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.
"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.
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.
You're incoherent.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve. Seed the upper atmosphere with sulfates, dump iron in the ocean to increase carbon sequestration, feed seaweed to cows, replace CO2 producing power generation with nuclear?
No? Doesn't fit some preconceived agenda? Then global warming must not be that important if we are throwing options off the table that lightly. Come back when it's a problem.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'd guess that it's people building closer to the water as it all that's left undeveloped.
Will wonders never cease
Not to mention that much of the lower half of the Atlantic seacoast is subsiding at a rate around 3-4mm per year.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're an idiot. You get 1 if you log in (zero if you're an AC); if you have posted a lot and gotten a lot of up-mods, you get a karma modifier. That's what Bill (and myself) have. Click on the (score:2) and it will tell you that.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
is that America will NOT be the hardest hit. Mid to Southern Europe, along with China's breadbasket, will be hit by high temps and massive droughts.
If Nations want to avoid this, they will all work together, as opposed to pushing others to cut back, while they continue to add lots more fossil fuel plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Come up with actual solutions that don't involve mass starvation before throwing around insults like "denier" and "liar."
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born. The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
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.
5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.
6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.
7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.
8. Improvement of internet speeds and tele-presence technology so that fewer people need to travel and commute.
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.
10. 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.
None of these require killing half the human race (although #1 and #2 will reduce our numbers) nor destroying our civilization.
It's funny how, when I said the pouring of money into the Great Barrier Reef will do nothing, you replied to me saying that I'm the typical Slashdotter believing I know more than the experts.
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Sorry, but you're a hypocrite.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
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.
I've got a better idea—how about we design our cities and neighbourhoods so that the shops are within walking distance of most people instead of regarding the mandatory use of a car for this as something "normal", which in much of the rest of world it is not?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
without force. Only government can decide who suffers and who gets to live the Great life.
;)
Government will decide who's money is taken to pay the price, who is affected by the grand goal of controlling our climate. Who must downsize their dreams/houses/lives, Who gets what amount of electricity, heat and food. What industries are outlawed. Who's jobs are done away with. Who gets travel permits and who must stay where they are.
It seems to me that most everyone here is shouting that something has to be done but usually exclude themselves. They see it as the fault of others that little is being done.
Step up, vote correctly and you will bring your wildest dreams in to reality. But you may not like what you get. Socialism really does suck kids!
As for me, I don't see much happening that will affect me. I am 63. Have not flown in 10 years. Put 23 miles on my Toyota Prius last month. Have not driven over 2k-3k miles a year in, well years. Live in a 2000 sq ft house. And work remotely for the most part. How about you?
Just my 2 cents
I'm not so convinced, don't forget that we're talking averages here. If tides become more pronounced as well, an inch average can quickly get closer to a foot in tidal effects.
We should take a look what the extremes (flood and ebb) changed, not just the average.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You ARE aware that all the impacts you cite happened long before human emerged to be a problem for this planet? And that these things are (fortunately) quite rare?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
don't forget all the little ways you can make a difference that are actually attainable.
I heard an interesting story about how an accountant reduced CO2 emissions by a hundred thousand tons per year.
Potatoes were sold by the ton. So farmers would soak their harvested potatoes in water to increase the weight before they sold them. Then the buyers would put the potatoes in warehouses and run giant dehumidifiers to dry them out so they wouldn't spoil, and so they would cook faster.
An accounting change, started by McDonalds and soon adopted by the rest of the fast food industry and then groceries, was to buy potatoes based on dry-weight. This obviated the need to soak and then dry the potatoes, saving time and energy consumption by both the farmers and their customers.
Actually, the fine folks of south park NOW apologize about that
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-park-issues-rare-apology-manbearpig-skewering-al-gore-n934156
Say someone is diagnosed with a Stage 1 cancer. The doctor says, "Treat this now to give you the best chance to survive." The patient either doesn't believe the doctor, or doesn't think the money is available, or thinks that God will save them, or thinks the doctor is just being an alarmist. So, the patient does nothing.
A couple years later the patient goes back to the doctor. The cancer has metastasized. There's a huge effort, but it's all for naught.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
human emerged to be a problem for this planet
That clenches it. We know what you view as the problem. Leap into the acid vat and become part of 'the solution' now, dude.
Some of us post with the karma bonus modifier turned off. It means I post at 1 instead of 2, but it means if I type anything deemed of value, I get a markup. It allows me to not really care if I get 'marked down' occasionally, because the upticks generally cover the downticks.
Also, I don't feel self-important enough to need the karma bonus.
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year
Let me explain how you're being tricked. To get the annual rise they take the total rise over the last 100 years and divide it by 100.
Did you spot the problem? What if I took the total rise over the future 100 years and divide by 100? Now Miami is sinking at at least an inch per year.
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.
Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart. A grocery store can make a go of it with market area of only a couple thousand people if it is small and has no competition. If you want to have two competing supermarket class stores (plus some smaller players) that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
I almost always post without Karma Bonus. I used to post with the bonus sometimes until someone modded me down as 'overrated', (I think it was because they did not understand the reference I was making to movie about Michelangelo that starred Charleton Heston. It never occurred to me that someone might have missed that movie.) That down mod cost me quite a bit of karma. I decided then and there that I would only post with karma bonus if I really felt it was important, which I don't think has ever happened. But I had a post once which was modded up by somebody, and then modded down again as 'overrated' and I still lost karma points. So, when I see a post of mine get modded up, I sort of cross my fingers that nobody's going to take aim at it.
My advice is, when you post on slashdot, don't take yourself too seriously, no matter how much karma you have.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
If you look at data for Fort Denison in Sydney for example, they show a rise of around 0.25 feet over 100 years.
If you look at that graph even more closely, you'll find something pretty interesting.- the sea level is pretty stable up until 1950 or so, where it takes a large rise and then remains fairly stable thereafter (draw your own fit line from 1860 to 1950, then from 1950 to 2010).
So since 1950 there has hardly been a rise at all, at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
Just how is that much sea level rise supposed to result in any flooding above and beyond the huge variance that is tidal levels?
In any coastal city I have seen it would take feet of sea level rise, at least, to cause any real long term worry for a city and then only during larger storm events (which has not changed due to global warming, despite what people would have you believe).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your article contradicts what you're saying: https://journals.ametsoc.org/n...
I guess you're from the Church Of Ignorance, aren't you?
That is data over time... I want the data that shows the rate of change from their "predicted" vs "reality" along with the "prediction data".
I don't dispute that sea levels are changing in either direction, that is just data. I want a smoking gun, the data that shows clearly that...
#1. Global Warming is undeniably caused by "certain gasses" and their proposed links to human activities. Right now there is a logical breakdown with correlation does not equal causation dilemma. Are these gasses rising because temp is rising or are temps rising because these gasses are rising? What if its all coincidence as well? Water vapor is empirically provable because everyone experiences less heat when the clouds block the sun, is there a threshold for how effective this becomes at certain ratios? Very little carbon is actually needed create steel which is considerably stronger than iron on it's own.
#2. A "real solution" to the problem and NOT a money based one. I know that politics cannot be separated from the process but as long as the solution is to just TAX people based on how much "carbon" they use it will not solve the problem. It might just cause more economic strife or trouble like how Paris is getting into now.
I read a report where America is actually ahead of several countries in Carbon reduction even though we backed out of the Paris agreements while the nations that stayed in are not doing as well in their reduction targets. If the solution is just to make people pay more... then they are just going to pay more. Nothing much is really going to change over the long term. People are creative at how we can cheat systems... which is why there are practically more laws on the books than there are people alive!
Additionally, it might be more effective to find ways to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and use them for other applications. I hear some news on those front but they all seem experimental for now.
The best way to solve any problem is to turn it into a money generating enterprise instead of a taxation one. There is a way to do it and we need to find it.
Enough dude.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
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.
You need to read my post again. my numbers are sourced exactly from that graph, if I am ignorant then you are a moron.
Ignorance can be easily fixed by learning, the question is how to fix a moron.
You are an idiot.
From the summery of the article you linked:
In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate
The not responding others probably have canceled their subscription ... that would I do if honestly a climate research group, where I'm a member in would ask me if (A)GW is (partly) natural.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Just how is that much sea level rise supposed to result in any flooding above and beyond the huge variance that is tidal levels? ... however that depends on coastal structure, no idea if Sydney is particular prone to storm floods.
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, if there is a wind from the wrong direction it increases those 6mm to 18mm to 36mm
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That will be the title of my book, should I ever write one... I am sure there is rich fodder to be had from these crazy times, I'll have to start keeping notes.
humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.
It is curious you would marry two un-related points; plainly increased water was from the ocean, not from humidity.
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
You seem to be just fine with them predicting less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And the fact that you know nothing about how points come to the posts show that you are ignorant about how /. works or an idiot or both.
Hint: if he would have been modded from 0 - 1 or 2, there would be a tack like +insightful, +informative etc. on the score.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
How many third world countries are there left? Somalia comes to mind ... and do you know more?
How much population do they have?
How much CO2 do they produce?
See: cutting their population growth to zero, would change nothing!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Closest tidal gauge with long term data is Key Eest. The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obta...
If you look at some more of their lies there are stations with longer history which show sea level rise has been steady for well over a century.
I wouldn't exactly call four years of data climate.
The data on sea level rise goes back WAY more than 4 years.
Recent Sea Level Rise
Satellite altimeter data goes back 20 years, and there are tidal records from around the world going back more than a century.
Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart.
It is not a problem in Europe, and neither in the few countries I visited in Africa and Asia.
that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
You have never been in a civilized city, like Paris?
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m ... and the big stores you find in commercial areas or outside of every medium sized town, like Leclerce or Auchon etc. have a "miniAuchon" etc. all over the city.
And then again: every majour road is chained with "Arabs" selling food and groceries and "Chineese" selling vegetables and fruit. I live in Menilmontant when I'm in Paris. In a radius of 100m around my place are probably close to 50 food shops, and 3 or 4 of them are super markets. In a radius of 400m I most likely have 20 super markets.
Three times a week thee is a market on the middle "lane" of the road. The road is "three lanes", a double lane in each direction, and a center lane for pedestrians, lined left and right with trees. There is market so often and you can buy everything from eggs via cheese and oysters and fish to vegetables and simple clothing and a USB charger ... or second hand cloth.
https://www.google.co.th/maps/...
Use street view and walk around. It is full with small shops, restaurants, small hotels, coffee bars and: super markets!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
No, it isn't. But that is NOT what TFA is saying. It is saying that the 16mm rise from 2014 to 2018 is causing serious flooding NOW. That is nonsense.
Why do they buy the least efficient cars/ air conditioners/ foods?
That statement is complete garbage. The reason American's emissions have fallen a LOT in comparison with everyone else, is BECAUSE we are mostly all buying the most efficient cars/appliances/foods..
Anyone who can is buying green cars (like Teslas or high efficiency vehicles, sometimes not by choice).
If you go into any store to look at washers/dryers/fridges/AC units you are looking at almost all very high efficiency units.
For food farmers markets are springing up all over and I notice grocery stores making more use of local produce than the have before (saving energy costs in transportation and storage).
America is, as per usual, at the forefront of technology - why on earth did you think it would be any different just because the technology was environmental?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
#1 and #2 requires the eradication of Islam, for it's the religion based on the subjugation or women and children.
Iran is Islamic, and averages 1.6 births per woman, well below replacement level. Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are Islamic and average 2.1 births per woman.
Your UID shows you have been around here longer than most of us. If I were you, I'd post with the bonus modifier on. You have earned it by contributing well-received posts for a long time. It encourages others to do likewise.
I'm not sure that turning your modifier off protects you from the effect of down-mods. And where can you see your karma points? Slashdot stopped showing these a long time ago -- before I even joined, I think.
So, IMHO, my advice is, when you post on slashdot, be honest, rational, and polite as much as possible. Karma will take care of itself.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
2) it is not 99% anyway,
A popular (and sloppy) figure of speech. The point is that scientists who disagree with AGW conclusions (and the need for action) are a tiny minority.
3) th AGW crowd does not follow the scientific method and therefore is not performing science.
Citation please.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus."
You are being deceitful. I said "correlation does not equal causation" this by its very virtue is a sentence that agrees there is correlation, it is not any form of an accusation that there is a lack of correlation, as you so falsely advance!
You also do science a disservice by advancing the notion that a "consensus" is a truth that proves something a lie. There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat and that it was at the center of the Universe, there also used to be a consensus that we would never travel faster than sound. It is people just like you that laughed at the Scholars, now people like you "pretend" they are scholars to laugh at those that do not parrot your new "Church of Science" dogma.
It is people like you that have ran many people of the different faiths away from Science because instead of treating science like science, you use it instead as a bible to bash people over the head with a bunch of ignorance parading around like it's science!
Consensus is not fact, Consensus is not proof that something is a lie. A consensus is "general agreement" or "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Grab a dictionary and check your words next time!
It's funny how, when I said the pouring of money into the Great Barrier Reef will do nothing, you replied to me saying that I'm the typical Slashdotter believing I know more than the experts.
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
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.
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."
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born.
The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
No science supporter thinks population is either the problem or a useful solution.
Not while a 1st world person consumes 30 times the resources of a 3rd world person. Sex ed, condoms and an education are never going to result in a 30x drop off in 3rd world population.
Helping the third world rise is a nice thing to do. It can certainly yield some benefit on the margins (assistance with renewable energy technology, land use...etc) as they will rise regardless of whether they are assisted or not yet realistically in aggregate expecting this to have a positive effect on the environment is pure madness.
The ONLY viable solution at this point is advancing technology. Improved efficiency, better cheaper energy generation, storage and transmission.
That is not how they measure annual rises.
Women in Iran are also, on average,well educated. Ditto Turkey (I don't know what the levels are in Malaysia and Bangladesh).
I don't know which world you live in, but in the one I live in, socialism is much reduced. Look at places like the UK 40 years ago (nationalised rail, steel, coal) versus now (none of those). It's much the same story across the whole of Europe.
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.
We can measure the effective 'age' of the atmosphere via carbon dating. It is getting older. We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. We have sophisticated models that predict the change in climate accurately (and models from 30 years ago have proved to be very good). So in what way is this correlation and not causation? For it to be only correlation you need to show why, this time, CO2 is not trapping heat in the atmosphere.
"Ewe Wanna Taek Aweigh Meye CAR!" [incoherent babble]
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So in this graph 88% of scientists who published in climate science journals believe that the GW is either man-made or equally natural or man-made.
The greatest deniers are basically TV meteorologists, the ones that published no papers: 16% flat out denial.
So yep, you ARE from the Church of Ignorance and Lies.
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.
I haven't lived in a german town where you could not wit6hin 10 to 15 minutes either by foot or by bus be to a supermarket. Case in point there are 3 within 15 minutes where I live. Sur4e they are not the super-hyper-mega-big supermarket I saw in the US, but they all can deserve locally. One of them is even a discounter.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells. The heating of the air at the equator (really the point on the Earth where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the surface) causes air to rise. As it rises it cools and the water vapor precipitates out creating the tropical zones where there is a lot of precipitation. Once the air reaches the tropopause it spreads out horizontally until it reaches about 30 degrees north and south. Then the air drops back to the surface and as it drops back it is adabatically heated and and becomes drier relatively. Where the Hadley cells drop their air back to the surface is where most of the great deserts of the world like the Sahara are located.
Studies have found that global warming increases the strength of the cells slightly leading to perhaps a 2 degree expansion of the northern and southern boundaries of the Hadley cells. The moves those boundaries closer to Southern Europe which means the area along the Mediterranean Sea is likely to get a bit dryer. That's why it's not puzzling that Southern Europe would become dryer in a globally warming world.
The Earth doesn't care what it "reverts" to. It will be what it will be. But from the point of view of humans we want it to revert to a climate that best supports the civilization we have built. Anything outside of that becomes more costly and if you get far enough from that ideal climate it could mean the collapse of the civilization,and undesirable outcome from most humans point of view.
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.
Globally, sea levels havenâ(TM)t risen. Itâ(TM)s apparently quite convinient to ignore areas where sea levels have stayed the same for many decades or even receded and instead only focus on areas where itâ(TM)s risen. Do so many people genuinely think that the fact that sea levels have risen someplace automatically means they have risen everywhere? Newsflash: it doesnâ(TM)t.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Here's an example of a flooded city. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year and by 2045 they expect it to happen 180 days out of the year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
King tides and sea level rise.
If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt?
No it is not.
Sea levels are measured by the low tide.
So if on average over the whole world the sea level rise at low tide is 1mm, it is considerably higher during high tide.
Sorry, if I was unclear. (However: no idea why you think average means a distribution over low and high tide ... why do you think that would make any sense at all?)
You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. Perhaps you should visit a phsychiatrist, if I had seen your follow up rant more early I probably had refrained from answering ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
lolwut?
Not sure why you're switching to decimal fractions of a foot (isn't is more conventional to use multiples of 1/537 of a chain at this point), but that's 0.16 feet, or in more common Imperial parlance, 2 inches.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I think you need to grow up
People will not stop releasing CO2 for a while and sucking it all back in is impractical. Time to get going with practical mitigation like Netherlands-style dykes, genetically modified coral that can withstand heat/acidity, spraying aerosoles in upper atmosphere, thinning out the forests to control wildfires and so on. The great thing is that a lot of these measures can be done locally rather than waiting for 7 billion people to agree. Humans have modified the environment and remedied their own impact for the longest time.
Unless you can accurately predict the next impact, your arguments aren't very convincing. I believe poster was referring to detecting and diverting those killers, which we could do if we chose. Waiting until it's too late is exactly what many accuse 'deniers' of doing.
So it's really about which catastrophe is the most damaging vs time to deal with it. Meteor damage wins hands down because of magnitude and the fact it occurs instantly.
That being the case, it's something other than human survival that's driving the other causes to be more popular.
Flooding as the result of sea level rise is a non-linear process because flood/no flood is a threshold. Your shore management system was maybe planned and built in the 60s and there's been 10 cm of rise since then. That was fine, big storms might surge over it but day to day high tide wouldn't. Except high tide with the right wind gets closer and closer to the top of that berm each year....
I'm just curious what you think your anecdote proves. Are you claiming that the existence of flooding pre-warming implies that AGW can't increase flooding?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Wet potatoes go off really quickly, almost overnight. Anyone trying that trick would get zero repeat business.
At the bottom of the
UID doesn't mean that much. This community is full of stalkers, and many people have thrown away accounts and started fresh.
What it's a shame that Slashdot shows, which didn't used to get displayed right in our face, is the UID number after an account name. That change can be blamed on Bruce Perens and his cloners.
Huh? I live within easy walking distance (less than 5 min) of two general grocers and half a dozen fresh fruit and vegetable and specialty grocery places. Population density in my neighbourhood is around 8000 / km^2, which is nowhere near the density downtown.
What is more questionable is that these reports never discuss any positive effects of global warming. Perhaps there are none, however we're a pretty cold planet and our cold climates suffer quite a bit from said cold temperatures - much plant life including crops have very short growing seasons which are completely driven by the first and last frost of the year.
It makes you question whether the authors are being balanced about the effects, or pushing for certain political outcomes, which would make the report itself more a political than a scientific one.
Bangladesh is actually a case study in population control. The birth rate was one of the highest in the world, somewhere around 7 / woman. The country realized this was a problem and tried all kinds of things, including heavily promoting (and giving away) birth control.
Nothing really put a dent in the birth rate. However, concurrently, the ministry of education had decided that all children, including girls, should receive a mandatory minimum education. Bam, birth rate dropped. Now it's about 2.1 / woman.
My city has tried this, and the problem is that the social-engineering approach to designing neighborhoods and transit doesn't line up with how people want to live and commute (as evidenced by the choices made with their real dollars, eg. buying big houses in the suburbs), and it eventually becomes an expensive disaster.
The notion that "global warming" means that it has to warm everywhere equally all the time is a ridiculously weak straw man. But even if that were true, a +2C increase would not be enough to make snow disappear in places where it is common. In fact in most such places the limiting factor in snow isn't temperature, but atmospheric moisture.
The simplest disproof of the "uniformly warmer everywhere all the time" straw man is winter. AGW is caused by solar forcing, which is locally weakest in winter. In fact, at the North Pole, there is no wintertime forcing at all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ok, 9 inches since 1880.
Sea level rise since 1880
And this from the tide gauge near Charleston, SC shows an average rate of 3.25 mm/year +/0 0.19 mm. That's 1.07 feet/100 years:
Relative Sea Level Trend - 8665530 Charleston, South Carolina
Ahh, yes, a large portion of the Atlantic seaboard is sinking. Around 2.8mm/yr average, and 1.8mm to 4.8mm/yr i n the central Atlantic seaboard.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's not the time interval from 2014 to 2018 that we need to worry about, but the interval from now to the indefinite future:
From the report (oddly placed numbers refer to peer-reviewed scientific papers):
Saying ASAP does not sound like expert should be saying. Too non specific
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
Are you merely demonstrating your math skills or are you actually trying to imply that sea levels only began rising four years ago?
With all the AI that is now blossoming everywhere, why is it that websites can't monitor and ban spam and offensive behavior?
Although in the US we have a first amendment, there is nothing in that tells every website that it must serve as a platform for the most egregious and time wasting bs.
You: "The ocean is in exactly the same place it was when I moved here in 2009. Hmmmmm what could then be causing all that flooding?! It's not all the hurricanes and tropical storms, because those have actually gone down in number."
Reality: "In the North Atlantic Basin, the long-term (1966-2009) average number of tropical storms is about 11 annually, with about six becoming hurricanes. More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures, which could be partially related to global warming."
https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/
Is there anything else I can help you with?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
OK, I confess, there's a bit of ego involved. If I post a comment at 1, and it gets modded up to a 5, that's a bigger achievement than if it started out as a 2. A gold star vs a silver star. (Do they still give out gold and silver stars in elementary school or does anybody even know what I'm referring to?)
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
You're obviously on my side, but I must gently disagree on one point regarding consensus.
If the 1% that disagrees with the other 99% has a strong case -- and evidence to back it up -- then they must be considered. If they prevail, then oh well, so much the worse for AGW. The 1% and 99% are all smart people. They would all find something else to do.
But what has happened is that the 1% do not have a strong case. Yet they are vocal, and often backed by parties with a vested interest in attacking AGW.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
Uhh, I wouldn't give them that, considering how theories and laws are formed / accepted. They are literally a consensus of many people doing the same experiment and saying "yep, that's what we observed". If there are any outliers that are found, the theory / law gets adjusted accordingly.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
No. With higher temps, we WILL see more moisture in the air. BUT, the temps have to drop down for the precipitation. Since that will not be the case, we will see a LOT more droughts, but also a lot more flooding. For example, here in Colorado, we are a high plains Desert. We used to get lots of snow (.5-1.5 m at time just on the plains). Now, we are doing good if we get 2-3 cm and 1 blast with maybe 5 cm. For the last 10 years, we have been in a drought (of course, some would say that is simply weather or climate change). We had 1 year where we got major flooding which our rivers, reservoirs, etc was not prepared for, but otherwise precip has been way down. BTW, I was born in GreenVille Miss, and lived in more than a dozen states including Irving Texas, and little rock, Ark. Those are HUMID. Lots of farming goes on in those places. Now, imagine temps of 115-120. How much farming do you think will go on in that sauna? south Europe will be suffering same impact and so will China's breadbasket.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells.
I already know more about them than you appear to.
You yourself need to read up on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (at least), which demonstrates how warmer oceans add moisture to arid regions, just as cooler oceans dry things out. As I said...
Keep up with the research man. My point stands.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is Caffeinated Bacon/Crimson Tsunami. He is a constant liar and a troll of all things American.
The most inefficient AC that you can have are window units, which is what is going into China. Those are VERY low efficiency (typical SEERS in 8-12). In America, we push efficient house-house units, as well as mini-splits. Most have SEERS in the 15-45 realm.
As to efficient food? I can only imagine that he means less energy used? America is far more efficient than nations like Mexico, which has cheap energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not while a 1st world person consumes 30 times the resources of a 3rd world person.
Do you really expect this disparity to continue for the next century?
A generation ago, China was as poor as Africa. Today they are 8 times richer per capita.
Nitpick: America emits ~10 times as much as Africa per capita, not 30.
Do you really expect this disparity to continue for the next century?
It's irrelevant what I expect. Whether it takes 10 days 10 years or 100 years the problem is STILL resource utilization per person not population.
A generation ago, China was as poor as Africa. Today they are 8 times richer per capita.
Today China is the worlds largest polluter by country.
Nitpick: America emits ~10 times as much as Africa per capita, not 30.
Right because Americans don't trade with any other country and produce everything they consume entirely within their own borders.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
99% of experts don't say we need to solve the problem as quickly as possible, you ignoramus. Not even close. Read some actual science sometime and stop reading blogs.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m
Fun fact, in some countries it is actually almost never allowed to run a large supermarket outside city limits, which prevents consolidation of grocery stores and city supermarkets into hypermarkets on cheap ground outside the cities and towns. Such laws should be more prevalent to improve the quality of living, imho.
How many impressionable Slashdot nerds use manbearpig to shout down real science?
Uh, do you even read this site? The answer is "not many"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not really. A lot of the time Slashdot doesn't show the modifier. The post below is at 3 but I had to click the 3 to see it had been marked informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
A couple of effects, wind, which can pile up water at the coast, so if there were steady westerly winds blowing on the east coast, the water will rise, and the opposite also holds true. Lots of places have steady winds.
Gravity, seems the ocean levels by Finland are actually dropping due to the glaciers melting and having less mass to pull the water closer. Gravity is actually somewhat uneven all over the world and as the Earth is an oblique sphere, weaker at the poles.
There's also barometric pressure, lower pressure raises the sea level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Do you doubt that the Sun shines due to hydrogen fusion? The scientific consensus says it does, based on models. It is not repeatable, testable, confirmable, or anything else-able. Perhaps the electric universe guy is right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
We could now put funds towards avoiding a catastrophe that may or may not happen within our lifetime, or that of any descendants that at least remember us by name.
Or we could put funds towards avoiding a catastrophe that WILL happen within our lifetime, with no descendants to curse our name if we don't do anything.
Your choice. For me, well, I don't give a fuck either way, lacking descendants.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
cities, I was told that most of the older houses and apartments had neither air conditioning nor heating until the last few years. In this region, people were accustomed to apartments that were âoehot in summer; cold in winter.â Their drafty homesâ"built with leaky window and no insulationâ"pretty much reflected the temperature outside. But lately, almost all the residents of these older buildings have installed window units that provide both heating and cooling. I asked my Chinese colleagues if they were less efficient than central AC or heat. In terms of mechanics, of course, these smaller units are less efficient. China is horrible with efficiency and I showed it last time that you were a liar.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Caffeinated bacon,, your link shows America is not only superior to China's but that we have the highest efficiency units. Basically, your link, like all your garbage, proves you are a liar
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Do you even read this site? The answer is quite a lot. Perhaps you read this site the filters all the time - ever considered that, genius?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Anon for obvious coward reasons.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress 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.
They didn't claim that the global mean sea level rise since 2014 is responsible for the coastal flooding.
The claim is: Since 2014, more detailed economic research has estimated that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in annual damage, as deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and an increase in extreme weather take their toll.
However, you might be surprised about the impact of a millimetre. In 2016, Sydney experienced a storm that occurred at near the highest tide of the year. The erosion was 50 metres of beach in many areas, despite the storm only falling on a tide that was millimetres more than a normal spring tide: The cost of those millimetres or less was $300m.
This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
I think you have to misread the article, and misunderstand the science to come to this conclusion. This sort of silly denialism is causing frustration with and just supports those with a financial interest in encouraging distrust in global warming science.
Let's ask Steve Jobs. Perhaps he has an answ...oh.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Somebody has dirt of Parker and/or Stone. It's obvious, they're not as dumb as the last three years make them appear.
That or they are setting up a seriously funny, three year setup, punchline.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
I would urge you to go and look up Hansen's testimony (to the Senate?) in 1988 and the projections along what is now RCP8.5. Right on the money. The models have only got better since since then.
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
The raw data is available, so you can judge for yourself.
The problem is that global warming is as much faith and science. It might be true, but the data is not there, if you are honest.
You can go and download it (although it's big). Well, I will qualify it that there was some from, say, the CRU that was collected in partnership with a commercial organisation so could not be released, and there have been instances of poor curation (losing stuff), but that's been very much in the minority.
You can keep your ant farm for humans. I can stand outside at night and hear the wind blowing in the trees. When I lay down to sleep, it is actually dark in the room.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
That's like sourcing a drug dealer on which drug you can take that is the least addictive. Yeah because he has no incentive to lie.
Spent two minutes looking around for other sources, found several that weren't attached to political entities. Pretty much the average damage going up follows along with inflation and population density.
Oh, perhaps because I use the "old interface".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Such "hypermarkets" are actually very common in France.
They have a "zone comercial" or "zone industrial" and there are often 5 or 6 supermarkets on one spot. But one of them might be a Decathlon (sports wear and gear, boats, trecking, hunting etc.) or a home depot or market with only plants. They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yea, I've lost track of which interface I'm using, it works well with only allowing a minimum number of scripts. Lots of variables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Unless you don't have a car or are no longer fit to drive. Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation (such as the elderly) to depending on other people to buy their groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation
In theory yes. In practice Franc and Spain found a very good balance between both.
groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
The mini markets are the same brand, and have hence the same price like the super/hypermarches outside of the town.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You would have had to be very, very selective to find sites that don't back up what I said.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.