Slashdot Mirror
Planet At Risk of Heading Towards Irreversible 'Hothouse Earth' State (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: What we do in the next 10-20 years will determine whether our planet remains hospitable to human life or slides down an irreversible path to what scientists in a major new study call "Hothouse Earth" conditions. Hothouse Earth is an apocalyptic nightmare where the global average temperatures is 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher (with regions like the Arctic averaging 10 degrees C higher) than today, according to the study, "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene," published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Sea levels would eventually be 10-60 meters higher as much of the world's ice melts. In these conditions, large parts of the Earth would be uninhabitable. Cutting carbon emissions to limit climate change to 2 degrees C, as proposed in the Paris climate agreement, won't be enough to avoid a "Hothouse Earth," said co-author Johan Rockstrom, executive director of Stockholm Resilience Centre. The reality is that global temperatures aren't driven by human emissions of carbon alone, says Rockstrom -- natural systems such as forests and oceans also play a major role. If global warming reaches 2 degrees C it could trigger a feedback, or "tipping element," in one or more of our natural systems and drive further warming, Rockstrom told Motherboard. To put that into perspective, the recent heat waves and wildfires are being linked to climate change that has raised the global average temperature 1 degree C. The researchers conclude the study on a more uplifting note, saying: "We have the knowledge and ability to act. This is within our control." There are three main areas of action that need to be taken within the next two decades. "The top priority in the coming decade is to aggressively cut carbon emissions and decarbonize our energy systems as quickly as possible," reports Motherboard. "The second priority is to halt deforestation and conversion of nature areas into agricultural production. Forests and other natural areas currently absorb 25 percent of our carbon emissions and this needs to grow." The third action is "to continue to develop technologies to pull carbon from the atmosphere and safely store it for thousands of years." While this last action can be costly, we're starting to see some companies give it a try. A startup called Climeworks recently inaugurated the first system that captures CO2 from the air and converts the emissions into stone, thus ensuring they don't escape back into the atmosphere for the next millions of years.
US emissions are down whilst EU - and China, and India - emissions are up.
I'll believe the politicians believe global warming is a serious threat (rather than an opportunity for power-grabbing and graft) when they stop pro-natalist policies.
Especially the open-border migration of large numbers of people from cultures with high birthrates and low incomes into countries with high standards of living.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If we actually are responsible for getting ourselves here, then we can definitely get ourselves out of it.
So tell us, which one of your doomsday scenarios have come truth yet? Ice Caps should have been melted like two times over, a couple of cities are supposed to be under water by now, and little baby seals should be clubbing themselves due to going nuts from all the extra heat they have to experience.
I can accept that there might be a climate problem and that we might have some hand in it, but this constant doomsday mealy mouthing is damaging the cause and driving wedges. And since they can't get their predictions right, there is no reason to trust their conclusions about the evidence either! If you were actually about saving the planet you would stop with the garbage.
This all smells like the same pseudo-science against fat and cholesterol from teh 1950's where a politician made a final decision to say its all bad, caused food mfg's to make fat free garbage and to begin substituting it all with sugars, corn syrups, and alternative food science calling milk bad and eggs death sentences in a bite!
Just more propaganda.
I don't believe a word of it. They have not proven themselves trustworthy nor capable of making such predictions with any level of confidence. I won't vote for anyone or any thing that is based on or gives credence to such unproven, unmitigated horseshit. I will combat this lunacy in every way I can.
It's horseshit because none of this crap is based on real science. It's political/ideological theater and propaganda with a "science-y" theme and window-dressing. It's no more hard science than the old TV toothpaste ads that had an actor wearing a lab coat and stethoscope saying "nine out of ten dentists agree".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Remember, Bernie Sanders told Vice in an interview that massive immigration is a Koch brothers plan.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-...
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Climate/ecology doesn't care who's the biggest "per capita" producer of pollutants. It's the total amount produced world-wide, with localised effects where humans have decided to let large cities grow in smog-prone locations.
At least until recently, Australia is/was a bigger "per capita" producer of CO2 and other greenhouse gases than the USA, but its total contribution to greenhouse gases is miniscule compared to India (or China).
"Per capita" figures are really only useful within 2 or 3 orders of magnitude, at least in this discussion. It's not useful to compare per capita of Australia vs. India when the total amounts produced is what's causing the problems associated with climate change.
$BIGNUM invested in the reduction of emissions in India will have a much greater effect overall than the same amount invested in Australia, or the USA. I'd argue that {$BIGNUM sufficient to reduce Australia's emissions to zero} would be helpful, but that amount would do a better job for the planet if it were spent in India.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
"facts win"
AGW->probably all Bullshit
http://forumslide.theborgmatri...
Then you misunderstand. The sentiment being that a start would be to “get rid of the left”, in the sense of holding them up as the keepers of all that is holy and true in matters of climate change. Not even the GP AC took that statement literally, but did infer that the left is somehow synonymous with the solution to climate change. That is what I addressed. So lighten up.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I'm saying that a German car manufacturer can simply move the carbon intensive production steps to some third world country and lower their apparent carbon footprint in Germany, even though there is no actual reduction in carbon emissions associated with building that car.
The only country in the world that did that, is: the USA.
Why the funk would a german car maker move production into (non existing) third world countries?
To lose more jobs, more buyers, in Germany/Europe? German cars are produced all over Europe, e.g. because many companies from other countries are part of VW.
And if you impose additional carbon taxes, it really changes very little, since pretty much all prices for all products will go up.
That exactly is the intention. You can chose if you buy a car that costs $10,000 more because of its high cost in CO2, or buy the other car, moron.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.