Slashdot Mirror
World Is Finally Waking Up To Climate Change, Says 'Hothouse Earth' Author (theguardian.com)
The scorching temperatures and forest fires of this summer's heatwave have finally stirred the world to face the onrushing threat of global warming, claims the climate scientist behind the recent "hothouse Earth" report. Following an unprecedented 270,000 downloads of his study, Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, said he had not seen such a surge of interest since 2007, the year the Nobel prize was awarded to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Guardian: "I think that in future people will look back on 2018 as the year when climate reality hit," said the veteran scientist. "This is the moment when people start to realize that global warming is not a problem for future generations, but for us now." The heatwave has dominated headlines across the northern hemisphere this summer. New temperature records have been set in Africa and cities in Australia, Taiwan, Georgia and the west coast of US. Heat stroke or forest fires have killed at least 119 in Japan, 29 in South Korea, 91 in Greece and nine in California. There have even been freak blazes in Lapland and elsewhere in the Arctic circle, while holidaymakers and locals alike have sweltered in unusually hot weather in southern Europe. Coming amid this climate chaos, the "hothouse Earth" paper by Rockstrom and his co-authors struck a chord with the public by spelling out the huge and growing risk that emissions are pushing the planet's climate off the path it has been on for 2.5m years.
The fact that climate changes shouldn't be a shock to anyone. History has shown constant changes over time, often moving in cycles. We are currently in an interglacial. I know there are a lot of research funds and grant dollars riding on getting people to panic over this stuff, but please just stop. Find something else to pay your bills.
I'm a climate change believer but intensity of forest fires are the result of decades of misguided policy of preventing all forest fires.
Climate != weather.
It's raining outside my house. Quick! everybody send 2 animals so I can load them on my boat for the impending global flood!
Many businesses don't care about the environment, unless there is a direct cost. They are either to busy trying to survive or serve the demands of the shareholders. Add to that, when a business is not looking beyond a 5 year schedule, then the impact of climate is also not a direct impact.
Now, tell them their customers are going elsewhere because the environmental image of a company is important, then they will wake up. Of course this only works when said corporation is not in a monopoly position.
In the US a number of companies have been pushing back amount trying to play nice in terms of the environment, which in the end will give the benefit to foreign corporations that have already adapted to the reality that being energy efficient for the customer is important. Short term US companies don't have to play nice, because the government has been helping keeping energy artificially cheap, so the end-user has no interest to buy appliances that consumer less resources. In most of the world people are paying the real cost for resources, so they have had to adapt.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
printed out the papers, so they can look through it one and then throw it away?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.
However there are plenty of government officials who want to throw money at it for that way, since of doing the actual work and allowing controlled fires, that it is suddenly a climate change issue and money is available if you say the fire are primarily caused by that.
OK, you can't have it both ways. A cold winter does not disprove the climate change hypothesis, nor does a hot summer prove it. If you go out saying the hot summer is "woke"ing people, be prepared for the next cold April bringing out AGW deniers. It does nothing to help your case to point to specific weather events, because there will be plenty of those, both hot and cold. It's August, it gets hot in August....every year. California is covered with wildfires, like it is every year. The fires are worse, mainly for reasons completely unrelated to weather (mostly because fires have been suppressed for so long that the undergrowth is out of control). At least two of the most severe fires were started by arsonists, which has nothing to do with climate change.
"Waking up" is not science.
"Headlines" are not science.
"An unprecedented 270,000 downloads" is not science.
"A surge of interest" is not science.
Slashdot gotta get those clicks!
Any solution will be technological; it will not be ham fisted attempts to force stone age living on the hoi polloi.
(Notice that the elites like Al Gore never do the stone age living thing anyway. That's for you plebes.)
Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change, which we know to be occurring.
Denialists have now shifted from "there is no climate change" to "it's not our fault and anyway it's not causing any problems", and are now moving into "well even if it is our fault there's nothing we can do about it". You are behind even for a denialist.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's all a hoax
Now that it's too late, we're starting to witness the results first hand, and there's no way to mitigate it without 100x the effort than it would have taken before (assuming it even CAN be mitigated...), what better time to accept that it's actually happening?
9.9
Money drives everything. In particular, I believe the crash in oil prices came at about the worst time possible. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the crash gave rise to a huge buying spree in large gas-guzzling vechicles, particularly diesel trucks. We now have white collar office workers driving to work in 6-wheel diesel trucks. People going grocery shopping in diesel trucks. People driving their kids to daycare in diesel trucks. None of them actually tow anything, so it's all merely for show, but at the expense of the environment and other people's health. The people driving the things don't give a damn of course, and the only thing that will stop it is if -- god willing -- the price of oil skyrockets.
To hell with the economy. To hell with cheap transportation. We need the price of oil to skyrocket NOW and usher us into the next technological age before it's too late.
Fuck you, troll. There'a a lot more money riding on continuing to consume oil and gas.
I don't respond to AC's.
Nobody with a brain in their head denies that the climate changes. Climate has always changed since the planet formed. The idiots are the ones who don't recognize that or think that there's anything we humans can do to prevent it. They'd have us all go back to living in caves, killing millions more than their worst-case climate change predictions will.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
270,000 downloads out of how many people with access to the Internet?
The world will have woken up when the politicians actually do something about it until then this is just marketing hype to try and get more people to read his paper. This will be forgotten about once the next human tragedy happens, and hey look school is about to start. The only reason that he got so many views is that his paper came out in the summer when the "news" can sensationalize it and even then they only managed to get 270,000 downloads (not necessarily the number of people who have read and actually comprehend the paper)
according to:
https://www.statista.com/stati...
in 2017 there were 3.58 billion, and if we make the assumption that each of the downloads was a unique person who read the entire report and understood it (so a best case scenario) we can see that only 0.007541899 % of the people on the Internet have read the paper, i would hardly consider that to be "waking up"
Even though I work with scientists, and one of my co-workers is an actual climate scientist(we discuss weather and climate a lot) I don't need scientists or science or empirical evidence. I've seen first hand how quickly the climate has changed.
A small town in the mountain west I grew up in was known for having very cold winters. Starting about 10-15 years ago, when I would visit in the winter I noticed it wasn't as cold. Anytime I mentioned this to my friends and relatives that lived there, they would say, "yea, isn't it great!". A few times I was there in January it rained, and not a little. Raining in January in a town that historically had brutally cold winters(avg high temp would be below 32 F, avg low temps between 0 and 10 F). This town used to have avg summer temps of around 85 F, now the last few years the avg summer temps in the 90s.
I've seen all kinds of new plants showing up, new weeds, just in the past few years. I've been landscaping and gardening for a long time and I take note of the weeds I have to deal with. I've noticed how bird migrations are changing, and different birds are showing up in my town.
If you live in the western US you've noticed that in the last 10-15 years the climate has markedly heated up and dried up. What used to be arid or semi-arid is now turning into full on desert.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
There are multiple reasons for the fires, and climate change is undeniably one of them.
These forested areas are now developed with larger numbers of residences, there has been concerted effort to keep fires, which normally would have happened anyway, from happening.
The persistent drought conditions in the west and the heating up of the atmosphere have led to many forested areas being dried out, and the health of the forests lessened. The bark beetle infestation has taken its toll, due to warmer winters.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Everyone knows that. Question is, who really cares among the powerful? Does a 72 year old business man, mired in scandals and in lobbies commitments, eager to succeed politically at all costs, having a single (short-term) objective in mind to that end: 'improve his economy'... don't expect this man to care about something likely happening in the future to the planet, even if the proof was as clear as 1+1 = 2.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
How can it be taken seriously when they are constantly changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis?
"They" are not "changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis". That is a made-up alternate-fact being promulgated by the deniers.
You are referring, I assume to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies historical temperature record. The analysis of the data is exhaustively documented , including a FAQ giving an overview for popular audiences that are too bored to read the actual documentation. And the original data set, and all of previous historical analyses, are available on the web, showing that the changes in analysis technique don't alter the conclusion that the climate is warming. Here, for example, are the graphs showing the results of every different correction to the analysis, dating back to 1981.
In any case, you do know that several other groups, such at BEST, also analyze historical climate data, and come out with rates of warming that are essentially the same. So your conspiracy theory that scientists are altering their data in order to hoax the public is going to be a conspiracy of hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists in independent groups on three different continents.
Ah, so we have arrived at step 3 already? Wow, didn't take long.
I'd guess step 4 is due in about 2-3 years, then?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's just a minority of jackass Americans and a few Brits who are asleep at the switch for conveniently (short term) self-serving reasons.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
> "World Is Finally Waking Up To Climate Change, Says 'Hothouse Earth' Author"
Ummm...the author saying so doesn't make it so.
Wake me up when Trump agrees and reverses course.
The question is, which one is the alternative fact? Is it their's or your's?
I'd go with the scientists, the ones with massive amounts of data and observations and well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed and compared to observations for over fifty years, as the ones likely to be correct, rather than the ones that say "I don't trust science, I'm sure they're wrong, and we don't need any actual data or analysis or alternate hypotheses."
Science has a pretty good record that way.
It is, however, not the only factor.
The rate of change is important, and it can be seen that since industrial age the rate is increasing. Of course, population is a factor as well, because more people consume more ruminant products (meat, cowmilk, ...), and the animals produce methane which is a factor for global warming. We better use the handbrake now, after living in ignorance for so long. It is not really important if humans are guilty for global warming, we have to to ehatever we can to stop it. This is possible without living in caves. For example, one can use a bike instead of a car, or stop eating meat. We need incentives for that, for example a carbon tax. Most people only look at money, so they need to feel an expense for inappropriate behavior. We only have this earth, it is too much to ask for care of our living space?
The GISS temperature history, with the graphs showing the results of every to their analysis dating back to 1981, is here.
Depends on how quickly the socialism/communism virus spreads this time, but yes.
the party in complete power of all branches of Government has called global warming a hoax. Is he from a different timeline than I am? I can go there?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Enjoy your planet burning up stupid libtard!
AHAHAHAH HAHAHAH HAHAHA HAHAHAHA!
wait... damn... oops...
Climate has always changed since the planet formed.
Indeed it has. So why haven't you jumped into an active volcano yet? Since your logic hinges entirely on "climate has always changed, therefore we have nothing to fear", you should have nothing to fear from leaping into an environment that represents a historic state of the Earth.
or think that there's anything we humans can do to prevent it
We can put a man on the moon.
We can put robots on other planets.
We can send computers outside of our solar system.
We can look inside the atom. Hell, we can look inside the things that are inside the atom.
But impact the climate? Nah bro, that's way too difficult for us to do.
When most people have personally lost something due to climate change is when it will hit. Those that say this is the new normal don't yet get it. This is just a transition period.
In terms of personal change, you can do a lot. You can eat less meat; meat consumption is a major driver of CO2 production and methane in the atmosphere https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm. You can also drive less, walk places or use public transit. If you need to buy a new car, try to buy a hybrid or an electric car. If you own a house, make sure it is well insulated; don't put the air conditioner on to any colder than you need to in the hot months, and don't heat it more than you need to during the winter. Consider buying solar panels for your house. All of these are things which not only help the environment, they save you money.
Politically, the primary thing you can do is either donate to or vote for candidates who support dealing with climate change. Much of Europe is doing the right things already regarding this (with the exception of Germany's really bad decision to turn off their nuclear plants). But both the US and Australia currently have governments who are substantially not helping matters. In the US, this means generally one should be voting for Democrats. While there are some Republicans who take climate change seriously like Christie Todd Whitman and Arnold Schwarzenegger they are a functional minority which has been pushed out of the party to a large extent.
The third thing you can do is directly donate to charitable causes which help with renewable energy or otherwise help with climate issues. Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ buys solar panels for non-profits like homeless shelters and science museums. The Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ gets solar panels for parts of the developing world; this not only helps the very poorest in the world, it also helps make sure that when Africa's economy comes more online they do so in a way that doesn't immediately involve massive CO2 production. For wind power, I recommend the New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund which builds wind in the North East of the US (which currently has very little wind power and can definitely use more). Finally, in terms of immediate effects of CO2 offset per a dollar spent, Cool Earth is by many measures the most efficient way to do so https://www.coolearth.org/. Remember, every little bit helps.
dipshits.
They're WAY ahead of you on this one.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1001356/alien-spaceship-bermuda-triangle-discovery-channel
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
You've been duped too. You like most everyone has been fooled into thinking all this resistance is really about whether it is a problem and not how do we fix it. Meanwhile your politicians have been working their asses off to make sure that the costs of this fall inequitably on conservatives and conservative politicians have been working building the counter-narrative. By the time you have won this fight and the real fight, either capitalistic invention will save us or it will be too late to screw over the conservatives anyway.
- to climate change is to reduce the human population on earth.
If you really care about the environment, you should not have babies. You could even undergo voluntary sterilization to show your committment to ending climate change.
I want to believe this headline and I'll go ahead and accept it for sake of argument -- but is it too little too late? Or are we going to become a living (dying?) example of why we haven't been able to detect signs of alien civilizations out there among the stars?
Let me think about why I might not give a shit about the climate changing 100m years ago and the climate changing today. Oh yes! I'm alive today, and dependent on a complex and fragile civilisation, along with the rest of humanity.
Christ but you people are stupid
... and sadly, the 'other partys' plan to "fix climate change" was to sell "carbon credits" to big polluters, so they could pollute even more, but pay for the privilege.
I, too, would like to visit this alternate Earth.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
(irrelevant babble removed) ... even if the proof was as clear as 1+1 = 2.
1+1 = 11
My economy goes to 11, bitch.
Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change...
Surprisingly, Aliens or climate change aren't the only possible explanations. I know, hard to believe but hear me out.
It's beginning to be widely accepted that fighting forest fires has contributed to making the big ones worse. When we stop small forest fires, that means dead fall and dried planet matter continue to accumulate. It turns out, larger trees used to survive small forest fires, and the smaller fires cleared out the dead fall and dried material. With us stopping those fires though, enough tinder is accumulating that when a fire does hit, it's bigger, stronger and worse than ever before.
I know, citation please, so here's a fire forest researcher from UBC from a region of Canada where we fight multiple forest fires every year saying the same thing.
Before you get too sad though, there is a silver lining. The faculty member mentions that changing forest fire management might be opposed by standard logging industry practices, so we can still hate on corporate/industrial causes for the problem, hurray!
Nuclear power.
When I see new nuclear power plants getting built then I will believe that politicians and the public are taking global warming seriously. I have read some encouraging news recently that US federal regulators are making real investments in the future of nuclear power. There's already been a shift in how nuclear power is viewed, and people are starting to embrace it again. One real reason people are embracing it is very self serving, a lot of nuclear power plants are reaching end of life and will be shut down soon and without a new reactor in its place a lot of jobs will be lost as well as a large source of electrical generation capacity in that region.
I don't much care why people are embracing nuclear power, only that people embrace it. Nuclear power is safe, low carbon, domestically sourced, and inexpensive.
Say what you will about past accidents with nuclear power, like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, all of them are irrelevant to embracing third and fourth generation nuclear power. All of those past accidents were with second generation nuclear, and as safe as second generation nuclear power has been on the aggregate we will see even safer power with third generation nuclear that is being built now. Fourth generation nuclear, such as molten salt reactors, will be safer still.
I've seen the numbers and models on a national grid based on wind, water, and sun. This is not a future with inexpensive, reliable, and safe electricity. It's quite likely not low in CO2 either. There is no future with inexpensive, plentiful, safe, clean, and "green", electricity that does not include nuclear power.
Here's a couple websites that do the numbers:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
http://withouthotair.com/
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The problem is that the effects you're seeing are about 90 percent caused by emissions up to 2000.
It's going to take a lot of work to get it back to reasonable, and many of the old people who caused and are causing it won't live to see a world where they suffer from it's consequences.
We've known about this for centuries, and still waste money on fake solutions like overpriced nuclear power (which doesn't work well when the water heats up a lot), when the solutions even Edison knew about, wind and solar, are far far cheaper than any of the fossil fuels that are creating the problem.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
People will accept nuclear power when everyone advocating it move to within a few kilometers of a nuclear reactor and settle there, along with their entire family.
And yes, that includes you.
You voted for Trump. Conned by a lifelong conman. A well-known conman, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Let's just say your reasoning skills aren't the sharpest and leave it at that.
Not believing in it is just something they say because it's not PC to say that they think it will work out for them. Massive population die off, less use of resources, to the rich, it's a win-win.
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
to the contrary, the models have fit the data to well within confidence limits, and continue to do so.
Here's an article from Forbes about the very first Global Climate Model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, looking back at how well their predictions from fifty years ago compared to data: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/
And here are graphs, showing that the prediction from fifty years ago (red line) fits the data (blue line) almost exactly. https://climategraphs.wordpres...
Later models have refined Manabe and Wetherald 1967, incorporating other effects than simply carbon dioxide and water vapor, but haven't changed the answer. Here is the Berkeley Earth page comparing climate models used in the IPCC report against data: http://berkeleyearth.org/graph...
The problem with the deniers, on the other hand, is that they don't have a prediction. They don't have an alternative model, they don't have anything.
I'm not sure why you bothered to respond. However, for predictions, I posted this to a different subthread:
Here's an article from Forbes about the very first Global Climate Model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, looking back at how well their predictions from fifty years ago compared to data: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
When you consider that the number of people directly killed in Nuclear power station accidents is less than 500, it does seem strange that people are so scared of it. Indirectly, perhaps 10,000 people were killed. To replace 10,000 people takes 10,000/(250 babies born per minute) = 40 minutes. Therefore, it takes less than 1 hour to compensate for these deaths. In other words, Nuclear power is safe. I expect more people are killed world-wide per year on transport than in the whole history of Nuclear power.
I would like to see Nuclear power, renewables and energy storage be the final solution. Lets hope Nuclear fusion power becomes a thing sooner rather than later.
Note that Nuclear power stations require cooling water and this is one reason they are located near the coasts and rivers. However, the recent heatwave caused several European Nuclear power plants and coal fired power plants to be temporarily shutdown or run at reduced power because the outside water was too hot to be effective at cooling for the steam turbines. This means electricity generated using steam turbines is not immune from the effects of climate change.
... says "Boiling Pot" Author.
Still have idiots/trolls running around claiming that China and 3 Rd world nations should be able to add a bunch more coal. Likewise, Germany , Japan, etc adding coal. Most of Europe is shutting down their nukes, without anything solid to back it up. America , is moving off coal, but rather than doing nukes, Geothermal, and hydro, we are moving to wind, solar, and Nat gas. Like China with coal plants, we in America will run our Nat gas plant for the next 50 years. Gov lie constantly to force other nations to clean up, which is why we need OCO-3 to show absolute numbers.
So no, we are not improving. We have a long ways to go.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I keep saying this, but somewhere between 60-80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That doesn't leave any room to worry about climate change. You're worried about paying rent that month, buying food and keeping your car running so you can make it to work one more day.
If you want people to think and care long term you have to make sure their short term needs are taken care of. Otherwise they're vulnerable to being manipulated into doing terrible things that are perfectly rational when taken in the context of their completely messed up and irrational lives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Note that Nuclear power stations require cooling water and this is one reason they are located near the coasts and rivers. However, the recent heatwave caused several European Nuclear power plants and coal fired power plants to be temporarily shutdown or run at reduced power because the outside water was too hot to be effective at cooling for the steam turbines. This means electricity generated using steam turbines is not immune from the effects of climate change.
Any steam based power plant will need access to water for cooling, this includes current second generation nuclear and most or all third generation nuclear. Many fourth generation nuclear reactor designs have the option for air cooling, the turbines don't run on steam but on hot air. By running at much higher temperatures, temperatures that water cooled plants can not safely attain, brings the option for cooling by forced air while producing power and unpowered convection cooling in a shutdown. Without water there's no reduction of power output because the water reservoir gets too hot. Without water there is no possibility of a flash boil explosion like at Chernobyl, or a hydrogen gas explosion like at Fukushima.
Just because fourth generation nuclear promises so much does not mean we should not invest in third generation nuclear. In fact it is quite possible we will need the third generation nuclear reactors to breed the fuel for "jump starting" the fourth generation reactors. Solid fuel heavy water moderated reactors are very safe, and offer fuel breeding capability that in some cases outperform fourth generation molten salt reactors. These "gen 3+" or "gen 3.5" reactors is where we should be heading in the short term, while we prototype fourth generation reactors that free us from the need for water cooling.
I would like to see Nuclear power, renewables and energy storage be the final solution.
I have to wonder about the value of wind and solar power in an age with inexpensive energy storage. I keep hearing on how once we figure out how to build grid scale electrical batteries that wind and solar power will be able to replace base load power like coal and nuclear. I find the opposite to be true, once we have grid scale batteries then base load power will be able to displace wind and sun through lowered costs. I believe that wind will have a place on the future electrical grid as it is quite inexpensive. Solar on the other hand will likely be in the realm of off grid power, like satellites and pocket calculators.
Lets hope Nuclear fusion power becomes a thing sooner rather than later.
Fusion has been proven to be so elusive that I find little reason to consider this viable within the lifespan of anyone alive today. There is simply too much we must learn and in the mean time we have ample supply of cheap and clean fission power. I can see value in doing research in fusion for the sake of discovering how the universe works, just not much value as any kind of energy source. I have seen consideration of fusion as a source of neutrons to breed fuel for fission, and/or disposing of some of the more problematic fission products, so that alone might make it very valuable in energy. Getting fusion to be energy positive is likely to require a reactor so large that we simply cannot afford to build one, even with the financial backing from the government of a large nation.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change...
Surprisingly, Aliens or climate change aren't the only possible explanations. I know, hard to believe but hear me out.
It's beginning to be widely accepted that fighting forest fires has contributed to making the big ones worse. When we stop small forest fires, that means dead fall and dried planet matter continue to accumulate. It turns out, larger trees used to survive small forest fires, and the smaller fires cleared out the dead fall and dried material. With us stopping those fires though, enough tinder is accumulating that when a fire does hit, it's bigger, stronger and worse than ever before.
I know, citation please, so here's a fire forest researcher from UBC from a region of Canada where we fight multiple forest fires every year saying the same thing.
Before you get too sad though, there is a silver lining. The faculty member mentions that changing forest fire management might be opposed by standard logging industry practices, so we can still hate on corporate/industrial causes for the problem, hurray!
The question isn't whether there are other contributing factors to the California wildfires, I'm pretty sure I've been hearing about the deadfall thing for the past 20 years.
It's also not a question whether the recent hot and dry climate in California is a significant contributing factor, because the answer is obviously.
The question is whether climate change is a significant contributing factor to the recent hot and dry climate in California, and that's a somewhat trickier question.
First you need to decide whether climate change really does make events like that more likely, and if you've made that determination you need to decide how comfortable you are trying to justify it in a peer-reviewed paper. Not all climatologists are agreed that the science is quite at that point.
I stole this Sig
Some of the world is. Other places like Australia you have pathetic cowards in leadership positions who would rather drop emissions targets to please the coal mongers on his party in order to keep himself in power.
"AMID rumours of a potential leadership challenge, it appears Malcolm Turnbull will drop the Paris target from his energy policy."
Bullshit, the people how have a fucking clue about it are just getting more vocal and aggressive because the assholes who have been denying it are still denying it and getting shits like the Cheeto elected.
Lets see now "But her emails!" vs "The whole fucking planet!"--talk about false equivalency.
Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change
Please try to keep up. It's DEWs.
The fires in CA are being set intentionally. They burn incredibly selectively, and much hotter than any natural fire or any of the fuel in its way.
That means literally nothing in terms of validity of the content.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Duped and now look at us. Economy is gr8
How much coal would you like to burn mining the uranium and refining it? Solar/wind are *far* better options.
If Johan Rockstrom claims that CURRENT weather is affected by climate change then he is an absolute fraud. It doesn't matter whether you think climate change is natural or seriously affected by man. Climate change is a process that takes HUNDREDS of years to make even the SLIGHTEST temperature difference in the AVERAGE temperature. NASA’s Goddard institute says the Earth’s average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. That certainly isn't creating any superstorms or heatwaves or any other such current inclement weather changes. Climate change , no matter the cause, takes a long time to make any changes at all.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Weirdly solar manages to have a higher direct death toll than nuclear juts because people are that bad at climbing ladders.
How much coal would you like to burn mining the uranium and refining it? Solar/wind are *far* better options.
Citation needed.
Here's mine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The IPCC has shown that nuclear has a smaller footprint than any form of solar power. Nuclear is marginally worse than onshore wind, as soon as you run out of land to plant windmills the carbon footprint for wind grows considerably for the concrete and steel needed to anchor those windmills to the floor of the bay. Hydroelectric beats them all, which is great until you've dammed up all the rivers and are still needing more power.
Seriously, this carbon footprint claim against nuclear power is really old and tired and easily proven false. Even the biggest advocates of solar and wind find it very hard to "prove" that nuclear has a larger CO2 footprint.
I know that much of the CO2 output for nuclear comes from the concrete used to build it. This is also true for wind and solar thermal. If we can reduce the CO2 footprint of wind and solar through low carbon sources of concrete, such as mining basalt instead of limestone for making it, then those same processes can be applied to the concrete for nuclear. Mining the steel, aluminum, copper, silicon, or whatever for the windmills and solar panels has a CO2 cost. Same for mining the uranium for nuclear power. If there is a means to reduce the CO2 footprint for mining then this can be applied equally to nuclear, wind, and solar.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Freeman Dyson says, "the polar bears will be fine."
Prove him wrong.
1. If you're really worried tell your patrons to stop flying chartered jets
2. Plant trees.
3. Paint all artificial sky-facing surfaces white.
Good day.
If you believe in human caused climate change.
Thank you.
for someone to tell me what the correct temperature is supposed to be, what the correct amount of CO2 is supposed to be and then explain why those numbers were chosen.
Who gets to decide what the exact temperature is supposed to be and then how do we stop the climate from changing after that?
See I'm not a climate change denier as you like to label me as a way to shut me up. I know for certain the climate changes, always has, always will. I personally believe that generating CO2, the weakest of all possible GHG, has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, that is driven by the cycles of the Sun. Earth has been hotter, colder, wetter, drier with more CO2, less CO2, less Oxygen, on and on and on even before humans started their first campfire. And life existed and flourished.
Could the world change in such a way as to make the Earth unsuitable for humans? Possibly but I doubt it. We have peoples that live in zones from the Arctic to the Australian Outback, humans are a very adaptable species.
Do I think it would be a catastrophe if the ice sheets melted and water levels rose? Nope, coastlines would change, some islands might vanish but so what, Earth's geography is also always changing. The continents move over time, islands rise from volcanoes or sink in the waters. Just curious, but how many automobiles were in use back when Greenland was being farmed by the Vikings during the Medieval Warm Period?
All this global warming crap is is another way of attacking the wealthy industrialized nations. See we don't push to require the 3rd world countries to reduce their use of carbon producing items. Oh no, that wouldn't be right. No, only the industrialized nations have to change how they live and they need to give their wealth to the poor nations because they have too much. Wouldn't matter anyway, CO2 is not causing any warming, unless someone can explain how one molecule out of 2500 with a black body infrared radiation absorption rate of less than 11% is capable of all that reflection supposedly causing the warm up.
Notice how the nations that are supposed to allow unfettered immigration or all supposed refugees into their borders are the same nations that are supposed to carry the full burden for changing their life styles. Coincidence? Hell no, this is just another socialist attack vector trying to destroy capitalism. Go research sometime what where the communists in the west disappeared to after the USSR fell and you'll find the moved into the environmental movements. One approach fails, go for another.
The deniers are directly responsible for a loss of momentum, in a time when we needed to act rapidly.
They are also responsible for making certain countries lame with regard to doing their share of the task of avoiding the problem.
And yet, we are to blame for our ineffective discussion systems. Those who took advantage of free expression to do social engineering and crack representative system certainly are in need of some punishment; but the systems themselves are to be blamed, because unable to facilitate a healthy debate.
Don't misunderstand me, we sure do well in prizing freedom of expression, but there has to be some way of making sure an emergency is properly dealt with.
And global warming is such an emergency -- we don't have the luxury of doing endless discussions.
Are you saying that climate change is now changing the behavior of combustion?
You dont know a god damned thing about California or our fires.
The forests have been mismanaged since the first day our government idiots created the forestry mismanagement service. Fires are naturally occurring here. They are supposed to happen. A lot. They have -nothing- to do with climate change. They have been going on for thousands of years.
The only change to the intensity is stupid government humans refusing to clear all the dry brush, aka kindling, that accumulates because we put out all the small fires.
If we stop being so god damned stupid the fires would be just as often but -much- smaller.
I live here. I have studied this. You obviously have not studied it and if you live here and do not understand California forest history and ecology then please stfu and let people who know what they are talking about take care of it.
You really are something else aren't you.
You're straight back at it again, patting America on the back for being twice as dirty as China.
Focusing on coal and China again when there are far bigger problems, and far dirtier countries.
If you really cared about AGW you would be focusing on the highest emitting people not the least.
I am sleeping sooooo peacefully.
It's not climate change as much as the environmental assholes that will do anything to prevent logging. I've seen it in Flagstaff. Ponderossa Pines, they are normally about 50' from each other and they wouldn't let the forest service thin them out after the 1980s fires. So they grew up thin and spindly and inevitable catch fire again. Sierra club is a big problem. An organization that depends on donations, so they lie about this.
Let the people that know about this do their job and we won't have this. Listen to people like the Sierra Club and you'll have more of this.
You lying liberals and your Fake News MSM need to shut your 'Murica-hating mouths.
Coal is God's gift to man. Wooo hooo, burn it baby!
#MAGA
40 years ago it was an earth wrecking ice age coming our way - and proven by science. 18,000 years ago a mile thick chunk of ice that covered all of Canada and much of the northern U.S. - I LIKE warm, much better, thanks to all who have helped warm the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (and Mr. Spock wouldn't lie!)
As I said in a previous post, I only accept data presented in peer-reviewed papers.
Really. That link I posted had a reference section with eight peer-reviewed publications; did you read them? Did you even look at the link?
Even some NASA data has not been reviewed.
Really. Let's start with GISS: 2018: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2017: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2016: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2015: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
That's just four years.
I wonder also how many of these scientists are climatologists and of the climatologists what percentage are dependant on government grants.
So, you won't read papers about climate that are written by climatologists. You are working very hard to avoid reading any data at all, I see. So, you must like the data from the Berkeley Earth project, which is independent: http://berkeleyearth.org/
First I will state that I have not looked at the data. I caution others to make sure that they reference peer-reviewed studies before making claims.
Which is to warn people, then, to pay attention to the actual climate scientists, who are doing careful and well-documented work, and not the various bloggers who post all sorts of garbage with no review at all.
It is very difficult to hypothesis climate change since the earth continuously goes through climatic cycles.
And understanding what causes these climate changes is the actual genesis of climate science. This is what climate scientists do.
So 1 or 2 seasons of fires in California do not represent an irreversible trend. There are other factors affecting the fires in California that will be identified once a root cause forensic review has been completed.
True enough. One hot summer doesn't mean anything, nor, for that matter does one cold winter. And one or two seasons of hot dry weather in California doesn't indicate global warming either; climate is long term. So I'll agree with you on this one.
40 years ago it was an earth wrecking ice age coming our way - and proven by science.
Except the myth that 40 years ago science was warning the world about a coming ice age is just that; a myth: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
The first link was to a Goddard press conference. The next four links were to the list of all publications that Goddard published in each of the last 4 years. The last link was to the Berkley site pointing to no papers because the link was to their home page. So if you want me to spend days trawling through documents because you decided to send me on a snipe hunt (google it). No not me, I'm stopping here.
There can't be just a single focus. CO2 reductions should happen on multiple fronts and multiple levels. It's not possible to have any significant effect by some biggest actor alone.
Clearly everyone should do their part. But some people play a much bigger part in causing the problem than others. If an Ethiopian halves his CO2 is anyone going to notice? If an Indian a Chinaman and an American halved their CO2, which is best for the environment? Who has the most fat to cut, who can best afford it?
Some people, Windy especially, think there should be differing standards people should live by. If you are already rich you should be entitled to a better lifestyle than poorer countries, and there is no leeway for them to catch up and be like him.
Take cars for example. Americans have 910 cars per 1000 people. China 154 India 50 Togo 2. How many cars should be 'allowed'. Windy will tell those people they aren't allowed to have cars because it will make the CO2 go up. He will also praise the US if it's cars go from 910 to 900 because it's going in the right direction. But he never asks Americans to take 7 or 8 out of every 9 cars off the road, and he would never allow China to have 5x as many cars or India 10x as many, even if they still had less. He's entitled and those other people aren't.
Someone will say just get electric cars, which China is trying to do. But they still need to be produced, the electricity still needs to be provided etc.
And that's just a simple example with easy to find numbers. Take any other form of consumption to compare and it will be the same.
Air conditioning
Food
Housing
Consuming junk in general.
Western lifestyles and America in particular, produce more CO2. Why should some people be allowed to have a western lifestyle while telling others that they cant. It's completely hypocritical, and just reeks entitlement.
It's not possible to have any significant effect by some biggest actor alone.
But it is. If America was more like China and dropped from 16 t per person down to 7.5 like China. It would drop total world CO2 levels by about 7%. A bit more than 7 UKs, or 3 Germanys, or an India. That's a noticeable change. But they will never do it, they are entitled to their stuff. Better to try and force someone else to make the sacrifice on their behalf, all while pretending they are helping by cutting a tiny bit.
The first link was to a Goddard press conference.
The first link was this one. I said "That link I posted had a reference section with eight peer-reviewed publications; did you read them?".
Here, copied cut-and-past from that link, are those references listed in the link.
You said you only read peer-reviewed papers. I told you that the link I had posted had a reference list of peer reviewed papers. So: read them.
The next four links were to the list of all publications that Goddard published in each of the last 4 years.
Yes, that's right. You wanted peer-reviewed papers, there's a list of several hundred.
The last link was to the Berkley site pointing to no papers because the link was to their home page.
You asked about climate science funded y government grants, so I posted a link to the BEST group, which is independently funded.
What you seem to be doing is coming up with any possible excuse to dismiss the science. First you dismiss science because you "only accept peer reviewed papers", but when I send links to peer reviewed papers you come up with other excuses. It's pretty clear that your only actual objective is to avoid actually learning anything about the science.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't know whether you have noticed it, but the world's moving right, not left.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.