluters to keep polluting. For example: Companies already buy "carbon credits" offset by dumping iron in the ocean to cause algae blooms which allegedly sequester CO2. Is this the sort of activity you what you want to fund with globalism taxes?
Here's a video of a nozzle on a commercial airliner wing spraying chemicals to create the so-called "Chem Trails" we use to assist in weather modification. It's similar to the silver iodide flare method, but in much greater volume.
Sometimes the chemicals are added to jet fuel instead. Here you can see the chemical trails being turned on and off.
Don't be fooled. We have been geoengineering the weather like this for decades.
The oil and gas under the artic probably formed at or near the equator and got taken north as the plates moved around.
Try again...
Yeah, the homeless guy wakes to notice that it is suddenly comfortably warm in the shelter he built from cartons just before he realises that it actually on fire from a discarded fag end...
The article was about accelerated tree and plant growth as a result of CO2 emission. Nature has feed back mechanisms. CO2 starting to get out of balance trees and plants grow faster to consume it. That isn't natures only recourse the fact is there are about as many people on the planet now as it can reasonably sustain at any quality of life. So nature has other feedback systems to reduce the population of certain troublesome animals (humans).
Its just how it the system works. Its not a question of morality, quit personifying nature. Nature is amoral, but WE need it(her) so the right thing to do is for us to treat it right. Should we cut emissions, of course we should the cautionary principle says so even if you are not convinced of climate change. Creating massive chemical imbalances in a system we depend on and don't fully understand has terrible idea written all over it, in day-glow orange illuminated by strobe lights!
Should we be all upset that some storm wipes out a bunch of people we don't know on the other side of the planet, probably not. We should care for the planet because we need it, we should want to leave a rich fertile world for our children, but we should look out for our own. If Nature acts to reduce massively over populated regions of the world we should probably just be thankful it was not us.
.
[begin sarcasm]
Clearly we need more clean coal and clean diesel (particulates w/o the pesky greenhouse gas emissions). We could also blow up some volcanos and mountain tops with tactical clean nukes (like neutron bombs). I suggest we start with the Rocky Mountains then move on to the Alps.
[begin more sarcasm]
Perhaps someone should seriously suggest this to the Trump campaign. I'm sure he'd be man enough to bring it up, and rest assured he'd have the cajones to push those buttons if elected Preserdent. He would likely also be able to talk his good buddy Putin into joining in the fun, maybe even with the assistance of our new best buddies in Iran.
[end more sarcasm]
If those wimpy climate scientists had the courage of their convictions, they'd be advocating this full-throat and the enviro-loving masses would swallow it hook, line and sinker.
[end sarcasm]
That'll learn 'em!
Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth'
Gah. Stop verbing adjectives. It really infuriationates me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"twice the continental USA" doesn't say anything beyond lots and lots.
Could we have that in standard units, please?
Such as american football fields or Rhode Islands. Or leaves per tree.
It's good for the planet. But not for us. It's going to suck for us. Planet will survive though, no doubt about it.
That's ok, here in Queensland we're ripping up more trees than ever before, just to keep the balance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Go well
And it used to happen all the time. There are entire cities, that went under water long before the infamous "hockey stick". Tasmania and Kodiak Island used to be connected to mainland until very recently.
Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Just because you haven't been inducted into the spooky lizard people cartel doesn't mean they don't think you're a useful idiot.
There were people who claimed there wasn't an international communist conspiracy before, too.
I can't tell if you actually believe that or just trolling. Seems like too many links for trolling though. You sir, are a nut. Inducing rain through cloud seeding is (as at least one of your links even states) not weather modification - it's cloud modification. It's a one-time, one-off thing which can help farmers on a small scale. It has zero global effect and zero climatic effect.
A study conducted in California's San Joaquin valley has shown that the rising temperature increased cattle's digestive system activity; causing an increase in the level of scat.
facebook has that many employees?
Increased concentrations of CO2 has lead to an increase in duplicate stories and comments on slashdot.
Thank you. It isn't like the guys that believe the world is flat are censored by down modding - the posts are still there. You would think the the xenophobes that talk all tough in their defense of pseudo science and manly mystics that live in clouds wouldn't get all butthurt when people on a site that is supposed to cater to people that value science don't care to hear their nonsense.
"So you're okay with censorship when it silences views you don't like? "
Today this is called 'academia'.
The chumps here are the suckers who moderated up your comments. You are notably 100% lacking in any sources on who claimed in the 70s that there would be another drought in 40 years. And any indication that there was a drought there 40 years prior to that? Also lacking, of course.
Who told you that someone even said that in the 70s, your parents? Your writing ability suggests you were not alive in the 70s to hear it yourself. You're just parroting someone else's words and getting lucky with them. If your nonsense didn't cater so well to the global warming deniers here on slashdot your comments would have gone unmoderated (or been moderated in the other direction).
Can you shock us all and provide sources for people predicting this drought 40 years ago?
Why does everyone forget that regardless of man made global warming we are still exiting a glacial period, the the earth will warm up on it's own, and we will eventually have to deal with that change even if we reduce our emissions to 0.
Now on the other hand cheaper, cleaner, renewable resources should be our goal anyway.
What if the truth you believe was a lie and the lies you vote down are the truth... you know because that has never happened before in the history humans. There is never been gross human error in any mass believed "science." The earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the earth never have we ever persecuted differences of opinions that in the end were actually found to be right. We must shout down those who we don't believe because after all what you believe, IS THE ONLY TRUTH.
Funny thing is, back in the 80's it was a near yearly event for a few thousand to drown in monsoon flooding. Yet we don't see such reports anymore. Are the Monsoons no longer happening or is the media just not reporting it? Or have they found ways to control the flooding and or get people to higher ground more effectively?
Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Since when does wattsupwiththat have credible evidence ?
Should we be all upset that some storm wipes out a bunch of people we don't know on the other side of the planet, probably not. We should care for the planet because we need it, we should want to leave a rich fertile world for our children, but we should look out for our own. If Nature acts to reduce massively over populated regions of the world we should probably just be thankful it was not us.
Generally I agree with that except the part about not giving a shit when people I don't know are drowning. "Thou shalt do unto others as thou would have others do unto you.... etc..." I'm an atheist but I will still freely acknowledge that the Christians have some words to live by in their ancient scrolls.
Let's see global warming.....hasn't happened, (rounding error differences are noise not a trend) .1pH and only at the surface, You know as in where the ocean stops being the ocean and turns into air. This isn't occurring at all depths and it's kind of necessary to things say like all the algae that makes something like 70-80% of the breathable air on planet Earth.
rising sea levels....has happened, but at such a rate that we will not be living in "Water World" anytime in say the next 500 years.
melting glaciers.....has happened, but that's what glaciers do, they melt, it's pretty cyclic and there is nothing crazy going on there. Hint if they don't melt that is really, really bad. Both for run off that feeds our waterways and the fact that if they are growing continuously means we are entering an other ice age, which means that most everyone north of the equator is going to starve/freeze to death.
ocean acidification.....completely bogus,
loss of sea ice...yep we lost it and it came back again and then some. This is what ice does. It forms and then it melts. If it keeps building up that is a very, very, very bad thing.
the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.
And if Freeman Dyson says something he has a better chance of being right than 99 and 44/100th of the rest of us.
Now you know what it feels like to be in the minority on GamerGate, immigration, Snowden, women in tech, etc. Oh, but that's different, right.
Water vapor is not ignored; if it were not for the water vapor feedback cycle CO2 would be a non-issue. The issue with water vapor is that there are vast reservoirs of it all around the planet, which we are not able to do much about. Also, your statement that clouds cause cooling is not quite correct: clouds contribute to both warming and cooling.
Right now we are engaging in a massive uncontrolled geoengineering experiment: using CO2 to add energy to the Earth's atmosphere. Modeling the effects of this are very difficult. I'm not interested in additional experiments without a great deal of study to their effects.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Quick point of clarification...
35 degrees in the shade is considered the temperature beyond which humans are likely to die from hyperthermia if exposed to the heat for several hours.
However, this is 35C of wet-bulb temperature. This depends on dry-bulb temperature (what we normally use), relative humidity and air pressure.
So it's not that 37C is the threshold. That'd require almost 90% relative humidity in the Phillipines where the norm seems to be between 60 and 80. At 80%, a dry temp of 38.5C would yield a web-bulb temp of 35C.
Nonetheless, you're not far off.
"They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives."
Like the negatives of CO2 are permanent. The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.
I never understood this panic about CO2, it's harmless, there are so many pollutants that are obviously harmful.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Okay: two pro-CO2 articles on successive days? What's up with that?
In yesterday's post ("Does Increased Carbon Dioxide Mean...") the poster said "The scientists said..." but no citation to speak of;
today, "a new study" is mentioned twice without citation again...
The universe is a warm fuzzy place where all your accidental weather experiments turn out great.
Murphy's laws have been suspended just for you.
Meanwhile...
The planet is heating up right on schedule with the climate models.
Probably that many people die in a week there due to disease and lack of sanitation.
love is just extroverted narcissism
My cherry picked data is better than your cherry picked data.
Cutting off your hands and legs will make you lose weight.
Last time i checked it floods in the middle of the US A LOT! The Mississippi valley is prone to flooding. Have you never looked at Bangladesh on a map? It have two massive rivers flowing right through it that form one at the cost. The whole country is like a valley for those rivers. Really, do people not look at fucking maps any more?
Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?
Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas that were previously farther from the coast and relatively safe, people cannot afford to just abandon their property and buy new land and build a new hose/farm in a safer place elsewhere because they are so poor they can hardly afford food, the government is to corrupt/apathetic/incompetent or just plain too poor to build flood defences which in many cases may even be a futile effort... result? Lots of people drown in storm floods in places like Bangladesh.
Let me rank the problems facing these people you are so worried about by some manner of importance to the quality of their lives:
1.So poor they can hardly afford food
2.Corrupt/incompetent government
3.today's storms and floods
4.The increased severity and spread of floods after decades of warming
If we are going to propose the solution to these people's problems is cutting CO2 emissions sufficiently to stave off problem number 4, don't ignore problems 1 through 3. Cheap power for their homes via coal and cheap fertilizer and gasoline for agriculture are what they need to afford food and get past their poverty. Placing a carbon tax on those commodities makes food and basic living more expensive for those poor people that can already barely afford food. Worse yet, that carbon tax is being collected and returned to the hands of the corrupt government that's also causing them problems, strengthening it's control over those people.
When we propose solutions to global problems like climate change, we've absolutely got to keep a global focus on what things like a carbon tax mean to different peoples of the world. There is a whole lot more to the challenges in people's lives than sea level and temperature.
Don't fall for this, my capitalistic friends. First they told us we're affecting the climate and we told them that was crap--we're just making better products for us all! Now they're saying affecting the climate is good, hoping we'll jump on board saying, "hooray, we'll cut down more trees and burn more coal." THIS IS A TRAP! They just want us to admit we know we're affecting the climate. Nice try, tree huggers!
Since when was it possible for 156 million mostly penniless people to move elsewhere?
Right, the most important thing those penniless people need is a carbon tax making the basic necessities they can already barely afford more expensive. As an added bonus, the corrupt and oppressive government helping hold them back gains even more control over them too through the extra revenues.
The fastest way to bring millions out of poverty is cheap energy through things like coal and oil. Increasing their ag production and ability to feed themselves for less money requires cheap fertilizers. This all amounts to more CO2 being dumped out, and yes, it contributes to a future for them with more flooding. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume they all want to choose cutting emissions versus getting out of poverty,
It's more like we are delaying the onset of the next glacial period, since we're not just exiting the previous one.
Best climate comment EVER!!!
Since we know from the scientific data that climate change is mostly natural, this is news why???
Let's use that argument.... what affect does tectonics have on air and ocean currents?
Hmm???
New York City's water travels through hundreds of miles of aqueducts and is some of the cleanest, safest water in the world.
Y'all in the left coast are too busy suckling at the federal teat and complaining about taxes to get anything done that requires cooperation. Well, you can cooperate to corrupt legislatures and deregulate the economy, I'll give you that. And push bigotry and wastefulness, that too.
Over here we pay more taxes and get less federal aid. Face it; y'all westerners are crybabies who can't get anything done.
Why is the Arctic melting, while the Antarctic is accumulating ice?
That's actually a far more odd and puzzling phenomenon that is yet unexplained. And it shows just how little we actually know about climate science. Now, I've got a postulation. The orbit of the Earth has declined. Thus, the upper pole is being melted, while the southern pole is accumulating ice.
Oh wait, I know....that's impossible, sure the earth's orbit may have a variance of inclination. But that would mean if the elevation was lower, that it would be higher for the second half of the orbit. Because the planets orbit on a plane of the sun.
Okay, let me throw a loop out there for you. How big is the Earth compared to the sun? What is the internal make up and distribution of the sun? Is it solid? fluid? gas? If the latter two....is it fixed? We've seen some big solar flares, odd spots, etc. It's very possible to theorize that the distribution of the mass of the sun could in fact change. If solar storms shifted internal mass just the earths orbit would adjust. How much affect would such a variation have on Earth's climate? Do we know? It would explain why we are seeing one of Earth's poles losing ice while the other is accumulating.
...it's not happening, we're not causing it, it's stopping on its own, it's a hoax and a conspiracy...unless there is any marginally positive effect in which case we'll take full credit for that.
Got it.
Except it kinda is, since the score is mostly used to filter what messages are shown. You aren't supposed to mod down something just because you disagree with it.
37 degrees celsius? You think that's hot for a tropical island? I looked at the temperature record in the 60's and there were plenty of 37 degree days then as well. Were you expecting it to be like Canada?
to advance the cause of de-industializing western civilization.
Western nations were built on plentiful carbon-based energy, so it you want to drag them down, you attack their energy sources and consumption. You then specifically exempt non-western nations from the new emissions regimes and pretend that it would be racist to impose those regimes onto nations like India and China, which are allowed to INCREASE their output (something you would not permit if the planet were truly at risk)
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." - Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Working Group III co-chair
Flooding their entire village would solve all of their problems.
You know... I now have a modest proposal to fix the global population glut and limit global warming. Also improves global water quality...
It's easier to move 156 million penniless people out of grass shacks and tin sheds than it will be to move 12 million middle-class Americans out of their overpriced, overfurnished apartments.
Hell, we could mass-manufacture $1200 toolsheds, with galvanized plumbing and 2 electrical outlets, and move them into those, while dumping a few million into the HUGE deserted cities in China...
What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.
When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this made it much hotter on the surface of Venus than on Mercury. This was known, and nobody blinked an eye. There was no mention in any of the literature of that era about the idea being controversial when applied to Venus.
Facts don't cease to be facts because they later turn out to be inconvenient.
So because some people use a filter that will reduce their visibility, any tags or actions that reduce visibility are censorship? The car dealership being out of red cars, so my choice is black or dark blue is censorship, as that reduces my visibility! Nope, that logic doesn't work when applied in any other situation.
Learn to love Alaska
So someone who claims the moon landing was a hoax should be given the same attention as someone who documents the maximum size of trees based on the capillary effect, and the predictions of that in maximum height.
You can waste your time treating every new conspiracy theorist as a unique claimant with a valid point.
Learn to love Alaska
Winters here in the interior of Alaska have been more mild the last several years, something everyone is thankful for - not saying this is due to increased CO2, but if it is, no complaints here. This may spell misery for folks in warmer climates, and I do not wish for that. I for one welcome our new Warm Alaskan Winter CO2 Overlords!
to think God the Father is stupid or just split and left everybody stranded.
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=14&l=6#x
[1] Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. [2] In my Father' s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. [3] And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be. [4] And whither I go you know, and the way you know. [5] Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
[6] Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. [7] If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.
wattsupwiththat.com has lost its credibility, unfortunately. In their zeal to debunk climate change they stooped to giving a voice to non-experts giving their opinions, rendering the editorial indistinguishable from factual reporting. I don't have the time to wade through those links and try to figure out if they are even pretending to tell the truth or not, and I doubt you have done so.
So with that, can you cite some peer-reviewed sources which have not pissed their credibility up a rope?
And there is the problem. Much of what is accepted as fact proving climate change is man caused is truly opinion, and based on data either flawed or altered. Asking for peer-reviewed denials is clever - the majority both suppresses dissent and trivializes it.
If you can't be bothered to sort through the fact and opinion on one side, then the argument is lost, isn't it?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Which of these things HAS happened, and which has NOT?
Plant growth accelerates and as CO2 levels increase, consuming the excess CO2. This happens, and is easily demonstrated.
Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, etc... This has not. ...and yes. We're way past the original doomsday mark. Funny how the Earth goes through cycles and maintains itself.
Climate skeptic? Nah. Just someone who prefers truth over politically driven psuedo-science.
He failed to mention the worst consequence of admitting that this might be a positive factor. It would not compensate for his loss of grant funding from NASA (he has three grants) that pays for his salary and graduate students.
back in the 1970s it was global cooling and the coming ice age
...when you're coming out of an Ice Age.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Good thing that's not happening....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Ummm....
.04% (http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/34067-venus-vs-earth/), and its atmospheric pressure is 90 times ours here on our little blue marble (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Venus_compared_to_Earth).
Venus also happens to receive just under twice as much sunlight as Earth (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2476.html), has an atmosphere that is about 96% CO2 vs Earth's
Suspect those all together have rather more of an influence.....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
You dirty scumbags. Whomever recently bought Slashdot is subtly fucked up in the head and has fossil fuel mining companies in their pockets. The tenor has changed, ever so slightly. The headlines that head up the email header. It is changing. This is a travesty.
Ah, but it is not. If the formatting is reasonable, but you still can not satisfy it — and not for lack of time, obviously — then you have a problem.
I insist on these rules, because without them I can demonstrate ultimate predictive powers too — by writing down multiple contradictory predictions today, and only publishing successful ones tomorrow. Having posted aplenty, you never objected to the format — because it is reasonable. You just can't satisfy it.
We see scary predictions published — even on Slashdot — about once a week. With decades of this behind us, some — most! — of them should've come true already. Evidently, none have...
Excellent! Year 2000 is well behind us. Where are their successful predictions? If they published before the Internet age, you can satisfy my challenge by posting links to the later scientists citing those pre-Internet ones — before those predictions happened to come true.
Khmm, does this mean, you admit, no predictions I seek have been made until "just recently"? Would be an awesome admission on your part...
Again, you are appealing to the authority of experts — begging the question of whether they really are experts. If they are, where are their successful predictions?
I find the entire discipline of "Climate Science" to be insufficiently established for any governmental policy-changes to be based on it. My evidence for this is the inability of the discipline's adherents — such as yourself — to cite any successful predictions. Lack of time is, obviously, not the reason. Nor is ignorance. The most reasonable explanation is, none have been made.
You mentioned Newton's vs. Einstein's theories — but the former did give us verifiable predictions anyway. You need to approach a considerable fraction of the c for Einstein's corrections to become necessary. Should not Climate Science, its first practitioners working in 19th century, have something remotely similar to offer? The challenge I put forth asked for correctness of just 80% for any cited prediction — a Physicist would've had no problem coming up with citations even before Einstein. But you do...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How do any of those facts have an influence on the temperature difference between Venus and Mercury?
Cite anything
That would be great advice for you to follow. Your entire starting argument about "40 year cycles" has not been followed with a single citation. Just because you were moderated up doesn't mean you said anything factual, plenty of garbage gets moderated up on this site just for being in line with the dominant voice.