Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes (cnn.com)
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country. From a report: The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping. Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists. It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
yet property values are going sky high! It's almost like liberals don't believe their own hype since they all seem willing to pay millions for property on the coast. If people really believed global warming then property at sea level wouldn't be more expensive than ever.
Well, now, this is why we are a republic and not a democracy. With respect to climate change laws, everybody can't understand every single little thing all at the same time and everything doesn't apply to everybody all at the same time. Why not delegate problems to analysts who understand them? Statistically it should all come out in the wash. Really, who cares as long as we reduce carbon emissions at a certain rate and the economy can be kept strong? If you really want a democracy, go and write long propositions at a middle school reading level and put them up for referendum. No? The masses might choose something that not everyone likes? Well, then, enjoy your republic.
Of course the climate is changing. Has been for millions of year. The argument is over how much human activity influences it and whether restricting human activity would make any significant difference when compared to natural events like forest fires or volcanic eruptions. Climate models also need to take into account long term natural cycles of solar activity that cause warming and cooling. Many put forward as 'evidence' only look at very recent history of 20 or 40 years which is meaningless on an geo-cosmic timescale.
No liberal thinks that, you errant dipshit survivalist fuckwit.
These models are tested with far longer sets of data and against multiple sources of historic information e.g. tree rings, ice cores etc.
The facts are pretty clear, the climate is changing fast. It already entered a point of no return. Those are facts. Weather cycles show we should be in a cooling period but instead we are warming, so no that's not it.
There are other things besides cars/factories etc. such as the huge amount of livestock which increases methane emissions. Methane is far worse than most greenhouse gasses. There are a lot of things that need fixing to stop this disaster which is already showing its impact in droughts, wildfires and storms that are far more powerful than they should be.
Oil, gas and coal are heavily subsidized. Especially oil for which wars were fought and blood was spilled to keep its price ridiculously low. Green energy is already competitive even without government subsidies. Imagine what a pro-active push to green energy can do to the global economy... More people work in solar than in coal in the US today. There are only benefits to green policies.
No, it just presupposes a morally responsibility to the generations of human beings who come after you jackass. Evolution favors traits that benefit the species as a whole over those that benefit the individual.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Climate change may be real but also will take decades or centuries to have substantial impact. In that time, we could see an eruption of the supervolcano at Yellowstone, which would devastate large portions of the United States directly, and throw all atmospheric and climate models out the window. In that event, we might be looking at something more akin to nuclear winter, not global warming.
Until someone starts working out a decent approach to defusing supervolcanos--perhaps through some form of pressure relief allowing magma to escape more slowly, or whatever else--don't talk to me about climate change. It's simply not the most immediate problem, and anything we do about it will be OBE if we don't solve the supervolcano problem.
If we refuse to believe in it, it will just magically fade away.
Non-science background "engineer of Java" faggot and known prevaricator Ken Doll here to pretend "science doesn't exist and doesn't matter" - AGAIN! GET A ROPE.
The problem is that no one cares about the actual science. It is all about who has control of energy production. One thing I am certain of is that no matter who is in control, humans will use fossil fuels as fast and often as possible until they are gone, then alternatives may be considered seriously. Global warming policy, debate, and politics are being used to control groups of people and keep them riled up and engaged so they will give more power to which ever side they support politically. People that believe governments or anyone else is going to solve or even care about "global warming" is very naive.
Been hearing about the dire future of incoming ice age -> global warming -> climate change for decades now. Yawn. Fuck off already the climate doomsayers act like a religious cult.
Sophisticated, witty Progressive!
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
I'll see your anecdotal evidence with my own. Where I am, forty years ago it was common to see the winter temperature drop below -50C for several days at a stretch, spending several weeks below -40C. The last few years, the coldest day of winter kissed -40C once, briefly, but otherwise got no colder than low -30s.
Climate change is occurring. Maybe it's not happening in your particular neighborhood, maybe you're just happy being blissfully ignorant. Either way, the world around doesn't care; the climate will continue to change.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't care anymore. I trust the data NASA has been putting out, I just don't trust nearly any of the doomsday predictions that follow. A 2C rise in temperatures means nothing. Our planet will still be largely a freezing one which has far more downside than being slightly warmer.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either, just a prime example of groupthink and herd mentality even in scientist circles. Look no further than the polar bear example of how even clear evidence that doomsday predictions are wrong "aren't allowed" in the community and are shot down.
Whether or not Republican liars like Ken Doll or yourself "believe" in science, it exists. You don't matter, it does. That's a little lesson on the reality of your very, very short existence as a life form on this planet, you trolling moron.
Trump firing whoever published it in 3... 2... 1...
Because it's expensive.
The costs of pollution outweigh the illusionary "savings" that you reap by not preventing or cleaning up the pollution.
Nobody gives a fuck about what's "natural." We care about the consequences to us. Comets colliding with the earth would be natural too, but if we saw one coming in, people would desperately want to Do Something about it, to minimize the damage. Fuck nature.
Bzzt. You can be responsible to yourself, as well as other humans too. No mysticism, supernatural belief or paranormalism phenomenon are needed. All you need is the the plain hard reality of not wanting people to get away with doing bad things to other, innocent, unconsenting people. Even if you don't believe in Thor or Jehova or Quetzalcoatl, you would have reason to object to me dumping sewage into your home. And if you were inclined to use such language, you might even say I was "morally culpable" for the sewage that I unilaterally chose to put into your home.
You CHOSE to be part of a group and act in their way, that will kill millions and already caused a geologic mass-extinction event.
Which means, you are literally actually non-hyperbolically, worse than a concentration camp Nazi under Hitler. By comparison, they would not have dreamt of global mass-extinctions and hand-making apocalyptic weather through teamwork on a gigantic scale. And they were the kings of being organized! Also, they actually knew that what they were doing was considered batshit crazy by everyone else. You don't.
And you are the dumbest fucking drone of a passive-thinking livestock of the dumbest religion ever (only competing with p.c. SJWs).
And all because you are such a massive *pussy*. Yeah, I said it. It' what all you p.c. SJW, conservative, libertarian, religious, conspiracy theorist, anticonspiracy-theorist / blackeyer, hipster, nationalist, racist, antifa and most other -ism morons have in common. You just are such massive scaredy cats, that you make up some idiotic born-out-of-ignorance scapegoat to explain all your problem away. How convenient! It's totally not you being failures!
Unless you are a troll.
But in that case, some genius troll convinced me that he's the US president too.
There's too much out there on this to think something's not up. I'm not betting against climate change and you'd be a fool to ignore it. I'll refrain from having kids, buying coastal property, moving to already warm environments, etc. This planet simply cannot support a sustain a greedy high human population for more than a few centuries.
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.
500 * 10^6 hours / 81 years = 6.173 * 10^6 hours/year
That's 6.173 * 10^6 / 52 = 1.187 * 10^5 hours/week.
Given 10 * 10^6 working age adults in the Southeast, that's...
0.012 hours per week per worker. Not a hell of a lot.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
...whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural."
I'm not aware that anyone is calling it unnatural.
They are saying it's unprecedented,
And we have a pretty good idea we know why it's happening.
And that if we don't change our behavior we're going to be in a world of hurt, literally.
But sure, let's quibble about whether it's <<<natural>>>
Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on ALL Lives' from this Planet.
Screw you and your maggot-infested evil cunning brain right into the hereafter
"Many of the "experts"" = 99% of all scientists in the field, SORRY NUTBAR REPUBLICAN LIARS, you don't matter, THEY DO.
Note that the above shitty clickbait article clearly states 1.1 Fahrenheit, not Celsius. This is all part of the misinformation tsunami that makes you and me argue about the smallest details while the big oil, big pharma, big transport and others keep raking gazillions, while nobody talking about actual solutions
Yes, AC, we can all see that you're a completely natural being on this planet, literally just like all the other animals -- and like those animals, you haven't got a fucking clue about anything beyond putting food in your belly, eliminating your wastes, and reproductive activity. And just just like so many species that came before you, you can naturally go extinct. I'd recommend, for your own comfort, that you arrange to go personally extinct as soon as possible. It's better for the planet if you do.
Fake News Fire them all and hire coal lobbyists to make a Real Report!
amirite
No, you are not right.
The caravan is a political stunt, nothing more. A useful tool for everyone of any "side".
SJW's are destroying only their own subset of culture really. What has truly changed as a result of them? Not much.
Antifa are the Lost Boys for the modern age, doing what they think is right with the misguided energy of youth and inexperience, sadly some greatly messing up what were otherwise promising lives.
I'm interested in how you decide which mythical all-destructive forces to believe?
I believe in things that are real. I believe in logic, in reason, in science, in not being OF a party but being above all parties.
I voted for both Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians in the last election. Can you say the same? Or are you still being led by forces you do not understand and have no say in?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go to hell you lying son of a bitch! May you and your entire family line die as soon as possible. That is your fate!
Expect some firings among those who worked on the report.
Table-ized A.I.
Oh oh, the sky is falling, the SKY IS FALLING!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
You only have insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters, and batshit insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters.
Look at the *actual* *actions* they both did. Not what they said. Not what anyone said. What they *did*.
In that case, Bush Sr, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are the same line. The same exact team.
US leaders really are the masters in their field: They don’t even need an external scapegoat. Even when dummy Bush goes, and empties the (conveniently always kept full) villain closet, they just hold their two arms ("parties") up in the puppet theater, make the hand puppets act like enemies, and you fall for it, hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, fisherman and boat.
Then they point at the cloth hand puppets, and make you blame the puppets for what they did. Seriously, the level of delusion here only compares to North Korea.
Oh an, fuck your convenient attitude of first going "it doesn't happen", and then when it does happen, go "now we can't do anything about it."! How fucking convenient for you, criminal! Nice try. You are literally* that guy in the restaurant from the South Park episode, when he violently gets eaten by ManBearPig, and it couldn’t possibly be more satisfying.
___
* Information for people with Aspergers: This is the hyperbolic use of the word.
You are such a fucking moron that every time you open your mouth I want to find the nearest object I can stuff into your pie-hole to shut you the fuck up.
See this comment, it also applies to you: https://science.slashdot.org/c...
Maybe it's not happening in your particular neighborhood
Perhaps you need to read my post again?
In my case it was also going up, which I said.
I am just saying it's not going to be going up at the rapid rise they predict, such predictions always starting in a year or two from now, then in two more years new predictions are that NOW in two years or so it's really going to climb.
Climate will indeed continue to change, and currently the trend is warmer. But warmth alone is nothing to fear, and indeed something to embrace over the alternative climate historically has had to offer - which is ice and far greater regions of lifeless existence in the world. Antartica was a tropical paradise once... in your rush to embrace fear you have forgotten how to look all all things that may be, instead of seeing only the future you have been told to see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nice sand castle of a demand you have there, but that's not how science works.
Now go away and die as stupid as you were born; nobody owes you enlightenment.
... our pinhead politicians fail to understand the difference between climate and this afternoon's weather.
If only they have someone on staff who passed high school science instead of another hack whose specialty is oppo research.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
against climate change. I think we can all agree he makes good points.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The projections might be better for some locations than others. For me just north of Washington DC there was a significant drop from 1960 to 1970 and then more or less constant increase after that and the projections seem close enough to that constant increase rate to seem pretty reasonable. That still puts it at a 40 day increase from 1970 to 2089. Miami FL which looked reasonable to too. Measured increase of 40 some days and a projected increase of 30 some days.
Why do lying Republican trolls resort to calling 99% of science "alarmist" just because they're the 1% dumbest Republicans, already the least educated subgroup in America? Why should uneducated Republicans exist at all?
Fix that, fix the world. Your disinformation campaign doesn't stand up to even Fox News' own internal peer review, get lost Republican trolls. You don't matter, science does.
So lazy. You're even lazy trolling. It's ok, the adults will take care of you too.
The opposite? I don't think they have founded a cabal that aims to terraform the planet for alien invaders that secretly subjugated us already in the 1950's.
This won't matter to half of the american population, because their party and "news" channel keeps telling them it's fake news, and that a cold winter is proof that there is no global warming. And with bots and morons posting youtube links as "proof" of the contrary, you pretty much ensure more people, ignorant on the subject or oblivious to scientific research, will bite.
The most interesting contradiction I find is the religious conservatives want to stop abortion and advocate for family values. Then they default deny climate change which will impact their family after they have died. To me it seems that believing in climate change directly mean that god doesn't exist, but contradicts the “Be fruitful and multiply..." bible verse. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
You talking about the photo of a polar bear that was supposed to be 'the face of climate change"? That was taken by SeaLegacy, a definitively non-scientific PR environmental group. The photo and label were strongly shot down as being inaccurate by scientists and local residents, the same scientists that do say polar bear populations are declining in many places due to climate change (the local population was doing well at the time). Thing is, the scientists prefer hard data and long-term studies, not cheap photo shoots or one-off examples.
Scientists do not support laziness. If there was clear evidence that predictions were wrong and it was shot down due to bias or conspiracy rather than actual error, there would be a large kerfuffle and a lot of scientists would lose their jobs if clear this were ever to come out.
Each and every scientist would know that the first time they let this pass or got involved, it would mean they are complicit, and their careers would be permanently over as soon as anyone found out. Further, they know that there is enough support and money behind climate change denial that they'd get support and protection, and likely a lot of money, if they would whistle-blow.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
Supposed lawyer saying:
When the facts are for you, pound the fact. When the laws are for you, pound the law. When neither the facts nor the laws are for you, pound the table.
Sometimes people will just create noise if they can't argue their case.
This article is nothing but speculation born out of liberal tears and paranoia.
If you are arguing with me about basic facts like the clear trend of increasing global temperature year over year then you are not skeptical, you're just an idiot. That's the problem. Deniers are trying to deny the problem exists which flies in the face of all evidence. Many of the climate change mitigation techniques should be done for a whole host of reasons. Getting rid of coal energy production and reducing radiation exposure while reducing acid rain sure is hard to honestly argue against and yet you have deniers decrying lost jobs despite new energy options actually producing more jobs.
If you move the argument into what we're going to do about it such as this article tries to do you end up with a constructive argument with plenty of room for actual skeptics which actually doesn't devolve in religious fanaticism.
Just because everyone is entitled to their opinion doesn't mean they are all equally weighted for any specific subject. I am not a rocket scientist so I have no business trying to launch actual rockets. Much like Presidents should have some actual governing experience before they try to govern an entire country. Both Clinton and W made the government actually DO a lot. Clinton with Republicans in the house actually balanced a budget and the Republicans somehow managed to convince the military that all the base closures were Clinton's fault! Haha. I digress because anti-intellectualism is actually celebrated these days. Greed is no longer a sin much less a mortal sin as you have prosperity preachers all over the country obvious perverting the intent of the bible and Christianity as a whole. Why do you think so many climate deniers are also right wing religious nutjobs? They think God will swoop in and rapture them. That is not a realistic way to run a country.
Let's start with the basic principle that CO2 absorbs heat. This was discovered nearly 200 years ago and has not been disputed for a long time, if ever. To dumb it down, increasing CO2 increases heat absorption.
By the laws of thermodynamics, this energy has to go somewhere and is manifesting itself as a slow rise in average temperature over the planet. This is the basis of climate change theory.
The questions remaining are how much will the temperature rise and what will be the effect. This is what some are questioning, pointing to models that are inaccurate. However, the fact remains, the Earth is getting warmer and we are seeing increasing climactic instability.
While some people point to the studies and the flaws, I point to the economics and the costs associated with doing something about climate change and ask how the economists can predict not only the cost of preventing climate change, but the economic slowdown. Consider how accurate economists have been in the past and answer why I should listen to them?
you can choose to live a life not lived in fear
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago
We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming
I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point
We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point
I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con
To expand on that, if the median household income in the Southeast is around $50,000, and there are typically 1.4 workers per household, that would be about $18 per hour, on average. Assuming you lose 0.012 hours per week, that would be about 0.6 hours per year of work (assuming 2 weeks vacation).
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than spend even more money to try to save that amount of economic activity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're a lying nazi faggot Ken Doll. Pretending anything beyond that is not supported by years of evidence.
Uneducated oaf. You're a waste of time, space and resources. No amount of screaming will ever change that, nor will you ever get a job or be a productive member of society. Get a rope and hang yourself.
Amazon gets large plot of land on Long Island.
I guess Bezos plus minions care less about sea level rising, and hurricanes etc.
I made a conversion error: it's 0.012 (aka 1.2%) of the work week = 0.48 hours per person per week per year, based on 81 years, 52 work weeks per year, and 10 million workers.
If there are more than 10 million workers in the SE, that number obviously goes way down...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do!
So if someone burns down your house, assaults your mother, and dumps plutonium into the town water supply, that's the "natural flow of the universe?"
Humans can make choices. It is wise for us to make choices that are in our collective interest as a species if we are going to survive. We are perfectly capable of driving ourselves to extinction if we don't.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If the data and science is so clear just cite it and shut them down! Oh, you can't because all you have are a bunch of flawed studies from communists in the EU.
Slight misreading - it didn't say "be fruitful and exponentiate". And that's the problem, sooner or later Malthus will be proven correct.
— Shamans in Tasmania, about 12000 years ago.
Obviously some folks didn't get the irony or read the referenced article. Tasmania, last I heard, is an island and is isolated from the continent.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The actual report says : "average annual losses of 570 million labor hours"
So back out that divide by 81 years.
The difference between skeptics and cynics is that skeptics are persuaded by data and cynics don't give a shit.
Since cynics don't give a shit, why should we treat them like precious snowflakes? It won't make any difference how we treat them, they still won't be persuaded by the data.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, sorry, it's your lot that's legalizing it in the US. Progressives are vehemently opposed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes, my sister used that reasoning for not cutting down a tree limb that was overhanging her house. It had never fallen in the past, so why worry about. See, it works for everything, nothing out of the ordinary ever happens because then it wouldn't follow the induction principle.
Not a scientist, are you?
Ok, sure.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh...
Prediction: An increase in CO2 will result in net increase in global temperatures.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...
There's the global temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.
Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, they do.
No, we're not supposed to be underwater right now. That was never predicted. No, there was nothing about the ice caps melting by 2015, that's far too specific. Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
If you want to accuse it of being a far left conspiracy, you can join the New World Order brigade, the antivaxxers and the ancient aliens nuts. Because those are the people who dispute global warming. And they're essentially the only people who do. So if you don't want to be in that crowd, think.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Where does it say that? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Ah. Must be why the first study was in 1896, and why there have been a steady stream of studies since. After 1960, mostly from NASA. During highly Republican regimes, no less.
Odd.
So you're suggesting Ronald Reagan was an EU communist spy?
Otherwise, I can't see how you can relate what you said with where most of the work was done.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The following is not science:
Whether climate change is driven (in part or in full) by human activities is a science question and will ultimately be decided by scientific criteria (exactly when such a reliable decree comes down the pike remains open to debate, though increasingly less open, year over year, year after year, on current trends).
Extrapolating the economic cost of heat stress ventures deep into the dark, unreliable heart of economics (which is referred to as "the dismal science" for a good reason) is a mug's game.
Even glib, prognosticating economists can't make these projections without taking into account future human ingenuity. Economics with a side-order of futurology—what could possibly go wrong?
I'm getting ever more grumpy about this constant bait and switch: we're really, really, really confident of our climate model this time, so let us now describe with infinite confidence the future we envision using our entirely non–Magical 8 Ball (this involving two additional academic fields, one barely respected, the other openly derided; moreover, the vast majority of the dignified-to-a-fault, hard-science authors of this publication have any specific training—or tainting—in either of these shabby fields, and that's why you should believe every word we write).
That a recent study conducted on beliefs showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is.
That is what science is supposed to do, but in modern times is often "goal oriented science" to be done just to back up a desired selling point.
The thought that I am confounding anything ignores the headline here: "Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes"
How is that not obviously meant to instill fear?
Even if the worst things in the report this article talks about come to pass, I find none of them dire. Lets look at just one of them:
The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
How is that dire? Do you know how many people live in the midwest?
It also is pretty transparent just from this thingle sentence that the target of the report are the people in flyover country who do not yet embrace the global warming faith, yet another indicator the report is far more marketing than science.
I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell
How am I yelling? I am merely revealing motives to alarmism, in quite a calm way. I think you'll find my use of capital letters to be grammatically correct and not of the current fashion to impart drama.
You mention psychology in your post. Is calling people things like deniers going to convince anyone of veracity? That leads to a very obvious negative response from most people. The fact such hyperbole is used so often indicates to me the people using it are not truly serious nor concerned, as do so many actions from those proclaiming the loudest there is cause for great concern.
Science isn't an absolute
We are often told it is in the case of global warming. The very people that question it are called "deniers" as if asking questions about science is forbidden; the fact that climate science is an absolute is implied a thousand times a day. (by the way, yes of course that is hyperbole on my part, as I find it amusing, and as the old saying goes - they started it).
I think this part really underscores your feelings of climate change. A fear of being told what to do...Clearly it isn't having the impact you so fear.
I find this paragraph very interesting; as I said quite explicitly a number of times, I choose not live in fear. I find it interesting you wish to convince others into the idea they feel fear even thought they state categorically they do not. Puzzling.
You are right about one thing, people will do what they will do. What I do, is help people understand what is, when others are trying to obscure the matter, so they can make truly informed choices. How is that a philosophy based in fear? Myself, I find information is the gateway to living the least fearful life, because what you understand well you can adapt for properly. Nothing is so calming as being prepared and informed.
Currently I see the prediction of warming to be be pretty fuzzy - it will probably warm some, but that may yet be counteracted by things like deep solar minimums, or other environmental reaction we have not yet thought of or understood, or even just a few fairly large volcanos implementing the "blocking the sun" idea for us for some time. Also of course we are near a cusp of very rapid alternative energy uptake, especially solar heating and electric cars in much wider use - so CO2 use will very naturally reduce a great extent anyway without any extra effort.
What does seem pretty clear though is that the thing we were all supposed to worry about the most - runaway warming from CO2 - is simply not occurring, nor will it occur. Since that will not happen the need for immediate action is eliminated and we can adapt to whatever changes may occur on a more leisurely timescale.
If you read a lot of actual papers on climate study instead of just reading dramatic head
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help. It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
By the time the temp increase passes 5C we are moving into great Permian extinction territory. By the time you get to 10C every life form heavier than 5 kg is likely going to become extinct ... at least that's what happened back then.
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times.
You're really going to try and sell that "labor hours" bullshit? Automation will consume all human labor hours by 2100. There will be no such thing as a human working in whatever fields. In many cases, farmers would be extinct if not for government subsidies, so they've already fallen on "tough" times.
...In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today...
So obese Americans won't be able to feed their red meat and HFCS addictions? And this is bad how again? If you disagree, ask your doctor. Or better yet, watch and see how a CAFO works to produce what they call "food".
...and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield.
I play the same tiny violin for the loss of soy. I see zero benefit with more soy boys running around pretending to be men.
https://nca2018.globalchange.g...
it's just a shame that the consequences of climate change can't be confined to the countries, or better yet the people. who deny and ignore the problem. Maybe we could convince them all to move to Florida (and the Maldives for non-American denialists?)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Unless you can actually propose a realistic, engineering solution that can be implemented planet-wide, you're basically pie in the sky bullshitting.
"Whatever happened to Donald Trump?" Messages a battered US citizen, who lost their home when New York City's last-minute anti-flooding program failed disastrously.
"Well, what about this obscure species of cichlid fish, found only in a cave in Outer Mongolia, which has been found in greater numbers than ever before?" Replies a stalwart member of the Republican party, still trying desperately to change the subject with Whattaboutism.
Search AirVisual Earth to see a real-time, global view of air quality. Then tell me again how the U.S. is the one who needs to clean up our emissions. Maybe we're just shipping our dirty air to Africa, India and China. -eyeroll-
You Americans think it's all about you, you, you!
But I'm really interested in what they say to change to. Solar? Wind? Tidal?the technology isn't here at a scalable, constant. Where is the sun at night, when you need the lights on, or the wind on superhot, or icie cold days? Tides have a lull period, and mice cannot run a wheel powerful enough. And the batteries, will have to be recharged, so, my question is how many people will die if we keep operating like usual. How much bigger a loss if we change and power ourselfs as a third world country? Oh, and switching off our generators will do that. Less industry, fewer places that are open to shop and less safe foods, create a third world country here.
bunch of denialist cunts.
Surely we will be able to engineer new corn that will grow in slightly warmer temperatures.
You CHOSE to be part of a group and act in their way, that will kill millions
That is true of socialists of course, but also climate alarmists like yourself. You would bankrupt whole nations and cause millions to die in the epidemics of poverty to follow, all in your quest to eradicate a harmless gas that plant life uses as food.
you are the dumbest fucking drone of a passive-thinking livestock of the dumbest religion ever
Humorously that exactly describes those who follow the True Path of climate alarmism far more than I ever could. I merely believe science, what I read on studies of climate. You believe headlines and lies fed to you. You are the acolyte here, attempting to smite the non-believer!
But like all cults, eventually your faith will wane when you see the lies for what they are. Until then, I truly pity you and the miserable life you have chosen for yourself. No prison is as terrible as a prison of the mind you construct for yourself.
Eat shit and die. Human-caused climate change deniers are on the same list of idiots as anti-vaxxers. They're cancerously stupid, cancerous because it seems to be spreading like a disease. Our civilization and likely our species as well are likely doomed because morons keep ignoring the facts, or worse, calling it some 'liberal conspiracy'. Meanwhile the nutjob religious ultra-right-wing types keep encouraging the morons because they want the Apocalypse to happen, regardless of how fucktarded that entire notion is. So how about you, that other guy, and the rest of your climate-change-denying jackasses go throw yourselves into a wood chipper and get mulched? Preferably head first.
If you weren't such a cowardly fucking pedophile you'd know that it is a pop-culture reference dumb-ass. Now, stop diddling children and go fucking kill yourself moron.
— gerald butler's impersonator
Okay ManBearPig is real. What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do that will make any difference now?
Even if what do something about it, what about the Chinese? They're just going to keep right on . . .
Trump doesn't deny climate change. He just sees some positive aspects to it. Example. Increased harvest in northern latitudes. Trump could be trusted to at least tackle the problem in a way that doesn't regulate industry out of existence. In my opinion, the way to tackle it is to gameify industry so that it's rewarded for using sustainable methods or that the renewable sector itself is gameified. The big money behind Hillary is the same big money that invests in China which has a terrible track record on pollution. We need to solve this problem in a way that doesn't cripple industry and thus allows an ideology that allows the development of clean energy to prosper.
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
The interior of the country is more strongly effected, it's how climate works. So ask somebody from say Illinois or Iowa if they see more days with over 90 temps in recent years than say in the 70's.
By the way...I'm from Illinois...and yes. And by the way the range of armadillos now extends to Illinois...and southern pest species....like kudzu...have been moving north as the climate has become more warm.
While I agree in not living in fear, your arguments are similar to those who say we don't need to do anything.
I D I O T. Just simply step away from the keyboard, never touch it or a pen again, and take a vow of silence.
Jesus. How can anyone be so stupid?
Economic specifics in text above Figure 19.21 at US Southeast chapter 19
The figure is interesting as it has a heat map of annual % hours lost because of climate change over the US.
The base figure US Hours lost heatmap
Actually, the number is 570 billion hours per year (see the full chapter 19) though the slashdot wording, taken from the CNN worded, which paraphrases the executive summary of chapter 19, does not make that clear.
Grr, 570 million hours per year.
Because there is no punishment for laziness here. If countries held each other responsible for their contribution to global warming, things would improve quickly. Instead China invested massively in green technology while the planet's biggest mafia don (PotUS) spent 8 years pretending global warming didn't exist. Without the USA on-board (and it still isn't) there is no leadership for the problem. It's dismal that first-world countries can organize a ban on CFC gas, teen nudity and even prostitution but not greenhouse gases.
"HALF A BILLION MAN HOURS!" sounds like a lot. ...through 2100.
that's 500,000,000 hours over 82 years. 6,097,560 hours a year, or about 40 hours per Year per US citizen..
How convenient it must be, to be able to declare anyone that does not agree with you "a cynic" and issue yourself a free get-out-of-burden-of-proof card.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You've cited exactly one prediction, with plenty of questions remaining about it. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today? Can we trust the accuracies of both, given how small the claimed changes actually are?
By now, with countless billions spent on "climate science" world-wide, you should've had many more predictions to offer — and obvious ones too, without the legitimate follow-up questions like above.
So, you admit, it was never a scientific argument for you... And you project your own insincerity on the opponents.
Yeah, not important at all — I've got my own Elysium up there and ready, and really care not what happens to Earth. Right.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How cute! You've cited one individual with a (seemingly) successful prediction to prove, that Climate Science is actually science, but are now dismissing multiple other individuals as "out on a limb", because their predictions have proved spectacularly wrong.
You can't have it both ways — cherry-picking some predictions as solidly scientific, dismissing others. The discipline's record remains in shambles and even its practitioners and adherents admit, it is "not always" falsifiable.
It is obvious, that Climate Science is not, so to speak. Perhaps, you need to argue from a more religious point of view, as these guys are doing (and as was predicted you'd do many years prior).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Approx. Elevation: 13 feet (4 meters)
Seal level rise predicted by 2100: 1 to 10 feet.
So within the lifetime of everyone buying property, only a small part of that area is predicted to be flooded in even the worst case scenario.
Yep, that is the correct way to deal with the problem.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's too late to change the rise in temperature, because the melting tundra will produce more Carbon emissions in a day than the human race produces in a year.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And clearly, it all got there by magic. The earth is much bigger them you and your leftist agenda.
Yeah, but not world wide. ... at least during the last glacier periods at the equator the temperature was more or less the same as right now. So except inside of Africa, I doubt those areas will get much warmer. However: again the question is changing rain patterns. Phillippines and Indonesia had a drought last year and partly this year and heavy floodings several times this year (I don't remember last year). Thailand is unusually dry to, at least in the north west.
Far north and far south you still will have tempered regions, question however is what kind of weather (aka storms) you have and what and how much you can grow.
Around the equator it mostly will depend on your distance to the sea
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We need to hold feat mongers responsible when their predictions don't come true.
You seem to have misspelled "Mr Schumann", which is how a 12-year-old should address an adult.
Note that the above shitty clickbait article clearly states 1.1 Fahrenheit, not Celsius.
That's the number even the shitty Trump administration can no longer avoid to admit, you dimwit.
When one looks at a 50 year window and extrapolates the rest, the conclusions can be nothing more than "probably"
Ahhh... respondant has to be a liberal, as it has all the telltale signs - name calling... no actual solution... etc...
Meanwhile, the OP of this subthead that just got called an idiot has it right - we currently have no technologically viable way NOT to burn the fossil fuels that we've been burning. We just don't know how. We can't build a solar solution until we can store the electricity, and we do not have the "magic battery" that will do that. Neither do we have said magic battery that will allow for viable electric cars, "viable" being defined as "just as cheap" and "will go just as far in a day of driving as my own car" which current electrics will not. Why not? Because while even the most expensive, best performing electrics will travel at the same speeds for maybe 300 miles, I refuel in 5 minutes or less, and they have to stop for over half an hour to get a partial charge. My 1st day of a vacation is usually marked by a big initial push to get to the attraction I'm destined for, and so the 1st day is sometimes 800 - 1200 miles of driving. Just can't do that to match my leaving from Eastern Virginia and sleeping in Texas before midnight. Maybe someday, but not today.
We're building out wind and solar for the grid as fast as we can, and hopefully some smart guy will invent a magic battery to really make them work. Fingers crossed. But until it happens, we have absolutely no alternative but to burn the fossil fuels that we're burning. We have to manufacture things, we have to grow food and then transport it, we have to burn the fuel just to get to work or play. And of course our play is someone else's work, so if they say we shouldn't play, then those providing the playgrounds - movie theaters, etc. will lose their work and impact the economy.
What we need to do it _stop_ burning fossil fuels altogether. I think we'll get there, but only if the economy is allowed to remain healthy enough to have the $$$ left over for research - battery research - and eventually produces the magic battery (or supercapacitor...)
Kind of like leftists who say Black Lives Matter, while in the same breath celebrating 13 million African American abortions as, "liberating".
Either black lives matter, or abortion disproportionately murders millions of black babies.
A fat man stood outside of your sister's house for 7 years screaming that a branch was just about to fall on her at any second unless she paid him $60,000... and also she has to stop cutting her hair, because haircuts were contributing to the branch falling crisis.
The branch still hasn't fallen 19 years later, but he has become even more shrill and dire, demanding more and more money, and also is now Insisting she has to pay for her neighbor's tree limb removal too because they are too poor and need their haircuts for job interviews, and she's a selfish greedy disgusting consumer whore who deserves to be executed for not taking the limb crisis seriously.
There. Fixed that for you.
Irrelevant. What was requested was one prediction from one citation. I provided one prediction from one citation. You don't get to change the question after the fact. Either acknowledge I answered the first question exactly as requested, meeting the specification in full, and then ask a new question regarding further issues, or acknowledge that you've no interest in the facts at all.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
First, that was the issue raised. I did not answer questions not asked. And, no, no climate scientist has argued what you claim. You provide no link because there are no credible sources for your claim. There is no cherry-picking, repeated attempts to find any by skeptics - real skeptics - have resulted in them actually siding with climate scientists.
What you are doing is changing the question in order to falsify the answer. You don't get to do that. Acknowledge that I was right, that the original question was wrong, and THEN ask a new question. Or, by deed or default, admit that there are no questions at all.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Over 10 million in Florida alone.
We don't use the mercury-filled "curvy" CFLs anymore. It's LED now.
Yeah, but not world wide. Far north and far south you still will have tempered regions, question however is what kind of weather (aka storms) you have and what and how much you can grow. Around the equator it mostly will depend on your distance to the sea ... at least during the last glacier periods at the equator the temperature was more or less the same as right now. So except inside of Africa, I doubt those areas will get much warmer. However: again the question is changing rain patterns. Phillippines and Indonesia had a drought last year and partly this year and heavy floodings several times this year (I don't remember last year). Thailand is unusually dry to, at least in the north west.
No, literally every life form over 5 kg does seem to have become extinct during the Permian extinction event world wide and the oceans became largely dead zones. You can try to make a 10C increase in temperature sound like a minor event, nothing to worry about, just a Chinese hoax. Personally I would rather avoid that scenario if I could and not just because of the climatic changes. Keep in mind we haven't even begun to discuss the social and political upheaval (a.k.a. famine and wars) caused by scenarios like the entire interior of Africa becoming uninhabitable.
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Then why do climate alarmists resort to hysterical name-calling by labeling people who don't buy into their religion heretics, errr, deniers?
If it were about actual science, skepticism wouldn't be met with ridicule.
Skepticism is one thing but when the same old argument has been refuted thousands of times it's no longer skepticism but denial. A true skeptic is willing to listen to the arguments from all sides and consider which is more credible. No matter how skeptical you may be you can't change the physical reality.
There is no leftist agenda
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
The issue isn't about anything moral or bullshit like that. The issue is can our modern worldwide civilization survive the changes that global warming/climate change will cause. If we want to preserve this civilization we need to do something about that. Humans won't go extinct but we might have a massive collapse of population and have civilization fall back to a 19th or even 18th century level just because there won't be enough people to support the kind of civilization we have now.
You're going to get cold long before you get warm.
"What would a selfish regressive say?" for $500. Your argument is that all of the technology already exists, just not quite as cheaply or conveniently as you'd like.
Indeed. Technology gets refined and cost comes down through mass production and use, not through sidelining it using the nirvana fallacy.
It ain't insult, kid.
The only remaining logical option, if you aren't willing to countenance abortions or solving our emissions issues, is expansion.
The only way out is up.
All wars are ultimately, at their core, resource wars. Expand to new regions with new resources (and their commensurate hazards and rewards), and we will have peace.
Or we could all just stay here and slowly murder each other in variously gruesome ways. Your call, really.
-- Tony Benn ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s )
You are downvoted unfairly.
You are absolutely right. We need to take measures handling climate change consequences, not only measures preventing more drastic climate change.
We are breathing out now, literally, more CO2 than we produced by all burning in 1950 and by that time we were already up 0.5 degrees Celsius compared to XIX century.
We are already experiencing effects of climate change and instead of shouting "I told ya!" and in addition to calling for changes in regulation that will affect climate change in 10 years only, we need to invest a lot now in federal measures to handle existing consequences.
Oil burning will be there with us for a long time. Oil is a strategic fossil fuel - everything in military runs on oil, because oil is most autonomous way of having an energy supply in the battlefield. Nuclear subs are the only exception to that.
No major military country will sacrifice their military needs more than required by current slow-moving disarmament tendency (does it even exist now?) . Anybody who would argue with this does not know how things work
What we can do and should do is handling existing problems that are 100% happening instead of future consequences.
Do both things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND spend more on infrastructure to prepare for warmer Earth.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Answer his question:
bq. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Not all of them are workers though.
No, it's not. First of all, FSM is a satire, as you know, second, it does not involve any scare. Third, it's very fringe satire, and only pimply juvenile imbeciles ever use it in their opportunistic fight with "the man".
(why am I forbidden to copy/paste this, stupid NYT?)
2018:
https://www.timeanddate.com/we...//historic?month=9&year=2018
Tested may-through september - 5 days >= 90
year of birth, (do not ask, it's impolite to ask old people about their age):
4 days>=90 (can't show you the website not to reveal the country)
Which is expected, given that the proposed arbitrary measure of severity of local climate changes (I am more interested in number of flood days, number of tornado days, number of 100-people-a-day-immolated-alive days per year).
In my area, for example, let's pick a different measure: number of days where temperature drops below -20C = -4F (that's when schools used to close in my childhood - important economic factor given that the parents will likely skip work as well to look for the children):
winter 2017/2018: 30 days -4F or lower
year of birth: 34 days -4F or lower
Looks like we get worth in summer and better in winter equally in the area of interest. I am not really sure what this proves. It's just some data-wrangling fun :-)
I do not know the worth climate and how it will be but on the Internet it will always be September climate. So, no, LOVE whatever you want, you won't get much of it anywhere nowadays.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I am struggling to understand what is your complaint here. Are you some kind of creepfan of freezing nose-frostbiting climate?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
To Slahdot admins: would you please retire "Flamebait" and "Troll" modifier? Every single article on the front page in the that rectangle of mosly commented articles is already flame by definition. Are you downvoting people who bring the article to a front page?
This does not make sense. And Troll is a stupid designation, it is used 100% of time against people with minority political opinions.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
And there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Also a study conducted by the scientific community stated that most sources of CO2 are not human but instead earth based releases. If it is changing then there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Yes, cheaply. I just recently ran onto a fellow who is quitting his job, as he's getting abused at $11.50 an hour as a cook. That's outrageously low pay for a skilled workman of any sort, and being a moderate Republican that does not toe the party line concerning minimum wages, I think that it ought to be $15 / hr. But anyway, people like him, when the world goes to ultra-expensive cars just because they're electric, are going to be in poverty, or further into poverty, and here's a clue: Poverty kills. It isn't just inconvenient, but people die because they're poor. They don't get enough to eat, they don't get the right kinds of things to eat, they exist in poorly heated homes or not cooled homes in the deep south, they don't get access to preventive medicine, some are even homeless which exposes them both to the weather and to criminal attack. I've read that while smoking can take 7 years off your life, living in poverty can take 10. So, while electric everything may be an inconvenient expense for me, it will be a life-or-death situation for millions of others that don't have a nice pension and annuity and a bit of Social Security after a career as an engineer.
No, I say "no fair" simply dismissing avoiding expense as a selfish luxury. It's extremely important to a lot of people. An electric society is desireable, but only if it doesn't kill a bunch of people by throwing them into poverty.
The leftist agenda is to enslave the people to be able to tell them what to do, how to live, etc. Live in "no cars" communities where you have to walk 3 blocks to where you park your car, use bicycles when you're back is screaming with the latest arthritis attack, eat what they tell you (see Michelle O's school lunch nonsense for that one), etc. etc. Leftists just want to control you and don't want you to be able to resist their doing it. The litmus test for "liberal" is "anti-gun." They want to take them so you can't shoot their asses off when they tell you that you have to live in a 900 sq. ft. apartment instead of your house on an acre because it's somehow "good for the environment." My house on an acre has geothermal heat and an electric bill that the 900 sq. ft. apartment probably doesn't achieve 'cuz it's electric resistance heated. Yeah, the left has an agenda, and you're guaranteed not to like it.
But those bitches are expensive...
âoe Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise. âoe
Well, I see it like this.
At this point, it is akin to frantically attempting to apply the brakes after you have already crashed the car. It is a wonderful gesture, but not very effective.
All it takes is a few degrees to start the ice thawing. Once it has started, it becomes a self sustaining engine that we cannot stop unless we figure out how to cool thing down again.
The more ice that melts, the more trapped gasses ( such as methane ) it releases which effectively becomes a feedback loop.
So, the 5C or 10c thing is not the problem because we are going there no matter if we want to or not.
We have already crashed the car so to speak and the process has been set in motion.
Our focus now should be figuring out how to survive it in the long term.
Ever had a "worker movement" that wasn't headed by a guy whose name starts with "Lord"?
Slashdot used to be about tech matters. Now it's becoming just another mouthpiece for far-left nonsense. As we sit shivering in 25F below normal temperatures here in New England, and as virtually EVERY aspect of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked - I get the nonsense here at Slashdot.
Slashdot is NOT the place for this politicized nonsense.
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
Agreed. He listened to the media and the government.
/. Give it a rest.
Let me say it in a different way. I once heard someone say there was a "Population Bomb" and we'd all starve to death. I was a kid then and it scared me because it was all over the news. The source of that information was a book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich and he was wrong. Mr. Ehrlich is still a highly regarded scientist despite his error. So now with all the climate alarmism with its we-must-act-by dates that come and go, please forgive us when we cast skeptical eye toward every doomsday pronouncement emitted by the climate change community. And what is it, the 3rd time today I've seen this on
Western politics only worries about the next 5 years unfortunately and is therefore unable to formulate any meaningful response to impending disaster.
Yet most leftists I know are proud gun owners. It is almost like your ideas come from right wing fantasies or things they have seen on TV rather than actual leftists. Given how right wingers only seem to be happy when everyone is exactly like them and no one will stop them applying pressure to convert everyone, kinda sounds like projection.
You have it kind of backwards. There is not more radiation hitting the Earth as a result of global warming. What is happening is that the radiation leaving the Earth that balances the incoming radiation is being slowed down by greenhouse gases resulting in warmer surface temperatures.
Except, the fact is that the branch has fallen repeatedly. Nice try. We are already witnessing the damage and measuring it in billions of dollars.
Take your head out of the sand.
Wat?
Most leftist are terrified of plastic and metal, or just a pointed finger, in the shape of a gun.
You're demonstrably wrong.
"New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."
As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles."
JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it.
[Graphic: Welcome to 2015]
PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem.
JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.
UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are
rising.
HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows. ...
CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?
...either way, youâ(TM)ve lost me by coupling it with lunatic raving and generally unpleasant attacks on those to whom youâ(TM)re responding
-signed: an innocent bystander
The target dates come and go but the problem with global warming is that it's a slow moving problem. The target dates may be accurate but the effects of what they mean may not become fully manifest for 20 or 30 years and by then it's way too late to fix it. For instance the last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm the climate was much warmer than it is now and sea levels were about 70 feet higher than they are at the moment. It may be that is already baked in and in 400 or 500 years we will see sea levels that much higher. The great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica don't melt instantaneously relative to the temperature they're exposed to but melt they will until they reach a new equilibrium. So we may see 5 or 6 feet of SLR by the end of this century and maybe 15-20 feet by 2200 but it won't stop there. That NYC will be underwater sooner or later is almost a sure thing now. it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. But no scientist who studies SLR would have expected it to be underwater by 2015 except for the unlikely possibility of a non-linear collapse of something like the Pine Island Glacier area which if it happened catastrophically could add several feet of SLR in a matter of a decade or two, a very unlikely event but not impossible.
The state of scientific education and awareness in Americans seem to be very poor. I can clearly see how half formed opinions gleaned from talking heads misinforms the âoerightâ leaning population.
Tiny changes in average global temperature is catastrophic. The science of climate change, the conclusive link to human activities are all well-established peer reviewed findings now. Its time for action, not smokescreen.
This is amazing... That Communism-seeking Illiberals would lie — for the Greater Good(TM) — is well known. But to lie so blatantly, when it is so easy to get caught? Here is my request, with emphasis added:
See? Plural — a single prediction, however singular, just would not do...
I've also asked for the predictions to have come true within 20% of the predicted values — so my follow-up question about numbers is highly relevant. Without satisfactory answers even the single citation you managed to offer is null and void.
No, it was not — I gave you a chance to add the necessary details, but you turned openly adversarial and tried to "win" on a technicality, which also happened to be against you.
You must be from the stupid (rather than the evil) wing of the Progressive movement... Remember to logout.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You fall into the trap/fallacy. The car isn't crashed yet. What you are basically saying is that since we are going to crash, it's not worth it to try braking before we hit the wall. Some people even say we should accelerate and detach our seatbelt (emit even more CO2, sabotage every possible international agreement on CO2 reduction).
There are different types of crash. Not all have to be fatal.
No, got there by the forests that grew in the Tundra the last time atmospheric carbon was this high....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Climate change is real.
Horrible horrible things will happen we are told here (and elsewhere).
Which gives rise to schemes like this.
Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself.
That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I do think climate change is happening and that humans are a direct reason why. But, I also think all of this is overhyped and quite frankly pointless to try and "fix". The basic problem is us. We cannot just limit what we do - our population continues to increase, and no matter what we limit, it will only get worse. No one will ever take this seriously unless the effects are right in front of them. History proves time and time again that this is what spurs people to start caring.
One could also argue that the climate is going to continue to get worse regardless of what we do or do not do, simply because the sun will begin expanding, and likely already is, very slowly. Even a 10% increase in luminosity will make Earth uninhabitable for most non-microscopic life. Life has, at best, 600 million years left, not the billions that are left for when the Earth is eventually engulfed by the sun.
Naturally, no one is going to care, simply because humanity will probably be extinct by then. Why do we care about this climate change crap when we are doomed regardless?
> I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here considering who it is that I'm typing a reply to.
Thanks for writing all that.
At least my cats will be OK, well the fat one might be in trouble ... but at least my cat will be OK