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."
Every 'climate scientist' out there feels like he has to out-scare the last one. Who will be the one who finally goes all-in and says the world will be uninhabitable within 5 years? It's a cutthroat race to grab those funding dollars.
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.
Well over time CO2 levels have continued to rise, and what have global temperatures done? Not increase exponentially, that's what.
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. But without the runway warming, which there is zero evidence of occurring, it is madness to me as scared of global warming and CO2 as many are trying to get you to be.
Even the IPCC is begrudgingly admitting that, so why on earth should anyone listen to this crackpot who wants to dismiss what the UN climate scientists are saying? At this point CO2 alarmism is right up there with being a 9/11 truther in terms of distance from reality.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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?
Liers.
With the insanity happening here in the US with Trumpism, the rest of the world will have no choice but to nuke the US. Not only will it put an end the harm the US is doing, the effect of nuclear winter will cool the world.
Wanna understate the threat... Keep saying 2 degrees (C) instead of 3.6 degrees (F).
Nice Vice article you got there, shame if something were to happen to your scaremongering... like maybe real scientists saying the effects are not that significant?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Al Gore famously predicted an ice free Arctic by 2009 and that didn't come true. Now they are making the same unlikely prediction again.
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.
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/
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
Free Software developers of the world, open your eyes! Our communities are being raped, our work pillaged.
Detestable villains - thieving, mean spirited, belligerent, racist, unprincipled - are using underhanded tricks to force hypocritical "Codes of Conduct" on the projects we built.
These petty-authoritarian CoCs are always imposed anti-democratically. There is never free debate, and usually no public discussion at all. They are imposed by force without a vote. If the CoCs were put up for a fair democratic vote by project contributors, they would always lose by a landslide.
The purpose of these CoCs is to allow social activists, who have contributed nothing to the project, to conduct witch hunts against anyone who opposes their hate-driven agenda. Thereby they plan to steal our work for their shadowy corporate paymasters.
You can readily tell these CoCs are not about "just being nice" - because they are ALWAYS supported by the very LEAST NICE, most aggressively mean and shamelessly bigoted people you can imagine. Look how the CoC-mongers treat anyone who disagrees with them as subhuman.
If a project to which you contribute has been raped by CoC-mongers there is a simple solution: WALK AWAY. Never contribute again. If you have a patch almost ready, count the time you spent on it as a loss and throw it away. If you see a security issue, remain silent and do nothing. IT'S NO LONGER YOUR PROJECT. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME THERE.
If you are evaluating new software, don't even consider any projects burdened under the tyranny of a CoC. Their technical attributes do not matter - just don't consider them. Never be openly political, always make up a technical reason for rejecting CoCed projects.
Don't argue in public about the CoC. Doing so only exposes you to needless risk. You might be dis-employed, blackballed, and even set up for a #MeToo purge. Just stay far away. If you resign from a project that gets CoCed, try to do so on the same day the CoC is imposed. But give "spend more time with friends & family" or "pursue other interests & projects" as your reason for resignation. Protect yourself!
Comrades: Individually we are powerless, and easily crushed beneath the iron boot of Corporate Social Just-Us. But together in solidarity we are millions and we are strong. The Internet itself depends on our collective labor. If we stop working, the internet stops working.
Free Software developers, save yourselves and save your communities! Just WALK AWAY from any project with a CoC. Without our labor they are nothing.
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.
Six more things to add to the long list of failed predictions. I can't remember how many 'tipping points' we've been through, or 'last chances to act' that we've missed since 1973, or how many catastrophic outcomes have failed to eventuate or will require unlikely accelerations in trends, but it must be more than a dozen.
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
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?
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.
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.
is humanity affecting our climate yea. Does our climate change yea. Can humanity do anything about it? No
;)
Don't get me wrong we can emit less CO2 which is a good thing. But humanity has no ability to control or truly affect the climate.
Just my 2 cents
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
ooooooo its all a big conspiracy, isn't it......
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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)
Go on show where he predicted 75% likely. He doesn't. He says SOME models show it will be summer free.
And are you going to back up your claim, or are you talking about the Oregon petition, with Dr Doom, "Dr" Ginger Spice, etc?
You do not show hoe you clim he is wrong. And then you claim "emissions" increased. Coal is not emissions, fuckwit.
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."
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.
Luckily ALL complex models are bullshit.
AI might give us something more like a real answer.
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.
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.
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.
Climate models overestimate CO2 forcing. Fix the feedback equation and correct this problem.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
Pfft. More bologna from the feces-factory. Caveat emptor.
the predictions are falsified and wrong
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 . . . .
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!)
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.
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.