Slashdot Mirror
We're Creating a Perfect Storm of Unprecedented Global Warming (popsci.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: If we do nothing to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, by the end of this century the Earth will be as hot as it was 50 million years ago in the early Eocene, according to a new study out today in the journal Nature Communications. This period -- roughly 15 million years after dinosaurs went extinct and 49.8 million years before modern humans appeared on the scene -- was 16F to 25F warmer than the modern norm. [...] During the Eocene, it took more atmospheric CO2 to influence temperatures than it does today. In fact, if we don't change our behavior, 2100 will be as hot as the Eocene with much less atmospheric CO2 than was present at the time. A hotter sun means we get more bang for our CO2 buck. "Climate change denialists often mention that CO2 was high in the past, that it was warm in the past, so this means there's nothing to worry about," said lead study author Gavin Foster, a researcher in isotope geochemistry and paleoceanography at the United Kingdom's University of Southampton. "It's certainly true, that the CO2 was high in the past and that it was warm in the past. But because the sun was dimmer, the climate wasn't being forced as much [as it will be] in the future if we carry on as we are."
The kids and grand kids are on their own. Best of luck to them.
If we keep going and exhaust our supplies of fossil fuels like gas and coal, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could rise to 2000 ppm by 2250
AFAIK it's not the 23rd century just yet.
Some people say the sun rises in the East.
Other people say the sun rises in the West.
Which is right?
Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between?
Teach the controversy!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
At a guess?
The one backed by considerably more than 90% of the academic experts in the field.
But who knows. Maybe unqualified Anonymous Coward #7687123 is correct...
-- Gaxx
Really. Isn't this getting old and tired.
Yes the climate is changing.
Yes it's caused by Humans.
No it can't be fixed.
It is impossible to change or reverse. Sorry - we can't stop murdering each other as it is. How can we stop global warming? Answer. We can't.
Just plan for the inevitable and stop screaming the sky is falling. O.L.D. F.*.C.K.I.N.G. N.E.W.S.
Ughh
-- Mean People Suck
Probably the one with real scientists and actual data. Please provide a link to the scientific journal where your peer-reviewed study is published so we can compare.
I'll be dead by then, so guess what?
I don't give A FUCK.
A few years back they were saying the average temperature has nothing to do with the output of the sun. I found that strange. Now they are saying that things will be hotter than predicted because the sun is hotter?
Trump is hell bent on making it happen by 2020.
This is the best global warming in the world. It's fantastic global warming.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
the ones that say east are right. the ones that say west are drooling morons and need to be told so loudly and in public for all to hear.
We need to STOP letting the low IQ spout their stupidity. Point at them yell "STUPID" and do it in public and in groups.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The answer- CLEARLY- is to give complete power to our government to oversee the minutiae of our interaction with our environments. Its the only way!
Agreed, you being pissed off is retarded and irrelevant.
Probably the guy with the most relevant expertise, relevant credentials, and relevant data.
So, probably anyone who is arguing with you.
We need to STOP letting the low IQ spout their stupidity.
Racist.
Those are the conditions that lead to the diversity and durability of species we have today. Everything changes. Get over it already.
See subject. There is probably no better way to damage the climate change debate than to make absolutely absurd predictions. Just shut up. Keep the hyperbolic fear-mongering out of the discussion. http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
Some people say the sun rises in the East.
Other people say the sun rises in the West.
Which is right?
Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between?
Teach the controversy!
Forget the real world.
Because real-world results don't matter.
What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?
And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?
you start, we'll follow! What do you say? Oh, I thought so...
Hotter sun plus normal fluctuations in the climate equal kill all humans to save the planet.
I thought that, "All Scientists" said that the Sun had nothing to do with climate change and this is all due to humans?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The one backed by the vast majority of scientist trained in the subject matter.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I would be more prepared to take the article seriously if the link had gone to the actual article and not just to page three of the Australian PopSci website, and if the words "perfect storm" had been replaced with, oh, anything. It smacks of laziness to jam such an over-used term into a headline. "Yeah, 'perfect storm'! That sounds cool."
Wait! What the fuck did he just say? Rewind that.
fzfzfzfbllyrpffffeeep...
PAUSE.
You mean to say the sun is hotter and, as a result, is having an effect? You know, contrary to the bullshit all the AGW evangelistas have been spewing these many years? Ok, gotcha.
sig: sauer
I think the focus needs to shift away from climate "change" and focus on climate control. It's refreshing to hear the climate alarmist actually admitting that the sun has something to do with warming. However regardless of who is to blame for climate conditions, we humans should focus on analyzing all of the data and factors and see what we can do to control conditions. If we are heading into an ice age do what we can to keep temps up. If heading into warming, do what we can to cool it down. Instead of picking a political agenda and only supporting the facts that contribute to that agenda.
Yeah, yeah. Red herring 4, straight out of the deniers handbook. Ok, my turn to debunk.
Nobody disputes that nature could cause this kind of global warming or the later cooling. What science rejects is that for this particular global warming there is any other plausible explanation than human activity. Especially because of the remarkable speed with which it happens, the synchronicity with the industrial revolution, and just plain simple physics.
They used point twenty years into the future for irreparable damage to the planet. After forty years of no global annihilation, they are pointing to over eighty years away for the "no return tipping point."
haters like you make life worse for everyone
Time to be bombarded by more global warming hysteria by that ever ready spreader of fake news and liberal mouthpiece, slashdot!. Or was it climate change? I'm confused. Thanks for loosening pollution regulations President Trump. It will give our economy a chance to grow after a decade of being strangled by the liberals.
Can anybody tell me more about the humans and their Industrial Revolution that happened 50 million years ago to cause this earlier global warming incident?
Well, we could point you at the Wikipedia pages that explain all this, but you'll only accuse it of being warmist fake science and cherry-pick this for any uncertainties or unknowns which you can claim disprove the whole thing... While also missing the point that these were changes that took place over tens of millions of years and could have been driven by things like continental drift and very slow variations in orbit or solar output... rather than a few billion stupid apes digging up and burning every scrap of fossil carbon they could find over the course of a mere century.... or the concept that a small initial change in temperature could trigger the release of huge amounts of otherwise sequestered methane...
From TFS: Climate change denialists often mention that CO2 was high in the past, that it was warm in the past, so this means there's nothing to worry about,
Of course, in the past, the locations of many of our major cities or key agricultural lands were in the middle of parched deserts or under oceans which would be... inconvenient if it happened again.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
From what I have read, CO2's warming is logarithmic. Most of the warming effect occurs in the first 40-60ppm. We're somewhere around 300-400ppm right now, depending on what study you're looking at.
So, whatever warming is going on is very unlikely to be strongly linked to CO2. Something else is going on. Focusing on CO2, and only CO2, is like trying to complete a puzzle with just one piece.
So, we can agree that it's getting hotter right? Everyone says either we need to lower CO2 more than possible or that it's getting hotter because of outside forces. Either way, it's getting hotter. To say that it's nothing to worry about silly though. Sure the rock we live on survived past heating and cooling. You know, cause it's a rock. We should prepare for changes in climate the same way we prepare for increases in volcanic activity, hurricanes, or other changes in the weather AKA climate changes. Improve food production in harsh environments. Build dwellings that are energy efficient and safe from the elements. When you say we need to prepare for various destructive weather patterns people are chill and support you. You say climate change and they argue about coal.
Utter and complete tosh. I've read better science on public lavatory walls.
Short of completely wrecking the global economy or starting a major nuclear war, no government policy is going to have an appreciable effect on climate.
Good climate for primates and mammals, and generally life on the planet. Milder, wetter conditions everywhere. More arable land, fewer deserts. We should be so lucky. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, if not for any other reason, than that it will take a couple of thousand years for the polar ice caps to melt.
Yes, before the earth plunged into the current cycle of glaciation periods, which makes large parts of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable for more than half of every 100000 years. (Not so) great times!
Ah, the joys of science based on "alternative facts".
The US and many western countries have been curbing CO2 emissions. China, India, Russia, and others have been increasing. The US can control it's own policies, but not those of foreign States. Hell, we can't stop the DPRK from developing nuclear weapons and missile technology, which has a far bigger impact on the environment than global warming. We can't stop China from creating man made islands in the South China Sea, which again has far bigger impact on the climate (loss of ocean habitat, destruction of ecosystems, etc..)
So what is _your_ magic plan exactly? Tell China to give some entity money so that they can ignore your request? Tell Russia to stop industrial work so that they can laugh at you? How about having some invisible entity with no plans either selling you "Carbon Credits" so that you simply lose money yourself?
In case you haven't noticed, the latter question is the only one that has been proposed. Al Gore, supra genius, flying around in his private jet with his entourage renting massive bullet proof SUVs is proof that people in power don't give a rats behind about fixing any Climate problems. They want power, which includes your money and livelihood.
Until you come up with a solution, there is no possible way to deal with this issue with any immediacy. You are on par with demanding world peace and harmony, in that it sounds good but won't work because "human nature".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I wish I could trust "academic experts". I really do. But all my experiences with academia and academics have been very disappointing.
The first problem can be summed up with the old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, research.". That's exactly what we see in academia: those who couldn't cut it outside of academia with their bachelor's degree end up back in academic circles, often for the rest of their lives. Academia provides a safe playpen for those who were below the standards of the real world.
The second problem, which is somewhat related to the first, is that many academics are completely out of touch with reality, and full of, for a lack of a better term, total bullshit. My background is in computer systems design. When I hear industrial practitioners discuss this subject, what they have to say is relevant and interesting. But when academics discuss this subject, it's clear that they're off in a world of their own. For example, just look at all of the colleges that still teach UML, despite industry having tried it and rejected it almost two decades ago now.
The third problem is related to the second. There are entire academic fields that are nothing but bullshit from top to bottom. This should not surprise us. If you take many useless academics and collect them together you will obviously end up with entire fields that are useless. Most of the social "sciences", which have absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely like the scientific method, fall into this category.
The fourth problem is when you take all of the above and add money into the mix. That's when everything really goes to hell. This is a sure-fire way for even the sciences, which are generally among the least-inept of the academic subjects, to become highly politicized. It's no longer just about inept people doing inept research. Now it's about inept people doing inept research but always finding the "correct" results for politicians who need to legitimize otherwise illegitimate practices like carbon taxes and excessive and costly regulation.
So when such a flawed system provides results or information for my consideration, I have to take what they're saying with a very, very, very big spoonful of salt grains. None of it can be trusted, from the individual level all the way through to entire fields of study.
We live in a society where we are expected to provide for ourselves, exception being libtards, millennials, and Hitlery voters.
The same self-sufficient people who don't know that Social Society and Medicare are government programs that Republicans would love to eliminate and may get a chance to do so under Trump.
[...] and start working on environmentally friendly alternatives to fuel and coal.
Wind and solar? Oh, wait. That was a priority under Obama. Coal mining jobs are a priority for the Trump Administration, looking backward and not forward.
We can't walk 40 miles to work every day.
I and 40 other people take the express bus to travel 50+ miles per day.
Science can only predict things insofar as they don't challenge powerful establishments.
What if someone's standing on the North Pole?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
because Dyson says: no carbon brushes means no carbon emissions:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MBEkP_zKKcg
You're a cowardly example of evolution not taken.
Warning; turn scripts off before following the link
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Before the sun as a factor was the idea of tinfoil deniers, now it has always been an important contributing factor, in 15 years everyone will deny saying otherwise.
The relativity of wrong
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
the ones that say east are right. the ones that say west are drooling morons and need to be told so loudly and in public for all to hear.
You sound like an elitist. The opinions of those who say west is just as valid. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?
If we do nothing to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
but.... we HAVE been doing things to reduce our CO2 emissions. so.... fear mongering??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Hurry! Enact huge government programs which will enrich a bunch of cronies (and hurt everyone else) to save the planet. That's the ONLY solution! HURRY!
Al Gore is waiting for his billions! HURRY! NOW!
Now add the fact that if you promote the idea of a global warming crisis you are assured as much grant money as you can but if you take a critical position you won't even get peer reviewed and thus cannot publish, and what does tell you about science and academia?
Keep moving that goal post back and you can keep raking in the profits, because nothing is quite as lucrative as fear.
haters like you make life worse for everyone
As a moderate conservative, I can reassure you that the Republican Party is already extinct. Just like the political dinosaurs before them, it'll take a while for the memo to circulate.
Then the answer is still correct but is less meaningful to that person.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And your plan as I said has no impact on what other people will do, or have been doing. China does not give a shit about your position, they care about economic power and growth (as well as protecting that power with Military). The same can be said of India, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, etc.. etc.. Are you going to stop purchasing cheaply made goods from China and India to support your plan? Are you going to demand companies in the US stop all foreign trade with carbon producing countries like China and India?
Your plan is no different than carbon credits and tax. Try thinking one through a bit, and do me a favor. Use the Socratic method to get at least 1 level deep into your plan.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Considering the way truly insane places like Iran and North Korea are building Nukes and ICBMs I predict that by 2100 we'll have a nuclear winter that will solve the global warming crisis.
We're Creating a Perfect Storm of Unprecedented Global Warming
For some reason this makes me think of a teenage boy getting on a rooftop and yelling "I love her. I LOVE HER"
I predict that by 2100 we'll have a nuclear winter that will solve the global warming crisis.
That would solve the population problem as nuclear winter will present a different set of problems.
In what way is that answer still correct? The sun rises in the South at the North Pole.
Since when did anyone say the sun didn't have anything to do with warming. For fuck's sake, you fucking retard, it's the fact that CO2 absorbs solar radiation that IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
slashdot does this to get everyone into a tizzy and drum up more ad revenue. Nothing new here.
His point was that the government need not be the primary driver in this change. If solar/wind are viable, then private industry, driven by concerned environmentalists, are absolutely free to go out and change the way we generate power. Our electric companies aren't owned and run by the government.
ask the people in Miami beach about sunny day flooding.
That's not cheap real estate there, either.
Gonna be fun next time they get sideswiped by a hurricane.
90% of the people of Germany, and 90% of the scientists studying the phenomenon worldwide are not the same thing.
Hitler did not have the support of very many non-Germans.
But the Middle East is completely screwed.
Trade policies were garbage, Obamacare was a joke and a drain on the working class, environmental policy was not realistic.
Sure he helped the poor with free stuff but he also sent millions of working Americans in to poverty.
The election result proves it.
You can go back in your mom's basement now.
read your wiki page.
Nice, if you understand what it really means, then basically they just guess and then reverse fill to make it plausable. (temperature from proxies that have multiple interlinked variables = I guessed the temperature).
All the rest of the bullshit is just pretend that we know what we are talking about, so you should believe our guess.
If they took a step or two backward from the North Pole then the Sun would then appear to be rising in the West. So the ones who believe things like this are the ones who are a little backwards.
It tells us that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. There are entire industries (Coal mining, petroleum, automotive) chomping at the bit to throw gigadollars at one-- just ONE-- reputable study that indicates that global climate change isn't actually occurring, yet these huge, apocalyptically powerful industries are stymied by the peer review process? Are you fucking retarded, or is it autism?
+5, Insightful
Majority of state legislatures, and governorships, majority in congress, presidency, and soon to be judical branches.I think not. The republican party is just getting started.
His point was that the government need not be the primary driver in this change.
Who else is going to pay for this change? Industry will not if they can get away with doing business as usual. For example, the civilian electrical grid is vulnerable to EMP attacks. A well-known problem that no one industry wants to fix much less pay for.
If solar/wind are viable, then private industry, driven by concerned environmentalists, are absolutely free to go out and change the way we generate power.
Has the oil industry given up their tax subsidies?
Our electric companies aren't owned and run by the government.
No, but they're regulated by the government. If the government says, "coal bad, natural gas good," as it has been for decades, the industry will move towards liquid gas generators. One of the reason why coal is dying as an industry, and will continue to do so not matter what the Trump Administration does, is that natural gas is inexpensive and natural gas plants are replacing coal plants.
Geez. I thought you were going to slap him to death with your hanky.
Bunch of ghouls waiting for bad news to happen or the next El Nino, which ever comes first.
Cheer up, maybe a typhoon will make landfall in Asia this year. Then you can roll your eyes at your neighbor who drives an SUV and feel smugly superior while contributing nothing of value.
You might consider reducing CO2 emissions by keeping your big mouth shut.
Majority of state legislatures, and governorships, majority in congress, presidency, and soon to be judical branches.I think not.
Not for long. Democrats dropped the ball and will correct their mistakes. The tide will change.
The republican party is just getting started.
If they can negotiate among themselves on a common agenda. The "repeal and replace" health bill failed because the Republicans spent seven years on "repeal" without giving any thoughts to "replace." As the recent health bill fiasco had shown, they don't have their shit together. Tax reform will be the same story.
Forget the real world. >Because real-world results don't matter. What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?
If you are snarking about climate models, in fact the climate models have been remarkably accurate over the last fifty years. Here's the Berkeley Earth comparison between models and measurements: http://static.berkeleyearth.or... (See also: https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.theguardian.com/en... )
And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?
You ARE aware that satellite measurements are heavily corrected, right? The satellites see a line-of-sight average of microwave emissions, and there is a rather long and controversial process to turn microwave emission intensity into middle troposphere temperatures. One researcher (John Christy) has a correction method that produces an output that says that global warming is real, but it's on the low end of the predicted values. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Other researchers using the same data, however, come up with other answers.
The ground measurements, on the other hand, have had relatively minor corrections to account for changes of the type of thermometer, the corrections being well-documented, and (an important thing to note) the change due to corrections making no significant difference to the final conclusion.
If you don't remember acid rain it's because of the very successful cap and trade treaty that won international agreement in the 1980's. Oddly the treaty was the brainchild of the conservative heros Thatcher and Reagan. (Thatcher read chemistry at Oxford and was also the first "world leader" to accept AGW was a serious problem). If mankind is convinced it is a common threat, it will be fixed, but not before we lose some nice stuff like; the Arctic ice cap, coral reefs, Bangladesh, Miami, Seychelle Islands, ... (ok, Miami is not really a "nice thing" but some people like it)
I do however agree it's "old news".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hitler was backed by over 90% of the people.
No, in fact he was not.
Neither. Just an hopeful brainwashed idiot.
Yeah, yeah. Red herring 4, straight out of the deniers handbook. Ok, my turn to debunk.
Nobody disputes that nature could cause this kind of global warming or the later cooling. What science rejects is that for this particular global warming there is any other plausible explanation than human activity. Especially because of the remarkable speed with which it happens, the synchronicity with the industrial revolution, and just plain simple physics.
I never understood this argument (the one you are replying to, not yours). Even if it is natural, do they think that it is somehow not going to affect us? I mean, we know it's happening. The cause won't make a difference to people in a hundred years or so who are having to deal with the fallout of it if it keeps on the course we are on now. We (well future humans, not most of us) are fucked if it's natural or man made. At least if it's man-made we have some options to prevent it. If it's natural, then maybe we can at least slow it down or reduce the effects somewhat by curbing our own contributions to it. So either way, isn't it kind of a good idea to go that route? I realize it comes at a cost but isn't it worth it either way?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Trade policies are garbage, Trumpcare was a joke and a drain on the working class, environmental policy ...what environmental policy?
FTFY — Obama is no longer president.
Sure he helped the poor with free stuff but he also sent millions of working Americans in to poverty.
I'm still waiting to get my free iPhone from the government. The funny thing is Republicans talk about this all the time but no one can tell where I can sign up.
The election result proves it.
Winning 46% of the vote doesn't make for a mandate.
You assume the universe has an end.
Which is crazier? The climate, or the big bang denialist?
And if we're gonna tackle all this 'fake news', we should go after the weatherman. Funny that we don't see them predicting the rising ocean levels.
Hitler was backed by over 90% of the people.
No, he wasn't. He only won 44% of the vote in his election in 1933, and less in previous elections.
You are being conservative, it's closer to 97%.
Same old shit; different day.
I am one of the deniers. I deny that the shit is going to get better. Stop preaching. Pretty please.
My house is on fire and all the exits are blocked. Stop telling me my house is on fire!
If your so high and mighty then you need to actually go profit on your superior knowledge and leave me alone.
Correct or not I don't want to join your doomsday religion.
Hitler was backed by over 90% of the people
To which election do you refer? The 1932 Presidential one, where he got 30.1% and 36.8% in the first and second rounds respectively, or the 1933 Federal election, where NSDAP (the NAZI party) got 43.91%?
this is based off the debunked hockey stick graph so your argument is invalid.
Ok, if the problem is so serious, then why not solve it with climate engineering? It's apparent that solving it by reducing carbon footprint is economically disadvantageous and politically untenable.
They're both absurd anti-science denier groups. Both absurd, both unwilling or emotionally incapable of looking at the evidence, and both fundamentally pathetic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's just an argument that deniers make up to justify their selfishness and so they don't have to change a single thing about their lifestyle or lift a single fucking finger to help the planet, which in their arrogance and ego they think they are entitled to do with as they please because they're "human", like they somehow earned that status themselves.
. . . .and merely between continental glacial advances. Another of which is due Real Soon Now*
(* Real Soon Now in Geologic terms, meaning some time in the next ~10,000 years. . . .)
According to Al Gore I'm currently living under water. The water will moderate the temperature nicely.
Aw, poor little delicate snowflake. "I don't wanna hear bad news, 'cause it makes me sad!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I have some excellent ideas for reducing CO2 emissions. . . . Now, if you'll just step on to the moving sidewalks, passing pastoral paintings into the rotating knives. . . .
So what if one of the things we can do to 'cool it down' is to prevent some of the warming by burning less fossil fuels? How is it then a 'political agenda' to suggest doing just that. Only in today's polarized, corporate-funded political environment is such a thing 'political' - and only then if a large willfully ignorant cohort decides to 'choose a side' and accept nonsense as valid arguments against.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done.
Non-one has switched anything. Warming on the scale it was supposed to happen, is not happening.
However you and other Warming Cultists like you are either too stupid or to stubborn to admit this based on evidence, common in the case of so many religions.
Thus, many of us try to make you feel better by pointing out that even if the warming you are claiming will happen, happens, it would actually be a good thing... this message seems to be able to get through a little better to some of the less addled.
Sadly we as a species are not that lucky, and once the faked data grows ever wider from reality the truth that the Earth is on the cusp of descending into a cooling period again will hit home. Then the real, and meaningful worrying can begin.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It does neither rise, nor set.
It moves in a circle, either above or below the horizon. Not a perfect circle, obviously... might want to call it an oval.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
This article on the evolution of the Sun says, "The energy output of the Sun has not fluctuated by more than perhaps 0.1% to 0.2% in human history – not bad for a nuclear reactor that has no regulatory committee, no engineers, and hasn't had a safety check in nearly five billion years." Granted, human history doesn't stretch back 50 million years, but 50 million years is an eye-blink compared to the billions of years ago when the Sun is theorized to have been 70% dimmer than today.
I wish TFA had cited a source for that claim rather than just stating it as if it was something "everybody knows".
The sky is falling. The sky is falling. ...
Get a life.....
Basically, anyone who says something is "absolute" when it comes to this subject, should probably be ignored.
Truth is nobody really knows what's going to happen. All we have is data, not time machines.
I tend to rant.
I understand how pro-life people gravitated towards the Republican party. After all, it is a religious debate. But climate change has nothing to do with religion. How did we get to this point where climate change denial became a major point defended by the Republican Party?
If they're standing at the Magnetic North Pole it would still rise in the East.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So, I guess you believe in a god. The big bang still depends on a lot of unproven assumptions, a 'leap of faith' as it were.
Wow, so he was an authoritarian fascist who won the election without winning the popular vote!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Nope, don't believe in God (but neither do I believe my atheism is scientific, though I do believe it is rational). And all the Big Bang ultimately says is "the universe was once very dense and very hot, and then began to expand." Perhaps you know as little about Big Bang cosmology as you do about AGW. Questions about what (if anything) started the Big Bang, if that is even a sensible question, are not meant to be answered by Big Bang and inflationary cosmology.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That completely ignores the tragedy of the commons. Ten people live around a lake. One guy dumps toxic pollution in the lake and kills all the fish. It doesn't matter how hard the other 9 try to clean up the lake, they'll never keep up with the one guy spewing toxic waste. I suppose they could pay him to not do it, but I don't see why he actually has a right to dump toxic waste in the lake in the first place. Likely they'll just gang up on him and make him stop. Same with carbon emissions... assuming everyone has a right to breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide, the total amount being put into the atmosphere is much more than that basic allowance. What gives a few people/companies/nations the right to dump far more than their allotment into the atmosphere? Why should others pay them not to do it? It's a common resource, and has to be managed by agreement, and if we disagree too much, there will be violence to settle it. It's the same as if someone took all the food and didn't leave any for anyone else.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I say we forget trying to sequester carbon. Instead, we should create artificial hurricanes. This will have two effects: more transfer of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated to space, and since hurricanes are massive heat engines, we can just use them as power plants.
Win-win!
I'm only half-joking.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
The number of Hitler supporters was undoubtedly inflated by fear and the social inability to form adequate resistance.
The number of doctors who believed in bloodletting was inflated by the lack of technology which now allows for advanced research and instantaneous communication.
Both of these are improved in our culture today.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Fallacy of argument by trusting in "authority".
If you can't regurgitate the science yourself, stop shrilly screaming at others that they don't get it.
Here's a hint: we do get it. Your extrapolations from the "science" are FUCKING WRONG.
One of the reason why coal is dying as an industry, and will continue to do so not matter what the Trump Administration does, is that natural gas is inexpensive and natural gas plants are replacing coal plants.
Look at that - free-market forces doing good for the environment! Fracking is probably the most environmentally beneficial advancement of the last 50 years, and it was entirely driven by private forces. Used to be the natural gas trapped in shale was too expensive to harvest to be viable. Then fracking was perfected. Now it's a boon of unparalleled cleaner energy.
Private industry will do the same for solar and wind, if solar and wind can be developed in such a way that it's cost effective. The government needs not lift a finger, especially with the way it's proven to be almost entirely corrupt when it does.
Because let's face it. We can't walk 40 miles to work every day.
I was assured your generation in fact did so in the snow up-hill both ways every day.
So quit whining and get walking like the rest of us or STFU.
- a milenial
So what you're saying is that people of a darker skin tone have lower IQ?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
As long as it doesn't move in an irregular decagon pattern, we should be alright.
#DeleteFacebook
I'm sorry, when did the topic switch to elections in the U.S.A.?
#DeleteFacebook
Perhaps a better way to phrase it:
Q: If you are stationary at the South Pole, in what direction does the Sun appear (when visible) to move?
A: From the East to the West.
(It's easier to get to the South Pole.)
This is the same writer that claimed mental illness is a result of climate change. She is "all in" so to speak. She tries to debate points with "the sun is hotter!" which I guess she missed this being the explanation that the so called "Climate deniers!" have use to explain the, again, so called "warming trend" that the climate change community has claimed. Problem is that all the climate change sites I have seen claim that the sun has actually been cooling since 1978 and that the earth has warmed during that time because there is too much man made CO2. So right out the gate she is trying to claim something that ignores previous debates to solve another debate. That's not science. Then is goes in to "silicate weathering" and saying that rock turning to soil is the natural way that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Gee, and here I thought PLANTS removed it pretty naturally (they are part of nature right?) by photosynthesis turning it in to oxygen? Like I said, I will pass on the opinion of a people that thinks mental illness is a result of climate change.
From their perspective there's still a rising and setting motion, there's just no crossing of the horizon.
You lose. Pedant Lord Kano wins. Flawless Victory!
Some people say the sun rises in the East.
Other people say the sun rises in the West.
Well one of them is wrong, but the other definitely isn't right either. In many places in the world the sun rises and sets in the North or the South.
"Climate change denialists often mention that CO2 was high in the past, that it was warm in the past, so this means there's nothing to worry about,"
The earth also used to be a ball of molten rock. But I'll bet that none of those people would voluntarily jump into an active volcano claiming "the earth used to be all molten, so I have nothing to worry about".
you need to look up that word in a dictionary
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It's "champing at the bit". You're the one who doesn't know shit.
How many Slashdot articles have we had in the last year where the peer review process is exposed as a complete farce, even for the "reputable" journals? (Hint: A lot.)
Look at that - free-market forces doing good for the environment
What free market? Fracking was made possible by the tax subsidies that the industry. Take away the tax subsidy and see what the free market does. For example, milk would be $10 per gallon without tax subsidies.
Fracking is probably the most environmentally beneficial advancement of the last 50 years[...]
Never mind the earthquakes in places that never had earthquakes and poisoned waste water filtering back into the water table.
Well, when the 10th person is China, who has no inclination to stop spewing CO2 no matter what, what option is there other than adapt? Nuke China?
The USA is doing admirably in reducing CO2 emissions (thanks in good part to fracking). Any government-induced suffering to reduce it further, when we know for a fact that said efforts will pale in comparison to the increases of other global actors, is idiotic.
Donald, is that you?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and the rise in CO2 cannot account for the rise in temperature, even when you rejigger the timelines however you want.
MightyMartian wrong again!
It's only going to get worse as long as the liberal approach is to shut down carbon-free nuclear power and replace it with carbon-producing natural gas (which by the way pays someone to frack it), heavily subsidizing solar panels and then declaring it cheaper than carbon power. Yeah, stop the free money and disconnect from the evil carbon grid and we'll see just how a fair comparison works out. (ps, also look up the meaning of sustainable and see if it involves free money from a magic source) Or imagine if there were organized efforts to make solar installations as painful and expensive as possible through any means (lawsuits, unnecessary processes, etc) possible.
How about a tax on solar panels to pay for new nuclear plants. After all, renewables are great at supplying peak/variable loads, but nuclear is required for the base load. We could also require China build a whole bunch of nuclear plants (built to French standards, of course, they really know how to do nuclear right) and that's half the problem right there.
And before someone squawks about how dangerous nuclear is, well compared to what, coal mining? But yeah of course BWR type reactors are dangerous, and so are reactors on fault lines, we should replace them with new safe reactors ASAP. The current approach of resisting safe new reactors and forcing the more dangerous old ones to keep running is really poor thinking. Imagine if Ralph Nader had proven how unsafe 1950's cars were, and shut down production of any new safer cars and forced unsafe old cars to be repaired and kept on the roads.
the democrats would need to move more center and not this extreme leftism to do that. I don't see them doing that. all the conservative and center democrats pretty much voted right this time around. the dems will need to drastically change there platform if they want to win the country.
Fetched from "CO2 time series 1990-2015 per region/country" Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)
In 2010, top 3 nation/region for CO2 emission
China 8986 megaton
US 5519 megaton
EU 3883 megaton
in 2015, top 3 nation/region
China 10641 megaton
US 5172 megaton
EU 3469 megaton
Together, US and EU reduced about 800 megaton from 2010 to 2015. Meanwhile, China increased about 1600 megaton.
Of course US and EU should be blamed because they are not working hard enough to bring down the total emission.
Tell me more about Social Society, please.
why would a weatherman report rising sea levels when he/she is just giving predictions for the new few days? When they are on documentaries when climate change discussed then they do discuss possible rising sea levels
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
the democrats would need to move more center and not this extreme leftism to do that.
The Democrats have been right of center under Clinton and Obama. With Trump in office, I expect the Democrats to go left of center.
That sort of non-sense is exactly what you shouldn't do.
Put those people down, sure. Then what? They go home with their tails between their legs, thinking about a way to get revenge on those "smarty pants".
Your bullying tactics only ends up creating a bunch of criminals. Good job. You get a free asshole badge!
If you can't treat stupidity with reasoning, you ignore it and move on. That's that.
I tend to rant.
Take a break from atmospheric studies and learn a little bit about human psychology.
Tell me more about Social Society, please.
A 1950's Supreme Court decision ruled that Social Security is a government program, Congress can cancel the program at any time, and keep the money.
Years ago the great scientist philosopher Algore told us al that if we didn't reduce emissions by 2014, then we'd be past the tipping point.
Well, it's past 2014.
On the other hand the models are all rubbish. As is the Algore, the man who can emit more carbon dioxide in one day than 100 people can do in one year.
But climate change has nothing to do with religion
You underestimate Biblical literalists. All they have to do is count the Noachian flood as climate change, and quote Genesis 9:11.
The sun is in a dimming phase, likely entering a solar minimum. While at the solar systems birth the sun was indeed 30% dimmer and will be 67% brighter (that's evil full spectrum energy output brightness not going from a 60 watt light bulb to a 100watt one) and the earth will be stripped to a small iron core or evaporated, that is a ways off. Over human's presence the solar output has only varied .1-.2% ... doesn't seem like much but the Marauder Minimum had deep snow in London with the Thames river frozen. And a bit more and we have ice ages with glacial advancement over a huge part of North America. So before you worry to much about solar increases helping less CO2 heat things to unprecedented levels beyond climate disaster proponents on the warming side, maybe look at some of the science pointing to global cooling. It was all the rage in the seventies and only the politics have changed. Go Retro. But a sweater.
It's far more likely that in the next 100 years a nuclear holocaust will reverse global warming than US measures on CO_2 emissions will do so. Please stop throwing those deck chairs off the Titanic in hopes it will stop the sinking.
I am pretty sure that gigantic ball of burning gas at the center of our solar system has more to do with global warming that humans do. Now if you were to say we need to clean up our act in general, I could accept that. This penchant to blame the change in our environment on humans when we have very little data is laughable. The data we have is like recording one second on a movie then claiming you know how it is going to end based on what you heard in that one second.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and the rise in CO2 cannot account for the rise in temperature, even when you rejigger the timelines however you want.
If order to draw that conclusion, you'd have to use an accurate model. But you don't believe accurate models exist.
He could've been saying lighter skin color. You added darker all on your own.
...blaiming cars for the CO2 output is welcome to develop battery technology to make it a lot cheaper and have more capacity and make sure current cars can be easily and cheaply retrofitted with electric drive. I can abandon the V8 for the sake of the earth, but i won't abandon the whole car.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I think you're looking for numbers 12, 30, 46, and 50.
At least this time it's post retirement and post death.
No real surprise seeing as short term predictions kept coming up wrong.
50 million climate refugees and entire countries gone by 2010 (UN)
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
West Side Highway under water by 2010 (James Hansen)
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
The idea of a "Perfect Storm" is a shit idea popularized by that dumb-ass book.
Anything that happens in life can be seen as a random confluence of multiple, independent events. A car accident? 5 seconds would have prevented it. Getting killed by a falling tree limb? Just imagine all the things that have to happen for the branch to fall on someone walking under it.
Those "perfect storm" events happen all the time, every day, in multiple contexts.
It's funny you say that, but it is something that would be up for debate for a society that recently emerged from an underground cave and is now experiencing its first day ever. You can say "oh, it's so obvious", but we really simply don't have the data to make a judgement. As such, to us evil nonbelievers, we really feel like the idea that we need to sacrifice 10,000,000 brown children to the climate gods to keep that sun rising every day might not be the best course. Because it is they, the most vulnerable, who will suffer when we forcibly reduce carbon usage. They are barely making it now, but if you triple the price of their food, they are going to die.
I agree with Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams:
The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science
He's too black to know how to do that.
What if someone's standing on the North Pole?
Then the sun rises in the spring and sets in the fall.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
^^ STUPID!!!
Fallacy of argument by trusting in "authority".
Appeals to authority are not generally a fallacy. Thye are only fallacious if the authority is not an expert on the topic being considered. So, for example, referring to consensus view of practising climate scientists on global warming is not fallacious, but referring to the views of a retired mining middle manager on global warming would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I don't get your argument.
Regardless of which side of the equator you are: the sun always rises in the east.
East is defined by the place/side where the sun is rising.
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That is wrong. As long as you are not standing precisely on the pole the sun will always rise in the east.
If you are standing precisely on the pole you could argue that the rising point is south, however: http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Our descendants will have far better technology to deal with any side effects than we have today - it'll be cheaper and easier for them than for us.
We run the planet with a mix of mostly fossil fuels and some renewables and some nuclear - the tech we have and in ratios practical for us.
People a century or more from now will probably be running on a mix of renewables and nuclear fusion - if they get the fusion thing right, they'll have limitless nearly free energy and that will make thinks like recycling and waste cleanup cheap and simple.
If people over a century from now cannot build better flood controls and boats and cities and bridges etc better than we can and for less money then they'll be a bunch of losers and it'll suck to be them. If on the other hand they just do like most previous generations and make reasonable technological gains, then they'll be better off than us. We need not sacrifice the middle- and lower-classes of the current world (concrete victims of our choices) on the alter of the theory that such sacrifices will help future people we do not know in future circumstances that are uncertain (theoretical victims of our choices).
In many places in the world the sun rises and sets in the North or the South.
I don't know why you want to nitpick about bollocks like this.
Those places are not "many". There are exactly two places. And if you want you can make them a bit bigger by drawing a 1km circle around them.
Outside of those circles the sun rises in the east. Because: that is the definition of east.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In all fairness, there's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is going to be fine. Give it another couple million years and it will once again be full of all kinds of diverse life in every corner, with hardly any indication that we were ever here beyond a thin little geographic layer containing traces of plastic and other things. The planet is going to be fine. We aren't, but the planet is under no threat. The push to solve climate change is a push to help people, not the planet. We're trying to avoid the next great extinction event which causes the conditions to change so much that we can't live any more, but the planet will survive that event and life in general will make a full recovery within a few million or tens of millions of years, we just won't be part of it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Preferably added together
... and with a little extra for good measure.
by throwing taxes and government money at it!
Let's start with China kicking in some cash for Al Gore.
Hitler was backed by over 90% of the people.
He wasn't. He was a dictator with an apparatus to suppress its citizens. Just like Stalin, Mussolini and plenty of other "rulers" on all sides during that time period.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
virus eats host. host dies. virus dies. host miraculously didn't really die and lives on. woot!
I don't care about your "facts" and "definitions". I have alternative facts that show the sun rises in the west!! You sound just like one of those know-it-all academics.
Next you'll probably try to convince me that homeopathy isn't real and that it's just water, and that all the people who believe otherwise are wrong.
We can't educate these people Just look at how many voted for trump, we tried, so loudly warning others that they are in fact stupid is the only recourse...
I would go as far as a forehead tattoo so others will know right away.
ha that's laughable . Obama was as left as it gets. son was everyone that voted for him.
Anthropogenic climate change is a scam.
If it wasn't, we could see the raw climate data. Too bad so much of that has been destroyed after "adjustments" were published.
ha that's laughable . Obama was as left as it gets. son was everyone that voted for him.
I'm serious. Clinton and Obama coopted the Republican agenda, claimed it as their and implemented those policies. The Republicans are out of ideas.
You all are explaining the Fermi Paradox to me, and clearly at that. Human selfishness will get us every time.
It becomes a political agenda when the solution is implementing a carbon tax or a cap and trade program.
1938 Vote of Confidence in Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, from the world's first airborne polling place, the Zepplin Hindenburg, 100 souls aboard. The ballots had been helpfully pre-marked with 'Ja' answers, but not pre-treated to readily store fingerprints, an error that got two election monitoring individuals punished.
Somehow two people had the effrontery (and, due to the lack of fingerprints, couldn't be tracked down) to erase the 'Ja' answer and wrote in 'Nein'. Those ballots were dutifully changed back to 'Ja', and marked as spoiled, and replaced with two new clean ballots, both marked 'Ja'. However the "spoiled" ones still got counted.
The polling place radioed in its results, "Ja, 102, Nein, 0". From an airship with 100 people on board. Hmmm.....
Hitler won that one with 102% of the vote.
AC
Thanks George, how are you these days anyway Mr. Carlin?
My study indicates we'll be in another ice age by the end of the century.
Which one of us is right?
I call bullshit on your study. It's not thermodynamically possible to be in another ice age in only 83 years.
In the same way morons argue grammar online instead of doing something productive with their lives.
You are being tricked by FUD. This whole 'debate' is FUD.
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
It is a classic way to manipulate people. Tobacco used it. The Klan used it. Now 'big business ' is using it.
You want to know why? Because now you are NOT talking about poison.
No talk of formaldehyde, Benzine, lead, mercury, and yes, uranium ash into our air.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
When I was little 'give a hoot, don't pollute' was the catchphrase, and it was a hard one to argue or ignore.
No one wanted their water, air, or wildlife poisoned.
City people worried about the air the children needed to breath, country folk worried that the fish they caught that morning would make their kids sick.
No one was saying "Yes, we are putting billions of tons of poison in the air, but there is no proof that poison is bad for you." Why? Because it is such utter bullshit that no one would buy it.
It was impossible to have a 'conversation' with industry that included the premise that 'well, some poison is fine' they would be shouted out, boycotted, etc.
So, what were the marketing departments to do? They changed the subject!
A subject that never mentions benzene, lead, or mercury.
A subject that many can't understand and has subtle and long term changes.
Now they get to spread:
Fear: that your job, car, way of life will be taken form you
Uncertainty: that anything is happening, that anything bad will happen, that we can do anything
Doubt: that the scientist are right, that data is real, that carbon is bad.
But you know what EVERYONE agrees with? Poison is bad, and less poison in the environment is better than more poison.
All of the things that we would do to limit the amount of known poison emissions are also the same fucking things that reduce CO2 and other green house gasses.
If you care about the environment CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
Change it back to pollution!
Hammer and hammer on about poison. If you get people to understand that we need to stop criminal poisoning of our kids you can also stop the greenhouse gasses at the same time without the stupid arguments with high school drop-outs who fuck their pickup trucks tailpipe every night and sleep with a mopar catalog under their pillow.
Just stop playing their game.
Everybody in the field pays attention to the Sun. We know when Solar output varies. Currently, it isn't varying significantly, so the temperature increases are from some other cause or causes. So far, the only one to account for them is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You should break down what fields those were found in. There's a lot of BS in social sciences but not so much in physical sciences.
Now, which pineapple do you choose?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Just like to step in and add Apple's trashcan Mac Pro design to your "industry came up with complete disaster" list.
Thanks.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sorry but CO2 is less dangerous than the "technologies" we use to mitigate green peace's Man made global warming. From bird chopping windmills to windmills that dont turn when its a hot day or when its between 1am and 4:50am on average. But in the Social Justice Warrior world we live in, facts dont matter.
What about desil? /. isnt talking about how desil kills humans, was sold by green peace as a harmless gas (swapping benzyne description for CO2 indeed!) and now everyone is paying for it wiht their lives and those who invested in it, with their wallets: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3256467/theresa-may-orders-ministers-not-to-punish-millions-of-diesel-drivers-with-toxin-tax-in-a-first-big-victory-for-the-sun/ One would wonder what makes a SJW feel shame nowadays.
Also it seems like a really long bow being pulled to find an example of CO2 being dangerous that doesnt revolve around a story of a volcanoe, a lake, co2 buildup like these ones: http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2013/07/26/lake_nyos_killed_1746_when_it_released_a_huge_pocket_of_co2.html
The inability of people to think makes it easy to just ignore this crap!
We had a carbon tax in Australia, back in 2012. Started out at A$23/tonne and increased slowly, with initially-large (90%) waivers for major polluters that were also set to phase out over time. Proceeds from the tax were largely returned directly to the population via tax cuts to offset the small projected price bump, with the rest invested in carbon-neutral energy alternatives and climate mitigation.
The (right-wing) opposition, egged on by our big coal sector, swore up & down that it would lead to spiraling inflation and collapse small businesses, and blamed it for large electricity price hikes. In reality of course, the economic impact was hardly noticeable. Most prices barely changed, the average tax cut easily covered the electricity rises (which had started before the tax and were almost entirely due to long-overdue grid upgrades), "green power" plans became more popular, and CO2 emissions dropped slightly. A year went by, the carbon price increased to $24.15, and these trends continued as projected.
But the right-wing scare campaign intensified, terms like "wrecking ball", "python squeeze", and "axe the tax" were thrown about, and the carbon tax became a major political issue - enough to tip the scales at the next election, despite polling consistently showing that ~60% of Australians wanted climate action. The tax was quickly repealed, and CO2 emissions started climbing again.
But the biggest casualties were the politicians themselves, with both parties dissolving into chaos and every single prime minister in the last ten years getting replaced before they could even sit out a full term. Right now we have a centre-right guy who internally replaced an unpopular hard-liner PM just before election - reversing the leadership spill from 2009 where he was ousted by the hard-liner - while a near-identical leadership reverse happened to the centre-left party while they were in power, over this same issue. Result: Australian trust of politicians, poor at the best of times, hits a two-decade low.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Wasn't that Clinton's strategy against the deplorables? Those deplorables sure are good at striking back when insulted too much. Might want to be careful there or you might get a couple of decades of climate deniers in the whitehouse.
Which hockey stick graph are you talking about? Here is a list of over 40 hockey stick graphs. Are you saying they're all debunked or just Mann's original one?
Is it fear mongering when Trump has been hard at work undoing everything that was done to reduce CO2 emissions?
There is no climate change and we will shoot anyone who tells us how often we may breathe.
It is rare I have read a post that shows just how much the global warming propaganda has become a new religion.
It's really quite sad. You have no possibility of ever understanding any of the complex, arguments that global warming as a phenomenon exists. All you can do is listen to so-called scientists preach this new gospel, and believe them as thoroughly as any religious person believes a priest or similar leader.
A 1950's Supreme Court decision ruled that Social Security is a government program, Congress can cancel the program at any time, and keep the money.
Of course if they did that they wouldn't keep their jobs come the next election.
Sheesh! They never said that it couldn't be a factor, just that the current solar variation wasn't enough to be a major factor.
Climate change isn't manmade anyway.
i wonder if we can actually beat the next ice age this way . would be perfect !
Sure. Once Coal and Big Oil stop getting subsidies from the government: https://www.desmogblog.com/201...
Then why don't we go right ahead and give renewable energy the same amount in subsidied that coal and big oil have gotten for the last umpteen years and let them build their infrastructure before finally pulling them off the US government's teat.
After all, fair's fair. Right? We're all about capitalism and letting companies stand on their own two feet.
Because... You are clearly perfect. Never even slightly wrong and just love letting those less perfect than you that they are subhuman or whatever
What have you done to help the planet?
Oh no, the sky is falling! The sky is falling! Help, help, the SKY IS FALLING!!!1!!
We lived through peak food and peak oil, bring on the heat.
Really? I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect. It's physics, ignorant pal! If the Earth gets more hot, more water evaporates. As a gas water wapor has a convection and thus radiates all the excessive energy back to our supercold Universe, shrouding the warm Earth. Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics. CO2 is only a byproduct of the mother Nature processes, it's a food for plants, humans breath it in and out for millions of years. Scaremongering of fears in order to do multibillion trading with CO2 quotas, buying for cheap from poor nations and selling to rich ones, using common weakness of rulers in politics eager for becoming heroes saving the Earth from evil polluters, is the global scam that drives up the energy prices and ruins economies for banal greed. Folow the money, all those multi-Bn funds investing into CO2 quotas trading, The web of greed and corruption goes to the "climate scientists" in the United Nations panels, being sponsored by "alternative energy" quotas speculants. Btw, I am a physicist, laughing at "climate models" calculating our future climate based on the basic assumption that the Earth is a round ball with several mirror surfaces reflecting light and making the flawed conclusion that energy will flow from colder (clouds) to warmer surface (ground) and thus the Earth will overheat. These "climate scientists" ignore rules of physics and the very basic fact that the Earth is a thermodynamic system with all gasses and fluids in constant motion exchanging heet energy and quickly emitting all 25,000 terawats energy back into the very cold Cosmos around our planet. Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible? We should stop Global Fearmongering designed to trade quotas of ordinary air packaged as the product of "guilt", making dirty money for few bastard billioniers based on humanity's fears from the Nature. This is evil and amoral business buying politicians and "climate scientists".
I'm not a denier, or a believer, or whatever you want to call me, but it's not the arrogance and ego (yes I'm sure there's a few who feel butthurt when you challenge their beliefs, fuck them). It's the immediate sense of survival. Most people don't have global warming on their priority list of things to do to stay alive because it's not naturally obvious to them that something bad is happening.
On top of that, how many times have we been told as a people "Oh this is going to be really bad, you just watch." then, nothing. Not to say its the case with this, but people don't care about the subject so much as they care about how it makes them feel. "Great, they're talking doomsday again, fuck this shit I have groceries to do so I can feed my kids." See where I'm going with this?
Even when it comes knocking on their doorsteps in the form of a massive hurricane, global warming will be the last thing on their minds. Its all about survival. If your survival isn't immediately threatened, you aren't naturally inclined to react. Generally, of course. We're all different.
At this point, it almost looks as though a fair amount of folks just see this as a scam to increase government/corporate power. Is it a conspiracy? Meh. Sounds like daily business to me. Whether it's true or not, there's a certain story about a dam breaking and people not moving, even when breakage is imminent. Cognitive dissonance is it? I forget.. too early. Coffee time!
I tend to rant.
The biosphere as we know it has already been irreparably damaged. But if you lead with that, people will just throw up their hands even more than they are now. You have to give people hope that they can save their lifestyle, even though they can't because it's much too late now. But they might be able to save the lives of their miserable offspring if they get cracking.
I say they because I have no offspring, and plan to continue that. It won't be me that has to deal with the worst of it. It'll be their kids.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You are dead right, we are all so much more well informed and make quality critically thought choices always!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
For those who cannot be bothered: an estimated 1400 child molestations since the 90s, covered over and allowed by the local law and council, because they basically didnt want to create a fuss that could perhaps have 'given oxygen to racism' by saying the perps were Pakistani.
Instead, like good little PC sheep, the people in charge turned their back on the child victims, and let it continue for over 20 years.
Thank god our culture has improved so much!
How accurate do you need the models to be? Bloomberg's, not typically known for being a bastion of liberalism, did a presentation of all the natural and human causes do a good job at breaking them down: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ Also, since you apparently agree that greenhouse gas effects are real and that you in general against polluting, are you willing to agree that humans have an impact as well? and if humans have an impact that we have the ability to clean up the messes were are making? As for the doom and gloom, I guess it all depends on what you value and if you see species mass extinction as a bad thing, or loosing your home to sea level rise or sever storms. I'm assuming that you do not live on a tiny island in the pacific island, or on a low coastal area.
just because he removed a regulation doesnt mean the people still cant buy the better products.... we dont need a babysitter
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
In other words, it becomes a political agenda when anything is suggested that might actually work to reduce carbon emissions? I assume you would also agree that it 'becomes a political agenda' when the solution is increasing vehicle mileage standards - or tax rebates for solar installations - or...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's just an argument that deniers make up to justify their selfishness and so they don't have to change a single thing about their lifestyle or lift a single fucking finger to help the planet, which in their arrogance and ego they think they are entitled to do with as they please because they're "human", like they somehow earned that status themselves.
Pray tell, what do you expect the average human to do? They already live as close to "work" as they can afford. Nobody likes to spend time sitting in traffic. Even if all average individuals lowered their lifestyle to walking to work (16 miles each way!), not use refrigerators (one of the most wasteful ways we use energy), etc, the overall impact would be close to zero.
Manufacturing, industry, and transportation are the lion's share of CO2 emissions. Long story short, it is the governments of the planet that might have any chance at dealing with this. Every time I have voted, the results are opposite of what I voted for.
So go ahead and sneer at me for being lazy, self-indulgent, and greedy. If it makes you feel better beating on the average individual, then go for it. It will not matter but will engender bad feelings. Good job making the world unpleasant on top of being fucked climatically. Good luck on fixing it. :)
Should I grab the popcorn now?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Racist !!!!
1. US and EU emissions are way down. Especially in the job-creating Blue cities as we build warehouses and plants with solar and wind, more efficient and cheaper than the 18th century inefficient ones in the Red areas. Adapt or die.
2. China is converting 80 percent of all their coal plants to cogeneration. It was my idea, I know people. Getting rid of all coal plants that can't be converted (which were the worst polluters). Installing scrubbers (80s tech, actually) in areas with water and other things to cut emissions. Twice the energy output. India is doing the same, but not quite as fast.
3. You too can stop giving Big Government your money for electricity and heating and cooling and take control of the levers of production. When replacing your roof or building a home (almost anything built since 2004 is compatible) install a full solar roof. They even work in Northern BC and Alberta. Yes it works when cloudy. My electric bills are tiny. The main cost is labor and permits, so do the whole thing.
Actions. Not mealy mouthed excuses by people who want us to be slaves to fossil fuel mavens in Russia and Saudi Arabia.
This is what will make the difference. It's not hard. It's cheaper. It literally saves $.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I live in Massachusetts, and we've got a pretty large area of methane bubbling up from the sea floor. The smart money says in a few years we'll be a second Venus. Of course that means everything dies. I'm not sorry that we are finished on this planet, but the rest of the life that will die I am sorry for. We did the damage but everybody else will suffer our fate.
Should read "Last ditch attempt to get funding by making fantastical claims fails, only appears on slashdot"
One would think the people doing Climate Science would have figured out that making fantastic dire predictions is one of the reasons they have lost credibility, and that they are doing far more damage to the planet than all the factories put together. Your anger should be directed at them, but it never is. If you care about the planet call for a new approach to research that doesn't promote collective group think.
Murphy was an optimist
Running into oil? Discoveries peaked in the 60s.
Peak oil only applied to Texas oil wells and was fallaciously extrapolated globally without due diligence. Laymen continue to regurgitate the claims today.
Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.
The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.
Let's get rid of the police then. All they do is babysit society and we don't need that.
It only rises in the east one day a year. The rest of the year it's rises either in the NE or SE. So they're both wrong at least 364 days a year!
Common man can plant more trees
Casteism
You also don't understand sarcasm, apparently.
I tend to rant.
The concept of East and West doesn't map to the poles. All directions are some combination of North/South and up/down. At the South Pole, the sun rises and sets in the North, and moves clockwise; at the North Pole, the sun rises and sets in the South, and moves counter-clockwise.