Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Report Actually Understates Threats (thebulletin.org)
"Dire as it is, the latest IPCC report is actually too optimistic," writes Slashdot reader Dan Drollette. "It ignores the risk of self-reinforcing climate feedbacks pushing the planet into chaos beyond human control. So says a team of climate experts, including the winner of the 1995 Nobel for his work on depletion of the ozone layer." From their article:
These cascading feedbacks include the loss of the Arctic's sea ice, which could disappear entirely in summer in the next 15 years. The ice serves as a shield, reflecting heat back into the atmosphere, but is increasingly being melted into water that absorbs heat instead. Losing the ice would tremendously increase the Arctic's warming, which is already at least twice the global average rate. This, in turn, would accelerate the collapse of permafrost, releasing its ancient stores of methane, a super climate pollutant 30 times more potent in causing warming than carbon dioxide.
By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today's temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees -- let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control. As the UN Secretary General reminded world leaders last month, "We face an existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are.⦠If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences."
In related news, a court in The Hague "has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world's climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming. Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 -- measured against 1990 levels -- higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte's liberal administration. The ruling -- which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom -- will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda."
Meanwhile, a new article in GQ cites estimates that more than 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies, complaining that "there is no 'free market' incentive to prevent disaster."
By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today's temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees -- let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control. As the UN Secretary General reminded world leaders last month, "We face an existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are.⦠If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences."
In related news, a court in The Hague "has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world's climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming. Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 -- measured against 1990 levels -- higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte's liberal administration. The ruling -- which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom -- will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda."
Meanwhile, a new article in GQ cites estimates that more than 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies, complaining that "there is no 'free market' incentive to prevent disaster."
Just ask insurance companies. If they decide to not to offer required insurances to their clients that cause the conditions leading to the economic ruins of the insurance companies, can we blame them?
Um, hard to know where to start, basically your entire post is disconnected from actual facts. The UN report was dire, but didn't include the effects of methane locked in permafrost.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qv9nm7/unpacking-the-devastating-un-report-on-climate-change
Wanna understate the threat... Keep saying 2 degrees (C) instead of 3.6 degrees (F).
The ranking in TFA mixes companies and countries. If you look at just the latter, you see:
1 China (Coal) 14.32%
6 Coal India 1.87%
8 Russia (Coal) 1.86%
15 Poland Coal 1.16%
So we're 4th, beaten only by [sub-]continent spanning major countries, despite ours population of mere 38.5M.
All greenhouse gas reduction activity was not only stopped but even reversed by our glorious National Communist government: they actually open new mines and coal power plants, and made some forms of better energy generation basically illegal (like, "quiet zones" required around any new or modernised wind generators mean you can't put them pretty much anywhere).
Getting a high place in a per-population contest isn't hard, doing "well" in absolute numbers when compared to much more populous countries is quite an accomplishment. So our "Good Change" regime did make Poland a "leading country" after all!
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The more IPCC's statements start to sound like demands to put scientists in control of the world to impose totalitarian control of how we live, eat, and what we pay, the less credibility they have.
the runaway warming does not continue indefinitely like it did last time.
The problem is that it's not happening fast enough. It would be awesome to watch Earth destroyed in accelerated, time-lapse film style or summon a planet-killing asteroid, but for now climate change will just have to do.
The world will be uninhabitable in five minutes!
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Idiot. Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections, but their influence on mean values would have been considerably less. That's the way calculations of mean deviation work.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate. They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem. I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. But they were trying to be cautious.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you cock smoking tea-baggers.
and his hyperbole doesn't exactly help. But you're strawmaning. The article isn't predicting no ice in the Arctic, it's saying the same thing every scientific report does: global temps are rising by a few degrees and that will have far reaching impacts on weather, droughts and our ability to grow food.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Except Gore never actually made that prediction. He did site several studies, one of which suggested summer ice might disappear by then. It was wrong obviously, but you can find many more studies that suggested there would be far less loss of ice than there has been. That's the way science works. Of course Gore isn't a scientist, he gives speeches. And he selects information to support his narrative.
It’s just as probable that ice-free Arctic waters would be a source of increased precipitation in the region, actually feeding land glaciers. This has been proposed as a possible ice age mechanism.
Grab a bag and pass the soda, this is gonna be great. What excuses will we hear today? How are we going to justify ignoring science and instead trust the spin of the industry this time?
I really hope for something new, just sticking fingers into ears and going "lalala, I can't hear you" is getting old.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You might recall back in the 60 that by the year 2000 the U.S. would have over 300 million people and we would be starving and eating each other ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well it's 2018 and a 1/3rd of the world is now Obese ( http://www.healthdata.org/news... ) Small child must be very filling.
UN Predicts 50 Million Climate Refugees by 2010
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world’s media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.
But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: “It is not a UNEP prediction,” a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP’s website. —Spiegel Online
2000 no more snow in the UK
In March 2000, , “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
1864 Father of American Environmentalism predicts imminent destruction of environment
As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’
–Google Books Readings In Environmental Impact page 111
Oh noooez - the SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!
The EU increased their emissions in 2017, and is set to increase them further in 2018: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
How realistic is it there are going to be emission reductions by 2020? Totally unrealistic.
What fucking leaders?
We need fucking help. Voting for candy-ass brass monkey motherfuckers isn't worth a fucking thing.
I'm over here waiting for mass arrest of the criminal motherfuckers who have fucked us into this corner. People like you and I over here waiting for the fucking shoe to drop can't go out and slap cuffs on war criminals.
There's nothing left to fucking win. We're already in space and you're in for a fucking wake up call, dearest humans, if you haven't been paying attention to the writing on the wall for the last 70 years. Jesus fucking christ.
We need a fucking solution. We need more of what was seized by Snowden to be leaked, for example. And we need the motherfuckers who can divert that shit making it out once and for all to be cuffed to their fucking chairs when it fucking happens.
The earth can recover. We have help from our perfectly willing and able space family, waiting behind the curtain. At this point, this is about all us people fucking waking up to the god-fucking-damned truth of what the fuck has been happening in these pathetic fucking war games. It's not like this shit doesn't come to a fucking end.
There's enough for everybody here. Nothing left to fucking win. No fucking reason. We have the fucking technology.
Love,
Person
In the end maybe we'll see 2-3C warming, if we are all super lucky heading off an ice age for a few hundred years more
It is pretty obvious you are ignorant of the actual facts. We are in an ice age right now. You can't head off an ice age that we are already in the middle of at the moment.
Let me help you with that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Caution: Contents under pressure
No. It was scary 20 years ago. For those that listened. By now they are desperate as they see what is coming.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. But they were trying to be cautious.
Sadly, this may just be what ends up killing civilization. Not their fault, this type of threat is unique in human history.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
By all means, publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and show the whole world why this IPCC report is wrong in the ways you claim.
The world's climate scientists will stand and cheer, but in case no one's told you yet, they're far more scared than the rest of us are about what's coming.
Oh, and you'll also win a Nobel and instantly become one of the most famous scientists in history.
So please, step up to the plate here. Don't confine yourself to pissy little comments on this web site. Prove to the whole world why the climate scientists are wrong and have grossly overstated the coming shit storm.
We thank you you for your op-ed masquerading as factual news. You are a millennial, aren't you?
So, you sayin' every IPCC report was a lie?
Okay, then why to believe them at all?
Funny thing is, none of that idiot academic shit you are babbling about is necessary. Just watch what happens.
A quick fact check, and this is false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Fossil_fuel_consumption_in_Germany.svg
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
Oil has been reduced, coal has almost halved.
Stupid. You can't predict ice free Arctic by 2009 in 2018. Or do you really mean that the Arctic will never melt?
Citation needed, you don't have to remember, you have Google, you can cite the projection you are criticizing simply by Googling it.
The IPCC projection has been exceeded. The icebergs ARE receding, the tornadoes ARE getting worse, the temperature IS rising, sealife IS dying.
Ignorant denialist idiot lie: "no more snow in the UK"
vs
Scientist prediction, which is more or less spot-on: "snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” "
Can you spot the difference? It ain't hard ;)
No. It was scary 20 years ago. For those that listened. By now they are desperate as they see what is coming.
You mean like the environmentalists, ngos, the UN itself that protested the cutting down of the rainforests but at the same time protested helping those same people developer better farming techniques, and modernizing instead of clear-cut burning/slash and burn farming? Creating a really great cycle of slash and burn because of poor soil quality, so as the system is depleted they engage in more slash and burning.
Yep, those are our learned sages of academia, and the people who are promoting policies.
Om, nomnomnom...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
Al Gore: "Al Gore made statements about the POSSIBILITY of a complete lack of SUMMER sea ice in the Arctic by as early as *2013*. "
Conservative diss-information: "More sea ice than ever before says NASA"
Reality:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Sharp decline of 12.8 percent per decade.
LOL, that's a lot of bullshit for one ignorant rant. When did "UN itself" protested "helping the people develop better farming techniques"? Please cite some evidence, troll.
Yeah sorry, maybe when shit really does start to hit the fan we'll care. The general amount of "WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!" sentiment coming out of the left - especially post-2016 - is so ridiculous that no one's really paying attention anymore. If it's too late by then and we're all fucked...well I guess that's the way it goes. At least we'll die warm.
Look at the direction of the bias: IPCC reports are paid for by governments and have to be approved by all before being published. The natural result is to water down the scientific message (itself conservative because that's how scientist work... nobody wants to end up like Fleischmann/Pons). It's similar to how the concerns of NASA engineers over STS-107 got progressively muted as they rolled up the org chart.
"the rest of the world will have no choice"
The rest of the world hasn't done jack shit to alleviate any problems in the world today. About the only thing they do is simply blame everything bad in the world on the US while still expecting their US foreign aid packages. This strategy plays very well in their domestic politics. Trump is an idiot and will be gone shortly but he has finally said what many politicians before him wanted to say about how the US has been getting screwed over by both friends and allies.
The sad thing about this is that, as far as I can tell, no one is disagreeing on individual data points. It's an abstract, shifting logic with no center. Climate change is being used as a proxy, an opportunity to publicly disagree with someone else's political opinions. This is how far political ideologies have removed us from any kind of reason. It's a circular shitshow where demonstrable fact is subsumed into the ephemeral logic of political performance. There's no need to make this so complicated. Let's just try to lessen the scale of mass human misery.
...is just a strategy to raise taxes by, this time, taxing carbon. Taxing carbon will have absolutely zero effect, as people _still_ need to burn the gasoline and diesel and other fuels to move about and heat homes and do industry to support our population levels. If we don't burn those fossil fuels then millions will be cast into poverty and a certain, higher-than-would-otherwise-occur percentage of the population will die of the effects of poverty.
Meanwhile, what we need to do is stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere completely, not just "cut back" here and there. No more burning fuels. We can't do it. Yet. But advances in wind and solar energy continue, and someday someone will invent the economically viable electrical storage that can be constructed for a reasonable price anywhere rather than just near large vertical discontinuities such as mountains for pumped hydro storage. Then maybe we can do away with fossil fuel electrical grid generation. And, again, saving the planet is not going to come from a political adventure such as a new tax, its going to come out of a laboratory.
Contradicting the consensus report is OK now? I thought we were required to accept the consensus or be excommunicated from the science congregation.
But first, let me demonstrate what a pile of horseshit you just linked to.
The article was written in 2014, based in data through 2013, and talks about a "15 year pause in global warming". 2013 - 15 = 1998. 1998 when it happened was the hottest year ever by a huge margin --an outlier. It was also a massive El Niño year, and El Niño is a weather event that produces unusually warm years..
This is a classic technique of statistical misrepresentation: cherry picking a baseline to obtain the comparison you want. If you start in 1997 or 1999, the "disappearance" of warming disappears. If you use a moving average, even just a *two year* moving average, the disappearance also disappears. In other words, the supposed pause is just statistical horseshit.
Cherry picking a baseline year is possible because weather isn't climate. Some years are warmer than the underlying climate trend and others are cooler than the trend. Sometimes you have a run of several years that are over or under, and in fact this is normal with real data. It's just like flipping a coin 13 times. It's normal to get runs of heads and tails, even with a fair coin.
El Niños, which produce warm years, and La Niñas, which produce cool years, are not predicted by climate models because they are both random weather events, like flipping a coin.
Of the 15 years of the Horseshit Pause, six were La Niña event years, a number of them particularly strong ones, however some of them were record warm years for La Niñas. Five were El Niño years, but relatively weak ones. So basically over the Horseshit Pause, we had a run of events which produce cooler weather than the underlying climate trend; even so the Horseshit Pause was the warmest decade on the instrumental record.
Now you extend the Horseshit Pause period to include the following four years, you happen to get the four hottest years on the instrumental record: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014. Note that 2016 and 2015 were El Niño, but 2017 was a La Niña year and should have been a cool one.
More to the point, if you make the run of years just a little bit longer supposed inconsistency of the climate models from the weather record disappears.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Missing from the manipulative chart: model margins of error, the only value one can use to judge the model validity.
Why? Because most predictions, even the early crude ones are correct within their rather narrow error margins, and this runs a bit contrary to the denialist narrative.
You are too stupid to lie, dear.
Why bother? it's not as if any effective or expensive changes are being made at the moment. Politicians still fly around first class to meet climate sciency activists at parties around the world. The USA is decarbonising a little because NG is cheaper than coal. The EU has just built another coal power station. China and India are building hundreds if not thousands of coal stations. Some silly democracies are wrecking their electricity grids, but they don't really matter and don't make any difference.
So far as I can tell when it comes to actually doing something, nothing much is happening. So the rest of the world seems to agree with me, this is just more climate sciency activism. I don't need to publish anything, the real world has already seen through the bluff.
we continue to allow additional coal plants to be built. Worse, in the west, we are shutting down Nuclear power plants and what is Germany replacing them with? COAL. What is California going to replace their's with? NAT GAS.
IOW, they are moving to FUCKING FOSSIL FUEL.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I heard of people talking on the radio of a new mall going up in Miami, IIRC, supposedly the largest in the nation. If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years then how did anyone get funding for this? How did this get approved by the city? How did this mall get insurance? These people talking on the radio were mocking all the global warming alarmists. If enough people believed that CO2 was such a potential harm then they would be able to raise enough money to fix the problem. Instead they put money into shopping malls in Florida.
So, why is there not enough money to fix the problem?
I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. The predictions of doom never come close to reality and so no one is listening any more.
Here's what boggles me most, there's no real demand from these doom and gloom types for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced of any energy source we know of today, even the IPCC agrees on this.
But nuclear power is expensive! More expensive than the end of all life on Earth?
But nuclear power is dangerous! More dangerous than large numbers of coastal cities being underwater?
But nuclear power isn't near as good as wind and solar power! Who says we should only use nuclear power? Let's have wind, solar, and nuclear. You know, that "all the above" energy strategy that so many politicians keep talking about?
But all the nuclear waste! Is nuclear waste any kind of threat to our safety by comparison to global warming? This is a political problem, we know we can keep the waste contained but the politicians keep thinking up new ways on how to delay the opening of proper waste containment sites.
But some terrorist could use the fuel to make a weapon! Is terrorism a threat greater than global warming? It's not like we can't work on more than one problem at the same time. Let's build some nuclear power plants and shoot some terrorists. If nuclear power plants attract the terrorists then put people with guns around the power plants. I have heard from reliable sources that there are generals and admirals just desperate for cheap and reliable power for military bases in the USA. I also have heard from reliable sources that the US Navy has a lot of people trained in the safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants. Put some nuclear power plants on some military bases. I have heard from reliable sources that the US military is quite capable of keeping their bases secure.
But nuclear power is scary! More scary than the end of all life on Earth?
Let's talk solutions to the problem. We've tried with solar and wind as solutions for decades now and they have not done all that well in displacing coal for power generation. Again, nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any energy source we have available today. Any problems that one might come up with on deploying more nuclear power is something we can also deal with as we shoot terrorists and put up windmills. Someone might dispute how much CO2 nuclear power produces and claim that hydro or wind take first place but nuclear is certainly in the top three as means to produce power with least CO2 emitted. Let's do "all the above", because our survival depends on it.
I'll believe that global warming from CO2 is a real threat when these global warming alarmists embrace nuclear power as a solution. Claiming nuclear power is a greater threat to humanity than global warming is getting real hard to wrap my head around. Bringing up nuclear power accidents from 50 year old nuclear reactors is nonsense, no one builds reactors like that any more. Even if we did that still means that we'd potentially save humanity from certain destruction even if it means rendering small portions of the planet as radioactive wastelands from more accidents in the future.
What's the greater threat, nuclear power or global warming? If the answer is nuclear power is the greater threat then I guess we're all just doomed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"Climate scientist" is a contradiction of terms.
Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
Yeah, and the actual true development is always extremely close to the upper edge of the projection cone.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections
The IPCC bases a report on the input of dozens if not hundreds of scientific institutes. The raw predictions of those instituted are usually available as download. So everyone can make up his mind, how "glorified" the IPCC projections are.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate.
That is true.
They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem.
True.
I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. ... which they started in the early 1990s. Who in his right mind would have expected that scientists suddenly have to justify their findings and projections and get called "alarmists" or "payed of/bribed by renewable industry" etc.
Blame the US anti global warming campaign
I learned about global warming from 1975 on ...but I'm 51. No idea why third world countries like the US only learn about "world impacting" stuff since 1995, and then first reject is and now blame the rest of the world.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. the guardian is hardly an unbiased source. They're the left wing fox news.
2. ditto for the 'bulletin of the atomic scientists.' It hasn't been a bulletin for anything but political propaganda for decades.
3. GQ is not an authoritative source for anything. It's a crappy 'lifestyle' magazine for insecure men.
Sadly, this may just be what ends up killing civilization. Not their fault, this type of threat is unique in human history.
Yes and no. Considering the "flood myths" all over the planet, and that during the last "ice age" the sea level rose (min.) three times about 10m "over night", and that the total sea level rise was over 100m and happened during less than 1000 years, it is not that unique. We just don't know anything about mankind before the "ice age".
Look at this map: https://static.wixstatic.com/m...
(Sorry, can not find the site where I found this the first time. There they had a side by side comparission of the current world with that picture)
If the world was settled at that time with a high level civilization, lets say on the level of UK around 1800, and mostly living around the costs and lower level areas, 99% of the world population would have died due to the melting ice.
Do you see how much bigger India is, Australia is, Indonesia connected with Australia and a "continent" and not a chain of islands? Japan connected with China, China expanding to the south east, South America dramatically bigger. England connected with Europe. You nearly could walk over to Iceland :D
Thousands more islands in the pacific. What is not visible, the Mediterranean sea is dry land, likely the red sea, too.
Or check this: https://www.donsmaps.com/icema...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The entire reason to ever be alarmed about CO2 levels was supposed to be the Uber-scary "runaway greenhouse" effect where the Earth became Venus.
Congratulations, literally nobody except you is talking moist earths.
Well over time CO2 levels have continued to rise, and what have global temperatures done? Not increase exponentially, that's what.
Most impressive powers of observation.
In the end maybe we'll see 2-3C warming, if we are all super lucky heading off an ice age for a few hundred years more.
Attention on deck SuperKendall is making a prediction based on his vast climate modeling experience. Please go slow so we don't miss anything.
But without the runway warming
Runway pavement can get hot enough cook eggs and burn the skin.
which there is zero evidence of occurring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
, it is madness to me as scared of global warming and CO2 as many are trying to get you to be.
Can you believe some random peoples on the Internets are saying we're all going to die of global warming? What is this world coming to? It's madness. Total madness.
Creating a really great cycle of slash and burn because of poor soil quality, so as the system is depleted they engage in more slash and burning.
Slash and burn is not a bad system. It worked for mankind very long times: because they only did it to farm food, and later the jungle took over again. It indeed was a cycle.
Modern times they burn absurd big amounts of areas, that can not recover quickly by themselves. To plant: palm oil. Or other "useless" stuff.
They simply should tackle the problem like _capitalist_ asia does: a single human can only own X acres of land. A corporation only 10X ... The result is a patchwork of land, and if one wants to have more he has to involve family or rent the land surrounding himself. Bottom line: world destroying food corporations or cotton corporations like in the US, who own half of south america and try to "buy" Asia: don't exist e.g. in Thailand.
And when the late King Rama IX pointed out: it is not wise to cut down all the trees to have bigger rice fields, keep the trees to regulate the water, the population bowed and said: "Thank you great teacher!"
Unfortunately the western world has no figure heads that are "wise" and have positive influence to the better of the world. The only "figure heads" are rich bastards that go into politics to become more rich ... and I was so dumb in 1987, when I went to university to think and even proclaim: "we are living in the true golden age! Every problem the plant has is close to be solved: poverty, starvation, education, peace."
Nothing has really changed. American agriculture companies try to keep former third world agricultures in poverty, mainly with patents and seeds and loans on the land of the farmers, see India. Or by had having the "luck" to buy most of the land in south america, before or around WWII.
As the dominant world player we all have to thank America that the planet has only marginally changed.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
the rest of the world will have no choice but to nuke the US
If your "altruism" is rooted in genocide, you might just be on the wrong side of, well, everything really......
Nothing is as understated as overpopulation. That's not an accident. You know who you are.
It is too late.
Humans are poor at comprehending growth, especially exponential growth.
We love looking for easier remedies rather than fixing the actual problem.
EG:
Currently the big media and political push is reduction of meat consumption, particularly beef.
75 people could give up beef for a lifetime. Their efforts will be negated by an increase in births among them of 1 extra child above the expected birth rate for that 75 people.
The real problem is population growth and its associated consumption of all resources.
We are already past the earths carrying capacity when you take into account carbon, resources and increasing living standards globally.
There is only one solution, population reduction.
At some point over the next 10 years , because there is no other alternative the solution will be acted upon without your consent.
There is going to be a great war.
Religion, economics and cross boarder conflicts will be used as convenient excuses but the unstated goal will be population reduction. Diseases such as swine and bird flu will have outbreaks during the war.
The target for global population will be a more manageable 1 Billion, at which point we can implement energy and consumption policies that can ensure the survival of our species.
It is easy the believe I am a conspiracy theorist, a crack pot.
But
What if I believe this is the only rational and correct action, that I am one of the good guys, but the actions required are so abhorrent that I also need to act as a whistle blower of sorts to give others a fighting chance?
Um, hard to know where to start, basically your entire post is disconnected from actual facts. The UN report was dire, but didn't include the effects of methane locked in permafrost.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...
Let's assume this is true, that if we don't reduce CO2 output to 50% of current levels by 2050 then we face severe and detrimental environmental effects from global warming. We know of four "zero carbon" energy sources today, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. Maybe people will toss in few more like geothermal and bio-fuels but I don't hear too much about those, likely because they come with other environmental impacts that we'd like to avoid. If the effects of CO2 are so dire then maybe we should be building more nuclear power plants to replace coal? If we cannot have nuclear power to stop this global threat to human survival then I have to wonder just how real of a threat this is. Even after decades of subsidies for wind and solar they still have not matched the "zero carbon" output from nuclear power. Nuclear power did have a head start, I'll grant that much, but nuclear power also had a near stop in any new construction for 40 years.
We've been waiting for 40 years for wind and solar to save us, how much longer can we wait?
There will come a point in which we must choose, nuclear power or global warming, because it is going to become abundantly clear that wind and solar will not save us.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Hide the decline: Phil Jones head of CRU the origing of the Global Warming nonsense
Why should I gove you my data, youy are only going to find something wrong with it: Again Phil Jones
You sir are a liar and I order you to delete eleven scenes from your movie and to put in a disclaimer about all the speculation in it: Judge orders Al Gore to make dramatic changes to "an incovenient truth"
100 scientist wrote a book called why Einstein is wrong. Guess who was right.
The global warming discussion is closed. Sanity won the argument.
What we learned in the "climate gate" e-mails leak is that:
[a] Climate scientists rigged the paper publishing process to keep people who disagree with them from getting published.
[b] Climate scientists rigged the peer review process to block anybody who disagrees with them from getting a fair peer review.
[c] Climate scientists were adjusting their data in ways that were not scientifically valid, and then destroying the initial unadjusted data.
[d] Some of the climate model code was written in FORTRAN, and those of us who are not in their partisan political bubble and can read and code in FORTRAN got to see the appallingly bad code quality including comments that show that even they do not know why they are plugging various values into certain equations other than that those values get them the warming results they want to get.
So, no, those climate scientists will not "stand and cheer" somebody who disagrees, they are proven to react to such people like Catholic priests reacting to Galileo Galilei. Oh, and as to the Nobel folks: Obama award. Yassir Arafat award. Need I say more?
My rule of thumb for scientists is that they must actually perform science, not simply use the tools and words of science as political props and therefore I doubt that more than 10% of these clowns are even on the same planet with "science"; they're more like members of the Mary Baker Eddy cult who also abuse the word "science".
Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers.
Has it? With one of the earlier reports at least, a bunch of scientists who worked on it refused to sign their name to it because the rather alarmist tone of the report's (political) summary did not at all match the much milder conclusions drawn in the actually scientific part.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The problem with tragedies of the commons is that it's trivially easy to say "I didn't do it, not my fault, someone else was responsible" and the vast majority of businessmen/politicians/industrialists are going to do this in the case of climate change. More specifically "it wasn't solely my fault" therefore won't be held responsible which is the only thing they care about. The ones causing the problem will be dead and/or have beachfront property in Appalachia that's worth WAY more than it was before the flooding. The little people dying off en-masse is considered a feature, not a bug. Read the Slashdot comments on any article tangentially related to human overpopulation and there's no shortage of people suggesting that the human population halving would be great. The powers that be have the same view.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
"We've been waiting for 40 years for wind and solar to save us, how much longer can we wait?" 40 years? get real, you need to get rid of the fossil fuel/nuclear lobby and its buying of politicians then renewables can really get going.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
don't you just love armchair scientists who are more knowledgeable and informed than those qualified scientists actually doing the job
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ooooooo its all a big conspiracy, isn't it......
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Please tell me: who is paying people like you to try to sow doubt about the biggest existential threat that faces humanity ?
These scaremongers need to be held accountable. There are no repercussions for bold claims like "This could be the worst storm in over a century!"
Try think what "now" would be like if they did not put things into place to try and mitigate the "problems". y2K meltdown didn't happen either - ever worked out why?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ya just wasted your 2 cents.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I ain't scared of no Chinese global warming! I got a Realtree bug out bag and I'm white.
Why are we pretending humanity has any chance of banding together and agreeing on anything?
Everybody can stop arguing. You know nobody gonna do shit until after the fact.
All this talk is just investing in "I told you so's". Go to bed.
Go on show where he predicted 75% likely. He doesn't. He says SOME models show it will be summer free.
"The rest of the world" have been acting quite responsibly.
Europe has reduced its emissions since 1990 by 30%.
It is the US who has kept the CO2 output on the increase, after generating most of it anyway.
Hypocritical much, asshole?
And are you going to back up your claim, or are you talking about the Oregon petition, with Dr Doom, "Dr" Ginger Spice, etc?
the "climate debate" pours ALOT of water on the mills of the nuclear lobby. ...
but going more nuclear *might* help with the climate but most certainly will generate problems in different areas.
who knows what the future holds? are we really ready to *fix* a past mistake (lots of carbon burning) by mortaging the future via nuclear?
our generation is being called on to fix a past mistake, because the past didn't look ahead?
now we want the cheap and SIMPLE fix of nuclear with repercussions for even more generations to come?
nuclear is cheap and SIMPLE *now* because a smallish plot of land, some magical *stones* from the ground and a shitload of paper (money, documents, all phony) are required; then we are off to the TerraWatthour races
we all live in the "climate" and it doesn't care much about man-made borders. so the "solution" is probably to get all tech required to manufacture solar panels ready and stash them away in some underground bunker somewhere in ice land, maybe beside the seed bank and then democratically wait for the climate to shift abrubtly, so that everyone "sees the light of day" and then bring back all that stashed gear back online. ... or the mobile-phone batter-bank.
today, electricity just isn't advertised as something that you can generate yourself and you should be responsible for. it just comes from the wall plug
also, let's not forget the power of tidal and waves...
so just to be clear: you think burning carbon was a problem? just wait and see how "burning atoms" is going to get your great-grand child into a hiss-fit at the local watering hole whilst ordering another 3 beers for his two heads and three arms ...
The IPCC is saying no such thing. What they are saying is, "You'd better start listening to the adults in the room, who are merely trying to inform you that actions like pumping the environment full of CO2 and waste heat have consequences, and start ignoring people who try to convince you that there's an exception to the laws of thermodynamics especially for H. Sapiens, and in particular for those members of the species who are heavily invested in fossil fuels."
Unless flooding happened unexpectedly and extremely quickly, very few people would die - they would simply move to higher ground or more accurately, they would follow the coastline as it moved as people tend to live near sources of water for a reason.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Unfortunately the qualified scientists often have agendas to push, so you can't be sure how thorough and unbiased their statements are.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Really? 95% of climate scientists, ones that actually have degrees that pertain to climate science instead of idiots like Sen. Inholfe, have all agreed on an agenda? And precisely what is this agenda? Don't hold back, lay it on us. Be sure to reference real scientific journals...unless, of course, you believe they too are in on some con.
Stop watching TV, it is bad for you.
I used to go to a good restaurant for a good real (no ersatz meat) steak and bottle of good wine. With the frequency the reports are coming I will be having to replace my liver soon. I eventually stopped believing in the environmental disaster reports on the day EU commissar for something announced that there are thousands of NOx deaths that we shall prevent by moving to donkey as a means of transportation (that is not exactly what she said but these are consequences of what she said). As it is we have activists waltzing everybody down for even asking questions and then the other side is rejecting the claims outright. I think both positions are wrong. But as I have no impact on either side I will just limit the visits stake & wine escapades to once a month. Not to save environment but rather my pocket and liver. I guess I am not the only one who became cynical.
Current Noble winner says the IPCC has overstated the warming many times and actual temperatures are lower then predicted. He also stated their solutions are unrealistic and focused too much on trying to stop global warming rather then addressing how people can adapt to dealing with its effects. More physicist are coming out saying this is all a hoax or at best a overstatement of the severity.
Dude, youre replying on nearly every branch of discussion. Who is paying you to do this?!
Luckily ALL complex models are bullshit.
AI might give us something more like a real answer.
Liars,accoring to you guys we should have been dead by now.
Remember The Ozone layer scare?
Bunch of liars.
Which it does, sometimes. Like the filling of the Mediterranean & Black Seas, or when ice dams in Canada gave way atthe end of the last ice age.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
https://ourworldindata.org/how...
That is according to goals of Paris agreement.
From the other hand, damage from global climate change is predicted to be
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
*incompehesible muttering and rambling*...socialist shithole...*more of the same*
What you claim he/she to have said and what he/she actually wrote seem to be two very different things.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Waste heat cannot be a serious climate issue. If any scientists (including the IPCC) are suggesting this, then they are being alarmist.
The earth receives more energy in an hour that humans use in a year. Basically, our total energy use is about 0.01% of the energy from the sun that hits the earth.
To suggest that waste heat, which is less than 0.01% of the energy we receive from the sun and about 1% of the effect of CO2, is a significant climate problem, is absurd. Worrying about the climatic effects of waste heat is up there with unplugging phone chargers to combat climate change. Yes, it has an effect, by definition, but nothing that really ought to worry us or demand much of our intellectual and physical efforts to combat climate change.
This warming trend happens every time between Ice Ages and is called an Inter-glacial Warming Period. It's normal. Mans affect on it are negligible. We're very stupid to think that in the billions of years that the Earth has existed the climate at THIS time is abnormal, let alone that we must be responsible. Scientists today study such narrow fields that they have no idea what other Earthly processes effect their particular fields.
You know, the ozone layer threat was (and still is, although it's slowly recovering) a real thing, and only because we eventually got every single country to agree and ban certain chemicals, it was slowed down and finally started to recover (giving the clueless know-it-all's a chance to claim the threat was a hoax; sometimes I wonder if we should have just let it continue and not having to hear this BS now, although not seriously).
"In 1976 atmospheric research revealed that the ozone layer was being depleted by chemicals released by industry, mainly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Concerns that increased UV radiation due to ozone depletion threatened life on Earth, including increased skin cancer in humans and other ecological problems[4], led to bans on the chemicals, and the latest evidence is that ozone depletion has slowed or stopped."
Today, not even most climate sceptics wouldn't claim that the "scare" was unfounded, false or hoax... But then there are total nutcases, like you apparently, who prefer to not actually read anything outside of their prejudices.
Read a bit for a change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Depletion
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
People in the UN are political leaders, not scientists. I'm assuming he/she meant the people who actually know and understand this stuff.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
...although, you're claims about UN still don't stand the fact check either.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
The article cites an expect claiming that once any of the several temperature tipping points he describes are reached, the climate will "be completely beyond human control." He is assuming that climate is somehow within the scope of human control now, and that is stupid. If it was, people would not be losing their homes and lives in major storms, for example.
Exactly. I've been wondering if the ACs, which tend strongly towards denialism and conspiracy theories, are organized in some way. If Slashdot logs the IP associated with a post we could learn a great deal.
My suspicion is that several organized groups are hitting the comments on many sites, but I need evidence to form a conclusion...just like I did with climate change.
What happens is that sea level rises relatively slowly and a few people are forced to move or adapt in some other way. But then along comes a hurricane or tsunami and the surge reaches places it's never come close to reaching before and the people living there are caught unawares and many of them die.
Calling climate science deniers "skeptics" is a contradiction of terms.
Unfortunately the qualified scientists often have agendas to push, so you can't be sure how thorough and unbiased their statements are.
The beauty of science is that if some scientist is wrong they can be shown to be wrong by other scientists. That's what happens when you base your results on reality. Science it one of the most competitive fields of human endeavor where nearly every scientist wants to one-up the other scientists.
Duh, but is this as far as you are looking? You don't think the population density increase and reduction of available resources due to more land being underwater will have ANY impact on deaths?
Climate models overestimate CO2 forcing. Fix the feedback equation and correct this problem.
Your claims about you listening to real scientists could be funny, that is if they weren't not funny at all.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Part 1
=====
Moore's law is no longer valid; OTOH, Murphy's law is in full force -- and probably with stronger effects as time passes... specially the "Murphy was an optimist" one.
Part 2
=====
Capitalism x Communism: how cute! (except mostly are probably fed up with that discussion by now)
Both things won't work and when one does not work the other feels pressured to not work, too.
The issue is about another totally different issue: staying productive x staying alive.
But feel free to derail the conversation. It might be even more exciting as our own survival is at stake.
I recommend you first stop singing LALALA at the top of your voice, and then remove the fingers from your ears. Now that you're a bit more in the real world, I recommend that you have a good look at what is really going on. The first thing you'll notice is that people are feeding you cherry-picked facts and outright lies. Germany is doing a lot about climate change, there are no silly democracies wrecking their electricity grids (what does that even mean?). And even China and India are trying to contribute. It may not be perfect, a lot more may be necessary, but people all over the world are trying.
Just a another taste of the future. I read people talking about rebuilding on the beachfront. Good luck with that.
Get up!
WOLF!
Its not a conspiracy. Its about control. We don't want liberal leftists telling us how to live our lives. Global warming is just another guise for communism.
Down with King George.
All it takes is 1 asteroid and 1 gamma ray burst as well? What's your point ?
the biggest existential threat that faces humanity ?
Really?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I like the part when you called him "idiot". It really reinforced the science, made you seem rational and level-headed, and definitely won the argument. I'm a total convert now. Let's go back to mud huts and spears.
What about the model margins of error for the prediction of ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO DIE? that this IPCC report makes? Can you tell us the 95% confidence level?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And we see that about 95% of all models are overestimating warming too... Yeah, it's only SOME, not all...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Eventually they will switch from claiming the scientists are wrong because there hasn't been enough warming (and that is why we can't trust what they say), to saying the scientists are wrong because there has been too much warming (And therefore we can't trust what they say).
precisely what is this agenda
Getting paid? Seriously, their degree is totally useless unless somebody gives them government grants. Best way to get government grants, scare the shit out of people to make them think your work is necessary. It doesn't take some wide spread conspiracy. Just people trying to get paid.
Yep! But somehow 15-20cm of sea level rise over 100 years is a major, civilization-destroying event...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not a lie - a series of reports that only look at one part of the equation. The IPCC:
is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
By its own charter, it cannot consider non-human-induced climate change. Natural effects are discounted. When you have an equation, W = N + H, and you want to limit W to a certain value, you must know both N and H. Looking only at H is irrelevant, and tells you nothing. But that is exactly what the IPCC does.
They are not lying - they are just following a bad charter and are ignoring half (or, as it is increasingly turning out, more than half) of the actual issue - what would Nature do on its own?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ding!
Got to agree with you on that. I could probably come up with 5 bigger existential threats, and climate change, aka global warming, is only one of them because it's likely to trigger one of the others. If war, in some form, were not a plausible result it would only be a civilization ending disaster that was likely to result in a few billion deaths, and reduce the population to about 0.01% of its current level. Perhaps a bit further, as the ruined ecology wouldn't support much life, but perhaps not, also.
OTOH, it's also not entirely clear on what time scale we're talking. Different groups will be under stress at different times. Most people will be "looking out for number one" when under stress, but a few will see an opportunity to gain power by fomenting strife, and at our technical level that could lead to anything, including nuclear and biological warfare. (Just yesterday there was an article about artificially synthesized smallpox done on the cheap.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And yet, we see that costs of electricity increase as solar and wind deployments increase. More expensive power is not generally good for people, and low cost power is key to fighting poverty.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
IIUC, the amount of land area available for habitation will be about the same, but it won't be in the same place, and will already be owned by someone else.
The climate change will probably not be disastrous in and of itself, but only by the way that people react to it. (OTOH, I'm not including massive extinctions that aren't human in disastrous. And I'm making a few assumptions about sea chemistry that may not be correct, and...well, lots of other caveats. But I hope you like eating jellyfish.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
More and more research is showing that the estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is quickly falling, making the projections based upon a much higher sensitivity value less and less accurate. Most of the IPCC models assume 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2, but research since 2012 basically supports a value about half that. And it would explain why there is a divergence between models and measurements.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal. And even your contention of 95% is actually false as the original "study" was highly flawed in methodology, to such an extent it should never be heard from again.
Currently we see models increasingly diverging from measured data, and the biggest suspect is the value used for climate sensitivity to CO2. Most models assume 3 deg C, but research shows it to be about half that.
Oh, and if you'd actually look at those linked pages, you'll finds lots of links to real published data, peer reviewed and everything.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And yet, we see that costs of electricity increase as solar and wind deployments increase. .
And the reason for that is of course Capitalist greed, you bloody fool. Not the cost of renewables.
This lying CUNT Ken Doll needs her faggot head chopped, there need to be consequences for being a lying Republican faggot and God willing there will be.
Care to share this dark agenda that apparently every proper climate scientist seems to have, according to you that is?
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal.
Why do idiots like you always point to the handful of geniuses that turned out to be right instead of to the millions of crackpots that turned out to be, well, crackpots? Not to mention that your whole argument only works if the Global Warming is the long held wrong belief, while "nothing is happening" is the brand new obvious truth that only a genius could come up with.
lol. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Boy, what an attitude... Foreign aid packages? Yeah, we don't get those here in Europe, but I guess you didn't really go to school so how would you know?
People like you is why the rest of the western world so often think that USA is a country full of douchebags. And it's pretty much the other way around. PLEASE, do stop meddling with our business - but you have a lot of nerve to say that you are the ones getting screwed by us. Take your bend-over-and-take-it-in trade pacts and shove 'em.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
No. I mean climate scientists. Quite obviously. But morons like you will lie to themselves right up until the mess you made kills you.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Very obviously so. Thanks. Some people here have working intelligence, but many others use their intelligence only to support their preconceptions, but never to check them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Science marches on; including marching over prior science that gets in the way. It's not supposed to be dogmatic (except for the process itself.)
Optimistic perception BIAS is likely a genetic trait 3 of 4 people have. This will show up in dire scientific reports. Us pessimists are probably mislabeled by the optimist majority. It's probably realism, actual realism. Notice how all the climate projections up to this point had their errors on the optimistic side of things while the people who with the best track record were (and still are) seen as being too negative.
Choose the people who are correct most the time; it's likely they won't be the happy sounding people. Also, some of us adapt and add in positive bias or leave details out in order to make progress with the majority. So, it is no surprise that you'll see more like 1 in 10 being "overly negative."
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They are already looking at escaping this planet and heading to space. It's like one of those movies where they think they will abandon us and cleanse the planet. They don't realize their human bodies aren't designed to survive there.
We are pushing ourselves to extinction but it seems like the natural order of things on this planet.
Let's not argue how serious the threat is - let's immediately do what we can to deal with it.
Go online and switch your electrical power supply to renewables. Its $20 a month extra for me and I drive an electric car.
Make your next car electric. Yes it costs more but its worth it. Buy a share of Tesla stock. Is it a good investment? Who knows but the ultimate goal of Tesla is too important to let fail because investors want to play games to make money.
We can all make our own small contribution easily and together its a big deal.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Well, I am a physicist and I follow energy policy closely and especially the energy transition in Germany. In the first article you there is so much wrong, it would take quite some time to take it apart. But a couple of comments: It is not a secret how the German electricity price is composed and neither is where the price increase comes from. The article makes it sound like a mystery and then blames it on an effect which isn't really that important at the moment. A large part of the increase of the electricity price actually comes from the feed-in tariff for renewables (and because we know this from actual numbers it is also clear that the explanation put forward of the article is not the reason). It is not surprising that if you support the development of renewables using a feed-in tariff and then this is successful and the share of renewables increases then also the corresponding fees increase and the overall power price. Now, other technologies like nuclear also got a huge amount of subsidies for development but those were paid from general taxes so did not affect the price. So only discussing the electricity price is misleading from the onset. Now using a feed-in tariff for renewables instead of general taxes was entirely intentional: The idea was to increase the price to also encourage saving (and electricity consumption is in fact on a slight downward trend in Germany). Now, there are couple of other important things to unerstand: Although the increase in price is largely due to the fee it is still a relatively small part of the overall cost, there are other taxes and fees which make electricity expensive in Germany and which are mostly unrelated to renewables (e.g. Germany maintains one of the most reliable grids). Second, the feed-in tariff was very successful: In created a huge market for wind and solar that then caused a huge drop in prices so that the fees are expected to again decrease in the future. In contrast, nuclear never got cheaper so the huge amount of tax-payer money spend for development did not nearly achieve similar effects.
I assume you've seen the graphs from BP's energy summary for 2018? lalala indeed.
Yes, Australia is wrecking its electricity generating network.
Like i say, i don't need to publish anything, the data is out there. People don't care and for the most part are doing nothing much about climate change.
If Trudeau messed with the tar sands in a big way you can expect the USA to begin talking about regime change within weeks. If the campaign succeeded well enough but fails to restore oil mining then you can expect hostilities down the road. Unless this administration can manage to deploy the usual meddling,interfering in politics and hacking of elections in Canada the USA is known for (outside the USA.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Erratic rambling vs. scientific research... How to choose, how to choose...
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
I agree that most likely we can't get our shit together and do enough in time, so here's something I want you to remember 30-50 years later when the changes will be more noticeable - you don't have to agree with me, just remember these words:
"You were with the fucktards who prevented the rest of us from preventing what's happening, are you happy now!?"
And it don't matter what you reply (or preferably don't) - you *will* remember when the shit hits the fan.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Get your tract of Antarctic beachfront property now!
As someone who's actually worked In climate science, you have no idea how far south of wrong you really are. The reality is the institutional pressures are huge to downplay the seriousness. Sound too "alarming" in you paper, you stand a good chance of getting fingered by your local conservative shock jock radio host, having wing nuts writing letters in bulk demanding you get fired or even worse (one colleague had threats made to their child's school... which is nuts, but there are people out there that have some pretty fucking scary ideas). Then you get a endless cavalcade of right wing politicians insisting on endless reviews of data they clearly have no qualification to judge , threats against senior management that they'll get defunded , and in fact in our case , the CSIRO *was* massively defunded by a new prime minister that was hellbent on trashing as much science infrastructure as quickly as possible. He made it a year and a half before even his own party booted him but by then s lot of good scientists where out of work and a lot of PhD candidates had their thesis defunded mid project. Fuck i even got dragged in at one point when the radio stations decided that our remote weather stations are "fudging" the data because they don't know a dew point calculation is fundamental fucking physics.
Do you really think climate scientists are in a pissing match as to who can be spookiest? In reality climate scientists are in a situation where from every level of society they are constantly told "censor your findings so funding bodies don't get spooked , so Andrew Bolt doesn't start denying bat wing monkeys after PhD candidates, so crazy fuckers who think bloggers are scientists don't send hate mail to your family and so the boss doesn't have yet another neurosis attack because he wants nothing more than to be unnoticed, uncontroversial and funded.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Exactly! Why should either people be able to control how much my corporate masters pollute? I might be a good today and get promoterd one day nd be a master! Telling other people what they can and can't do it wrong!
Unless it is about things going into or coming out of a woman's body. Then it just makes sense for 70yo men to decide what can go in or out the panty region. Unless those men are gay, in which case it is still illegal in some states and should remain so. BC reasons.
Yeah, but that couldn't happen today. We are too smart for that, too aware of the science. No one dies from storm surge anymore. That would be as ridiculous as, say, leaving 20+ $300,000,000.00 each planes parked in a flood zone. No one would do that.
Yeah, that wasn't the greatest thing but if you can't fly them you have no other way to move them.
No, but it is exploitation of a real issue to gain political power and influence people toward political causes and viewpoints that the scientists and others involved in the IPCC personally favor.
This is the fallback of the science denialist: everything's just an opinion, and science is just another position.
Science isn't just another opinion; it's the opinion best supported by evidence. Widely accepted climate models are reasonable extrapolations from what we know. They do not predict the future -- they can't foretell a strong El Nino year (yet) or a strike from a comet. But they show the direction the Earth *currently* is heading in.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There's nothing "simple" about "moving to higher ground", when it involves hundreds of millions of people moving onto land that's already populated.
Pfft. More bologna from the feces-factory. Caveat emptor.
And yet, for all that - the cost of electricity has increased as the shift to renewables has happened. Tariffs - targeted taxation - are required to make renewables "competitive", but of course that's just a stealth way of hiding the costs, isn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
the predictions are falsified and wrong
You failed to produce the link to this model. Again.
Maybe because it does not exist, and you're a lying asshole?
Natural effects are discounted.
Show us your math, "smart" guy. The models are open, where are the "natural effects" discounted, specifically?
Paper citation or source code link with line number would be helpful.
Or are you just pulling bullshit from where sun don't shine? It definitely looks like it without specifics.
This was both my opinion and impression but regardless of whether humans are adding tremendously to climate change, my readings in paleogeology suggest that our planet goes through 23,000 to 26,000 year cycles, and we are now at the 13,000 year half-way point, so change may be inevitable since we're now on the downside. 2050 looks bad, with the possibility of eternal summers, which then kicks into another ice age . . . .
Science is about the geniuses. If your model or theory doesn't hold up to the data - then it's wrong. I would suggest watching this video by Richard Feynman about theories and proof as well.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Natural effects are discounted.
Show us your math, "smart" guy. The models are open, where are the "natural effects" discounted, specifically?
PRECISELY THE POINT! There are no "natural effects" in the model. That's the problem. We know the planet has dramatically cycled up and down by several degrees in just the last few centuries (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period). How do we know that isn't happening now? Well - the IPCC cannot consider that question by its own charter.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
See that link a few posts up in this thread? No? Here it is again. This is all 90 of the IPCC models graphed versus actual data. Not just one or a few models - ALL of them. And you see pretty much ALL OF THEM (well, 88 of 90) overestimate the warming. It's not just a model - it's pretty much all of them.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'm not sure if that is a language barrier problem. But in my language the word "flood" implies it is happening rapidly, to quick to seek higher ground for most people.
The other thing would be "water level rise", which you usually can handle. However in german we also call it a "flood" if water stays a long time on a high level e.g. when after rain or snow melting the rivers go over their dams/coasts.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Altruism has nothing to do with it. If the US refuses to act responsibly the rest of the world will have no choice once survival is in question. One bad actor can ruin the efforts of all others. The Trumpists wont honor treaties, Trump himself is so focused on personal glorification his mind cant conceive of a world where cooperation is the rule rather than an exception. Im hoping my fellow Americans will come to understand there is a significant difference between enlightened self interest and what Trump practices, which can best be described as scorched earth rapacity. If we dont then we deserve what befalls us.
have all agreed on an agenda? And precisely what is this agenda? Don't hold back, lay it on us. Be sure to reference real scientific journals...unless, of course, you believe they too are in on some con.
Agenda, no, but sharing a common belief system? Sure. Evangelical Christians (who love a good doomsday story) are vastly over-represented among the scientists writing the climate doomsday fanfiction. https://nypost.com/2018/03/06/... https://qz.com/work/1196718/cl...
Yup, I'm constantly amazed what kind of BS levels people can accept when it fits their preconceptions and how anything that doesn't, no matter how you put it, just must be wrong.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Here are some of the issues that make "climate change" a steaming pile of Horseshit.
#1, never once in all of this is the Solar Cycle ever EVER mentioned. Solar Minimum and Maximum have typically been on an 11 year cycle, which DOES affect the global temp. and that cycle is out of whack right now.
#2, When the AGW mantra was failing because the Chicken Little crying about Global warming was not coming true, NASA and NOAA Fudged data, by "adjusting" the pre 1950 data to support their AGW, Now "Climate Change" viewpoint.
#3, the % of CO2 added to the enviroment from Manmade sources is very small compared to Naturally Occurring Sources.
#4, The SINGLE biggest flaw in all of this Scam is the fact that what it really is, is just a massive UN Money Redistribution scheme, Look at the Paris Climate Accords, The US has to pay the Largest Amount, even though we are one of the smallest sources of Worldwide emissions, and yet, the biggest polluters (China, India, Etc) had 20-30 years to "reduce" their emissions which would still be above US emissions. (If we are already on the "tipping point" would they not want to stop this now instead of 30 years from now?, oh right, because they would get 30 Years of Payments from the US during that time!)
Making shit up is fun!
Driving ice cars and burning coal is bad. Not sure how you're adressing this point.
Sooo..... you're proposing to listen to people with no knowledge and an axe to grind? If you're really worried about agendas of scientists, then listen to what the scientists are saying about what's happening, and then some other group about what to do to solve the problem.
Why should I? They have lied in the past. This is the boy who cried wolf. You can't repeatedly lie about something to achieve you political goals. People will stop listening to you.
With my capitalist hat on, I have no problem with the government imposing restrictions on corporations in return for extra legal advantages, such as limited liability, as long as you're free to opt out of the system.
You can be part of that system or not, as you choose. But you don't get the artificial benefits of being a corporation if you're not willing to pay the artificial price. You can live with some regulations, or you (as a director or CEO) can be imprisoned if your company kills people. Choose wisely.
Who in his right mind would have expected that scientists suddenly have to justify their findings and projections and get called "alarmists" or "payed of/bribed by renewable industry" etc.
Sadly, anyone who was watching the tobacco lobby's tactics in the 60s and 70s carefully, and had a small realisation, probably could have predicted it.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
No. I mean climate scientists. Quite obviously. But morons like you will lie to themselves right up until the mess you made kills you.
Oh, you mean the ones that operate with organizations like the IPCC? How's the snow on Everest these days, a decade ago they were saying it was all going to be gone. Apparently the moron is yourself, if you think that they're infallible.
Up next, maybe you can explain why eugenics is becoming the hot shit in leftwing academia again.
Om, nomnomnom...
Slash and burn is not a bad system. It worked for mankind very long times: because they only did it to farm food, and later the jungle took over again. It indeed was a cycle.
Wrong. You misunderstand how slash and burn in various soil types differs. If you slash and burn a deciduous forest, there's already an existing cycle of growth that's at play. On top of that, the soil type is fundamentally different it's not 'nutrient poor' compared to say the rain forest. This is why slash and burn doesn't work there, it's why when the nutrients are expended the first thing that happens is they cut back more forest and plant more crops. The nutrient cycles of rain forests, tropical and subtropical are far longer then in places where there is a seasonal change.
Om, nomnomnom...
People in the UN are political leaders, not scientists. I'm assuming he/she meant the people who actually know and understand this stuff.
So the IPCC is a political organization now? That *is* part of the UN after all.
Om, nomnomnom...
Which part of: slash and burn, did work for millennia, did you not grasp?
As log as the areas are relatively small, it works perfectly. As dozens if not hundreds of midle/south american cultures show us.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
To presume we can control the climate is to assume we are completely aware of all the variables, the means of their regulation, and their impact. Clearly we are not. ... ourselves. ... and that's fine.
The statement is arrogance in the extreme and is the danger behind all the climate change hysteria.
That type of thinking exposes the public to profiteers peddling all manner of 'snake oil' solutions with considerable potential to harm.
There is little "reason" in climate science it seems, just shrill doomsayers encouraging someone else to take action and deniers advocating no action at all.
The climate is changing as it always has but the solution is not to change the climate, it is to change what we do control
We will adapt and we will survive and the climate will be different
Ponder: If you are worried about the millions living in low-lying coastal regions threatened by rising sea levels what are you doing about it? Are you stridently demanding 'climate control' by someone? Or are you actively exploring ways of helping those people adapt or move say by facilitating immigration in to your own country? Here's the thing, the latter is actionable here and now while the former is speculative and unlikely. Ask yourself why you made the choice you did.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.