Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Predictions May Now Be a Lot Less Uncertain (wired.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Humanity must not pass a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in global temperature from pre-industrial levels, so says the Paris climate agreement. Cross that line and the global effects of climate change start looking less like a grave situation and more like a catastrophe. The frustrating bit about studying climate change is the inherent uncertainty of it all. Predicting where it's going is a matter of mashing up thousands of variables in massive, confounding systems. But today in the journal Nature, researchers claim they've reduced the uncertainty in a key metric of climate change by 60 percent, narrowing a range of potential warming from 3C to 1.2C. And that could have implications for how the international community arrives at climate goals like it did in Paris. The metric is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, but don't let the name scare you.
The "...don't let the name scare you" part sounds kinky. Wonder if "denialism" is its safe word?
wow, new record? third global warming article today
They're getting more intense. And squirty!
Climate is not a static thing, it changes over time. We should not be wasting so much discussion and resources on something which is already known. If someone wants to live in an unchanging climate, go to a tropical island along the equator. Even then you still get wet and dry seasons. The world is heating up, we will survive. Some species will go extinct; they always do. Look at the dinosaurs or the megafauna of north America. This is not a major issue and we are going to spend trillions to fix a non-existant problem
The only way to tell if this is real is to wait, take the measurement, and compare it with prior prediction. That's science. Everything else is speculation.
I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us? And that any attempt to minimize the fear was being a denier of settled science?
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology climate scientist Reto Knutti [responded], “What's the chance of something fundamentally being wrong in our models?” he asks. “Is that really less than 1 percent? I would argue there's more than a one in a hundred chance that something has been forgotten in all of the models, just because our understanding is incomplete.”
Of course, he's Swiss, so he's biased.....the weather's so cold up there he wants global warming!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Body shaming is a sign of a weak mind.
This is only the third story on climate change today. C'mon editors, pace yourself.
If we invent practical immortality and I can afford it, then I will care about climate change.
...is a religion, and msmash is auditioning to be a High Priestess.
How many topics on global warming can we cram into the front page of slashdot?
Saving the environment by filling the internet with useless clickbait!
The only way exceeding the 2 degree Celsius threshold isn't a done deal is if you completely ignore human nature. There is no realistic way we can still stop that from happening. We still need to work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we also need to work on dealing with our failure to limit anthrophogenic climate change. There will be a need for ways to live in hotter climates. There will be a need to relocate billions of people. There will be a need to feed the world with potentially shrinking agricultural area. This work needs to start now. It is no less urgent than the attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
It was ALWAYS uncertain. Only dolts, knuckleheads, dofusses, nimrods and idiots thought it had any certainty.
The IPCC's low-end emission models, which this study uses, are constructed with the assumption that global emissions are cut in half by 2050 and reduced by 10-20% every decade after that, and that mass-scale carbon capture technology is both invented and deployed throughout the entire world within a few decades. This technology that would give us negative levels of emissions for the lowball model to be accurate.
The demand for energy is set to increase by 100% in the next 40 years if nothing significant changes that makes the increase impossible.
The IPCC models also exclude positive feedback loops from their analysis. They don't account for what an ice-free arctic will do to these numbers.
It is interesting too, the IPCC has, in the past, generated preliminary models that had up to 10C of warming by the end of the century when they do factor in multiple feedback loops and emission increases.
You could have simply stated you're troll.
"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it."
Pierre Gallois
So when are we going to start on the massive engineering projects?
The space-based sun-shield?
They daytime high-altitude vapor generators?
The seawalls/dikes along every coastline?
The solar-powered CO2 extractors taking up hundreds of square miles of desert and creating short-chain hydrocarbons to sequester the carbon?
Where are the freakin' ENGINEERS?
“Paris is more feasible than I thought before I started out on this,” Cox says. “It's feasible now to avoid 2 degrees, whereas I would have said before that it was pretty much unlikely that you were going to do that.”
Except the Paris accords do nothing to avoid the 2 degrees change. All agreed emissions reductions will still exceed 2 degrees. It did not nothing accept allow a great photo-op for politicians who can pretend they did something.
That is why it is so critical to cherry pick data and not release raw data, because climate change deniers will just use the raw data to argue their point. We all know it is happening so we need to bolster our facts. The scientists have already voted so any facts that go against that need to be reexamined.
This is statistical soup, not mathematics. They have no idea. This is not some double-blind study. These are numbers cooked up by globalists with an agenda.
What they are claiming is that they have solved the most complex initial value problem the world has ever known. Think differential equations. Think catastrophe theory. There is no known correct answer. These statisicians are just blowing smoke out their ass to sound profound. They have essentially "cooked the books".
What needs to be more thoroughly studied is the role that George Soros (born Georgy Schwarz) played as a kapo in the Nazi death camps where he helped usher people on their final journey into the gas chambers.
turk ur jerbs!!!
If someone wants to live in an unchanging climate, go to a tropical island along the equator.
The people of Dominica, Barbuda and Puerto Rico would like to have some words with you. Angry, 4-letter words about what you can do to yourself, and if you'd like to trade places with them, I'd bet.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The world is heating up, we will survive
Not without a lot of adjustments. Agriculture will have to change. Many places will become arid. Populations will move and of course there are people already where they want to move so expect lots and lots of wars.
Political systems and economic systems will be put under immense strains - even ditched.
So, yes, humanity will survive but not without some incredible changes.
Let's put it this way: the American way of life will disappear because it is unsustainable. The free market capitalism that many of us worship will be our end.
But that's in a couple of generations. None of us will be alive to see it. So, who cares about our grandchildren's generation, right?
AGW creates terrorists and John Kerry noted when he recognized mosts terrorists are innocent since they are forced into it by AGW.
Plus, climate is always changing so no thinking person can deny the fact that climate is changing. Also, scientists already voted on this issue so anyone producing evidence against is anti-science.
If we invent practical immortality and I can afford it, then I will care about climate change.
Yeah. Fuck future generations. Only you matter.
Oh I feel much better, an AC has explained it all! An AC that clearly doesn't care about drinking or eating.
So what you're saying is if the human race goes extinct then "ho hum" it's just nature's way, no biggie. A lot of people would beg to differ.
So many warming up to climate change leaves me cold!
It's right there in the name.
It's called "global warming", not "global sometimes-hot-sometimes-not".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I swear all they do every Friday night is go to the pub to throw arrows at the board and average the tosses.
Monday morning comes around and that average becomes the over/under of the global warming or cooling for the headlines that week.
It's all fairy dust and unicorn droppings. Global Warming? The only reason it's getting warmer is because they've pulled the wool over your eyes.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
During night, it is 10 degrees average colder than day time
and stays cold for 10 hours no end.
Waaa! Waaaa! wwwaaaaaaaa!!
Glow ball cooling is oppressing me each night!!!
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
we will survive
I don't think that's really the part up to debate. The question is what happens when the 125M Americans who live in coastal areas get flooded out of their homes and entire cities. (That'll cost trillions in and of itself- what's the current real estate value of Manhattan below 30th St? All gonna be in the ocean, even by conservative estimates.) What happens if there's no rain in South and Central America? The hordes won't kill everyone in California, Texas, etc. in addition to dying themselves, so we'll survive....
Let see we have the really simple model. Add energy to a system at a constant rate, slow the rate at which energy leaves the system, the system heats up. Now smart people will make the system a lot more complicated and then add positive feed backs that slow the rate at which energy leaves the system and they will add estimates to when those positive feed backs occur. Everyone agrees with the simple model, adding CO2 to the atmosphere slows the rate at which infra red light radiates back into space. Almost every climate scientist agrees there are positive feed backs that will be triggered as the temperature rises. The only question is at what temperature do those feed backs exceed what human action is doing and when that temperature is reached. If we don't do something we know it will happen we just don't know when.
Bad things will happen at just a couple of degrees warmer. Rain patterns will change, pests like mosquitoes will move, coastal cities will flood. No one talks about the bad things at 6C because they don't want to sound like crazy alarmists.
Yes, there are people dumb enough to believe this.
"Old man yells at systemd"
And how much will we spend to mitigate the effects of climate change?
It's not like the only effect is switching from pants to shorts. We'll need to build seawalls to protect some coastal areas, abandon other areas. Deal with some agricultural land becoming to hot or dry to farm. Create new farms in areas that now have better climates. Extend wells and create water storage for areas drying out. Improve flood control in areas becoming wetter. Target warmer-weather diseases as they move north. That's just a little bit of the changes we'll have to make.
You can't body shame someone if they aren't already ashamed of themselves. Am I fat or ugly? I pretty much don't care what you or anyone else thinks.
Huge hands, 239 lbs., that dude is shaming himself every day.
Well, that is the key problem in this "debate." Since it's going to affect someone else, even if it's their own grandchildren, nobody gives a fuck.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
"The metric is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, but don't let the name scare you."
Why would say that, unless something scary is going on? What if the name of the site was "Slashdot, news for nerds, but don't let that scare you"? What if you went to a restaurant, and after running down the specials, the waiter said, "but don't let the name scare you"? Is there any chance you'd order that dish?
10 years ago when skeptics were saying ECS was overestimated we were derided. Now it's half of what it was claimed to be 10 years ago and you warming alarmist dingbats think the skeptics were wrong. LOL hilarious.
Just wait until the AMO cold phase causes temps to drop for the next 30 years. You guys are gonna be making double the adjustments and splicing any dataset together that will still show warming. It's going to be so fun to watch just like this last decade with the email disclosures, the hiatus, trenberth's missing heat, Karl adjusting the buoy temps to meet the ship inlet bias... it goes on and on. Yet you alarmists think us skeptics are uniformed and stupid. LOL keep going! This is too much fun.
The sky is falling the sky is falling!
Get a hand cranked, solar powered radio/flashlight/iPhone charger for when the Earth goes sideways..
Wtf? Is it global warming or climate change? It's so freaking cold here in Florida I wonder where they're taking temperature readings, maybe in their rectums? Boiling over the scam hasn't taken effect? Remember the coming ice age in the 1970's? All scare tactics no solutions just send more money!
this study, possibly intentionally, understates the risks. What it did is look at existing modeling to narrow the range of predicted warming. That completely misses the fact that scientists are *conservative* when they build models. When there are factors they can't reliably model, they often just exclude them. This is why their models consistently *under predict* the amount of warming we see. For example, a recent Scientific American article pointed out that scientists weren't including feedback effects like the warming of the permafrost because the couldn't model it. This means the math trick used in this article excludes all these other effects that can (and almost surely will) have *huge* accelerative effects on the modeled warming rates. Far from scare mongering, the conservativism of scientists means they nearly always under predict warming. So what can we expect? Well, the last time Earth had the levels of CO2 we now have in the atmosphere, sea level was up to 100 feet higher than today and ferns grew in the Arctic. This was before man even existed on the planet. And the rates of warming and CO2 rise, far from slowing, are increasing at an *accelerating* rate. So I call bullshit on this article.
Maybe probably it might be somewhat possibly uncertain but I'm not sure.
If my state's agriculture industry has been humming along nicely for the last several decades, it matters a lot to know that problems are coming up and that perhaps we could do something to avoid those problems. This is about money, jobs, and the livelihood of millions of people. It's not about eco-terrorists trying to sell us more windmills.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Perhaps when most humans were nomadic hunter gatherers, climate change wasn't a major issue; just move to a more suitable area. However, over the last few thousand years we've invested a lot of time and wealth into building non-movable structures along coastlines. We can either spend trillions fixing global warming or spend trillions protecting or moving our coastal cities (probably both).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The's right let's go back to the Cretaceous period, before humans existed. We might as well give up as a species.
Of course the current carbon cycle doesn't match the cretaceous era. So even if we bring global temperatures and CO2 to similar levels is no guarantee that similar fauna will appear. The Earth could also run away into a barren wasteland as a cool Venus. (probably unlikely, but I think arguments that it's non-zero could be made)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Political change. Economic change. Social change. Strife. Famine. Wars. I think a lot of us will die fighting over resources and arable land, maybe as high as 1 in 10.
Those societies that limit individuality, reject capitalism, and move to collectivism will likely survive under such situations. Those who want to be highly independent homesteaders and value personal liberty will probably have difficulty defending their way of life from the migration of millions.
In the end human beings will survive. But we wouldn't recognize the culture after 100+ years of hardship. Western civilization will be gone as we know it.
Change is not new. It's like you forgot that before WWII Agriculture was totally different from what it is today, and there actually wasn't enough food for everyone to eat. /shrug
Sure climate changes, but not so fast as this time around.
If someone wants to live in an unchanging climate, go to a tropical island along the equator.
The people of Dominica, Barbuda and Puerto Rico would like to have some words with you. Angry, 4-letter words about what you can do to yourself, and if you'd like to trade places with them, I'd bet.
I guess he should have boldfaced the "along the equator" part. Or used "astride" instead of "along"
Dominica: 925 miles north of the Equator
Barbuda: 1058 miles north of the Equator
Puerto Rico: 1093 miles north of the Equator
Always has. Look at any mass extinction event, the environment changed too fast for life to adapt to it.
People have always gotten cancer - so there's no reason for you not to smoke 8 packs a day in asbestos-wrapped cigarettes.
People have always died in car accidents - so there's no reason for you not to drive 120 mph without a seatbelt, after drinking a bottle of gin.
Denialists are dipshits with atrocious logic. Always have been.
The vast majority of anonymous cowards flooding in throves every thread about climate change are not concerned citizens with opposing views and/or healthy skepticism.
They are part of a concerted, deliberate, organized campain to destroy the public's confidence in science, to paint scientists as an evil community with ulterior motives, to destroy the reputation of all climate scientists.
All for one purpose, and one purpose only: To destroy, or at least delay significantly, all efforts to effect political, social and economic changes that would hurt the corporate interests of the oil and gas industry.
As for those who don't fit this category, they're simply trolls, or people that just don't care. In other words: Sociopaths.
The questions never been if we'll survive. Homo sapiens has survived several ice ages without modern technology. 'We'll' survive if by 'we' you mean that the genome of the species will live on, we're very adaptive. The question is at what cost? The climate heating up affects global stability by affecting economies and more importantly the global food production. Europe right now - as someone living here - is quite stirred up by the refugee crisis from the middle-east that's caused by the Syrian civil war. Now, the current refugee crisis is large, it's the largest since the 2nd world war, but it's small peanuts compared to what we're facing if nothing is done to mitigate climate change.
If we just go on with 'we'll survive' attitude, we - as in, the post-industrialised economies accustomed to a level of wealth, peace, comfort and ease unknown to anyone a couple of generations back - will be facing the Syrian crisis times a hundred. Increasing heat waves and droughts as well as sea level rise will halt agriculture near the equator, pushing hundreds of millions or more likely billions of people to move northwards in search of shelter and survival. It's not something we can just ignore. Like, even supposing you're a sociopath that doesn't give one single flying fuck about some poor fellows in Africa starving, they're not just going to stay still and die away, leaving us here in the developed economies sipping our Coke zeroes going 'oh, that's a shame, pass me the joint and tell me what's hot on Spotify.'. We're not isolated from the rest of the world, if the developing nations fall into civil wars and chaos as Syria did, we're going to feel the effects. Not immediately, but we will. Not to mention that the climate will directly affect our own food production and stability
A few million people, most of them not even in Europe or attempting to come here, are at a move right now and there are groups in Europe calling for a total closure of all the borders and full panic mode because some brown people have the audacity to not live in a state of complete anarchy, and many of the same people are going: 'huh, climate's changing, no big deal, we'll manage.' Of course we'll fucking manage, but that doesn't mean we'll manage at the same standard of living and enjoying the same relative peace as we have now. I don't want to spend the remainder of my life in a world where societies are doing what they can to wall themselves off from the global community and fighting for scraps while the wealthy lock themselves off in gated communities watching the rabble fight over the scraps of rationed food and emergency housing as coastlines are flooding and global trade grinds to a halt as every country wishes to secure well being for themselves and not for the rest. I certainly don't want my kids (if I ever have any) to inherit just such a world and tell them: 'yeah, I know it sucks, but hey, look on the bright side: the species will survive. None of you or your grandkids will likely ever enjoy the standard of living I had in my youth, but hey, we'll be alive. Now off you go and do some fishing, I'll fire up the generator so we can cook up some food in the evening. Watch out for looters!"
There's 7 billion of us on the planet right now, and that figure by all estimates is going to keep growing until at least 10 if not more before stabilising. Of those billions, the vast majority is already staring to be negatively affected by the current change, and it's only going to get increasingly worse as time goes by unless those of us with some brain power and capital do something. We can't stop the warming altogether, it's way too late for that, but we can still affect whether or not the generations that come after us will occupy a 21st century society, or a dystopia of a few extremely well off people and billions in poverty and internal conflict. The difference made by a few degrees in the global average temperature is massive, because once the tipping
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
total and complete bullshit. If it wasn't accurate BEFORE.... why do you expect me to believe it's more accurate now?
Computer models are worthless for long term predictions except in the circumstance of an incredibly simplistic system. This is total crap.
But USAmericans love their #freedumbs so fuck it.. global extinction here we come!
Typical liberal faggot. "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is stupid and heartless, and should be killed. Only then will Chairman Mao's vision be realized...."
Far outnumbered by the number of sheeple believing in man-made-climate-change.
It's a weak mind to trust without question.
Haven't you heard? Racism and body shaming are only bad things when done by conservatives. When done by liberals, they're good and wholesome.
Those are all solidly tropical islands relatively close to the equator. The equator only actually passes through a small handful of islands: Sao Tome and Principe, Kiribati, Indonesia and the Maldives. I recommend that all climate conspiracy theorists relocate to the Maldives, directly on the equator for maximum safety.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Climate is not changing the weather in Puerto Rico. In fact there have been hurricanes for thousands of years, which tend to end things badly for the people living on those islands. There are many historical accounts of this. The only difference this time, is that a bunch of ignorant Europeans have decided to over develop there, without considering the long-term repercussions and hazards, and now they're paying the price.
Imagine that it's your job to tell the future. An amazing amount of money, and possibly lives depend on your forecast. Your tools are math and temperature measurements.
That's the situation that climate scientists find themselves in. I used to do some comparatively very simple modeling of satellite electronics to show that system data integrity and uptime would be satisfactory in the midst of cosmic radiation - and in the whole field of reliability and radiation effects, there's an absurd amount of handwaving and slop. I was regularly dealing with uncertainty on the order of 10x-100x in the error rates of some components. Thankfully, in most cases you can afford to apply tons of margin to your estimate to cover all of those unknowns.
Climate scientists have it much harder. The analysis is far more complex and much more sensitive - there's almost no room for error. The measurements are imperfect, the models are incomplete, and uncertainty abounds. However, the trend is there. What are we going to do, bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best?
Instead, it seems like we should listen to the smartest people in the world on this topic, who have devoted their lives to it. We should applaud the advances like this, which make incremental progress towards a better understanding. That same process of incremental advancement of human knowledge has given us the most advanced civilization in human history.
Most importantly, we should especially celebrate this kind of advance, which reduces uncertainty in the forecast, because that's the real key to reducing the political hysteria, and to bringing sanity into the discussion.
Climate scientists are just normal people. They aren't infallible. They also aren't corrupt psychopaths. They have an impossible job in front of them. And in the absence of a crystal ball, they are the very best resource we have available for figuring out what the hell we should do about all this.
We would all do better to listen to what they are actually saying, and stop reflexively misrepresenting them to suit our preconceptions.
None of us?
We are adding a billion people to the planet a bit faster than once every decade and speeding up. Those people use resources and give off byproducts. No one will talk about responsible reproduction. (if no babies were born for 30 years we'd be close to 6 billion 3 decades, which is still more than the planet can support in any quality way).
Resources run out. Oil is suppose to tap out in ~2038, no idea what the running out point before that will be like. Water is getting messed up as fast as we can.
We have eaten the big fish in the sea and are killing the ocean with dead spots from run off from overdriving the land to feed all the people.
We are done.
So pull up an Adirondack chair, grab a 6 pack of your favorite beer, and lets watch our species die.
PS: You would be around to see it in many generations if BABIES BABIES BABIES (AKA imaginary people) were not more important than antiagathic research to preserve the people we have now. Human scratch offs, throwing away the winners because the next batch have to be better!
> So, yes, humanity will survive but not without some incredible changes.
Good news (Or bad news, for the Malthusians out there). Humanity tends to make incredible changes on a daily basis. In fact in just the last hundred years, we've went from horse and buggy and blood letting to space travel, microprocessors, air conditioning, robotics, and biotechnology.
The free market capitalism that spawned these things is not "our end". In fact it's the very thing that has propelled us towards the fantastic future in which we live today, but sadly which many ignorant people don't seem to appreciate.
funding yet another bullshit study
What historical model has under predicted warming? All of them have drastically over predicted warming on any scale that extends several years past when the prediction was made.
The "revised" model approaches "appear" to under "predict" but these are using a new, revised model to "postdict". This is an inaccurate way of scientists "cleaning up" their mistakes.
The only way to properly judge a model is to use the ORIGINAL predictions, not to use the "revised" predictions.
The people of Dominica, Barbuda and Puerto Rico would like to have some words with you. Angry, 4-letter words about what you can do to yourself, and if you'd like to trade places with them, I'd bet.
If they have angry words it's probably because they are listening to people like you who don't understand the difference between weather and climate.
not after they're extinct they won't.
Yeah, we may survive - but necessarily in ways we would like.
In a hundred years there may be up to 10,000 humans in a precarious existence in scattered bands around the planet, with the oceans practically devoid of life...
Science is disprovable. No scientific hypothesis can ever be proven "true." They can only be proven false, and thus replaced with a new hypothesis which will also eventually also be replaced when flaws are discovered. This is the principle of disprovability, and it is the foundation of scientific inquiry. People who push "settled science" are misinformed about what science actually is. When you accept a theory as truth, you're libel to misinterpret or assign different weight to data which confirms or conflicts with the theory, this is why belief taints scientific inquiry. Karl Popper wrote extensively about this.
arrrghhhhhhhhhh...........
"but necessarily in ways we would like"
should have been
"but not necessarily in ways we would like"
Short term weather FORECAST is NOT a science; it's a prediction BASED on science.
Don't feel bad, lots of people mistake things that use the tools of science for things that ARE science - 'cause they're both sorta science-y, ya know?
That guy or gal who goes on TV to tell you what tomorrow's temperature will be is NOT doing science; he or she is making educated guesses. The people at NOAA who provide the data ARE doing science. The NOAA types are using data, making a falsifiable prediction based on that data, then gathering new data the next day and comparing it to the prediction, trying to figure out the reasons for the errors, then tweaking the models for prediction, etc. This feedback loop makes it science.
Oh, and that whole "sometimes you can't just wait" thing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for science. It is not a valid escape clause that lets you not do science, while pretending you are still doing science and that your wild unsubstantiated guesses are science.
What makes you so sure the human race shouldn't go extinct?
Humans are the most destructive, dangerous species to themselves and every other species on the planet, IMO, we deserve to die out!
To paraphrase the late George Carlin:
The Earth will be fine, it just has a cold, once it's "immune system" purges the "human" infection, the earth will heal itself.
there are people who think they are great believers in science, but who cling to the AGW garbage even after it was exposed that the people pushing it:
1. rigged the peer review process, blocking the review of dissenting papers
2. rigged the academic paper publishing, blocking the publication of disagreeing papers
3. rigged academia, eliminating any professors who disagreed
4. were all funded by sources (mostly governments) with a vested interest in one result - the result that justifies more government control over people and economies
REAL science does not rely on schemes that put a finger on the scales, nor does REAL science cover its eyes and plug its ears and hum really loudly to avoid hearing or seeing any contradictory information. Actual science is not about intimidation or concensus, and has no fear of alternative arguments or explanations or ideas.
You genetic organisms already have practical immortality. It's called spawning. More little programs similiar to you spew out of a cavern. Spawn enough of them, and all the modules of your ghastly code get copied.
If I told you that you are morally obligated to go vegan, because factory-farm pollution is environmentally devastating (fact) and because you should care about the well-being of animals.....
you would tell me to fuck off.
So before you go all morally-superior on me, realize that you are taking the exact same position when it comes to your dietary preferences (another fact: you don't need to eat meat to get all the protein/nutrients, so eating meat is exactly that, a preference).
People will always, eventually and in some domain, put their own well-being ahead of the well-being of others. We must, in order to survive. If you want to morally obligate me to give up plastic, but you refuse to give up eating meat, then I am going to call you a hypocrite.
Sheesh... that's 3 global warming stories in one day. What 'other' News for Nerds will you let pass the /. mods?
Oh yes, humanity lives with improvements and better conveniences just fine and dandy. Man, you're a verifiable muddafuggin Einstein. Afterall, the training and effort to go upwards on improvements provided to you is negligible (and yet people have problems).
But I wonder if the reverse is true?
Meanwhile in the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wfzUAF2X5s
Even the "free" countries are locking down preparing for the real class wars to come. Best we can do is create killer robots to end the entire species.
Ah, right, there were never powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic before Climate Change. Or, heck, it's not like there were more hurricanes from 1900 to 1950 (94), then there were from 1950 to 2000 (79). Or maybe it's that from 2000 to now (28) we had way more hurricanes than from 1880 to 1890 (25) -- the pre-industrial age; for those not picking up my sarcasm, that's 18 years worth of hurricanes during modern climate change amounting to just 3 more hurricanes than a 10 year period in the pre-industrial era. I suppose the Labor Day Category 5 hurricane that hit Florida was just some more man made climate change back in 1935. [citation needed?]
The level of absurdity of Climate Change zealots is getting worse by the year. Something weather related happen that looks bad (like an unfortunate series of powerful hurricanes making landfall)? It's because of climate change! Something weather related that looks good (like not getting a single major hurricane for 12 years prior to 2017)? That's not relevant.
Either live by the science, or stop talking. You morons that puppet the news and point to every storm as evidence of the end of times need to realize that you really, truly are members of a new-age religion. The actual science points to not understanding climate change at best, and disproving it at worst. The fact that it's "scientists" making these conclusions is completely irrelevant because they are just people. There are good workers and there are bad workers in every field, and the majority are never good. The fact that religion is in full swing has added tons of drones into the mix, which is unfortunate, but it does not make it true. Nor does reports coming out that literally change historic temperatures to fit the narrative.
Those brown people brought their anarchy ways with them and don't want to change Many don't respect the rule of law and the rights of others and are outright racist. Rotherham, hundreds of cars burned in France, especially on New Years Eve, the rape capital of the world, Finland. Most on welfare and do not want to work. They brought their shithole with them.
Made a lot of assumptions there, buddy.
Anyway your moral absolutism doesn't wash. You don't have to give up everything that is potentially bad for the environment, to atleast start to consider your impact, and improve it. Your straw-man is transparent.
What is it about any criticism of capitalism that is immediately conflated with extreme socialism?
Extremes of both socialism and capitalism are 'bad'* and have failure modes that are remarkably similar. Just as extremes of either right or left wing political parties start to resemble each other. The countries with the highest standards of living for the most people by a number of metrics (education, lifespan, social mobility, lowest delta between poorest and wealthiest) tend to have limited and well-regulated capitalism along with limited and well-regulated social policies.
*Yeah, my version of 'bad' may differ from yours.
Tell it to the people who live in the midwest up to the northen parts of the country in a "deep freeze". Now tell me how Global warming is such a dire catasraphe? PLUEASEEEE!
Here is the solution to it. If we took ALL the global warming alarmists and killed them all - all the CO2 they had been releasing would take care of global warming once and for all.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
... maybe I know "what" to do, in generic terms.
We must create device or process [X] which works like that:
a) it must be powered by ambient temperature itself;
b) as the Earth goes thru an average temp increase, it will be tricky to find a place where to put the device or process;
c) I'd venture the poles or perhaps high latitudes would be best;
d) it must do something that opposes global warming -- e.g. release mirror-like particutles that settle at high-altitude and reflect sun rays (just an example, ok);
e) it must be heavily influenced by temperature variation, working like a volcano when it's hot outside and halting when it's cold.
Ok, that is it. Ah, better not to use anything that is not degradable or can mess with some habitat.
Not really helpful, eh? But maybe someone, somewhere, right now, has found something like that and does not know what to do with it.
Some of the greatest advances, and certainly some of the most rapid have happened during the world wars and the Cold War that followed.
You know, where some of the largest governments in the world poured resources into R&D in a way that is anything but capitalist.
Some of the other breakthroughs arose from universities - that were publicly funded. The drive towards short term profit has seen a number of companies that used to see the long term profit of maintaining R&D divisions closing those down, relying on buying startups or ceasing innovation altogether.
I'm not arguing that capitalism hasn't resulted in a great deal of progress, but calling it the 'very thing' is a gross over simplification.
We have a total budget of about 830 gigatons of carbon emissions by 2100 to avoid a 2.0C increase.
That's about 10 gigatons per year.
We currently are emitting 37 gigatons of carbon *per* year.
Good news: That's down from 50 gigatons *per* year in 2004.
Bad News: We are going in the hole over 25 gigatons *per* year.
We already are past the 1.0C increase carbon budget.
At current rates we blow thru the 1.5C increase budget before 2025.
Every year we emit more than 10 gigatons per year, means we need to be even further under 10 gigatons for the rest of this century.
And no one has a plan to actually remove the carbon yet. 90% of the models don't even consider that yet.
I'm old. I'll be dead. But anyone who's 20 today has a very good chance of living in really miserable times.
Good News: You might adapt.
Bad News: There's other bad stuff around metals like chromium, manganese, and so on that hits hard in 2050. You have to invent replacements for all of them by 2050 or your costs will skyrocket.
Further Bad news: We used more chromium in 2014 than we did from 1901 to 2000 combined.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Haven't cosmologists confirmed that the Sun to Earth distance reduces every year by an inch or millimeter? Can't that increase Earths warming faster?
*facepalm*
First of all get your xenophobic talking points correct. I'm a Finn. The 'rape capital' -card is thrown about regarding Sweden, and is not even correct..
Thirdly, since you managed to somehow miss it even I was not making a pro/anti-immigration argument, I was making an argument for slowing down or containing the warming of the climate as much as we can because failure to do so puts all societies in increased risk of breakdown and lowers the standard of living for everyone. I don't care what your stance on immigration is, it has nothing to do the fact that unless the climate related challenges are solved, the situation is going to get worse for everyone. If you want to reduce the amount of people on the move, you're going to want to make sure they don't run out of food, which is what will happen if the heating continues. The point is precisely that if we don't want even more people being both internally and internationally displaced, then we cannot ignore the role that climate plays in societal stability.
I took it up precisely because I find it so baffling that many of the people making the most noise about the current refugee situation (mostly using incorrect and/or copypasted memes like you just did) are often also ones that don't think climate presents any kind of risk, when climate is one of the main drivers of massive movements of people.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
If you believe the climate scientists, many places will have more successful agriculture. Think southern Sahara. More active atmosphere means rain makes it further north into the desert. Possibly making most of it green. So all those N Africans could now afford to grow their own food. Maybe make all that land more useful. Etc. Not that I know anything, that's just what those scientists say, and they were saying the climate change is real. So, would making a large population more prosperous (possibly ending some of that warfare going on endemically) a bad thing? Would helping out subsaharan peoples be a bad thing? Personally, with all the political mess going on ("52 days of inaction and The Children are DOOMED" so said one recent politician) I don't trust the proclamations on *EITHER* side.
So much wrong with all this, but I'll just hit the high points.
Increasing heat waves and droughts as well as sea level rise will halt agriculture near the equator
No it won't. This is why the rhetoric matters, and why "warmest year on record" is such utterly useless nonsense. One average temperature number for an entire planet bathed in gigatons of fluids is absurd to the point of insanity. Those fluids move energy. Lots of energy. The atmosphere and the oceans are both giant energy conveyors. "Global warming" does not mean everywhere on Earth gets uniformly warmer by some number. That's why you're not supposed to use the phrase anymore. Some places will in fact get colder. The equator won't get appreciably warmer. Instead the tropical zone will get broader. Heat pushes further north and south during the respective summers than it used to. Regardless though, agriculture at and near the equator is nearly irrelevant: 79% of the Earth's equator is ocean, where human agriculture is nonexistent.
Like, even supposing you're a sociopath that doesn't give one single flying fuck about some poor fellows in Africa starving, they're not just going to stay still and die away, leaving us here in the developed economies sipping our Coke zeroes going 'oh, that's a shame, pass me the joint and tell me what's hot on Spotify.'.
Except they're starving because of assholes like Robert Mugabe, not because of climate anything (or weather, for that matter). Productive farmland became a desolate waste because people stopped farming, not because crops wouldn't grow. African starvation is the result of African land management policies and "charitable" donations of millions of tons of food from the developed world over decades that drove local farmers out of business, not CO2.
A few million people, most of them not even in Europe or attempting to come here, are at a move right now and there are groups in Europe calling for a total closure of all the borders and full panic mode because some brown people have the audacity to not live in a state of complete anarchy
Considering those brown people caused their own state of anarchy, Europeans are perfectly justified in demanding they stay the hell home and fix their own problems. A mass migration of millions is totally unjustified by any climate rhetoric, but you've been forcefed so many half-truths and lies about climate that you've become too blind to see the real causes of mass migrations. In short, they heard you're giving away free stuff and will accept the bullshit excuse of "climate refugee" as a reason for why they should get your free stuff. Maybe you can absorb a "few millions" and keep your cultural identity, but I doubt it, so you might want to consider self-preservation before you try to cure all the other ills of the world.
You spin a whole dystopian vision of the future at this point, which I'm not going to bother to quote because it too is crap. All food is local, with the exception of a handful of over-populated islands. Americans, and yes, Europeans too, have been getting fat while Africans starve, since time immemorial. It's just become fashionable since the '80s to notice and wring your hands about it, then butt in and make the problems worse. In the nearly 40 years since, Africa has had more than enough food to feed itself, and not enough, and good years or bad, the worst problem is politics, not climate.
...it's only going to get increasingly worse as time goes by unless those of us with some brain power and capital do something.
That's racist.
Exacty!
They also ignore such small factors as much of the biosphere, soil chemistry, etc.
Oh, those are all negative feedback factors, thankfully they leave them out. Silly me - you must be right!
The summary can be translated as: "Oops, there's no global warming. Sorry about that. As you were."
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
AGW is recognized by a consensus of scientist in every major scientistic organization in every developed country in the world. And yes, scientist convincing other scientist about the validity of novel ideas is absolutely how science works and it's measured through citations of peer-reviewed articles in high-impact journals. The hysterics come from concrete thinkers who are convinced that we either live exactly as do today with fossil fuels as our energy source or we live like hippies on a commune. Utterly based on an false dichotomy. Have some faith in human ingenuity and the free market. Alternative energy sources can and will be found. We don't need to have huge uncessary upheavals of water and agriculture that will cause refugee crises and wars so that a select few can continue to throwup market barriers to their competition and receive unfair subsidies in the form of externalities, that is not paying the full cost of their products. If the sky is falling it's because fossil fuels are going the way of the buggy whip.
Granted, I don't disagree with your take on the human species.
However, if we are the only life in the universe, we need to propagate life to the rest of the cosmos, with all of our warts. Maybe someday we will evolve to something better. Or create something more worthy like an intelligent AI/hybrid species.
We are in a transition phase, a space race is heating up, while our liberties are taken and our vileness is on display for all humanity. But we aren't done yet. I hold out hope that we could move forward in a positive way, even if that's the "long play" centuries from now when new colonies on other planets get to decide their own fate, maybe moving away from greed and believing in something more beautiful. Who knows.
You do understand you just did a classic trolling post.
Yup, climate change!
This man assisted me in hacking my CHEATING HUSBAND Facebook account and he is a very good hacker for services like :whats-app, call logs, test messages etc. He delivers in 2hrs or less you can email him on ENRIQUEHACKDEMON11@GMAIL.COM or WhatsApp: +1(628)203-7005 ,he might ask for who referred you to him say Maddie
Well we all "may be trillionaires too!
The correlation between Solar Minimums and the collapse of the dominant empires, is one such example.
great website..thank you for sharing..
if you want to download mod android apk free then below link available...
apkagain
GBWhatsapp
Whatsapp plus
Mini Militia
Whatsapp messenger
Facebok video downloader
Freedom apk
Clash of clans hack
SHAREit app
Lucky patcher
Tubemate
truecaller app
I never claimed that. But it's clear at this point that continued warming will negatively affect the amount of arable land and food output in regions like sub-saharan Africa that are already suffering from shortages of quality land. Further up north some places will actually see an increase in arable land, but it's clear that for a chunk of the poorest people in the world the situation will get even worse increasing instability and conflicts.
I never said the climate is the only reason they're starving, nor the primary reason right now. But again, there's no doubt that continued warming will make the starvation worse in developing economies, areas that are already having difficulties feeding themselves.
Again, as I said to a previous poster who made the same mistake: I wasn't making an argument for (or against) immigration, but pointing out precisely that if we want to avoid triggering further massive movements of people, then the climate issue has to be taken seriously.
Even if one agrees with this 100 %, that still doesn't mean the climate will not be an issue that will become even worse than politics in the future, and while bad politics can be mitigated over time (and there are some African countries that are doing this and actually seeing progress), the climate cannot be reverted back.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I am not defending Mugabe (I will, however, point out that he was deposed, peacefully), or that he destroyed the farming productivity in Zimbabwe, BUT Zimbabwe is not big in the scale of Africa. Its goats that have destroyed good farmland in Africa, and to a lesser extent, continue to do so.
Much of Africa is not starving, partly as a result of proactive policies (eg widespread fish farming in West Africa means fish is cheaper and better than in Europe, massive reforestation program crossing Africa below the Sahara). Good news is not very profitable - people want doom and gloom - and by God, Trump is going to give them that!
There is a massive problem with politics in Africa - though whether its worse than America is somewhat debatable - and much of the problem was due to large amounts of outside influence destroying traditional political structures. (eg colonisation, oil and arms industries).
All food is local? Not here (UK) we import about 75% of our food, and for the same reason Trump was elected, are busy biting the had that feeds us (Brexit).
My globules are feeing pretty warm, despite the freezing weather.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Climate is not a static thing, it changes over time. We should not be wasting so much discussion and resources on something which is already known.
Look, it is perfectly natural to be mauled by a bear but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't take actions to avoid it.
Since we both agree that the climate changes regardless of cause, shouldn't we take action to minimize the damage?
It would kinda be inconvenient if the south half of US dries out to no longer be arable and the ocean rose above street level of all coastal cities.
I don't have anything against Minnesota, but if everyone from the south and the coastal areas had to move there it would kinda suck.
*facepalm*
First of all get your xenophobic talking points correct. I'm a Finn. The 'rape capital' -card is thrown about regarding Sweden, and is not even correct..
Oh man, epic burn! Imma bookmark this one for when I'm in need of a good laugh.
And I guess we'll be free of MellowBob's nattering for a while while he's being treated in the burn ward.
And this solution will automatically happen if any part of predicted "catastrophic consequences" will manifest for real. With corresponding reduction in anthropogenic everything for quite some time afterwards.
Hysterical ranting about wild "predictions" of unfeasible doom is plain stupid, folks.
Because the people who want to get rid of capitalism are almost always extreme socialists who would happily destroy our nice countries and turn them into shitholes. You need only look at Venezuela to see what can happen to a nice country. From skyscrapers and condominiums to digging food out of the trash. In particular, the climate change issue is frequently used as evidence that we need to destroy capitalism immediately and permanently, and go to a system whereby the government portions out society's resources in what left-wing extremists would regard as a fair and socially just manner.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The world is heating up, we will survive. ... ...
Maybe, maybe not
https://arctic-news.blogspot.ch/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html
We've got methane releases in mid-winter this year
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/12/global-warming-stirs-the-methane-monster/
By the way, how does an errant anonymous coward get tagged as "Insightful".
Of course climate changes - but it's changing so FUCKING fast that we're going to destroy our biosphere.
Oh, well, it was nice here for a while, while it lasted ... it was the worst of times, it was the best of times ...
If you are that frightened of a climate-based doomsday scenario, just go ahead and crawl into the tub and slit your wrists open now.
The absolutely LAST thing the earth needs is another emotional knee-jerk reaction, like say, how CA handles >70% reservoir capacity;
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/29/california-reservoirs-are-dumping-water-in-a-drought-but-science-could-change-that/
CA is dumping fresh water, during a drought, into the Pacific Ocean.
Let that sink in..............
I strongly believe/hope we are not the only life in the universe, in fact I believe the answer the Fermi Paradox is that the Earth has a big "Do Not Touch" sign on it because we have been deemed too dangerous to include in "Universal" citizenship.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When a scientist makes a claim that is backed up with evidence, another scientist must have a way to prove that it is wrong. For example, "God exists" is not a scientific statement because there is no way to prove that it is wrong.
All true. It should also be noted though that there are statements that can be shown to be true through logic. Per Aristotle, "God exists" is considered one of those (this is part four, but it was links to the previous in the 'series'):
* http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html
Luckily I will be dead before it gets really bad.
I have wondered if the amount of pavement being done every year would contribute to global warming? Every year there seems to be more and more paved roads, as with blacktop that a tracks the sun light and heat it increase the amount of heat that is absorb in to the earth. Even in the cold climates you tend to see less snow on the roads and driveways compared to the grass. Is there any merit to this?
Why bother with addressing global warming, the US could just invade Canada. http://nationalinterest.org/bl...
So.... all the greens are wanting us to change our entire way of life based on uncertain predictions? More and more it sounds like an agenda that has a different objective than what is commonly expressed.
Grandchildren? Both my daughters, university-educated and well-read, have told me they have no plans whatsoever to have children. I asked them why and both said "climate change". For the record, I never discussed the topic with them - they came to that conclusion on their own, along with a number of their peers apparently.
The world is heating up, we will survive.
And the Native Americans "survived" colonization by Europeans. For a species surviving is a really low standard and ignores potentially massive amounts of suffering and death -- six and a half BILLION people could die slow torturous deaths over the next month and you could still say "we survived".
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Not only that, but the scientific revolution of AGW has already happened. The theory of CO2-induced warming was considered completely discredited for about five decades between 1896 and the mid 1950s. We don't remember that the scientific world got turned on its head, because there wasn't a bunch of desperate capitalists trying to make it a political issue.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Because almost nobody wants to just get rid of capitalism. Capitalism has some very good features and some bad features which can be ameliorated with some sort of law or regulation. One example would be revenue-neutral carbon taxes, which would reduce CO2 emissions by using the free market.
Venezuela is not the automatic result of any attempt to apply any degree of socialism. I can pick bad examples of capitalism just as easily. Venezuela was ruined by inept dictatorial rule.
I see a lot of people saying that people concerned about climate change want to abolish capitalism, and I don't see significant numbers of people concerned about climate change who do want to abolish capitalism.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ms. Not Miss. We've evolved. Get with the program. Hash your tags "trendy"
Absolutely not. That's the narrative you conservatives want us to believe so you can continue to raid the fucking cookie jar. I like when you guys specifically trot out Venezuela but you ALWAYS fail to mention that Chavez and Maduro both personally raided the oil funds. No type of government can function when the revenue source is cut off from the general public and redirected into someone's personal account. The same thing is happening in our supposedly awesome capitalist enclave here with Obamacare, SSI, and Medicare. Is that socialism's fault that those funds are raided for corporate and rich fucker's tax breaks? All governments are prone to greedy fuckers.
Seriously? You are actually using the "it's not socialism" argument? Lol. Venezuela is absolutely a socialist system. It's not a dictatorship either, they freely elected their leader, in elections supervised by the UN and no less than Jimmy Carter himself.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The raw data is available. You're just too lazy to seek it out.
Venezuela is not the only country ever to practice socialism. It's just one of the worst failures, and so people who are irrationally against anything like socialism trot it out as an inevitable result of anything that isn't pure capitalism.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Bill Ayers addresses Venezuela, praises socialist system. This is the man who taught Obama everything he knows about politics. I think he knows a thing or two about socialism.
Where are all the socialist success stories? It's failed everywhere it's been tried. And before someone jumps in to mention Scandinavia....Scandinavia is not socialism, as much as Bernie Sanders sold many young, naive millennials with that talking point. This was something that was rebuked by Denmark's PM himself. In the Scandinavian countries the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning. Scandinavian countries are highly capitalist. This is why they're successful, they avoided socialism. Like smart people do.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
https://pics.me.me/communism-h...
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......