Slashdot Mirror


Many of the Climate Impacts Predicted in the Last National Climate Assessment, in 2014, Are No Longer Theoretical (nytimes.com)

This year's report contains many of the same findings cited in the previous National Climate Assessment, published in 2014. From a report: More and more of the predicted impacts of global warming are now becoming a reality. For instance, the 2014 assessment forecast that coastal cities would see more flooding in the coming years as sea levels rose. That's no longer theoretical: Scientists have now documented a record number of "nuisance flooding" events during high tides in cities like Miami and Charleston, S.C.

"High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast," the report says. As the oceans have warmed, disruptions in United States fisheries, long predicted, are now underway. In 2012, record ocean temperatures caused lobster catches in Maine to peak a month earlier than usual, and the distribution chain was unprepared.

10 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Re:ridiculous by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year, and that rate is expected to accelerate as warming continues. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the long run, and we need to deal with it.

    But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding. This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.

  2. Re:So, it's time to do something by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then global warming must not be that important if we are throwing options off the table that lightly.

    Nice red herring. Nobody's "throwing options off the table that lightly". There is active ongoing research into the effects of iron seeding going on at my nearby university, and CO2 producing power is being replaced as we speak with other options

    The only ones throwing options off the table are the people who keep maintaining that it's not a big problem and that if we just wait a little bit, the climate will change back.

    https://www.businessinsider.co...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Wrong - CO2 emissions from humans are the cause by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Humans are indeed the cause of climate change. I'll just leave this right here.

    Your proposed solution of just moving to higher ground or putting our houses on stilts is just not realistic. Temperature and sea levels are not the only things that will change. We will also see shifts in the location of weather. Habitable and arable land will shift and dwindle. Not all crops can simply be moved and cultivated elsewhere.

    Recall what has happened in human history when a resource has become scarce: war.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  4. Re: Wrong - CO2 emissions from humans are the caus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.

    When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.

  5. Re:Why the focus on droughts, which is plainly wro by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your claims are as absurd as claims of other people.

    On average it will be wetter or more precisely: more humid. There is no evidence that deserts will become green or "food baskets" as your parent calls them get more water in the right time.

    Humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.

    We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and you want to predict which area of the world will have more water for agriculture in 20 years or in 50 years? I call that hubris (no idea why americans spell it that way) .... but good luck!

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Re:More awesomer by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When science gets it wrong, it's still wrong.

    That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.

    Science does not know everything. IAAS and I'll be the first to tell you that. However, science is indisputably the best tool humans have to investigate a great number of things in the universe.

    You are right that science is not about the truth, but only insofar as science considers absolute truth to be inaccessible. However, science most definitely does deal in facts -- observable facts -- as the foundation of a process that tries to place the tightest possible shrink-wrap around the truth.

    As for science being about the "best explanation of the day", you overlook that science continually strives to find better and better "explanations" (aka theories or laws) -- ones that last longer and longer before they need to be replaced, modified, or extended. This is a strength, not a weakness. And some of these "explanations" are venerable indeed -- ones such as thermodynamics, the atomic theory of matter, darwinian evolution, and so on. They can be challenged at any time by contrary evidence, but we have yet to see any.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  7. Re: manbearpig by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fuck them and their apology. It was zero episodes too late. How many impressionable Slashdot nerds use manbearpig to shout down real science? Fuck them, and fuck the Slashdot incel nerds who take their science cues from a cartoon.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  8. Re:Especially question flooding linked to sea leve by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because 1mm average sea level rise means 1mm more water in low tide and roughly 6mm more water in high tide and on top of that

    Stop making shit up. I can tell you are making shit up BECAUSE YOUR MATH DOESNT WORK.

    If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt? the 1mm you just claimed. You just shat a giant dishonesty turd on the discussion AND ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.

    You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. People as egregiously dishonest as the lying fuck you are harmful to every possible conversion

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  9. Re: In before Republican liars try to question all by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3. More efficient air conditioners. The best ACs use a 3rd the power of the worst. Wider adoption of ACs in India, China, and SE Asia is the biggest reason for growing CO2 emissions. We should have an $10M X-Prize for a better and cheaper AC.

    4. More efficient and cost effective insulation, and improved passive heating systems for buildings.

    Efficiency angle already well into diminishing returns territory especially heating and cooling scene. While it is physically possible to do some crazy shit like heat a mansion in sub-zero weather with a candle the reality is quite different.

    5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.

    This is often a counterproductive strategy for the most energy efficient heating and cooling technologies as a practical matter they operate by leveraging temperature differentials on a continuous basis. When you heat or cool a space it's not just the air and moisture content you are also heating or cooling solid matter in the environment which is 1000 times the density of air.

    6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.

    7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.

    By far the biggest bang for the buck in energy space is development of dirt cheap batteries that don't suck ass in any way (low weight, high density, safe, operating temperatures, long life). If you can pull it off everything in the energy scene changes overnight.

    9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.

    If you want do something meaningful on the conservation front increasing household size is the most effective option available.

    Iron fertilization of the oceans to generate plankton blooms. This will remove CO2 from the ocean, and increase fish harvests. People can eat more fish and less beef. Of all the geo-engineering proposals, this is the easiest and the most likely to work.

    There are productive things that can be done with carbon without polluting the air and seas with crap and seeing what happens.

    STP/biochar for example can provide best soils for growing crops while sequestering excess carbon.

  10. Re: In before Republican liars try to question all by Dasher42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly how cities and villages are made around the whole world that haven't been bulldozed for a highway. I lived this way for years on the West Coast of the USA, and I saw it in Peru. Mixed-use densely populated centers, built to a human scale rather than an automobiles. Guess what? It's way more pleasant to be able to do your daily commute and socializing and basic grocery shopping in the course of a half-mile walk than sit in traffic. It's way more fun, way more affordable, way less accident-prone, way better for everyone to live around. And, it spares the environment of a lot of damage.