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.
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.
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.
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
There is a difference between "It can't be fixed" and "The #rightwingnuts refuse to fix it".
We should deal with crisis in the order that they each threaten our extinction. Climate change is the first on the list in terms of immediacy. Later we can deal with other problems that are further out in time.
After climate change the next extinction level problem is the Y10K problem. When four digit years need to be expanded to five digit years. In about the year 9997, everyone will start talking about this problem. But I'll get a jump on this. In the year 9995 I will seriously start learning COBOL which is a skill that will offer many consulting opportunities for the Y10K problem.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
Carbon cap and tax. No trade. That is the answer. If you want to emit more carbon than the cap, you have to fix carbon. And the cap should be small.
Carbon trading is a scam which should never have been permitted to become a thing. Cap and trade is not really capping. But cap and tax is completely viable. If a business can't survive under such a scheme they should get out of the way so that someone more efficient can get the job done.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
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.
I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done. I mean, this is something like the fourth or fifth one in this thread, whereas even a week ago this was an unusual response. Was there a focus group somewhere that said this is more effective? Didn't your marketing people think this message is a bit too dark for the average mark?
The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None
You seem to have problems understanding the difference of "decades" vs "millions of years".
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.
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.
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%?
Strongly disagree. We have the technology, money, and the bit of willpower needed to fix it. I don't like to believe "the future will solve it" but there's a chance that the prices of renewable vs. fossil energy may even fix global warming for us. The only things standing in the way of victory are denialists, their fossil fuel company puppetmasters, and defeatists like you.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
There is nothing "sudden" about it; the view that government is incapable of having meaningful, long-term positive impact on the economy has been the primary message of free market economists since Adam Smith.
What is sudden is this belief. Adam Smith, all modern economists and all economists in between those two see an absolutely massive long-term meaningful positive impact of government on the free market....they're kind of the only entity out there that is capable of freeing markets and creating a playing field that a market can thrive on. Without a solid governmental foundation, all markets become non-free or in best case massively shrink. Adam Smith spends huge chunks of his page counts about the need for a government in order to create free markets....he just then cautions that too much meddling in the economy is very bad. But he sees a major role of governments in allowing and encouraging accumulation, and investment in capital, as well as enforcing contracts, providing for safety of markets and goods, weeding out counterfeit goods, and in general setting the rules of the economic game. Without proper government intervention in the economy, he explicitly states that the markets would fail. He was liberal-democratic for the time, and definitely not libertarian or laissez-faire.
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 not the old saying. You just made it up.
The US and many western countries have been curbing CO2 emissions. China, India, Russia, and others have been increasing
At the moment it is actually Europe, China and India who are seeing the need for climate control and pushing for renewable energy sources, whereas it's the US trump administration who is singing the praises of fossil fuels and degrading environmental policy to a footnote.
Really? We're going to mark an evidence-less rant against researchers as +5, Interesting?
Look around your life. How many people do you know? How many of them would stab you in the back for a buck? I hope that number would be very small. If it isn't, you're in the wrong place.
I went to a school focused on science. Of the number of folks I hung out with, extremely few (less than 10%) struck me as idiots, cheats, or liars. The rest I'd trust with my life. I find it extremely hard to believe I went to the only university where the majority of students were honest, dependable folks.
I'm sure as heck not going to trust the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry whose entire existence is on the line.
Then unfortunately, you thought wrong.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_o... does describe solar irradiance and even puts a figure on the estimated amount it provides to the total radiative forcing. So solar (and other natural forcings) do have something to do with climate change, its just that they are swamped by our activity.
Feel free to use hyperbole, but because this is a site for nerds, when you do, it just makes you sound like a bit of a pillock.