Slashdot Mirror
Earth Will Likely Be Much Warmer In 2100 Than We Anticipated, Scientists Warn (vice.com)
According to a new analysis of the most realistic climate models to date, global temperature rise by 2100 could be 15 percent higher than the highest projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What this means is that cuts in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) will have to be even greater than expected to meet the Paris climate target of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Motherboard reports: The world is a long way from making sufficient emission reductions to meet the Paris climate targets to begin with -- nevermind cutting out another 15 percent. But there's some good news, too. Both rich and poor countries have begun to move away from coal and oil, the two biggest CO2 sources, according to many energy analysts. Patrick Brown is a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, a co-author of the study published Wednesday in Nature. "Our results imply 15 percent less cumulative emissions than previously calculated [are needed] in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius," he told me. Brown and co-authors focused on finding out what future warming might be, using only the climate models that best replicate observations over the last 15-20 years. On a business-as-usual emissions trajectory, they found that the mean global temperature rise would be 4.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to the IPCC estimate of 4.3 degrees Celsius. The latter estimate is considered catastrophic for our planet, and would lead to sea level rise of over 30 feet, potentially putting the homes of 600 million people underwater.
We should anticipate less so that to compensate for the anticipation effects.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Are we still trying to sell this line?
Winter is coming
I posted here before with facts and figures about temperatures, the human body tolerances, etc.
Then I read the comments and realized I WANT most of these people dead. Trying to help or protect them with facts, logic, science, is met with a loud DERRRRRRP of politics and swearing and obnoxiousness. It would be better if they were dead.
Kiss your bible and masturbate with a loaded gun while saluting a poster of trump wearing a 'make amurikuh great again' hat. The stupidness of it all is so thick you couldn't put a nick in it with a plasma torch.
None of it is really worth it, the problem isn't the environment, it isn't CO2, it is us as a collective whole. There is something broken inside our collective consciousness and reason, sanity...nothing can fix it.
I'm going to go do some more research on how to make a neuron in javascript and how to link them together and get input/output from a simple network. Have fun screaming and getting red in the face at people who undoubtedly just want to hee-haw laugh and hump their cousins.
look on the bright side, when the bitcoin bubble bursts the temperature of the world will drop a degree or two.
This Chinese "global warming" hoax is about as real as Trump's teeth.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Somebody call Kevin Costner.
To violate the sacred rule of only going green if the solution is market competive?
To educate people worldwide that having two children is the "sustainable" number?
... that the Earth will likely be much warmer In 2100
How strong does the evidence have to be before Republicans believe there's a real problem?
Table-ized A.I.
I'll take my chances with a half degree.
UNIQSOFTS
imo for pc
I'll be dead by then, or so far gone as to not care. Old people feel cold, anyway, so maybe I'll actually be comfortable, if I'm still around.
I'd really like the Kochs (and all their lapdogs [1], among them Trump) to be around, and me, by that time. I'd kick them in the nuts, time and again.
That's where religious people may have an advantage: were I religious, I'd find solace in the idea that those assholes are going straight to hell and will be tortured there for eternity.
[1] In the interest of equality, you ask, where are the lapbitches? "drill, baby drill" Palin might qualify, I'd say.
How many trees would you have to plant so that they can consume that extra CO2? Would that be cheaper or more expensive than reducing emissions? (Ignoring the fact that more trees mean more green areas). Surely somebody must have already calculated that?
Good! Burn this fucker up!
When someone tells you something will happen in more than 80 years the only sane choice you have is to ignore. Same thing goes for the past.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Did they take into account eighty years of future evolution of plants and algae to sacrifice efficiency for speed in a high CO2 environment? Because that could throw it off my more than fifteen percent.
Forever suckers...
Once the sea-level rises and fisheries die out, New England and California will be washed away, leaving nothing in the U.S. but flyover country. And Chicago I guess. Of course, the energy moguls responsible for this will be able to easily relocate.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It is likely going to be much higher co2 emissions because massive numbers of new coal plants are still going in. China continues to add 30-50 GW of new coal plants each year just in China. At the same time, they are adding 100+ GW of new coal plants in other nations. Then on top of that, they are exporting their coal which is some of the worst in the world. Then add in trump trying to save coal in America. We will not add more coal here, but we will likely increase export. The only good part is that it is much cleaner than China's, but it will still pollute heavily regardless.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When the supervolcano at Yellowstone goes up and she haven't figured out how to mitigate it, global warming will be out the window. Say hello instead to nuclear winter style cooling.
What's wrong with global warming, my hometown finally get out of -30C winters thanks to it.
I don't really understand the purpose of these constant doom-and-gloom projections. If you think it's going to be that bad, shouldn't you be working on mitigation strategies? What's the point of continuously studying what the landscape will look like past a certain point of dire? I understand the value of refining models, but if the projections hold up, there's no physical way that we can end up avoiding the consequences. That makes it obvious that engineering/study effort should be put toward mitigation. The expertise, time, and skills necessary are all finite and there must be a distribution of these things. Is it the case that these things are happening and don't make the news for some reason?
If the projections won't hold up, what's the point of harping on this continuously? At some point all I can do is say that I don't have the expertise or skills to help, especially as the situation worsens. There's very little I can personally do. It isn't directly actionable.
So then what is the point?
I doubt that I'll live to see 125 years of age, as far as I care the Statue of Liberty can be flooded by then.
Yes, I'm done trying to save your planet. I'll just use what I got and screw you. If you insist in ignoring science, you deserve to die. Along with your kids.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're going to have to come up with something a little better than that to make me care. A bunch of rich peoples' houses / property underwater? Well, move.
Now, the acidification of oceans is definitely concerning. Loss of plant/animal species and the associated loss in genetic diversity / lessons of evolution over millennia is concerning.
Sea level rise? No.
I just found out that there's literally TRILLIONS of gallons of water RUSHING into the ocean every day. All we need to do to stop the ocean from rising is block up all the rivers!
We wouldn't be in this mess were it not for most republicans (and large swaths of democrats, mind you) having been bought out by Koch brother's money et al.
Go look up who finances the Cato institute, for just one very little thread in this vast tissue to know what I mean.
The same predictions that have been coming and going and being wrong for the last 30 years?
Anyone that thinks China is doing anything that will cost it money when it comes to fighting 'climate change' is living in a fantasy land. IF they cancelled any coal plants, it's not because they are trying to 'do the right thing'. It's more likely the never planned to actually build half the new plants.
There _isn't_ strong evidence. There's a lot of conjecture combined with foolish moves that make any sane person question them - hiding data, destroying data, silencing opposition, changing data, etc. My point is, if they are correct, they've done everything they can think of to make it seem like they are lying. It's become more of a religion than a science at this point.
To me, the issue isn't climate change, it's pollution. No one is going to argue that is bad - I'm all for anything that cuts that back and there is no doubt green energy is better for the environment.
BUT...I am NOT for anything that is going to put us back into the stone age. I am NOT ok with shutting down or stopping existing plants when the technology isn't ready to fill in the gap. I am NOT ok with this BULLSHIT carbon credits thing.
Come up with some reasonable solutions and people will support it. Putting us in a situation of rolling brown outs is not one.
15% of 300K is a lot more than 15% of 25C.
Solar power is cheaper than coal fired electricity. Who needs to save the planet, why not just do the math and save yourself some money?
Plus Trump is way old, in his 70's, he'll be gone soon enough, good riddence to bad rubbish.
Go read the Lazard report. Sure we can make solar cheaper than nuclear, it just can't be on our rooftops. Again, go read the report.
The most expensive nuclear power is still cheaper than the cheapest residential solar installation. Rooftop solar on commercial and industrial rooftops is the same price as nuclear. The only kind of solar energy source we know of that can provide power through even a portion of the night is solar thermal with storage. The only kind of solar that is cheaper than nuclear is utility scale PV, and even then it's on par of costs with natural gas. Rooftop solar isn't even all that cheap compared to natural gas peak power generation, and you'll need a lot of that for when the sun goes down.
So, sure, let's use solar. It will only triple the cost of electricity, if we're lucky. Since natural gas peak power turbines burn three times the amount of gas for the same energy as gas combined cycle generation it's also quite possible using solar will do nothing to reduce carbon output. No reduction in CO2 output and triple the cost. Great idea... idiots.
If people want to talk about using wind, that's fine by me. It's costs is on par with natural gas and coal, just be prepared to burn natural gas in inefficient gas turbines for the times the wind isn't blowing. Combined the natural gas turbines and the windmills might be cheaper than nuclear but then your CO2 output is still going to be pretty high. Not near as high as coal, that's quite likely, but still much higher than nuclear.
Another thing I often hear is that solar will get cheaper. But when? Ten years? But I thought we had to do something NOW or we are all DOOOOOOMED!!!
If the goal is reducing CO2 output as low as we can, as quickly as we can, at the lowest costs, then nuclear will have to be part of the plan. It says so right in that Lazard report. Maybe its not spelled out that way, at least not in those exact words, but it's in the report.
Or we can just decide that if solar is going to be cheaper than nuclear in 2, 10, or 50 years and we have 100 years until certain doom unless we change our ways then fine, we can wait. If we must act now though then it's wind, nuclear, and natural gas. Sure, fine, go build your solar collectors out in the desert. I don't care so long as you aren't keeping people from building nuclear power at the same time.
Go look at the Lazard report. If you find something that contradicts my assessment then let me know, it's possible I missed something important.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
1) The Science is Settled
2) "Oh No, things are much worse than we thought". A story based on an outlier which makes apocalyptic predictions
3) If anyone disputes this go to 1). Also accuse them of being an outlier which makes things seem less apocalyptic.
By which process the future is both known with perfect accuracy and continuously getting worse unless we adopt some expensive policy. Actually if you read carefully almost no one globally is adopting these policies. The few places that did - Germany for example - found their CO2 emissions rising, and many that ignored them completely like the US found CO2 emissions falling due to a switch from coal to fracked gas.
And if you look at instrument readings it's clear that the models overstated the amount of warming.
See for example
https://imgur.com/a/w5KKQ
From this talk
https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...
Ironically people like Matt Ridley who get denounced as deniers are making predictions which are near the bottom of the range of the model predictions. Meanwhile environmental activists are making predictions which are way above that range.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I want to be buried in sunglasses, cargo shorts, flip flops and have plenty of sun screen on so I can enjoy the balmy weather from 6 feet under.
FUN QUESTION: What percentage of species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct according to scientists?
FUN FOLLOWUP QUESTION: Why shouldn't humans become part of the statistic?
Carl Sagan was remarkably correct about human arrogance.
We'll make great pets
As far as the IPCC goes, the "most realistic" models are still not remotely realistic. No model they have used has even been able to predict current conditions based on historical input.
Trump declared climate change as a Chinese hoax - problem solved! Rather odd given that most of his golf courses will be under water soon.
I am not denying human influence on climate change, or even the numbers in TFA, but predictions about what happens 80 years from now are rather funny if you take into account that just one major volcano outbreak (read: mount Fuji, the Vesuvian supervolcano system, Yellowstone, or the unpronouceable Icelandic ones) can turn those numbers upon their heads and throw us into a long nuclear winter. And the probabilty is high for at least one of those popping within our lifetimes.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Anyone reading this, will be dead by then LOL. Seriously...these are the same scientist and Algore that predicted we'd all be dead by now, which didn't happen.
Fail
For the Panel's Third Assessment Report, paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 774 it says in my translation: "In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. "
More Fail
OH NO!! It's going to be 0.2 warmer instead of 0.1 THAT'S A 100% INCREASE. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE....unless you implement Socialism on a global scale and then we will be ok, well maybe. We may need all your rights too.
Cue R.E.M. It's the End of the World as We Know it.
And here we have a lunatic president who has rolled back borders on national parks so that one trillion dollars worth of coal can be mined. Denial is a disease in and of itself. Many of us who live near beaches have watched the ocean rise for decades. In Florida we have condominiums on the beach that used to be a long way from the water. Now the waves slap the sides of the condos. Currently we have an abundance of fresh water. We even have a severe excess of fresh water. But our water tables are such that very little rise in sea levels can disrupt our entire water supply system for the most crowded part of the state. That would be an economic holocaust.
Oh thank god! We are saved! We will not die in the ice age these losers were telling us we would die from back in the 1970's. But don't worry, the Ozone Hole is going to fry us first... Oh Wait! that's been closing up. Perhaps the nuclear winter caused by the oil fires in Iraq that Dr. Sagen warned of will protect us... Oops! That didn't happen either.
Honestly, if these guys told me it would rain, I'd leave my umbrella in the car.
Same old bullshit over and over.
Even if China doubled it's coal use for electricity, it still wouldn't produce as much CO2 as the USA.
There is going to be more arable land in Greenland!
Another scare headline from the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Anyone remember when the alarmists predicted that 2015 was the drop dead, no turning back, end of the world, we're gonna bake, deadline? How about the seas were going to inundate us? There would be no polar ice by 2015? That Greenland would be ice free?
All brought to you by the concerned (about enriching themselves) climate scientist and activists. Almost all of the predictions have been proven false or are outside the 95% confidence interval. So what do concerned (about their funding) scientists do? Issue new drop dead, no turning back, end of the world (please fund & support my research) hysteria. Again.
We will NOT pay a carbon tax, there are NO exceptions to this.
If government was serious about protecting the environment, they would have...
1. Require that all new factories be 100% emission free.
2. Eliminate high priced permits for Windmills and Solar and Geothermal
3. Stopped obstructing people from collecting their own rain water. For every gallon collected, it's a gallon that doesn't have to go through the filtration systems or be pumped to the home, and that means less fuel cost and less ware and tear on the equipment.
4. Stopped obstructing people from having a garden.
5. Used Tidal generators to purify sea water for drinking.
etc. etc.
Clearly those complaining are not really interested in what they boast.
What repercussions do they face for their careless scaremongering?
The best thing the common person can do to reduce emissions right now is to get rich. I am not kidding or trolling. Plenty of information on how to do this. The Millionaire Next Door and Your Money or Your Life are my favorite books on the topic. There a half a dozen good blogs about it as well. It is simple, but here is the catch. It takes a little bit of discipline and patience. It is extremely simple, spend a lot less than you bring in; use the rest to pay off debt and invest. Investing requires a good amount of reading to understand it and discipline to do it properly. Do this for a number of years and you are rich. How does this affect emissions? Examples:
Buy a new phone every four years instead of two. Less emissions from the mining, manufacturing, and transportation of phones.
Repair instead of replace. Clothes dryer no longer hot, replace the heating coil for a few dozen dollars instead of buy a new one. Don't know how - youtube. Less dryers manufactured, consequently less emissions.
You probably own a bigger car than you need. Most people would be well served with an economy car or small/mid sized sedan.
Fuck fashion - I'd rather be rich than look rich - and fuck those materialistic assholes judging me on my old but functional clothes.
Adjust your thermostat, your body will adjust to warmer/colder temperatures.
Eat in season food, cheaper and less emissions from shipping shit half way around the world.
Cook at home. Less emissions from delivery and driving to restaurants. Don't know how - youtube
Here is the kicker, get the money in / out ratio to more than 2, you can retire in your 40s, late 20s or early 30s if you can get it even higher or are a great investor.
Is not helping, it's just making things worse.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
I think slashdot needs to adjust its spam filter. I posted a comment more than 10 minutes ago and it hasn't showed up yet. If anyone from slashdot is reading this, it recommends two books. I think I know what phrase got it flagged. If it is what I think, it doesn't make a lot of sense that it would be spam considering I didn't post any links with it.
Weeds that were normally killed by the yearly frost, will survive winter. Insects that get killed by frost will survive and invade new niches.
Lots of agricultural land, never under any threat of any sea level rise, might get rendered unusable for agriculture due the pests that do not start from scratch every year. Very large fluctuations in food supply can happen and it would trigger wars and migration like we have seen before. These are bigger threats than sea level rise. And why we immediately jump to sea level rise? Why is the media playing up the "sea level rise" doomsday a lot more than they deserve to? Any blood red Iowa farmer will tell you forsythia is blooming four weeks early now, croci are breaking ground in December, and daffodils and tulips are emerging in March. He will tell you the bugs that he has never seen before invading his property. But these stories are not getting the media attention.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's corporations in general. Things one wouldn't normally associate with environmental damage - big agriculture, big manufacturing - have a big impact, too. Technology is also guilty in this regard. Spread the blame, no one industry can be singled out. Retarded games like 'AI' and and automated cars, and 'becoming the new cable providers, complete with original content' (silicon valley are not the most sagely or impressive lot) particularly in the name of profit and especially because their hype is about a million percent overblown and fulfills the legitimate needs of exactly no one, are like a teen playing nintendo in the closet while his neighborhood is on fire. Cool? Sure. Important? Debatable. When their house burns down too, literally all of that stuff will be irrelevant, including the money.
We better hurry up and elect more Democrats or we are all going to die, right? Everyone already knows that not fucking up the environment is a good thing but this issue has been so polluted by crazy lefty politics it has become just plain annoying to hear about.
For your entertainment:
http://dailysignal.com/2009/11/17/global-warming-ate-my-homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming
Looking forward to it! Lots of agenda articles allowed through the /. censors today. Lovely TECH headlines here today.
Everyone needs to take a step back before going nutz over climate change. Is it problem, yes, but its not the only problem. Was watching nature last night. The high desserts are being destroyed thru habitat disruption. Some of its oil and gas but some of its also wind farms and the service industry around them.
There is no free lunch. Yes the cautionary principle tells us we should limit CO2 emissions when possible but that isn't the only concern. We should also consider the environmental consequences of "renewables" because they are not free from negative impacts either, but so many seem to pretend they are.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In other words, people are predicting what will give them more research grant money
This Bullshit is why the Alarmists are doubted all the time.
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
As in, 'The heat trapping effects of CO2 are logarithmic'...
But don't let that stop you from being hysterical.
Sure it will.
However, if we do nothing, we will reach the point of no return in 2030. It is time to act. However, western politicians are afraid some industry could suffer and the citizens could get angry, because they told them that they do not have to change. Things will fix themselves. Anyway, who cares? D. Trump works towards a new world war.
Not to mention usage of an anecdote about daughter's academic performance as proof that climate change is not real.
Yay, the billionaire Koch brothers got their precious tax cut. How should we fund this? By cutting medicare and social security of course! F*$% all those oldsters and cripples, they are just drains on society anyway, right?
Geologic timescales mean Yellowstone may or but probably will not erupt by 2100. Gw induced sea rise on the other hand will certainly happen. I'll concede that some other volcano may erupt before 2100 and emit enough ash to effect temporary global cooling, but come on man, it would be temporary and we will pick up where we left off in 5 to 10 years...
They'll all be under 3-20 feet of water by then.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Include the fake sea level data?
More anthropomorphic caused change super fail.
Um, you already pay carbon tax.
Every time you buy a good or service from China, Japan, Australia, Canada, the EU, or from some US states (the ones that actually are 60 percent of the US economy), you're paying a carbon tax.
If you don't have a local carbon tax, they get to keep the money in the other country and spend it there. If you had a carbon tax, it would be spent in your local economy.
Thanks for helping everyone else out by not having a local carbon tax!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Someone predicted this before the "scientists". The book containing many predictions was published in our language in 1611, which said: "....the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." Hint: It is the most widely circulated book on the planet, but one of the least understood. The predictions it contains will come true. More about this prediction may be found by searching for it: "2 Peter 3:9-12 KJV"
..so fuck y'all.
Love,
President Tardo
Don't keep the Carbon locked up! CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Green houses are warm and verdant! Free the carbon for a warm and verdant future. plants will thrive, flowers will bloom and it may help us escape the coming heat death of the universe just a bit longer.
this sig is deprecated
I can't wait for the flood...
Some say the end is near
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks
Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your Prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car
It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks
Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Some say a comet will fall from the sky
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves
Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits
And some say the end is near
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this
Stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit
One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied
Learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim
Mom's gonna fix it all soon
Mom's comin' 'round to put it back the way it ought to be
Learn to swim
Fuck L Ron Hubbard and Fuck all his clones
Fuck all those gun-toting Hip gangster wannabes
Learn to swim
Fuck retro anything, Fuck your tattoos
Fuck all you junkies and Fuck your short memory
Learn to swim
Fuck smiley glad-hands With hidden agendas
Fuck these dysfunctiona Insecure actresses
Learn to swim
'Cause I'm praying for rain And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way I wanna watch it all go down
Mom please flush it all away
I wanna see it go right in and down I wanna watch it go right in
Watch you flush it all away
Time to bring it down again
Don't just call me pessimist
Try and read between the lines
I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend
I wanna see it come down
Burn it down Suck it down Flush it down
Disclaimer: I have zero belief a flood is coming, and it disappoints me. I'd love to see California sink.
That's what you get when you anticipate predictions mostly based on things we know for sure. Most new things we learn make it worse, not better. Our estimates are not estimates, they're the lowers bounds.
0x or or snor perron?!
All your outdated and frankly made up shit is getting tiresome.
The US produces about twice the CO2 as China. Electricity isn't even the biggest CO2 emitter, but you only focus on it because you are full of shit.
Transportation is your biggest sector...Your biggest sector is increasing... Your second biggest only decreased because of the warmer weather in 2016...
Look at the graph at the bottom,https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30172 the one predicting the future CO2 emissions. The one where just about every scenario has increases for the next few years.
The only one that doesn't have increases is the high oil price scenario. With all the cheap fracking that is highly unlikely.
Keep focusing on electricity even though it's not the biggest. Your boss must be proud of you.
Draw a line on the map and suddenly China A and China b's pollution isn't as bad any more? What kind of magical bullshit thinking is this?
The US is far far worse, grow up and face reality ignorant troll.
I have to use your post as a prime example of climate alarmism and why arguments like these put any movement towards dealing with emissions further back.
It is beyond ridiculous to think we will lose yearly frost across the majority of our planet on a yearly basis. Have you been outside California? Try coming north, and see just how much sunlight we get in a day here in Canada, where we have vast amounts of land, far bigger that your small coastal enclave. We've had temperatures below zero for months now, and this extends far below into Northern US. The effect on winter has been negligible for the last 50 years. If you tell anyone here the earth is going to warm up enough to get rid of winter, that's laughable.
So a majority of the earth will still get cold winters. I'm sure your point was that this will only be localized then right? Just a foolish argument - the vast majority of this planet is very, very cold.
I love the phrase, "at current rates". As if anything non trivial ever maintains the "current" rate over long time periods.
You're a religious faith based idiot. And have a terrible understanding of both statistics and how to apply them honestly to the real world.
...it doesn't.
We'll see soon enough.
br Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Spare us your fake outrage. You are willfully ignorant of almost all the facts. You just try to muddy the waters claiming China bad, Europe bad, just to distract from the fact the US is much worse than either of them.
America is not only the easy target but the most obvious and logical one if you want to reduce CO2. You think if everyone else catches up to America it will be ok? Obviously the only practical solution if for America to come back to the more realistic levels of less polluting countries.
So they are twice as efficient compared to you. CO2 isn't only from electrical coal, so if that portion was doubled the total would't double. China could literally burn that extra amount just for fun, and they would still produce less per person than the US.
Facts and logic are clearly against you.
Models of unknown accuracy predict dire consequences assuming nothing changes. In what universe does nothing change? Zero.
The current environmental challenges are because people are wasteful, steadfastly refusing to use resources efficiently. That's the sum total of the problem and the solution.
There will continue to be more people. Their presence will affect the planet as they consume resources. What _can_ be done is consume with least impact and adapt to the changes that will inevitably happen.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing so for profit. Wake up.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
We are talking about the future simpleton.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30172
Don't let the facts get in the way of your entitlement. America produces and produced most of the CO2, but idiots like you seem to want to blame China instead of blaming yourselves for your own problems.
So China is forcing America to mine coal, and also forcing South America to burn it?
The saddest part is that people like you who blame China first, for no reason other than irrational hatred (or a few cents a post).
America is the biggest target because of ignorant people like you who are in denial to the facts that the US is such a major polluter. You think because you pumped out so much CO2 in the past that you are used to it, and it's ok to continue at your very high levels. But bad if any other country starts moving up towards you.
Per capita no longer matters apparently, so the easy solution is to split China into 4 countries North, East, South and West China.
Each new country will only produce about 2.5 kt of CO2 a year. A little less than half America's 5.1 kt.
The world will be saved...
2015 numbers
Do these models account for added heat from bitcoin mining and transactions?
Nice nick name :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Per capita no longer matters apparently,it's all country based. So the easy solution is to split China into 4 countries North, East, South and West China.
Each new country will be a bit bigger than America but only produce about 2.5 kt of CO2 a year. A little less than half America's 5.1 kt. 2015 numbers
The world will be saved...
Lets see how quickly you will both change your tune and not call for America, the new biggest polluter to cut their CO2 in half. But instead find some other excuse.
I can already guess, you will switch to GDP and tell us all that America is allowed to be the dirtiest because it is also the richest.