Slashdot Mirror
Sea Levels May Rise More Rapidly Due To Greenland Ice Melt
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Rising sea levels could become overwhelming sooner than previously believed, according to the authors of the most comprehensive study yet of the accelerating ice melt in Greenland. Run-off from this vast northern ice sheet -- currently the biggest single source of meltwater adding to the volume of the world's oceans -- is 50% higher than pre-industrial levels and increasing exponentially as a result of manmade global warming, says the paper, published in Nature on Wednesday. Almost all of the increase has occurred in the past two decades -- a jolt upwards after several centuries of relative stability. This suggests the ice sheet becomes more sensitive as temperatures go up.
The researchers used ice core data from three locations to build the first multi-century record of temperature, surface melt and run-off in Greenland. Going back 339 years, they found the first sign of meltwater increase began along with the industrial revolution in the mid-1800s. The trend remained within the natural variation until the 1990s, since when it has spiked far outside of the usual nine- to 13-year cycles.
The researchers used ice core data from three locations to build the first multi-century record of temperature, surface melt and run-off in Greenland. Going back 339 years, they found the first sign of meltwater increase began along with the industrial revolution in the mid-1800s. The trend remained within the natural variation until the 1990s, since when it has spiked far outside of the usual nine- to 13-year cycles.
Washington D.C. is very near sea-level, isn't it?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Once upon I time, I thought it was a legitimate concern. But they've Chicken Littled it way beyond anything I have patience for at this point. Every week or two, we get another 'report' speeding up the timeline to armageddon by 25-50% or adding another foot or two to predicted sea level rise. I can only take so much before I have no choice but to write this whole thing off as fear mongering. To what end, I don't know, but it's clearly obvious at this point that it is - nothing is this dire. Nothing.
Look, I don't want to hand our offspring a big shitburger after we're gone. I don't want them to hate us and look back on us with disgust. But there's no way things are as bad as they say. I would have given money, changed my lifestyle, my purchasing habits, whatever was required - and I did, for a time. But after years of constant escalation of rhetoric, I am done. I'm not going to waste any more of my time or effort on this. Things will be fine, we'll adapt, some people will have to move, some species will die out. But life will go on. At this point we've turned it into a bigger issue than climate change ever was. Adios.
With that much fresh water entering the north Atlantic, it could well shift the North Atlantic current and that could more drastically affect the climate of Europe and create some dramatic cooling there. That might, in the long run, be worse for Europe than the rising sea levels.
When I see all the AGW/ACC luminaries and apologists flying their private jets to exotic locations and -- staying in lavish hotels while there -- it gets a bit hard to take them lecturing me on how I need to give up my car and air conditioning.
When they start acting like it's a crisis, I'll believe its a crisis.
Sea levels will rise, right after the next ice age, that was predicted in the 1970s. These climate predictions must be chronological, right?
Fucking hell, slashdot, must every other article be about global warming or trump or full communism now???
FUCK OFF
Um, sorry. As a person of a younger generation that will need to deal with the accumulation from this shit storm, NO. So sorry that you need to be bothered with news stories about the mess that you have helped create. Yup, it was far easier when we pretended we could talk about effects to far off future generations. It was incredibly wrong AND some of these "far off future generations" are now old enough to be able to understand that we are getting screwed over.
Stop it Greenland!
What I'd like is to -- someday -- see all these deniers, excuse seekers, carbon lobbyists, oil burners before a court, accused of crimes against humanity.
And then, the likes of Trump, the Kochs, most of the political class, Bannon, all that ugly bunch doing services in those places in the world where damage is highest (I'm not for jails, mind you).
Instead of a miniscule bad effect, why don't you work against serious degradations to the human condition, like dictatorships all over, who leave their citizens magnitudes worse off than the worst effects of global warming?
For that matter, lets see politicians who send out political favors for kickbacks, grinding industry to a halt worldwide in favor of their connected friends, be tried, if you're worried about bad effects on humanity.
It's fun to disasterbate because it makes us feel special and open to secret knowledge! What's that word? Tuned in? No, that's the 1960s. His eyes open; his sails unfurl? No, that's the 24th century.
Woke! That's the current term. You're woke!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Tell the truth, at least occasionally.
I've been told the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2032, it was a misprint from an alarmist advertisement with no scientific backing, but was reprinted EVERYWHERE about 10 years ago.
It will never snow in DC again, then DC is crippled by snow that year.
It will never snow in UK again, then the UK is crippled by snow.
Its the warmest year in the US by FAR, until you include Alaska that year then it was one of the coldest ever.
Sea temps are going up faster than expected, first person who double checks it finds they lied (Just 2 weeks ago)
Polar bears going extinct, Canada is now having issues with Polar Bear overpopulation in areas.
It just never stops with the EASILY provable lies they tell. You can go ahead and say those are journalists, but none of you AWGers are calling out the lies and it made you lose credibility. You knew they were lies, and called people names for pointing it out, because the lies supported your agenda, not realizing it wrecked credibility. You've lost most people because of that.
Off the top of my head: Al Gore & Leo DiCaprio
Other "Lear Jet Liberals": Madonna, Brad & Angelina, John Travolta (owns five jets), Barbra Streisand.
"The earth changes"
*People changes the earth*, corrected it for you.
Ok, so you think there's no difference between a delta of x and a double diffetential of e^x.
Your maths teacher should be fired if you're that grotesquely incompetent when it comes to rates of change.
But you're not that stupid. Nobody is. So stop acting as if you were.
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)
"As a young person", you're more part of the problem then us older folk - in the US anyway. If you would actually get out and vote, get people in office who would do something, then we could change it. Sitting back, blaming previous generations is rather pointless when you refuse to exercise your rights and the tools within the system itself, is really the root cause in the US, namely elected owned assholes.
I have also been on the Earth a long time. Making measurements.
Ice is there, yes. A few hundred miles less ice on the glaciers. I assume that you can tell the difference between an ice cube and an ice sheet. Or is it all filed under ice?
Bloody hell.
Storms have always been there. In different places, with different moisure content.
Maybe the Khmer Empire thought the same as you, just before they died horribly. They'd moved the atmospheric rivers by several hundred miles. Sure, there was rain. Just not near them, because they were idiots.
Don't copy them.
The temperature has risen to levels that are higher than what they should be given prevailing conditions. But that's not as important as the gradient. The gradient has never occurred in historic times, or indeed any time since the last asteroid strike.
But you ignore that and assume all gradients are equal, all numbers are equal.
They are not.
The Khmer discovered this too late. This time, you're plsying not with millions of lives but billions. Ignorance isn't going to save even one of them. There is no plea bargain with physics.
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)
They have, since 1895. I don't see you paying the blindest bit of attention anyway. Stop making excuses and admit there's nothing that will stop you poisoning the environment, you enjoy the screams of the dying too much.
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)
And the facts are that nothing has changed much.
Your facts are out of date.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If it stops the north atlantic conveyor, it could cause a mini-ice age instead, that would refreeze the arctic. Of course, northern Europe, Russia, nor anybody close to the equator might not be happy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So, I hear millions of people are going to die... Uhh... How? Are they just going to wade into water and drown themselves? Are they going to walk into deserts with no water? Are they going to sit in the sun, day after day, with no food or water? People that believe claims like this are complete idiots. And many do. Actually, we should be lucky, considering much of the Northern half of the USA is usually covered in thick sheets of ice. It's only because we're in a cycle as described by Milankovitch where, yes, the world is warming. But this is only temporary. As our irregular orbit around the sun continues, we'll eventually peak, and then quickly descend into another ice age. So really, enjoy the warming it while it lasts.
Actually, it has been rising slowly for something like 30 years. This would be an acceleration in how much is added yearly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry, neither are scientists. None of the others listed are, either.
Nor have you shown you'd give a damn if they'd sailed to the major conventions, or used the Internet to dial in.
All you'd do is whinge they were taking bandwidth from your online games.
Give me real names and a real reason to think you'd actually care about their choice.
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)
temperatures have been both warmer and cooler and within historical times.
Northern Europe being forced to stop a thousand years (from Roman times until the middle 13th century) of cultivating grapes should be enough for anyone. Any vineyards in Scotland today?
It is rising and has risen. What is under discussion is the rate. What do you expect to happen when Greenland's ice sheet melts, exactly, other than sea level rise? You may also have failed to notice plate tectonics, as far as other slow yet observable processes go.
Actually, I'm GDI, and was registered Libertarian for over 25 years. O did not increase the deficit by much except with his tax cuts. ACA was fully paid for, unlike gop's Medicare part D. And his temp spending up front was to keep us out of depression. Trump's spending and tax cuts are pure disaster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If the temperature rises above 2.5'C, it will switch to a new strange attractor. In simple terms, the temperature will skyrocket and the atmosphere will become toxic to humans.
Yes, kickbacks (such as the $22 trillion to fossil fuel) are unacceptable. The rich have failed to psy an estimated $20 trillion in taxes. All of that is money owed to the poor, to community services and to society.
Religion in America is a major cause ofvwar, which is why the state was required to be secular. This should be enforced. No person of faith should be permitted to hold office. Rumsfeld demonstrated the evils of such people.
Corruption in politics should be abolished. America is one of the most corrupt in the world. Big money and corprate lobbying should be banned. The rich should also be prohibited from office.
I'd also mandate a minimum level of intelligence 125% above national average (IQ doesn't count as a measure) and require a provable absence of any symptom of sociopathy.
To eliminate corruption, I'd require 100% of voters to vote, but you can vote for only one person every four years. So if you vote for a senator, yoy can't vote for a represenrative or president.
The supreme court should be by jury pool of experienced non-political, non-religiousjudges. No appontments, no tenure, no prejudices. One case and that's it. Until the government can be trusted, the supreme court must be randomized.
I'd prohibit science denialism. Skepticism should be rewarded, cynicism should be punished. They are not the same.
Prisons should swutch to a hybrid Nordic/Dutch model, fully funded with no provate prisons allowed.
Education should be given a quarter trillion extra, per State, from that fossil fuels subsidy. All exams should be abolushed, along with all religious schools. One national curriculum, politicians get no say in it.
Beef should be taxed into the luxury bracket, along with fast (sorry, painfully slow) food outlets.
Cars should face heavy taxation, cities get serious about mass transit or they get seized under eminent domain.
The police, along with all government officials, should be banned from having guns. There should be no national guard and no reserves. The money saved should be spent on providing social services and the means to get a life. Cities that don't get said life should be walled up. They seem to like walls. They can live how they like, they just can't contaminate others.
There you go, a complete fix, at least for America.
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)
And yet you offer no proof of this omission and no proof of substantial deviation. The models have been highly accurate sibce the 1990s and far more accurate than the skrptics since the 1890s.
And yet that part doesn't bother you.
The fact that the science has been fundamentally sound for 114 years doesn't enter your equation.
What concerns you is a vague, meaningless statemwnt about something that probably never happened.
Honestly, that's pathetic.
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)
Uh, no. Even John Wyndham figured that out.
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)
If all of Greenland's glaciers melted, sea level would rise ~ 6 meters (about 19.7 feet)
https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp
Beginning about 15,000 years ago, continental glaciers retreated and sea level began to rise. Sea level reached its current height about 8,000 years ago and has fluctuated ever since.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level
Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Because of all of this, there were many books written in the 1960's predicting a new ice age (Global Cooling).
We need to keep the earth clean, yes. But the hype is stupid. As someone else stated, percentage changes mean nothing.
Europe has freedom you could only dream of. And, no, no 75% taxes.
If you have to wait until you're drowned, you can do nothing and there will be no government. Or, indeed, any society either. If, and someone that stupid is unlikely to be capable, you survive the next 40-50 years, you'll enter a world closer to Year of the Burn Up.
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)
Anything about mankind ruining the environment has to be fake news, right?
Yes, if environmental change is too inconvenient to fit your political agenda, then yes, it is fake news.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Nobody claimed that for 2013. Fictional claims make you look stupider than you already are.
The sea levels have indeed been rising, in line with actual prediction.
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)
But we have a zero carbon alternative. Build nukes.
What I'd like to see is all the hippies and foot draggers who run around with their hair on fire about global warming, but then stall technical solutions, to be hauled before a court and accused of crimes against humanity.
Have gnu, will travel.
Denialists would often ask, "what if these imperfect estimates are too high?" and scientifically-minded people would counter with "what if these imperfect estimates are too low?" In the last few years it's been obvious that they were mostly too low (as in conservative) across the board. Oddly enough the constant unfounded accusations of bias toward climate science has created a real bias toward conservative estimates, as scientists all fear overestimating and becoming the deniosphere's celebrated Chicken Little.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Just asking...
Greenland has not been green during human habitation of the island. It was called "Greenland" not because it was green but because it was easier to convince people to move there with that name rather than if it was called "Freezingcoldbarrenpieceofshitland".
Seriously, that's why it was called Greenland, because it sounded pleasant and made getting colonists to go there easier.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
No, actually most of it was built by the generation before them. If not earlier. Infrastructure construction, and even maintenance, has been largely neglected for the better part of a century.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It couldn't be "full communism" because almost nobody knows what that means now. We live in the Golden Age of Bullshit, where words are used for how they make you feel, not what they mean.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
How about the people/industries that finance them? Hippies on their own are poor and have little affect.
Exxon for example, upon realizing that global warming was real back in the '70's, made the decision to finance the anti-nuke camp to maintain their industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The whole notion of sea level rise assumes that the Earth's crust is static and unchanging. Definitely not the case.
New flash - the entire history of the modern human species has occurred in a single ice age - the current Quaternary Ice Age started about 2.6 million years ago, about a half-million years before homo erectus evolved.
You may be thinking of the latest glacial period within that ice age, and yes, we were possibly coming out of that before our carbon-based economy gathered anything like its current momentum. However, we've accelerated the process considerably by adding major new forcing factors in the form of deforestation, desertification, and significantly boosting the heat retention of the atmosphere - and that's changing things considerably faster than normal, and there is a very real risk that on our current course we'll cause the ice age to end, and the Earth to transition to it's opposing quasi-stable hothouse state.
And while the Earth is always changing, it's the speed of that transition which can be a problem - most trees and other plants can't migrate very quickly, and if the climate lines move faster than they can, they likely go extinct, and take much of their associated ecosystems with them. And we're already in the midst of one of the larger extinction events the planet has seen thanks to pollution, over-hunting and ecosystem destruction. A second, independent extinction event on a similar scale may well reduce biodiversity to the point of ecosystem collapse. It's happened several times before, and it can take the planet many thousands of years to recover. Bad news for anyone who wants to eat regularly in the interim.
Perhaps even worse, at least for us, is that it's looking like such transitions don't happen smoothly. As the thermal engines driving weather destabilize, weather patterns become less predictable from year to year, and the rate of crop failure increases considerably as a result. And when people get hungry, wars break out.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Average comments on a story has stayed pretty consistent at about 120 posts per interesting story, ~20-30 for less interesting stories. To get 1000 comments a new chapter in the IBM/SCO lawsuit needed to happen or something. This has been true from ~2000 all the way through present era.
moox. for a new generation.
Despite what the internet offers for communication, people still need to travel. For some, it's part of their job: performers, subject-matter experts, buisnesspeople -- and yes, politicians too.
Let's all work on and support ways to travel more efficiently, and offset its effects. But we can't just stop traveling.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The question is, how much ice should those models assume will melt in response to a given degree of global warming?
When you read a popular press account that says "Sea level may rise 2m by 2100", what the scientific papers actually say is more like "sea level may rise between 1m and 3m under the RCP8.5 scenario." Nearly all of that uncertainty is driven by uncertainty in how rapidly Greenland and Antarctic ice will respond to rising temperatures. So you have to go have a look to see what's already been happening.
Scientists tend to avoid talking much about worst case scenarios, because as far as we know the worst case scenarios are, as far as we know, unlikely to happen. The worst case sea level rise is catastrophic to the global economy, and if you actually thought it was going to happen you'd move to high ground and be stockpiling food and weapons.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Instead of a miniscule bad effect, why don't you work against [human bad things] ...
*How* can I vote you up when:
a) I have no mod points,
b) you're already maxed out, and
c) I've posted to this forum?
Life's just not fair. (Nor should it be.)
makes us feel special and open to secret knowledge
THIS. Omg, this.
The religious nuts selling everything for the end of the world (at least they're consistent),
the conspiracy nuts (someone else is in complete control of everything),
the SJWs (everything is relative except relatives),
the Gender Confused (I've got detachable and interchangeable sexual body parts!),
the ?Communists? (equal results for everyone, even those not even trying -- but ESPECIALLY for me since I'm a Centurion!)
*I'm* special because I know things that are true because they're obvious. Or secret. Or unknown. (Hitler's still alive and he's been Elvis all along! -- Godwin'ed myself.) YOU don't know anything, you stupid heathen. Get with the program and join us; be of the Body! [ST-TOS: S01E21 The Return of the Archons]
People want to feel special. If they think they're right, well that makes it even easier.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
OK, here you go: between 1993 and 2014, global sea level rose 2.4 inches according to NOAA.
This amounts to a background increase of 1/8 inch per year and is mostly due to the ocean's thermal expansion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, ...
I'd still like to know what the "H" stands for.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Wow, let's look back one century to the grand year of 1918.
Top of the line car was a Studebaker Special Six, with a whopping 29.4 HP engine. Yep, that looks and performs like every car we drive today (actually I kind of like the design, wouldn't mind owning one myself).
Miles of paved road. I can't find any data back to 1918, but starting in 1960 the USA had about 1.2 million miles of roads, 2016 puts that about 2.7 million miles now.
Bridges, I can't find exact numbers per year, but I do see that at least 15 new bridges are built every year.
So yeah, I guess no Infrastructure construction or maintenance has happened since 1918! Seriously you must be deluding yourself! Bridges alone are built to last 50 years, which means that since 1918 if we didn't build any new ones or maintain any of them we should have no bridges 100 years later. I find that hard to believe as I crossed one just getting to work.
Word of advice, things change all the time. There are things you notice, like a new shopping mall, or new track of housing that goes up in less than a year. Then there are other things you don't notice, like the height of all the trees in your neighborhood that eventually grow so tall they snap power lines, the number of planes flying overhead, rivers cutting a grand canyon out of solid rock over millions of year. Just because things aren't changing rapidly around you doesn't mean it isn't happening. Old infrastructure is changing all the time, it just tends to look old because people want to keep it that way (take aluminum house wiring with new copper runs, gas lamps replaced by street lights, old cars with modern engines, retrofitted building with steel frames, historic roads with new reinforced beddings). Take a common item you probably see every day, the light bulb. Ten years ago the common type was probably an incandescent, 5 years ago most likely a CFL, now you will probably see LED bulbs. To the casual eye they all look the same.
Build nukes.
I hate to break it to you but Ghandi died some time ago.
What "full communism" means is a society without any government at all -- or classes or money for that matter. If you look at "communist states", they actually have all of these things: social classes, currency, and some degree of private ownership.
In fact, in a certain sense "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Communist regimes knew this, and justified their existence as a vanguard revolution that would bring about communism in the long term. This really wasn't any better, since communist ideology see communism as a natural and historically inevitable outcome of capitalism.
If you look at how "communist states" actually arose, they didn't arise out of a popular adoption of communist ideology. That comes later. Indigenous communist revolutions never happened in functioning democracies; they came in societies dominated by wealthy oligarchs, dictators or warlords. I see a lot of parallels with the anti-elitism of Trumpists. They're not ideologues; they're just fed up with the elite and want the swamp drained.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But they can telecommute. How about they record what they are going to say and upload it to the conference where it can be played later?
How about multiple meeting locations connected via video with special breakout rooms for one on one talks?
No, better to spend money and resources on planes, cars, and hotels while dining out at catered events to discuss how we are wasting resources. Makes perfect sense to me [eyes roll]!
These kinds of events, and even the Paris accords are just lip service. When politicians start selling their mansions to live in tiny houses, or sell their black limos and start driving Teslas, then I might believe them. Until then, I wouldn't give them the time of day.
So, you have your own rationalization for doing nothing.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
$300G? That's basically one NY to LA round trip on NetJets. Or 3-6 regional one-way flights.
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Eat Shit yourself fucktard. The level of how much you "like" something, has zero impact on its validity.
You know that Florida is mostly low-lying and already suffering as a result of sea-level rise? Well, it now looks like you can look forward to hoards of Floridian climate refugees seeking shelter across the USA sooner than you expected. You know Florida? Where the bat-shit crazy people tend to be? They'll soon be among you. May you live in "interesting" times.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
I have friends and relatives who are global warming deniers - 50+ age range. They are highly intelligent people and actually have advanced degrees (in scientific fields no less; one is a Chemistry teacher with a Masters in chemistry - which really sets me off because she has influence over younger minds.. but that's a different rant. ). This disheartens me greatly. Unsurprisingly, they are Trump supporter republicans.
It's like religion (and they are also religious), "don't interfere in my beliefs with facts", mentality. I don't know how to get around this. I have kids (and grand kids). I really worry about what the planet will be like in 30 years when my youngest son in his 50's.
I believe the problem, and why it's so hard to overcome, is that to fix things, the entire energy eco system needs a redo from top to bottom. That means the really rich oligarchy on top will lose billions - and there in lies the road block. They have the resources, they own the politicians, they own the media.
man, I'm open to suggestions....
Sorry junior - I'm here, I'm in charge, and I get to hire and fire jizwads like you.
The debt grew, but, he was handed a 1T deficit, and brought it down. Had the deficit level remained where W/GOP left it, things would have been far far worse.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here's a good way to think about climate change:
Earth has a greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. If carbon dioxide increases, then, all things being equal, there will be a greater greenhouse effect.
Now, climate science is notoriously complex and the atmosphere interacts with the biosphere, so the "all things being equal" part is self-evidently nonsense. So maybe there will be some feedback loop or whatever and carbon dioxide can increase without affecting climate. But the burden of proof is on the person advancing that hypothesis, because the default assumption is that warming will occur.
Start with that, and rational discussion can take place.
people still need to travel.
Of course people need to travel. But they can fly commercial for a tiny fraction of the CO2 emissions of a private jet, and if they really, really, need to take a private jet, then they should not be lecturing other people. They should STFU and leave environmental advocacy to those that can do it without hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: I fly coach.
...Perhaps even worse, at least for us, is that it's looking like such transitions don't happen smoothly. As the thermal engines driving weather destabilize, weather patterns become less predictable from year to year, and the rate of crop failure increases considerably as a result. And when people get hungry, wars break out.
Sounds like a testable hypothesis. In the last century global temp has risen around 1C after having remained comparatively stable prior to that. One could take global crop yields, and compare the annual trends against the change in global temperature.
The trouble is, that your hypothesis of increased crop failure, and presumably decreased global yields(else if yields don't drop who cares), presupposes that all other things remain equal...
Of course, global crop production has been trending persistently upwards as temperatures have also trended up. Numerous advances in crop technologies and techniques being a portion, and additionally regions impacted by climate change where conditions become too warm/cold/dry/wet for one crop are rotated for others. Farmers don't stubbornly plant the same crop for decades when conditions change, even if that would make projecting trends easier...
Probably not killing ourselves. We're the most adaptable species except for bacteria etc.
But making it f**ing miserable for the survivors, definitely.
And killing the vast majority of complex large-scale ecosystems on the planet and very large percentages of their inhabitant species, yes.
Lifeicide in other words.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"Global warming deniers" and "highly intelligent people" are mutually exclusive categories.
Oh wait, maybe there's a tiny intersection in the venn diagram, where they overlap with the "selfish machiavellian lying assholes" category. They say they deny it, but only to further their selfish ends of not having to make any lifestyle or policy changes. If they are intelligent, they know their denial stance is just posturing for effect.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Depends how you define "killing ourselves". It almost certainly won't drive us to extinction, our technology does make us remarkably adaptable. However, it will quite possibly kill the overwhelming majority of our species.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, ...
I'd still like to know what the "H" stands for.
H is for Harvey
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Hypocrisy? Well maybe, if someone is using a private jet purely for the sheer opulence of it. But someone may have practical reasons for using private air transportation. Maybe commercial flights are not feasible because of scheduling, logistics, lack of privacy, and so on. I'm no apologist for the 1%, but I can understand their needs for travel may be different than mine. If they make a sincere effort to help the planet despite their carbon footprint, I think they deserve more respect than the more cynical who just don't care about their impact.
I own a private automobile, and I suspect you might also. I use it for my municipal travel needs, even though there are public-transit alternatives. Does that make us hypocrites? No. Public transit is not feasible for most of our travel needs.
And my disclosure: I fly coach also, unless I get an upgrade.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Lord Slashdot, may we please have an "Ignorant" moderation choice?
Try buying booze in the US if you lack ID.
Alcohol kills more people per year than guns, let alone AR-15s.
Five day waiting period on that bottle of Scotch when?
Have gnu, will travel.
What "full communism" means is a society without any government at all -- or classes or money for that matter. If you look at "communist states", they actually have all of these things: social classes, currency, and some degree of private ownership.
Really? In the real world this is called "anarchy" I suppose if you think that's full communism, then you're ready for the revolution yesterday.
In fact, in a certain sense "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Communist regimes knew this, and justified their existence as a vanguard revolution that would bring about communism in the long term. This really wasn't any better, since communist ideology see communism as a natural and historically inevitable outcome of capitalism.
So, the USSR didn't collapse because of communism, mass debt and so on. And Venezuela didn't collapse because of communist policies, and seizing businesses.
That comes later. Indigenous communist revolutions never happened in functioning democracies; they came in societies dominated by wealthy oligarchs, dictators or warlords. I see a lot of parallels with the anti-elitism of Trumpists. They're not ideologues; they're just fed up with the elite and want the swamp drained.
Strange, let's look at Europe and the "rise" of communist ideologies back in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Well look at that, it wasn't wealthy oligarchs, dictators, or warlords. Nope it was the 'enlightened intelligentsia' and wavering economic collapse of various industries. Well let's look at China...damn..what a failure. Cuba? Nope. Vietnam? Nope. You seem to be confusing populism with communism, those are actually polar opposite ideologies in play. Communism wants to replace government with it's own system, and enforce the rule on people. Populism wants the existing system in play to continue, but the bullshit and garbage that's causing harm to society/business/work/etc to stop.
Om, nomnomnom...
I've lived in multiple places in Europe. I had more freedom back home.
Bottle of booze will run you $80 in Europe and $30 for the same bottle in the US. I like to think of an ID card as a massive discount card.
Where I grew up (Missouri) there are mountains, little mountains, but mountains all the same that are the remains of ancient reefs and islands. You can go hiking up said mountains and find sea shells everywhere. We are talking several thousands of feet of elevation.
I'm pretty sure we'll be fine even if the ocean starts jumping up a foot every 100 years or so.
Interesting... liberals that call places and people anti LBGTQ names.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
8 years and > 8 Trillion...might want to check your math..
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy