Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Could Cross Key Threshold in a Decade, Scientists Say (reuters.com)
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week. But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre. Reuters reports: With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said. That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. But other changes -- such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables -- could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said.
Define "this". What was supposed to happen in January 2016? Some key metrics already happened. 2015 was the hottest year on record. Some other key metrics will also happen in the next 10 years.
Only idiots think that make climate change a hoax.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Indeed, the Jurassic did have higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than today, and correspondingly, had higher average temperatures.
The place I live, in the interior of North America, was also underwater, since the polar ice caps didn't exist then.
As for biodiversity-- the Jurassic period lasted for 56 million years. Which part of the Jurassic are you referring to?
And I dont remember where, that any prediction that gives a sufficiently large amount of time before it is to be affirmed (5 years?) will be forgotten by enough people or vague enough in anyone's memory that it doesn't have to be based on facts at all.
There is not "hiatus." Get your head out of your ass. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-...
We actually have had more major hurricanes this year (more than 12 to date) than prior years, and the year isn't over.
Hit the refresh on NOAA dot gov.
We;ll name the next one after you, farmboi.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The bottom line reality is that Russia, China, Brazil and India simply don't care.
I beg your pardon, but Brazilian cars are fueled by a huge, country-wide, 8:1 EROI sugar-cane ethanol, and electricity is generated by hydro and Nuclear. Deforestation was cut by 30% in the last 5 years. Brazil is a global clean energy player, and an example of environmentally correct policies. So, please take Brazil out of your list [and try to act the same as them do - furthermore, some research wouldn't be a disadvantage for you].
Parts of the East Coast are under water.
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course, the problem with focusing exclusively on the costs of trying to stop or (more realistically) slow climate change implicitly assumes that inaction won't cost us anything. In fact we're looking at costs either way. We're in a minimax kind of situation: how do we minimize the maximum costs?
There's also another wrinkle to this, which is that costs (and indeed profits -- every misfortune profits someone) aren't distributed evenly. The key determinant of how much you have to pay for or profit from climate change is how mobile your capital is. If you're a Bengladeshi subsistence farmer you're going to take +2C right on the chin. If you're a Wall Street bank you take your investments out of farms which are going to lose productivity in the next ten years or so shift to underwriting the opening of new farms in newly favorable places. In other words you make money going and coming. Likewise if you own multiple homes your risk from local changes is spread out. If the lion's share of your nest egg is in a house that is in the new 20 year floodplain or in the range of a newly endemic zoonosis, you're screwed.
So even if you can't avoid +2C without climate engineering (which might not be such a bad thing), getting there in ten years instead of twenty or thirty makes a huge difference. And beyond 2C, there are other benchmarks beyond that we don't want to hit in a hurry.
This is not a black-and-white situation: that we had our chance to do something and now there is nothing we can do. We had our chance to avoid this situation and now we're talking about how much time we'll have to adapt.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Venus is much closer to the sun. Of course it's warmer.
Mercury is even closer to the sun than Venus, yet Venus is hotter than Mercury (at the equator) by about 120K. Insolation is not the only factor determining surface temperature.
Stephan
So, you're saying that the live webcams set up by the Miami Beach Department of Tourism doesn't show any flooding? Well, I must have gotten some bad information about the flooding in Miami Beach then. I guess the photos on weather.com and the Miami Herald were just photoshopped.
https://weather.com/science/en...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...
http://www.miamiherald.com/art...
You are welcome on my lawn.