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.
And the decade before that too, come to think of it.
Keep the conspiracy theories to the tabloids.
It's a shame that clean and cheap nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. At least the AI singularity is always 50 years away though.
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.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels.
Perfect! Let's go back there...
No sig today...
Same year as the year of the Linux Desktop (tm)
...in 2006 by Al Gore? "...unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return", Gore said.
...in 1999, by James Hansen, telling us that the 2000's would rival the 1930's for the highest ever... of course, then we went into a "hiatus" of global warming. Original article.
...in 2006, by this group, saying, Extinction is OUR choice, unless... .... within the next 8 years we have STOPPED using fossil fuels, PLANTED millions of trees, ended logging, and PREPARED our cities and agriculture for the inevitable sea rise. OTHERWISE OUR CHILDREN MAY NOT SURVIVE!
...in 2006, by the Independent?
...in late 2006, by Mother Jones?
..in 2004, by James Hansen? Article
Or maybe just google all this from 10+ years ago, telling us we'd all be dead in 10 years. google.com
Let's stop with the hysteria and stick to facts. I'm not against cutting CO2 emissions, I am against needless panic mongering.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
which has all of Ubuntu... except the "Linux" part.
Just what "steps" have you got in mind, sparky?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You mean like forcing families in China to have only one child? I wonder why nobody ever thought about it...
@jnaujok - look at the years. They are all election years. This isn't about physical/environmental science, it is about the science of social engineering aka votes.
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.
This would be very valid criticism of a theoretical climate model that would predict that it would get there and stay there. Instead, all recognized models suggest that we get there quickly and keep going.
A car analogy. You see a sign "end of the road, cliff drop ahead". You step on the accelerator and say to your passengers "No worries, I walked past this sign and there is no cliff there right away". Do you have enough time to brake? Who knows, but I'd want you to pull over so I could get out right away. Unfortunately, we are all in the same car.
There is not "hiatus." Get your head out of your ass. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-...
and stop telling us that while every cold year did not refute anything, the hot ones are, in fact, confirming.
No single year that's colder than average in one particular place is significant, nor one that's hotter than average in one particular place. The important feature about global warming (or, if you prefer, global climate change) is the global part.
A year that's warmer than average averaged across the whole Earth is indicative... but not conclusive.
A whole sequence of years that are all unusually warm, averaged across the whole Earth, however: that is significant.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Well except the linux part
and the actually using it to do anything part.
Same year as the year of the Linux Desktop (tm)
Yep - will occur in 10 years since systemd came along.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It's not the particular temp that's bad, it's the change. Like how so many people live on coast lines. A rise in sea levels wouldn't be bad if we didn't live in those areas. Similarly, we plant crops in certain places because the climate supports growing them there. The effects of a 3 degree temp change for the globe depends on if that change happens in 10,000 years, 1000 years or 100 years.
So... Year of GNU on the desktop?
That's so hot.
Yep, funny how it is always 10 years out, and how 90% of what they are talking about are man fighting over resources. If we start to not have enough rainfall, we build aqueducts, or desalinization plants or both. If we need more land, we go the way of the Dutch and build seawalls (more than 50% of Netherlands is under sea level). This is far more efficient and effective than fighting with each other.
We have the technology and the ability to cope with these minor issues effectively. Unless you are worried about the savages who live to kill each other and rape at every opportunity. Not sure that the 70% of the world that is civilized and modern should really care that the savages may murder each other a little faster than before, or not reproduce as effectively or be forced to modernize and civilize. We should certainly not jeopardize the best quality of human life (longest life span, lowest violence rates, highest equality of sexes and races, best sanitation and highest levels of freedom in known history) for the savages.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Agreed. See jnaujok's post above and the AC comment below it (the one about election years).
Those fruits and vegetables don't just grow themselves. We need to undertake massive programs of fertilization and insecticide spreading to get enough of the specialized vegetable matter that humans can consume. On the other hand, we can graze cattle and other ruminants on wild grasses*. And then consume the resulting protein.
*Of which we have plenty, artificial shortages aside. As a bonus, we can feed the BLM employees to the pigs.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're missing a main point - we can't magically undo 150 years of CO2 creation when we decide the effects are noticeable. There will be a time when actions are taken to reduce the effects, but that won't stop the effects from increasing for the foreseeable future. Will it cause our extinction? Doubtful. Will it cause extinctions and much harm? It's already happening. Even with the asteroid 65M years ago, it wasn't a dino free world the next day. The extinctions took several 1000s of years, IIRC, and then another 1.5 million or so before the biosphere started seriously diversifying again. So, to put that in perspective, recorded history only barely covers 5000 years.
If scientists came and told the average couch potato that unless they stopped driving their gas-guzzler today, their great great great grandchildren might be living in an arid desert barely scratching out a living and dying of thirst, I'm sure exactly 0% would stop driving their gas guzzlers. The average couch potato can barely conceive of issues next week, much less several generations away. Look what it took to get chloro-flouro-carbons out of use.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It's not just science denying idiots. It's Microsoft fanboys too.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This argument just needs to die. It's not going to happen unless we're talking about some sci-fi book/movie. China does this, but they are a communist country too, so their people gave up their choice in any matter what so ever just simply by being born in the country.
To the contrary. You do not need to "give up choice" to limit population. Demographic studies have demonstrated that there are three things that have been shown to reduce population growth.
1. Prosperity. Demographics shows that affluent people, on the whole, have fewer children than poor people. You want to reduce population growth in poor countries? Address the poverty.
2. Education. Demographics shows that educating people reduces the birth rate. Most effectively, educating girls (who in many countries with high population growth have no access to education at all)-- but in general: population growth rate decreases with education.
3. Access to birth control techniques. This actually surprised the demographers, who hadn't predicted it, but the data is pretty firm. Independent of the first two factors, simply give people access to means of control over their own reproduction... and they, in general, have fewer children.
So, that's it: how to save the world: bring people out of poverty, give them education, and give them access to birth control.
You don't need the totalitarian bullshit.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It really doesn't matter if this is true or not. Either way, it won't be fixed in time. The bottom line reality is that Russia, China, Brazil and India simply don't care. China does care a little but only a little. None of them are going to reduce emissions if it harms economic growth. They've all been clear that they think it's unfair that the more developed countries who got there faster got to pollute all they wanted to with no consequence in the past. So everybody should really hope that the climate change folks are mistaken because this is simply not solvable with those 4 at a minimum being unwilling to do anything about it.
*sigh* There are no serious AGW primary forcing computer models that wouldn't have us hitting his special target temperature even if we had cut all emissions in 1985. CO2, methane, everything. Which means disingenuous shitbirds like you have exactly four choices. Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95% of the human race as well as an accompanying drop in living standard depending on just how much of humanity you want to keep around, advocate for chemically geoengineering the Earths atmosphere to drop temps, advocate creating a giant solar shield, or accelerate development through incentives for absorbing and sequestering CO2 into various long term storage mediums. Pussyfooting around like a bitch saying that any sort of Kyoto Accords will do jack fucking shit to seriously mitigate AGW temp rise is, while amusing, utterly pathetic.
Look, the "point of no return" is completely arbitrary - how much CO2 do you want in the atmosphere? However much we put in there, it will remain for 10's of thousands of years. Today is a point of no return. So is tomorrow. So is the day after, and so on. The only thing that's been changing is how much CO2 is up there and will remain up there. In other words, this isn't evidence against the greenhouse effect (which is well-understood, tested, and resoundingly supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field). This is evidence that humans tend to move goalposts when they blow past a deadline. There is right now little doubt that the Earth's environment has been altered and will continue to be altered by the elevated CO2. People will die, cities will flood, animals will go extinct. This will all almost certainly happen, the only thing that remains to be seen is the extent to which we increase CO2 levels before switching to renewable energy sources and the extent to which our environment changes as a result of the greenhouse effect. Make no mistake, we have long-since crossed the line of no return and are moving further into dangerous territory with each passing day.
Where the fuck did "Republican" come into this?
You do know there are Republicans that agree with the science, right? And there are also Republicans that are skeptical of AGW, but still think that blowing gigatons of industrial emissions into the air is still a bad thing, and that something should be done about that regardless of AGW, right?
Go fuck your own face, you partisan hack.
What most people don't get is that CO2 takes about 100 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. And about 20 years to impact the cycles.
The climate change you see today is from what we did from 1900 to 1990. It's already baked in. The changes we do today affect 2035 to 2135.
However, planting trees or algae farms which we then store and don't use has an impact immeadiately.
Seaweed is actually a great carbon store.
In terms of immeadiate impacts, the best you can do is:
1. stop eating beef, unless it's free range beefalo or beef in non-pastoral settings (yes, cow farts do impact the climate, but it's what they eat especially that matters). Side effect: healthier for you in terms of heart risk and diet, bonus points.
2. stop flying on old inefficient airplanes except for turboprops. Use high speed rail where it exists, or boats.
3. replace all your old inefficient money wasting appliances with new high efficient energy star appliances. As a personal example, I cut my utility bill in HALF by doing this, and the new stuff is WAY QUIETER and uses less hot water. And my clothes wear out half as fast. massive cost savings here. Fridge, washer, dryer.
4. get a hybrid or plug in car or truck. In Canada they have 2017 model plug in trucks. Same goes for business. Saves TONS OF DOLLARS on fuel and maintenance. Plus, if you buy high end cars, the added electric power makes your car a speed demon! Ultra fast!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Ok, but in the mean time how about you learn the concepts of "averaging" and "scale".
Isn't skepticism the very vital essence of science?
Yes, but there is an enormous difference between skepticism and denialism.
Skeptics form the "loyal opposition" in the field of science. They seek to uncover flaws and errors in the results of other studies, with the aim of improving science. Just like the scientists they challenge in good faith, they are prepared to accept that they may be wrong.
Denialists seek to destroy science, not improve it. They follow a pattern of rejection of any scientific result that disagrees with their world-view, no matter what the cost to logic and reality. And they never accept that they may be wrong. In short, denialists are not scientists.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Every year is an election year. It's just a matter of how big the election is.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
sustainable diets, with less beef
Give it up Vegans, cattle eat grass. Grass is very sustainable.
My fellow Americans, we're screwed, blued, and tattooed.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The Left has an issue for Red Lines...they keep drawing them and no one cares.
I thought it was already over since we passed 400ppm.
It's not that animals and plants can't live in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. They clearly can.
The problem is, animals and plants are adapted to the current climate. A sudden shift will cause many species to go extinct. It takes many millions of years to build back biodiversity. Humans will probably be extinct before biodiversity returns to pre-industrial levels.
Also, parts of the world that are currently arable will become barren; and some parts that are currently barren will become arable. There could potentially be food shortages and distribution problems until we adapt. Certainly, we can and shall adapt, but how many people will suffer in the interim.
We can relocate people from islands and coastal areas, but at what cost? Monetary costs? Emotional costs? cultural costs?
Storms and extreme weather events will become more frequent. Not ideal for civilization, people will die. We will adapt, but again at what cost. So yes, there may have been more biodiversity during the Jurassic (I haven't checked to compare), but I assure you, there won't be more biodiversity any time soon. Many species will die before new ones are born.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Always 20 years away.
Going for popcorn to watch my Karma get trashed now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...
We're constantly being treated to this and when the prediction doesn't happen... no apology... no admission... nothing. Just a goal post move.
Will they admit in 50 years what they haven't admitted over 20? Will they admit over 100 what they won't over 50?
I suspect that only death by old age is going to resolve this because some people are going to keep this shit up to their graves.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Unfortunately, continually dumping shit into the atmosphere is all about money too. Of course coal-generated energy will be the cheapest there is if you don't have to fully account for the waste products billowing out of the stacks...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It's not the absolute numbers that are the problem. It's the speed that we are reaching them. If we were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a much slower rate (say 100 times slower) then civilization and nature would have a much easier time to adapt to the changes.
Using a car analogy how fast do you want to stop from going 60 mph? Over a 1/4 mile or by using a brick wall. We're currently using the brick wall method when it comes to climate change.
Oh, wait...
I think they went with that decades ago...something about the Cultural Revolution? Reduced the population by 60 million.
You want more, is that it?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...
Your source does not discuss New York - or any other place - being underwater in any amount of time. It mentions a point of no return but does not detail a specific consequence that happens when that point is passed. Do you have a source that supports your hyperbolic claim?
I suspect that only death by old age
Very highly unlikely as nobody has died in the US of old age since the 1950s.
Great. Let's return to that. The entire central United States was a relatively shallow sea, since there were none of those pesky ice caps and glaciers. What is now Florida was well under water, which in my mind is a good thing. Of course the end of the Jurassic wasn't the end of life. It was followed by the Cretaceous, with most of the well known dinosaurs. And, the end of the Cretaceous wasn't the end of life either. The point is that life goes on. However, which life might be important. If your particular species goes extinct, you might consider that bad. Your little screed demonstrates a fie ignorance of paleontology, geology, and climatology. Perhaps a bit more study of basic sources would help.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
There's more. In 1989, we only had ten years to fix the problem.
There are some people who are climate deniers, who say that humans can't affect the climate. Those people are fools.
There are other people who refuse to believe that there is plenty of propaganda going on. Those people are also fools.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not saying I know how to accomplish this.
The "hiatus" in global warming was produced by choosing 1998 as the baseline year. Why was 1998 a good year to use as a baseline? Because it was, by far, the hottest year on record when it happened, shattering the previous record (1997) by 0.13C.
Now this is a news for nerds site, so I don't have to explain why cherrypicking an outlier as your baseline is dishonest. People who swallowed that are either dishonest or mathematical ignoramuses.
I will go out on a limb right now and say that since El Niño has passed an next year will be less warm, sometime around 2020 we'll be hearing "No significant warming since 2016."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
IAACS (I am a climate scientist), and the actions we take NOW do, and will, matter for the future to come. From a science perspective, cutting emissions can have a significant impact on the global temperature anomaly. There is the hope that by meeting these international agreements, we can collectively stop the temperature rise before more dire positive feedback mechanisms begin to occur.
The most obvious example of a positive feedback mechanism would be "Snowball Earth", where-in the albedo of the planet is increased due to ice coverage. A higher albedo means more reflected radiation from the sun, cooling the planet, which encourages the growth of ice....etc etc. The opposite feedback is true right now of Arctic ice. Less ice = more sunlight = less ice, etc etc.
There are hundreds of these mechanisms at play in the climate, and we haven't discovered all of them. Of the ones we have discovered, there are some Very Unfortunate Mechanisms that activate right around 2 degrees Celcius. Unfortunate in the sense of negative impact on humanity. When I sit in on science talks, and read scientific articles, and chat with fellow scientists, they are very aware of the difficulty of change for a global economy. The optimistic view is that we can meet a 1 or 1.5 degree celcius change with significant cooperation among governments, corporations, and people. No one is advocating for eradicating populations, and not many are in favor of geoengineering.
So to respond to your assertion, yes, there are AGW primary forcing computer models that predict us mitigating climate change. In fact, the average of all the serious computer models agrees that mitigation can work.
Finally, one of the primary problems in global change is the lack of individuals and groups willing to take responsibility. Your attitude of "it's already over don't bother" is what we have to fight. It's not over, and it won't be for some 200 years.
Dietary recommendations to make everyone eat a vegan diet has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with immasculating men, robbing them of their aggression and initiative, and making them docile and malleable -- essentially turning them into women. Furthermore eating a vegetarian diet is not actually healthy; it is more or less impossible to get enough high-quality, complete protein every day. Over long periods of time, eating a strict vegetarian diet, people begin to suffer from malnutrition because of amino acid deficiencies, the most notable effect of which is a progressive cognitive deficit; your thoughts become clouded, unclear, and your memory deteriorates. This coupled with the fact that on a vegetarian diet you inevitably end up eating too much carbohydrates, and the end result is fat, weak, low testosterone males, with no leadership ability, no ambition, no ability to be aggressive (even when it's appropriate and warranted to be so). Face it: It's a conspiracy to make the world peaceful by destroying one of the two genders. No good will come of this! Humans are omnivores, plain and simple, and science does itself a disservice by failing to acknowledge this plain and simple FACT.
Bottom line: We need meat. Don't listen to vegan rhetoric, keep eating meat, and keep demanding meat!
That website where the groupthink moderates one into oblivion for expressing an opinion or sharing a joke?
Try browsing here at +2.
The problem isn't necessarily where we are headed (warmer climate, higher ocean). You have to think about we are now, where we will soon be, and how rapidly the change is occurring. Having certain places underwater isn't nearly as problematic if they submerged over millennia, since creatures have a chance to migrate away, evolve to better suit the changing conditions, etc. Similarly, having warmer weather wouldn't be such an issue if the transition occurred over millenia. As it is, the weather patterns are changing faster than plants and animals (and humans) can adapt. For example, trees are literally unable to migrate to cooler climates except by spreading their seeds a few feet North or South per decade or so. Life can adapt to slow changes very well, but this is different. We are putting enormous pressure on the biosphere by compressing a geological timescale event into a couple centuries. To be clear, I completely agree with you that life on Earth would be fine with 3C warmer weather -- but not if it changes by 3C in 100 or 200 years. Here's a couple examples of what's going on during this period of rapid warming. Coral reefs are bleaching at an unprecedented rate, and we could lose 70% of them by 2050. The oceans have become 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution, which is taking a heavy toll on shellfish: oyster seed production in the pacific northwest has declined 80% between 2005 and 2009. We've seen an increase in severe weather such as hurricanes and flooding. There's more to come.
And humans didn't live in the Jurassic Period. So your point is, "global warming is fine for dinosaurs".
Noted.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I believe in general in Global Warming, however I've always been very uncomfortable with the dire tone of the weather predictions and the certainty in which they are stated. Here's how I would say it:
1. Fact: We are producing increasingly more CO2 since the 1800s
2. Fact: In a closed unchanging system this would create global warming.
3. Fact: We know of no mechanism that would remove that much C02 from the atmosphere, however, we are a bit uncertain about how much exactly will be extracted by natural processes.
4. Left unchecked and without counter measures, all manner of bad things could happen (famine, flooding of low level areas), however one would expect that countermeasures for these will be taken, such as dutch style sea walls around all low lying coastal cities in the world.
5. Some of our computer models predict awful scenarios such as storms, however our computer models are highly imprecise even under unchanging conditions, and all the more so in a world with changing temperatures. They are our best guess of what would happen, but the degree of uncertainty is pretty high.
6. There is no such thing as point of no return. This is not a nuclear chain reaction that cannot be stopped.
7. It is difficult to predict what will be the impact of some lands turning into deserts while others become feasible land for agriculture.
8. It is equally difficult to predict how wildlife will adapt to this. Will they migrate? become extinct?
9. Surprisingly and contrary to what we would expect we do not see a linear direct correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature. Modeling this correlation remains one of the big open questions of science today (a similar thing happened with fluorocarbons where initially the chemical processes involved were not very well understood. the persons who resolved this conundrum eventually won the nobel prize of chemistry).
Seriously, we need to fix this.
we need to punish the west, who emits less than 1/3 of emissions, and make them drop theirs.
At the same time, we need to allow the rest of the world to grow MUCH faster than the west can drop theirs.
And then we need to blame the west for all this.
Oh wait, that is what the far left CURRENTLY DOES.
Until the far left gets done giving China blow jobs, this will only get worse.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Same as the latest cure for cancer. "Although today's research results are promising, scientists estimate we could be 10 years away from a cure."
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
New Scientist, Oct. 8 - 14, had a great article on cracking natural gas into hydrogen gas and carbon black. Researchers in Spain bubbled natural gas through a column of molten tin at about 1000C. Hydrogen came off the top while carbon black floated to the surface of the tin. Had a reaction efficiency of about 80%. Would be best to use the hydrogen in a hybrid vehicle - batteries would be charged by a combined cycle "engine". This engine would be a solid oxide fuel cell followed by a supercritical CO2 turbine. Could get power efficiencies in the range of 70%. This would give excellent fuel mileage from a cheap fuel. Disposing of the carbon black would be a problem, but this a minor irritant compared to emitting carbon dioxide. The exhaust from the engine would be water vapor only. A crash program probably could get us converted to this tech in 10 to 15 years. Then, the fear of climate change would become just a memory. But, considering how disfunctional our governmental institutions are, transitioning to this clean technology has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. We're doomed.
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.
You can't win against these people because it's all a lefty plot to deprive them of their God given right to get 3mpg in their 12 litre penis extensions. Time to move to rocket science so the intelligent ones can move to another world and let these idiots get on with it.
People eating meat can get deficiencies, where did you get the idea they don't? Your statements about fibers are also wrong as shown by research. Maybe you confuse problem with fibers with eating fibers with too little fluid intake which can indeed lead to constipation - but that is well known.
>>No, you go fuck yourself you both sided libertarian retard. Conservatives and libertarians (another kind of conservative) OWN this you lying psychopath and we need to make you PAY for your fucking evil habits.
Please tell me this was a parody of the Global-Warmist-as-Medieval-Inquisitor variety. If not, then you're really starting to scare us...
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!
The Jurassic period was really quite long, and long ago. Long enough for solar evolution to be significant. At the beginning of the Jurassic, the sun was about 2% fainter than now, at the end about 1.5% fainter. That is about 26W/sqm on the solar constant, or about 4.6 W/sqm of radiative forcing if corrected for albedo and averaged over the whole surface of the Earth. 5 times modern CO2 is about a radiative forcing of ln(5)*5.35, or 8.6W/sqm. So just the change in the sun cuts the effect into half, leaving 4W/sqm, which our current climate models translate into 3.2K of temperature difference. So even without taking other effects (minor orbital variations, configuration of the continents) into account, your claim agrees quite nicely with our current theoretical results. Of course, the sun is unlikely to get significantly fainter or stronger over the the next few thousand years, so there will be no free lunch from that angle. If we go back up to 5 times current CO2, we can expect about 7K of temperature increase.
And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2!
Since our increase of CO2 produced by burning fossil carbon with atmospheric oxygen, at best we'll get back the O2 we sucked from the atmosphere. Not that a significant quick increase would be advantageous - it would play havoc with the biosphere and massively increase the risk of and by fires.
Stephan
Wow, -2 within a minute ... that's special.
The predictions of pretty much every climate model from 20 years ago have been wildly pessimistic though.
Was there significant warming last century? Yes. Are climate scientists any good at predicting the climate lately? No.
Luckily most of it is covered by water which is pretty good at evening things out.
I'm sure if climate scientists were in charge of things they would "put up". But they're not; politicians are, and politicians naturally worry more about being b lamed for action more than being blamed for inacdtion. They'd rather be forced to spend a trillion dollars than choose to spend a hundred billion.
But even if you are willing to take the hit as a politician, you can't do it alone. You need to bring other politicians around, and the public around as well. If you can't take effective steps right away, you take what you can. This gets people working on CO2 reduction technologies and businesses, and builds a constituency for more steps. It's like stopping a cattle stampede. You can't make the entire herd stop and change direction at once, you get the lead cows heading in a slightly different direction.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Lets say we just keep shoveling food aid at the third world and they keep procreating. What will you do when their populations become unsustainable where they are? Do you then propose to spread them out all over the rest of the world? With the inevitable ethnic strive that will cause because the native population will have vast advantages economically and will be resented for it, while the third world immigrants take over control of the nations through the ballot box.
Do you see good things coming from this? Your way leads to a world drowning in blood.
Unless the singularity comes to save us first, which I kinda doubt.
I'm willing to start with them. Yes the world is getting hotter. Yes man is contributing and most likely is the driving force behind it. No there's no stopping it without unbelievably drastic measures that will not be accepted by almost anybody. The best chance for stopping it is a world war where 97 percent of the population is destroyed. A nuclear winter would do wonders for global warming. The climate guys would get all those glaciers back with a vengeance.
Who cares about a single year ... the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years.
Fine points. Someone needs to come up with a plan for reasonable goals and try to mitigate damage and plan for changes in sea level. The problem is there is so much money involved and a lot of people plan to profit big time on the situation. Cap and Trade which is a favorite of these people is set up to profit from it. As with all things the working poor stand to take it up the ass. The funny thing is, while these people largely lack education and sophistication they aren't stupid. They know when someone pisses on their leg it's not raining.
It's nothing about 850 strategic nuclear warheads can't solve.
"Both parties are populated by people who believe the other party is entirely populated by insane people."
They're both right.
Give it up! In the 90's, we have a decade, or the Earth will fall into the abyss. Earth's polar ice is melting. We're all doomed! Ice is thicker than ever. Hey you stupid scientist...try turning your attention to THE SUN! It's what controls the weather on earth, not the puny humans. lDIOTS...
*sigh* There are no serious AGW primary forcing computer models that wouldn't have us hitting his special target temperature even if we had cut all emissions in 1985. CO2, methane, everything. Which means disingenuous shitbirds like you have exactly four choices. Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95% of the human race as well as an accompanying drop in living standard depending on just how much of humanity you want to keep around, advocate for chemically geoengineering the Earths atmosphere to drop temps, advocate creating a giant solar shield, or accelerate development through incentives for absorbing and sequestering CO2 into various long term storage mediums. Pussyfooting around like a bitch saying that any sort of Kyoto Accords will do jack fucking shit to seriously mitigate AGW temp rise is, while amusing, utterly pathetic.
You forgot the most likely one, just move somewhere where AGW will result in an improvement. Because even if AGW results is fucking some parts of the world, it will also result in making some parts nicer (warmer, more CO2, more plants etc).
I'm willing to start with them. Yes the world is getting hotter. Yes man is contributing and most likely is the driving force behind it. No there's no stopping it without unbelievably drastic measures that will not be accepted by almost anybody. The best chance for stopping it is a world war...
Why do we have to stop it, isn't adapting easier? We can grow food in the desert now, there is no real need to panic.
Yes, just like those bullshit coders have more than one language to code in - C, C++, python, perl and a whole lot of things instead of programming in Apple Integer BASIC like God intended.
Looks stupid doesn't it?
Maybe you should listen to the experts coder boy instead of expecting everything to be more simple than setting a clock.
The problem there is economists, mostly from the USA, heard about climate science and decided to make a quick buck out of the misfortune of others. Don't blame the guys who model the climate for that.
Who cares about a single year ...
The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.
the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years
Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, maybe I should say something like, "both parties are populated by people who believe they are sane"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If only there was a thing that used CO2 from the atmosphere. What a wonderful thing that would be. A thing that would be so beautiful to see.
Imagine if that thing thrived under CO2, that would be crazy cool. As long as it didn't cost more to manufacture than economics dictate. If it could some how or way generate something useful, then we would probably have a way of maybe mitigating CO2. People would probably want at least one of those things.
Even if it didn't generate something useful, it would still be kinda cool. If it could maybe drop solidified CO2 onto the ground every year or so, we could collect those things and bury them or maybe pile it up. A huge pile of something. At least it wouldn't be in the atmosphere trapping upwelling IR.
If it could generate oxygen part of the time, but that's too silly to consider.
And they will be right. Do you not understand the difference between warm and warming? If I have a fever, I am warm. When my temperature goes from 98 to 102, I am warming.
From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming. The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph. If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.
So, show us a model with a straight line from 1998 to 2016 and, here's a thought, get rid of the ones that don't.
Idiot that can't read. Nowhere did I advocate mass genocide. Nowhere. I did mention I was fine with the Malthusians that advocated the genocide being offed but even that was meant tongue in cheek as it were. I was pointing out what it would take to stop it. The point being it's not going to stop so we'll just have to deal with it as best we can. Of course, if the people running around screaming the sky is falling were to get their worst case scenario where we have global famine then that war I spoke of is inevitable. Starving people are vicious in the extreme.
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming..
Year to year warming is dominated by statistical noise, which is what I suspect you are trying to say when you say that there was no warming between 1997 and 1998; however for what it is worth 1998 was significantly warmer than 1997, so by your definition there is "warming".
The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph
If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward.
If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.
This is what logicians call "equivocation", which is making up your own definition of a term to make your argument true. What most people understand "global warming" to be is an underlying upward trend in temperature created by increases in greenhouse gases. This is overlaid on both year-to-year variability and of course ENSO. Comparing an El Niño year to a La Niña or non-ENSO year is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to compare individual years to determine whether there's an underlying warming trend, then you need to compare El Niño years to prior El Niño years, etc. Or you an take a moving average with a window that's large enough to average out any ENSO events.
If you take a ten year moving average, in the last 40 years that ten year average has dropped three times: in 1975, 1993, and 2008; remained the same as the prior year once: in 2000; and has increased 36 times. If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down. 2008 by the way was an anomaly in not only was it an unusually strong La Niña, it was a rare ten year period with *four* La Niña years in it. If you take a twenty year moving average the last time that average went down was 1965.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down."
Except we're not talking about a warming trend, we're talking about runaway man-made global warming. If it is man-made than it should, as the models predict, continue to go up. Man hasn't taken a hiatus, so unless the models are wrong, you got some explaining to do.
"If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward."
A horizontal line means that there was no warming. Moving back to 1997 or even further doesn't produce a warming rate, or upward slope, that correlates with the CO2, man-made hypothesis.
Still waiting on that model that shows a peak and trough between 1998 and 2016 and the next one you seem to agree is going to happen.
NASA researchers agreed with the hiatus ... no fear though, they found a way to make the model fit the data.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/...
"We conclude that use of the latest
information on external influences on the
climate system and adjusting for internal
variability associated with ENSO can almost
completely reconcile the trends in global
mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models
and observations."
If only those things wouldn't take a huge amount of good soil and water. If only the 'solidified CO2' wouldn't be burned a few years later.
El Ninhos and La Ninjas have no effect on global temperature.
They are local phenomena, albeit quit big ones. And both have no effect at all on global average temperature. They not even have an effect on average temperature in the areas where they occur. Both phenomena are just spots of hot water and cold water in the Pacific. One year distributed like this and the other year distributed like that.
There are excellent maps you can google for (e.g. Australian weather and climate institutes) which show the various distribution patterns.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The 10 hottest years are all in the 2000-2010s, save maybe 1 (1998). It's starting to sound like a trend.
so you are denying the data?
The cliff analogy often used is disingenuous. It looks at historical geologic timescales and sees how AGW compares to them, which is like dropping off a cliff. However, if you want to relate to people you have to put things into a perspective they understand, which is the human timescale, and if you wanted to do an analogy with that perspective it'd simply be like rolling down a hill. AGW needs to affect individuals on a year and decade timescale, not century timescale, for them to care and make changes because humans are shortsighted. If you can not distill direct effects that relate to an individual's direct and immediate future then they will oft dismiss it as fearmongering. The vast majority of the population doesn't give a shit if the earth temps rise by two degrees in 100 years because it won't effect how they live their lives in a significant manner, when the changes proposed would drastically alter how they currently go about their lives. A true 'tragedy of the commons'
I haven't seen any evidence of a "panic attack" by politicians where they "open the flood gates to immigration from the poorest excuses for countries."
So far, exactly the opposite has been true: recently there has been panic attacks by politicians where they close all the borders to immigration from the poorest countries.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Eh, truth be told, if you want to grow more cattle on less land, you need to grow alfalfa densely and feed it to them. On the other hand, alfalfa and vetch are cover crops, and we grow them on our existing farmland between uses; we do use them as feed, or as fertilizer (plowed under before reseeding).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
People with high-meat-intake diets can, but rarely do, get deficiencies; people on vegan diets have to jump through hoops not to. That was the point: fruits and vegetables aren't the primary source of all nutrients, and aren't holding up your critically-deficient, mainly-meat diet; a cursory preponderance of evidence suggests the eggs consumed by ovolacto vegetarians are holding up their critically-deficient, mainly-vegetable diet. I've seen statistics stating between 75%-95% of vegetarians and vegans bail on the diet because of adverse health effects; and vegans themselves always have something to say about how you have to make sure you're eating the right vegan diet or else of course it will make you sick, which simply isn't a concern with modern incidental-vegetable-intake diets that get their main source of greens and yellows and reds from hamburger toppings and tacos.
As for fiber, Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms.
For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P
CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.
The medical term "idiopathic" means "we don't know why," as opposed to being caused by an observed deficiency, disease, genetic condition, stress, or anything else. It's a placeholder for "healthy adults" when the adults are experiencing a symptom making them not healthy.
The benefits of a high-fiber diet have been repeated again and again, but rarely actually researched. Don't look too closely, or you'll find out you're wrong.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'd be surprised if over that 0.1% of Windows 10 users activate the feature.
if you want to grow more cattle on less land
Why would we want to do that? We've got plenty of land.
Have gnu, will travel.
Because herding cattle across a wide area requires managing a wide area. That means more cattle-hands, more moving from place to place, more expending fuel, more maintaining machines, more trying to extinct wolves for eating your cattle (estimate total population in Washington is 90), and, essentially, more wages paid per pound of beef, meaning more cost and higher prices at the grocery store.
I'd rather pay those wages to buy another month of Spotify than employ 40 fewer engineers at Spotify and 40 more ranchers herding cattle and not have anything to replace Spotify.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So what's "noticeable"? The problem is that the changes occur so slowly we aren't likely to notice.
I live in a major city - we had our first major snowfall over two weeks ago and temperatures have been at or below 0C for nearly a month. There are still THOUSANDS of kilometers of land (many million square km) between me and the north pole, btw. Also, this snow cover will likely last until next May (8 months out of the year).
What does this mean? We are still largely a cold planet. Most of the rabid AGW activists seem to live in California where it's warm all year and perhaps a slowly rising ocean is a threat. Sucks for them, the rest of the world has to put up with long harsh winters. A warming trend seems like a good thing, and if you're telling me I'll live to see a point where we don't have winter like conditions for over two thirds of the year, we're all just going to laugh.
Too hot or too cold? Too hot, apparently.
"Climate change" is ambiguous, and could be misinterpreted.
How about changing the name to something more specific?
How about "global warming"?
Just a suggestion.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
That's a cute speculation.
What I posted, however, is observational data.
Demographics shows that affluent people, on the whole, have fewer children than poor people. Period. Independent of "advanced" societies, or "cultural programming."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95%
First of all, who rated this insightful has nothing learned from the third reich, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.
Secondly, if the remaining X%, depending how many you cull, don't change their lifestyle, the problem is only postponed.
Thirdly: instead of "killing" people you simply can help them to reduce CO2 output to ZERO. Problem solved.
Bottom line I have to point out: you are an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Besides 2015 of course... and now 2016 has been hotter month on month than any other year, and if it continues will be hotter than 2015. We had a short pause and now it's really ratcheting up again.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
2015 is included in the 2010s.
So what's "noticeable"? The problem is that the changes occur so slowly we aren't likely to notice.
Yep we won't notice In case you're too lazy to read those, they go from pending flooding to already uninhabitable and cover descriptions of vanishing land due to rising seas over the last 80 or so years.
I live in a major city - we had our first major snowfall over two weeks ago and temperatures have been at or below 0C for nearly a month. There are still THOUSANDS of kilometers of land (many million square km) between me and the north pole, btw. Also, this snow cover will likely last until next May (8 months out of the year).
So, from this we can surmise that you live at least 3k km south of the north pole. Given that London or Tokyo are also just over 3000 km south of the north pole and aren't covered by snow for 8 months, we can also surmise that you live inland and possibly at altitude. You might just as well complain that you suffer from heat, year round snow, or daily rainfall and high humidity and live 13k km south of the north pole (all are possible, it's merely geography)
A warming trend seems like a good thing, and if you're telling me I'll live to see a point where we don't have winter like conditions for over two thirds of the year, we're all just going to laugh.
You could just move as it appears you severely dislike your climate instead of advocating that the rest of the world become potentially uninhabitable to make your apparently miserable location bearable.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
and you simply don't know what youre talking about.
now, and every time you post on this topic.
and again you use as your shield that stupid fallacious trick of your where first you demand certain irrelvent criteria, and then should anyone actually engage with them, deny that the deflecting criteria have even been met.
go collect your pieces of eight shill.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.